Arab Spring Ushers in Polygamy, Shariah — Western Leaders, Press Offer Only Feeble, Feminist Critique

by W.F. Price on October 31, 2011

Now that Qaddafi has been duly sodomized and lynched by our brave, new Libyan allies, leaders of the new government have said they intend to restore Shariah (Koran-based) law, and noted that “Shariah allows polygamy.” The NY Times, which previously offered relatively uncritical support for the Libyan rebels, ominously declared:

It looked like a sizable step backward for women at a moment when much here — institutions, laws, social relations — is still in play after the end of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s 42 years of authoritarian rule.

But is polygamy really as much of a step backward for women as it is for men? No, it isn’t. Polygamy ensures that women will always have a place in society as some man’s wife, whereas many men will necessarily be left out in the cold. Usually, it is the younger, poorer men who must do without as older, wealthier men marry up the local maidens.

However, French foreign minister Alain Juppé sees the issue in feminist terms, stating:

This is a problem for us, especially in regard to respect for the dignity of women.

Even from a feminist standpoint, this is an arguable position; women who are married, even those in polygamous marriages, will not be forced into prostitution or other dubious occupations to support themselves. No, as Financial Times columnist Tim Harford pointed out in Slate five years ago, the real losers will be single men:

…A lot of the knee-jerk reactions against polygyny are from people who can’t add up. In a society with equal numbers of men and women, each man with four wives gives women the additional pick of three men—the poor saps whose potential wives decided they’d prefer one-quarter of a billionaire instead. In the Sahel region of Africa, half of all women live in polygynous households. The other half have a good choice of men and a lot more bargaining power.

Much of the power of the so-called “Arab-Spring” revolts that have swept the Arab world derived from dissatisfied young men. Without their passion and outrage the social movement never would have made any headway, but the annihilation of the decrepit, authoritarian regimes of old Araby may not represent “progress” in the contemporary, Western sense of the word. In fact, it’s looking more like this is the beginning of another long jihad, the likes of which have periodically swept the world since the introduction of Islam, rather than the move toward “democracy” and modernity that the West foolishly expected.

Shariah is essentially a recipe for jihad, which is a sacred duty in Islam. Polygyny all but assures strife, as young men are forced to compete violently for the resources necessary to secure women. How are these young men to secure wives when the local girls are all married off to wealthy sheikhs? Why, by conquest, of course! Usually this takes the form of raiding a nearby village, but it can also result in massive campaigns, such as those that took the Arabs as far as China to the east and Spain to the West.

Cynics in high places surely knew what was going on in the revolts, and perhaps they are starting to get a bit nervous about the new strongmen in North Africa, but if the only critique our leaders can muster is on the basis of feminism we are going to be in for a rough ride, as that is an entirely insufficient response to the threat of resurgent jihad. Any way you look at it – and you don’t have to be a believer to recognize what stirs the hearts of men – God (or Allah, if you prefer) trumps effete Western handwringing over women’s equality in the Maghreb or the Pamirs. In fact, if our leaders keep up this pusillanimous finger-wagging over women, even as they provide air cover for Al Qaeda-trained jihadis, they may as well invite these modern-day Umayyads back to Tours for another round.

{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }

Ryu October 31, 2011 at 10:56

…and why not?

All men form a brotherhood. We are united against feminism. All men – black, white, muslims, jews, hindus are all the same. Across the world and across religions.

The muslims would not raid Europe again. All men are brothers and they would not harm each other. It’s not as if every war has been fought primarily by men.

That’s the contradiction in the MRM. Why fight to protect the rights of other men who will destroy you if offered? Ideas are not enough to bind men together. Look how GlobalMan is shunned when he has been the biggest pusher of men’s rights of everyone.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 30 Thumb down 27
Opus October 31, 2011 at 11:02

Nice article. I despaired of those well-intentioned liberal westerners who thought that getting rid of Gaddafi, or that Egyptian Pharaoh was somehow going to magically turn the banks of the Nile into the Susquehanah with everyone worshipping the goddess Democratia. Polygamy: good for women; bad for Betas (but good for Alphas). As the only real cause of war has been the desire for women (Homer: The Illiad) expect (to everyone’s great surprise) more fighting.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 1
Rebel October 31, 2011 at 11:07

The Lybian people have been set free from their gold, their huge water reserves and their petroleum.

