Posts Tagged ‘Women’

Aisha, Islam, Pedophilia, Homophobia, Empire

June 15, 2016

The Prophet married Aisha, the daughter of Abu Bakr, the First Caliph, when she was six (6). The marriage was “consumed” when she was nine (9). The references to this in the Hadith are many. For example:

Sahih al-Bukhari states:

Narrated ‘Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

— Sahih al-Bukhari, 7:62:64

Islam Is The War Religion Par Excellence: Keeping The Sword Of Christianism, Forgetting The Love Talk, Promising Paradise To All And Any “Martyr”, No Question Asked

Islam Is The War Religion Par Excellence: Keeping The Sword Of Christianism, Forgetting The Love Talk, Promising Paradise To All And Any “Martyr”, No Question Asked

However, Aisha sincerely loved Muhammad, who endowed her with astounding freedom. Astounding, even in today’s world. Aisha was later outraged by the version of the Qur’an whom the Third Caliph, the dictator Uthman Ibn Affan, reigning over the world’s largest empire, imposed. Aisha was infuriated by the sexism in Uthman’s Qur’an. She went to war about sexism. Unfortunately, she lost the “Battle of the Camel”. Even more unfortunately, some of Ali’s men were on the other side during said battle, so the Shia don’t like her… Which means that they don’t like liberated women.

Confusingly, Aisha is viewed by others as “Mother of the believers”. There are as many Islam as possible interpretations, knowing all the facts we know. Some versions of Islam are delightful, modern, acceptable. Others, those which please oilmen and Wall Street operators, medieval princes and other plutocrats, most, are, most vile, cruel and disgusting. Unfortunately the latter versions, propped by trillions of dollars and propaganda control, are taking over.

If Islam is so relaxed about sex that women can be married on the battlefield (“Battlefield Brides”), or divorced by repeating “I divorce you” three times, what’s the big hang-up about homosexuality? Well, Muhammad engineered the Qur’an to encourage unprotected sex, in particular with captured girls, slave girls, “those who your right hand posses” (to quote the Qur’an). The Prophet’s idea was not just to treat women and girls better (they used to be killed readily), but also to make much more children. That was of course unsustainable, except if the Arabs made a giant empire, which was exactly Muhammad’s plan. The resulting birthrate explosion indeed fed the Arab population explosion which enabled the Arab army (with lots of luck and surprising tactics) to conquer the world’s largest empire in two decades.

So the pedophilia of Islam is related to its attitude relative to women, who were to become breeding machines, at the earliest possible age, and both are entangled with homophobia, which would have hindered demographics. And thus, conquest. This is why the Qur’an promises not just 72 virgins, but also “fresh and beautiful boys who are like pearls”… but only in paradise. The same situation happened with wine: originally, the Prophet authorized it. However the Prophet, PBUH, then discovered that drunk Jihadists did not win battles. So Muhammad outlawed wine… On Earth:

O you who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divine arrows are only an infamy of Satan’s handiwork. Leave it aside that you may succeed.
— Sura 5:90

However wine is intrinsically good, it was promised in paradise, something to drink with the “fresh boys who are like pearls“:

A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted … and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers.
— Sura 47:15

Surely the pious will be in bliss … their thirst will be slaked with pure wine sealed.
— Sura 83:22,25

The Qur’an is, assuredly, most subtle, and definitively fun. And its apparent contradictions do not matter much: it has a sound internal logic designed to make Islam the mood and social organization which wins battles… mostly in the desert.

Patrice Ayme’

What Do We Need Men For?

September 20, 2015

This is a philosophical question: I leave reproduction issues, those technical details, aside. The latter are in the process of being scientifically solved. We can imagine a society without men, so to ponder why we would need them is of the essence.

More urgently, the obverse problem has appeared: in many societies, boys are prefered to girls, and a vast gender gap of the most ominous type has surged.

However, in the self-doubting West, conflicts, for some reasons, is not as popular as it used to be, and men are supposed to be war-like and disruptive. Why not getting rid of them? (Whether this elimination has been proposed or not, is irrelevant. In the light of the campaign waged against many a virile personality trait, it is pretty obvious that the ideal of the Greek superhero of old, the hyper virile hoplite, is supposed to be extinguished.)

