It's a serious question:
The trajectory to extreme violence of this gentle, pious young man who wanted so much to be good and consequential, and yet was consumed with guilt about sex, fits with much of what is known about other Islamist suicide bombers.
Perhaps the best psychological explanation comes from United in Hate: The Left's Romance with Tyranny and Terror, the recent book by Jamie Glazov, the managing editor of FrontPage Magazine.
In a chapter entitled "To Hate a Woman", he describes in chilling detail the oppression of women in parts of the Muslim world and the "theological justification" for violence against females "from the very moment of their birth".
Islamist hatred of women has "fertilised the soil in which ... terrorism and the new death cult have grown".
He claims there is an "Islamist war on private love [which] derives most of its energy from a deep-seated misogyny. Women's empowerment, independence and self-determination, especially the sexual variety, pose a threat to Islamism's very existence."
Islamist misogyny, he claims, comes from Islam itself. "The notion that women are by their very nature inferior to men is the underpinning of the entire structure and derives its legitimacy from numerous traditional teachings."
It is no coincidence that the Arabic word "fitna" has two meanings - beautiful woman and social chaos.
Glazov writes that in many Islamic societies, "women are supposed to dehumanise themselves in order to be tolerated ... Women are considered to be the incarnation of shahwa [desire] which comes from the devil. In this environment the pathological notion arises that a man and a woman cannot be alone without the ominous threat of evil in their midst.
"The men denigrate the object of their lust so as to diminish their own shame. In this dynamic of sexual repression and misogyny, love is reduced to violent domination which becomes directly intertwined with terrorism against societies that allow women freedom, especially sexual freedom."
Practices such as polygamy and repudiation - in which a man can divorce his wife by pronouncing certain words - conspire to "minimise the possibility of private love even among married couples".
"Islam teaches that the sexual act is dirty and consequently surrounds it with rituals. The objective is to build a wall between the lovers themselves."
Polygamy, Glazov writes, has a disastrous effect on Muslim boys who grow up with "all kinds of siblings born of different women which gives them the idea that none of these women, including their own mother, was good enough to be cherished alone. The boys internalise this misogyny which leads in turn to self hate."
Their psychological abandonment of their mothers is "directly connected to their urge for terror and suicide".
Female genital mutilation, in which a woman's clitoris - or entire external genital organs - is removed is an attempt to "deny women even the possibility of personal happiness and sexual satisfaction".
Glazov writes of Saudi instructional TV programs about wife-beating and cites a report from the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences which estimated 90 per cent of Pakistani wives had been beaten or sexually abused for offences such as cooking an unsatisfactory meal.
Where is the National Organization for Women? Seriously?
Oh wait... they're actually the National Organization for Abortion Advancement... I forgot.
Crossposted(*).
Comments (11)
Watch it Rick, NOW will com... (Below threshold)1. Posted by GarandFan | January 27, 2010 1:15 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Watch it Rick, NOW will come after you with a rusty pair of shears. And it won't be to give you a haircut.
1. Posted by GarandFan | January 27, 2010 1:15 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 13:15
2. Posted by jennifer | January 27, 2010 1:19 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Never gonna happen...
2. Posted by jennifer | January 27, 2010 1:19 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 13:19
3. Posted by Hank | January 27, 2010 1:40 PM | Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Feminists showed their true colors during the Clinton Presidency.
They pretty much been irrelevant ever since.
3. Posted by Hank | January 27, 2010 1:40 PM |
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 13:40
4. Posted by Jlawson | January 27, 2010 2:28 PM | Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
I remember my girlfriend of the time (very 'progressive' sort) complaining bitterly during the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas dustup about how no woman would ever lie about rape or sexual harrasment.
Then there were all the bimbo eruptions leading up to Clinton's election. I kept waiting for the same level of outrage against Clinton - but it never happened. The bimbos? They lied about Clinton's 'attentions'.
At that point I started realizing that there were some things in the leftist theology that wouldn't bear logical examination - and that the ideological contortions involved in avoiding even thinking about their existance were pretty extreme. Ethical standards being conditional on political orientation just didn't cut it.
4. Posted by Jlawson | January 27, 2010 2:28 PM |
Score: 5 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 14:28
5. Posted by Grace | January 27, 2010 5:10 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
At American Thinker yesterday there was a brilliant article written by Pamela Geller about the feminist movement and the harm done to women and girls since the 60's. (sorry I don't know how to do a link)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/forty_years_of_feminism_now_be.html
5. Posted by Grace | January 27, 2010 5:10 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 17:10
6. Posted by Steve Green | January 27, 2010 6:05 PM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
"Where is the National Organization for Women? "
Seriously?
They are the "National" Organization of Women" - not the "International" Organization of Women. They focus on issues of women in the US, not Islam, etc.
6. Posted by Steve Green | January 27, 2010 6:05 PM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 18:05
7. Posted by Steve Green | January 27, 2010 6:13 PM | Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
From the NOW FAQ:
NOW's official priorities are pressing for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that will guarantee equal rights for women; achieving economic equality for women; championing abortion rights, reproductive freedom and other women's health issues; supporting civil rights for all and opposing racism; opposing bigotry against lesbians and gays; and ending violence against women.
Not even a mention of international issues.
Do you have all women or just liberal women?
7. Posted by Steve Green | January 27, 2010 6:13 PM |
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 18:13
8. Posted by Steve Green | January 27, 2010 6:14 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
typo'd - should have been "Do you hate all women or just liberal women?"
8. Posted by Steve Green | January 27, 2010 6:14 PM |
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 18:14
9. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | January 27, 2010 6:50 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Steve, do you still beat your wife
9. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | January 27, 2010 6:50 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 18:50
10. Posted by Speller | January 27, 2010 7:02 PM | Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
They are the "National" Organization of Women" - not the "International" Organization of Women. They focus on issues of women in the US, not Islam, etc.
~Steve Green
So your contention is that there are no Muslim females in the U.S. that are the targets of cultural abuse such as: arranged marriages, clitorectomies, beatings, lower status, honour killings, being forced to wear burkhas/black raincoats on hot sunny days etc.?
WoW!
10. Posted by Speller | January 27, 2010 7:02 PM |
Score: 3 (5 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 19:02
11. Posted by JLawson | January 27, 2010 7:11 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Ah, Steve - the 'disagreement=hate' thing's getting pretty old. I'm surprised you didn't get the memo prohibiting it - after all, at one time it was the height of patriotism to disagree. With what happened last week it's no longer seen as the automatic shutdown it once was. It's utility is gone - don't use it any more.
You really ought to check your email more often.
11. Posted by JLawson | January 27, 2010 7:11 PM |
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Posted on January 27, 2010 19:11