Brave New West.

Since Lybians are now as poor as the rest of Africa, we might not have to bomb them too much, save for some “fun”.
I heard yesterday that the Canadian mission in Lybia has cost us 50 million dollars: I wonder if I have had my money’s worth of dead Lybians…

At the present rate, we shall soon run out of small countries to bomb.

Many countries do not want to live under the yoke of our “democracy”: will we have to nuke them to set them free, so we can grab their resources and make our women’s lives even more fulfilled?

Sometimes I wonder.

/sarcasm off.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 3
Firepower October 31, 2011 at 11:09

Arab Spring Ushers in Polygamy, Shariah — Western Leaders, Press Offer Only Feeble, Feminist Critique

Honestly, did anyone REALLY expect anything different from an Obama-run Socialist worldview?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 6
TFH October 31, 2011 at 11:11

Welmer,

Here is a profile of Sikh military arts :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15480741

Note that the Sikh religion actually came into being to fight radical Islam of Aurangzeb in the 17th century.
__________________________________

As far as Polygamy and Sharia, I can’t say I care much. Western conservative whiteknights think they have to ‘rescue’ women from this, not seeing that women don’t actually want to be rescued from it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
keyster October 31, 2011 at 11:32

In essence, the only hope of defeating the growing worldwide anti-Christian/anti-Semitic Caliphate is to introduce and promote women’s rights throughout their countries, sects and tribes.

Can the CIA pull Gloria Steinem out of retirement soon enough?
I envision a trojan horse wearing large aviator glasses wheeled through Mecca during Dhu al-Hijjah.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 4
keyster October 31, 2011 at 12:42

While evil tyrannical dictators of Middle East nations are toppled, the reality of the unintended consequences takes hold.

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/96555/egypt-genital-mutilation-fgm-muslim-brotherhood

How’s that democracy workin’ out for ya?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Traveller October 31, 2011 at 12:46

What should be the point?

Today women are already part of harems of alphas and Gamers. The betas or the nice guys must accepts the leftovers, usually the oldest and overspermed empowered girls became rusty feminists. For sure politicians do not care.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Trenton October 31, 2011 at 12:52

who actually cares what women want, in the first place?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 0
oddsock October 31, 2011 at 13:40

Uncle Gerald tells the children how things really are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNUgHRbOCxI

Watch for flying dummies being spat out !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5
Rocco October 31, 2011 at 13:46

It’s interesting that Bin Laden destroyed the World Trade Centers and almost a decade later he is killed in a friendly country and what Bin Ladan wanted, the reason for the attack….a global caliphate is forming.

He won.

And so will Islam, they are a house united, ours is divided, unreparably.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 9
Leos Tomicek October 31, 2011 at 13:50

I was under the impression that polygamy was actually allowed under Qaddafi. I personally met as Libyan with multiple wives, and wikipedia seems to confirm my perception.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_polygamy

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Leos Tomicek October 31, 2011 at 13:51

* “met a Libyan” damn… :-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rocco October 31, 2011 at 14:05

btw: What were those reasons we wouldn’t show Bin Laden but Quaddafi and Saddam’s post mortum shots were prominently displayed……are we hiding something…but what?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price October 31, 2011 at 14:21

I was under the impression that polygamy was actually allowed under Qaddafi. I personally met as Libyan with multiple wives, and wikipedia seems to confirm my perception.

-Leos Tomicek

It was, but it was more strictly regulated than under Shariah, and required the first wife’s permission as well as judicial approval.

Mr. N October 31, 2011 at 14:25

Tthese secondary women are not wives, they are concubines.