With Women Like That, Who Needs Men?

With Women Like That, Who Needs Men?

[Blue Mountains.]

I asked one of my friends, a mountain guide. She generally climbs, when not guiding, with two other very strong climbers, who happen to be women. As I contemplated them, I wondered, indeed, what we needed men for. Could not that trio prove that women could do all what men could?

The question is not new. In the 1950s, when the Himalaya was immensely dangerous, French women constituted an entirely feminine expedition to climb some unconquered summit. However, mother nature decided otherwise, and smashed the arrogant creatures’ base camp below thousands of tons of snow.

My friend the guide told me the most ferocious boss she ever had was female. Moreover, although she agreed that men were pretty useless, at first sight, and thus that women could do without men, there was nevertheless something good about having males around. Women were pushed to go further when men were around.

The reciprocal reasoning has long been made by the chivalry, and the nascent romantic tradition. The Sixteenth Century French poet Ronsard pointed out, by claiming that love for the other gender was most transcendental:

Et moi sans faire long séjour

Je m’en vais de nuit et de jour

Au lieu d’où plus on ne retourne”.

Si est-ce que je ne voudrois

Avoir été ni roc ni bois,

Antre, ni onde, pour défendre

Mon corps contre l’âge emplumé,

Car ainsi dur je n’eusse aimé

Toi qui m’as fait vieillir, Cassandre.

ODES, IV, 10

Trans PA.:

Without sojourning long,

I am going, night and day,

To this place one does not come back from,

Yet, I would not have wanted

To be neither rock nor wood,

Cave, or Wave, to defend

My Body against feathered age,

As thus hard I would not have loved

You who made me age, Cassandra.

In other words: love is what makes life worthy. We pay for love, with life. That sounds a bit crazy, thus having crazy relations with the other half of humanity may help. Courtly love, which was invented in “love courts” set by women around the Twelfth Century had made the most ethereal form of love the most valuable value to guide humanity with.

My friend the mountain guide made the same point pragmatically: inter-gender relationships are more stimulating than having them not.

What the two genders do, is that they force us out of our mental box, or more exactly, our logic.

Can we rephrase this more… logically? Yes! The (slightly) different neurohormonalities, and maybe even neurologies, of men and women give us different logics. Call them L1 and L2. So by having women we get L1 (say) and by having men we get L2. So, with two genders, we get two logics. At first sight, that’s already twice richer than just one logic.

Moreover, by making L1 and L2 interact, we get more than just one or the other. Actually we get more than the union of L1 with L2. What we get, at the very least is the smallest logic containing both L1 and L2. We get META(L1, L2), comprising the meta discourse of L1 on L2 and of L2 on L1.

This is the big argument for neurohormonal diversity. And it can be generalized: the main mental reason for having physical exercise, adventures, or simply dreams, or poetry is that they create different neurohormonal states, and thus different logics.

This general reasoning of neurohormonal diversity generating logical diversity extends also to hermaphrodites and so-called “transgender” creatures.

Some may object that I talked about “logic”, and not of what men and women differ the most about, emotion. But my notion of “logic” covers “emotion”. “Emotion” is what gives meaning to logic, by assigning “truth values”, which are defined by practice, to generalized semiotics (in particular generalized semantics).

But this is a subject for another time. Passions, the supreme emotions, propel reason beyond the reasonable, and in this progress, our ever more transcendental nature. We need men and women, because we need ever more, and never less. And maybe violence of men is part of these riches, and the softness of women what is needed to make the Dark Side sustainable.

If advanced animals can be characterized by their Machiavellian intelligence, nature’s wisdom can be even more so. To have two genders with different ways of looking at, processing the world, and even being with the world, gives us stereoscopic vision for the mind’s eye. The mind of our culture, our all encompassing world culture, which can even drive biological evolution itself (another subject for the future).

Vive les  différences!  

Patrice Ayme’