Feminists and leftists seek first to change words in order to change society.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
Leos Tomicek October 31, 2011 at 15:28

@ W.F. Price

Thanks…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Attila October 31, 2011 at 17:19

I think these new leaders are all too aware of the threat feminism poses to their societies (after seeing what it’s done to the so-called West)- so what we are seeing may be some form of preventive action on their part.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
nilk October 31, 2011 at 18:46

Polygyny is already practiced here in the West in some of the muslim enclaves. A man must be able to provide for all of his wives, and through a judicious milking of the benefits we have here, he can do that quite nicely. The marriages don’t need to be recognised by our laws because they’re not allah’s laws, and single-motherhood is recognised.

Add to that he can also have as many concubines as he wants, and the pious muslim man has it made here in our countries.

When they run out of girls from back home, they can always groom the kaffir girls, which they have a long history of doing anway.

My thoughts on pictures of Bin Laden not being spread around the internet like those of Ghadafi or other islamic killings? We don’t prostitute our dead out to raise sympathy like the islamists do.

Eu Referendum produced a detailed expose of what became known as ‘Qanagate’ back in 2006.

They use our sensibilities, media and laws against us, and laugh at us. I’d be appalled to see any video of Bin Laden’s body, yet I was expecting to see Ghadafi.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
Alcuin October 31, 2011 at 19:17

Feminism is the face of Western imperialism – the White Woman’s Burden. That is why the politicians critique things from a feminist perspective. They also do this, as we know, because they are really speaking to their constituents back home.

The North African Muslims are probably laughing at the emasculated Western politicians and their silly concerns for females.

When I lived in a Muslim country, the only thing they talked about was gay marriage in my country. They were incredulous.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 31, 2011 at 19:26

Why on earth would we care about the word “polygamy”?

Here in the West, a man can live with several women and support them quite legally. If he gets them all pregnant, the state will ensure he pays for all of them. It only becomes illegal if we wants a marriage license for more than one of them.

Furthermore, we don’t jail or force marriage dissolutions for visiting Muslims legally married multiple times in their own jurisdictions.

As for single men missing out on a women, that really makes me laugh. The “alphas” are welcome to my allotted wife. Polygamy or monogamy, there’s no way I’ll ever take up the option, so they can fight amongst themselves for her – I won’t be turning up to that scrap.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Alcuin October 31, 2011 at 19:32

Regarding the feminist-oriented tongue-lashing given by Western politicians, one wonders what the same American or French leaders say in private to the Muslim head honchos. Probably quite a bit different.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Turbo the Drycleaner October 31, 2011 at 20:56

I once knew a guy from Lebanon who told me about life in the middle east, and how it works for the poor over there. Basically, they sit around in the desert all day doing nothing. throwing rocks at the sides of their houses. Spending hours in the desert heat, nothing to occupy their thoughts but the words from the family Quran. You spend your whole life working, throwing rocks around, and reading the Quran. Did I mention the desert heat?

Theres relatively little we can do to change that. But during the more stable periods of Islam’s life, that was all bearable. Why? because the men had something to live for. They could expect an attractive, feminine wife who loved them, kids who respected them, and their own little slice of happiness in the otherwise harsh, unforgiving world of the Middle East.

Now that the only way to gain that happiness is to be richer than everyone you know, and many people you dont, what do these men have in their futures? A vast, vast expanse of nothing. Decades of work, just to eat. nothing else. Wake up. work. eat. sleep.

When your life consists of only that, what kind of man wouldnt strap a bomb to himself and say “fuck it!”? he might as well join a terrorist group and have some fun before he dies.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
goldenfetus October 31, 2011 at 22:14

“And so will Islam, they are a house united, ours is divided, unreparably.”

Uhhh……………..no. Europe, Canada, Australia, and America cooperate FAR more closely with each other than muslim countries do. You really see Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Indonesia, and North Africa as united? Get real. The Turks are basically on our side, and the Arabs and Persians hate each other. Why do you think we’re over there in two wars, one on each side of the ‘Land of the Aryans’? Why do you think we planted a tiny, well-funded, well-armed Jew seed right in the middle of their territory? Why do you think we carved them up as we did, and neglected to give the Kurds their own country? They’re divided, we’re responsible, and it’s on purpose. They’re not invading the West and bringing their Jihad and Shariah with them. They’re being imported by hostile elites trying to divide and conquer US. The Muslims are just toools. Derka derka Muhammed Jihad!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Evolved Ape October 31, 2011 at 22:16

Good, bring the sharia law. The faster the patriarchical muslims overrun europe and the west the better. I couldn’t give a lesser shit about this society, and I will be laughing when the feminists tell me to “man up” and go into the army to protect their “rights”

You may want to protect “western civilization” but the world of Plato, Shakespeare, and Newton is long gone…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire October 31, 2011 at 22:57

Look how GlobalMan is shunned when he has been the biggest pusher of men’s rights of everyone.
**************

Peeeter On-drew Noooo-e-lon was shoooned becos heee wooos fooool of shyte and dooominay-ted each oond ev-ry thred weeeth heees bo-fooon-er-aye.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10
fmz October 31, 2011 at 23:01

Nah, most of the marriages will be monogamous, like most countries with sharia law. One wife is hard enough let alone 4. Personally l cant understand marriage anyway, so one is too much in my book. Methinks there might be a bit of scare mongering and rubbing salt in the wounds of liberals. Sure they deserve, but this one’s drawing a long bow.

With any luck there will be a positive outcome and the mossie men will realise the folly of marriage and… go their own way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire October 31, 2011 at 23:07

Opus October 31, 2011 at 11:02
Nice article. I despaired of those well-intentioned liberal westerners who thought that getting rid of Gaddafi, or that Egyptian Pharaoh was somehow going to magically turn the banks of the Nile into the Susquehanah with everyone worshipping the goddess Democratia.
******************

Liberals simply will NOT recognize ‘patriarchy’ unless it’s face is white.

This is exploitable weakness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire October 31, 2011 at 23:31

Attila October 31, 2011 at 17:19
I think these new leaders are all too aware of the threat feminism poses to their societies (after seeing what it’s done to the so-called West)- so what we are seeing may be some form of preventive action on their part.

******************

No. What you’re seeing IS preventive action.
Holy wars is just code for hole wars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
SM November 1, 2011 at 00:01

The west has polyandry and Islam polygyny. Check.

Go into to any islamic (or communist) library. Note the lack of pamphlets about female issues (date rape, abuse, teen this and that). Same for their train station magazine racks, Tv shows etc. Oh and the whole penalty for cheating thing /serial promiscuity choices (no small one).

(Some will say they have few if any libraries, mag racks and TV shows. Good… starting to see a pattern?)

Those cultures are not bad for men. But the west is.

If you’re fearful that there will no scraps left over for runts in religious systems than why not advocate socialist control of females? [eyeroll]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
SM November 1, 2011 at 00:05

It never enters my mind –as an anti-feminists –to critique other’s cultures (especially ones that prevent feminism) when there’s so much wrong with mine.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
E November 1, 2011 at 01:14

Polygyny all but assures strife, as young men are forced to compete violently for the resources necessary to secure women.

Islam allows men to have up to 4 wives. My coworker is a Muslim and grew up in the middle east. He always chuckles whenever someone asks him how many wives do men have back in his country. In his own words, “I have never met a man who had more than one wife no matter how rich he may be.”

As for having mistresses and dumping your wife in the future for a hotter, younger woman, if you’re a man of financial means well that kind of goes without saying. That certainly is not unique to middle eastern culture. Common observation reveals that the supply of men out there who wish to financially support multiple women are few and far between….much to the disappointment of women of course. However there’s plenty of men who would like to have a George Clooney lifestyle where you rotate girlfriends continuously while your net-worth never goes down.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Robert November 1, 2011 at 05:13

Firepower October 31, 2011 at 11:09
Arab Spring Ushers in Polygamy, Shariah — Western Leaders, Press Offer Only Feeble, Feminist Critique

Honestly, did anyone REALLY expect anything different from an Obama-run feminist/Socialist worldview?

Slight edit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Robert November 1, 2011 at 05:19

evilwhitemalempire October 31, 2011 at 23:31

“No. What you’re seeing IS preventive action.
Holy wars is just code for hole wars.”

Feminists are the madams.

“madam A woman who manages a brothel.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Robert November 1, 2011 at 05:20

Their subordinates have displayed their wares at every slutwalk.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Firepower November 1, 2011 at 06:56

Robert November 1, 2011 at 05:13

Firepower October 31, 2011 at 11:09
Arab Spring Ushers in Polygamy, Shariah — Western Leaders, Press Offer Only Feeble, Feminist Critique

Honestly, did anyone REALLY expect anything different from an Obama-run feminist/Black Supremacist/Illegal Immigrant loving/Socialist worldview?

Slight edit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
PeterTheGreat November 1, 2011 at 10:37

Shariah is part of the absolute submission demanded of Muslims. Perhaps the NWO has decided to use Libya to coopt shariah to get Muslim submission to the NWO. A thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Morrisfactor November 1, 2011 at 11:37

Somewhat off topic but worth reading-

There is a story today in Atlantic magazine about female circumcision on the rise in Egypt.

The article is written by a female and she surprisingly points out:

“Experts have found that the practice is mostly perpetuated by mothers making decisions for their daughters.”

“The campaign to end FGM in Egypt was fighting an uphill battle before the revolution. Although FGM was outlawed in 2007 after a 12-year-old girl died from the procedure, the practice is still widespread. Despite efforts to reduce it, the number of girls aged 15 to 17 who underwent FGM only dropped from 77 percent in 2005 to 74 percent in 2008, according to the 2008 Egypt Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS). EDHS also showed that 91 percent of all women in Egypt between the ages of 15 and 49 have undergone FGM. The practice is common not only among Muslims, but also in the Christian community, which constitutes 10 percent of the Egyptian population. A sanitized version of FGM has gained increased prevalence in recent years, presenting additional challenges. In 1995, only 45 percent of all FGM operations were conducted by doctors; by 2008, the percentage had risen to 72 percent. A young woman working as a maid and living in Cairo, who asked to be referred to only as Ayesha, did not even know that FGM is illegal. Her mother had put her through the procedure, and she told me that she would do the same. (Experts have found that the practice is mostly perpetuated by mothers making decisions for their daughters.) “Unless someone can show me what is wrong with it I don’t think there is any reason to change,” she said.

Women need to examine their own actions and motives behind mutilating their own daughters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Questioner November 1, 2011 at 14:44

A relevant question about Sharia law: Do the men get to marry young girls like Mohammed did when he was in his 50s (married Ayshia at 6 or 7, played with her sexually but without actual intercourse untill she was 9, had intercourse itself at 9): IE Do the muslims get to be pedophiles like their prophet was with young girls now?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
SM November 2, 2011 at 02:51

“A relevant question about Sharia law: Do the men get to marry young girls like Mohammed did when he was in his 50s (married Ayshia at 6 or 7, played with her sexually but without actual intercourse untill she was 9, had intercourse itself at 9): IE Do the muslims get to be pedophiles like their prophet was with young girls now?”

””””””””””””””””’
And that above scene is bad for “patriarchy” why again?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
nilk November 2, 2011 at 03:08

Questioner: Yes. If Mohammed did it, then it is acceptable. When Khomeini ousted the Shah, one of the first things he did was lower the age of marriage for women to 9. A girl is a woman when she hits puberty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay November 2, 2011 at 04:10

The feminists have a problem with polygyny for a simple reason: They can’t get half of the assets in divorce because that would lower the amount of loot available to the other wives.

Shariah divorce law doesn’t sound so bad though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Questioner November 2, 2011 at 06:14

” Questioner: Yes. If Mohammed did it, then it is acceptable. When Khomeini ousted the Shah, one of the first things he did was lower the age of marriage for women to 9. A girl is a woman when she hits puberty.”

But Mohammed married the girl at 6 and molested her from 6 to 9 in various ways (they played with each other) if I’m not mistaken, then at 9 when she was still playing with dolls (and thus did not yet hit puberty, only little girls are allowed to play with such images, not women) he had intercourse with her. She was his favorite wife and he would spend time with her when not spending time with other wives… if I’m not mistaken.

So he was a pedophile. I know muslims don’t want to hear that but we have to speak the truth here. I heard that in iran 9 was the age that the girl could arrange her own marraige, before then the father could marry her off. This is actually the same as old catholic tradition in europe where before 12 the father could marry the daughter off but after the girl could arrange her own marraige. At that time the world had no science and men derived all their pleasure from playing with females (hence no science, once men were restricted they had to go and do something else).

What do you all think of these developments?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
alpha November 2, 2011 at 07:01

if Arab Spring ends feminism I want one ysterday

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack November 2, 2011 at 07:35

Good points about there being less wives for single poorer men. Yes, strife can occur if too many men are without women. There are different ways that societies have implemented Sharia. It can be a loss for women too if forced to marry an older man they don’t like. Then again some women like having being part of a sisterhood of wives as some Mormon women supposedly do. Funny that the final straw which broke the camels back was a Tunisian government feminist bitch that slapped a man who lit himself afire in protest. I hope history records this one correctly.

I took a class in college on Islamic history. The existence of the grand caliphate that unites the Muslims is a union that has formed, existed, and broken a few times in the past. The cycle is now in the re-grouping phase. How long it might take I have no idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Questioner November 2, 2011 at 10:30

” It can be a loss for women too if forced to marry an older man they don’t like. ”

How do you feel about that? Many men cannot aquire a girl except through force of some kind. Should they be doomed or saved?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Questioner November 2, 2011 at 13:02

SM: “And that above scene is bad for “patriarchy” why again?”

I think this will be my last comment here but all I can respond with is…
every night I dream.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
OwlEyes November 2, 2011 at 14:27

SM: Would you do what muhammed did if you could?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Attila November 2, 2011 at 20:45

Here is an interesting video about the Hajj – taken from Turkish TV channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/SemerkandTv#p/u/44/1Dl9ZrhIXFc

especially since non-Muslims are not allowed to participate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
DirkJohanson November 2, 2011 at 21:56

Polygamy + legal prostitution + a strict ban on adultery = win-win for everyone.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
SM November 3, 2011 at 03:28

“How do you feel about that? Many men cannot aquire a girl except through force of some kind. Should they be doomed or saved?”

They should be saved (or eliminated).

But through a method that doesn’t embolden females. In the west a method was implemented to make low men equal –the classic revolutions– but it turned into feminism within a couple generations. THAT WAS BAD –should never be duplicated.

———
And to those western patriot types who don’t like sharia… to pretend democracy doesn’t have an underclass of mateless male-losers is absurd misreading of democracy. …Classic false dichotomy brewing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
SM November 3, 2011 at 03:31

OwlEyes November 2, 2011 at 14:27

SM: Would you do what muhammed did if you could?

“””””””””””””””””””””””””””
The question is what are the consequences of having that above social system vs what are the consequence of having a social system that “liberates” females from that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
SM November 3, 2011 at 03:38

And..

…Framing the dichotomy properly…

Are you more for creating a system that “liberates” young females from their role as wives

or

more for creating a system of run amok competition parametrized into a giant caste of have and have not capitalist cannibals that snowballs down the path of so much techno growth that nuclear holocaust becomes inevitable?

What would you do?…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Hydroxide November 4, 2011 at 00:24

Instead of sharia or any other religious law, we should protest for equal treatment of men in the courtroom and also that we teach our children anti-misandric values so that they won’t grow up to become hateful feminazis in the future. As an atheist, I feel religion has no place in government what so ever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Columnist November 4, 2011 at 12:58

We could out-alpha Islam by becoming even more polygamous. We say a man cannot just have four, but as many wives as he want.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
T December 15, 2011 at 00:13

Yeah, well, the day will come when Arab women will climb out of this and get what they want: education, freedom, AND ONE MAN TO ONE WOMAN.

What a disappointment for you men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: