Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Backwards To The Future
Via MEMRI TV, an Islamic leader (who appears to be wearing a dinner napkin on his head) explains how to properly beat one's wife, then details a woman's duty to lick up her husband's boogers. (I'll take fries and a chocolate shake with that, please!)

The whole video is at the above link. Here are the high points.



hisrights.jpg time you think it's no big deal that, say, Muslim taxi drivers licensed by the city of Minneapolis are refusing to take passengers with wine or even a Leader Dog at the airport...just think about where all of this is leading. Maybe not today or tomorrow...but maybe some or many of us will either be forced to convert or be killed within your lifetime, for refusing to bow to primitivity like this.

Posted by aalkon at May 18, 2007 12:21 PM


Let's be fair and say that wife beating is tolerated in more than just the Muslim faith. I found this disturbing site on Christian domestic discipline.

Of course, I'm a godless heathen.

Posted by: miche at May 18, 2007 6:15 AM

The term "Consensual" makes me wonder if it isn't "Christian-based" BDSM/ Ds.

...which would be kinda charming in its own queer way.

Posted by: Deirdre B. at May 18, 2007 6:24 AM

I thought so too, but and excerpt says:

In today’s society where any physical discipline is severely frowned upon, it is important that even a Christian Domestic Discipline relationship be consensual; however, it is interesting to note that Biblically, a man’s right to chastise and discipline his wife is strongly implied. Just as a parent would never stop to ask permission to chastise his child, a husband should not have to obtain consent to discipline his wife; however, our legal system has put him in the position of having to do so. Just as our culture is turned upside down in so many other things, the traditional Christian marriage is no exception.

It is worth mentioning that even Biblically, it is best if the wife submits willingly rather than being forced to obey her husband, and in giving honor to his wife as the weaker vessel, it is good that the husband listen to her thoughts and opinions and try to incorporate them into their lives so that she will be content. In that sense, this discussion of CDD and all it entails is Biblically sound. That is the spirit in which we will approach the remainder of this book.

Posted by: miche at May 18, 2007 6:34 AM

Here's the table of contents:


Biblical Marriage

Biblical Justification for CDD

Overcoming Cultural Influences

The meaning of consent

Chain of Command

Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses

Areas that Cause Disharmony

Wife’s Self-Evaluation

Husband’s Self-Evaluation

Husband’s Evaluation of Wife

The Rules




Consequences for Non-cooperation

Wife’s Means of Voicing Opinions

Protecting Yourselves

Sample Consent Form

A few of these are particularly creepy: "Aftercare," being one of them.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 6:41 AM

Did you check out their Intimates section?

Gotta get some of those pantaloons.

Posted by: miche at May 18, 2007 6:46 AM

To call behavior like this "consensual" cheats the meaning of the word. Are the women raised in families where this goes on given a form to sign on their 23rd birthday where they chose between a culture patient with such beatings and a career in corporate law in Orange County? Sure, they consent, and begin preparing dinner, rather than chosing starvation and worse.

Worst of all about the Christian thing is that such people always say their beliefs reach back through the mists of "tradition." These claims are usually bogus on their face (see also, "the traditional nuclear family.") Punk, coddled, smug liberals take these claims to heart, and presume their impulsive, condescending takes on issues both broad and intimate are actually daring and compassionate.

Posted by: Crid at May 18, 2007 6:53 AM

And then there's the header over the crotchless pantaloons:

Loving wife spanking in a Christian Marriage

And Crid is exactly right. They really don't have much of a choice. If you're raised to be chattel, you don't go off and open your own business and have the money to have choices about what you do and don't accept in your life.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 7:16 AM

Personally, I do find the DD subculture quite disturbing even though it is among consenting adults.

In the U.K. its called Taken In Hand or TIH relationships. They are less religiously inpired than the Christian DD relationships:

Most of the site's contributors are women who are in this kind of relationships. They provide advice, tips and cultural reviews.

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 7:25 AM

Well said, Crid.

I am just totally freaked out. I don't even know what to say. I am thinking.....why would people engage in a relationship like this? What about basic respect? Somehow, psychologically, there must be a level of enjoyment on both sides. I can envision some idiot woman actually feeling spiritually superior to other women because of the "consensual discipline." Ugh..

Posted by: kg at May 18, 2007 7:31 AM

Any type of physical abuse, even under the guise of "domestic discipline" (YUK) is wrong, people! Physical abuse, mental abuse, emotional abuse, consensual or not, brings about very unhealthy mindsets. If you love someone, you're going to deliberately abuse them?? What kind of sick, twisted thinking is that?? I was brought up in a Christian household, and my father never raised a hand in anger to my mom. Spanked mine and my brothers' butts when we were little as a disciplinary measure, yes, a couple of times, but as we grew older, that turned into revoking of priviledges, which had a greater impact on us than spanking. There are a LOT of sick, twisted people out there. Frikkin' scary.

Posted by: Flynne at May 18, 2007 7:47 AM

while I despise the sentiments being displayed, I do think you go a bit too far in your fearmongering, Amy. It's important to be aware of the evil that exists in Arab culture (as well as in Christian culture). But it is highly unlikely that the US will be conquered by the Arabs anytime soon.

Posted by: moe99 at May 18, 2007 8:31 AM

"But it is highly unlikely that the US will be conquered by the Arabs anytime soon."

Granted, moe99.

But it's been quite a while since I could summon my old response to Amy's posts of this nature , which was 'just another Muslim Phelps/Falwell.' There are an awful lot of these guys.

Posted by: Jody Tresidder at May 18, 2007 8:42 AM

"Let's be fair and say that wife beating is tolerated in more than just the Muslim faith. I found this disturbing site on Christian domestic discipline."

The difference is, IMHO, that most Christians live in countries where, if they are being beaten by their husbands, they can go to the authorities and the authorities will do something to stop it.

One of the more heartwarming bits I've read recently, actually, was in a Washington Post story about spousal abuse in Muslim communities. There was a part in the story about a 19-year-old girl who was brought over from Pakistan and promptly abused by her husband and his parents - turned into a servant, beaten, etc. She had no outside connections, no resources, no frame of reference to even understand that this was wrong. But, she met a few people in the larger community, and they urged her to leave. Finally, she got up the courage to leave...and the cops came to the home where she was living and stood around (menacingly, I'm sure) as she packed up her stuff under the eyes of her "astonished" parents-in-law and husband. Then the cops took her to a shelter, where she's now learning English, life skills, etc. There's something I really like about that mental image of these abusers, previously so secure in their own "superiority," watching helplessly as big guys with big guns and small patience took away their autonomy in their own home and asserted the protection of the state for their previously helpless wife/daughter-in-law.

Posted by: mg at May 18, 2007 8:43 AM

This Taken In Hand stuff is scary. It sounds like it is a classic dominant/submissive (BDSM) relationship or abuse. If the relationship is truly consensual, then more power to them. I think this is more disturbing to me than what crazy Muslim guy said because I expect Christians to be more evolved with regard to the fact that women should be treated respectfully. I am also always fascinated that Christians will take one verse of the Bible and base their whole lives and belief systems around it while ignoring the remaining, sometimes contradictory, verses.

Posted by: Amy at May 18, 2007 8:52 AM

All this obvious hatred for women is making very ill.

Posted by: Chrissy at May 18, 2007 8:53 AM


I'm not speaking for Amy's view, but I interpret her posts on the poisonous attitude found in the West that will openly accept this type of behavior as a form of multi-culturalism and diversity. When people begin to criticize this particular cultural attitude, they are labeled hate mongers. Or that Islamic groups want special rights and privileges within the USA. How about the attempt of equating criticism of Islam as a form of racism?

Except for the brave few critics like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Wafa Sultan, Ghada Jamshir, Buthayna Nasser and many others.

How can these 2 distinct types of cultural attitudes peacefully co-exist without future clashes? Also, why would the abuses of Islam within the West be given special sanctions in the name of diversity?

Here is another prime example of cultural differences with the proper role of women on TV. Notice Buthayna Nasser (who is Saudi) defend herself against an opponent supporting the Saudi Shura Council‘s decision on the proper Islamic view of women in the media. She is one of the few outspoken critics within Saudi Arabia:

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 9:11 AM

Joe gets it. Thanks for clarifying.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 9:15 AM

And I think I made this clear in the post -- it won't happen tomorrow, but with the birthrate of a people who subscribe to beliefs that others must be conquered, converted or killed, and Sharia law must be put in place over secular laws...anyone who doesn't see the danger in the creep of Islam is naive.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 9:20 AM

Amy, maybe the birthrate will overwhelm Israel, but I really don't think it's going to do in the USA in your lifetime, or that of my children. The hispanic birth rate is far more of a factor here than is the Moslem birth rate. I'm not of the school that would permit any religion to trump our secular laws, particularly where life and liberty are concerned. But, a strong caveat to that is we do have a problem wrt to the US Supreme Court, where 5 Catholic males recently authored a decision on partial birth abortion that could've come from the Vatican. That should be the focus of concern here rather than Moslems taking over the US.

Posted by: moe99 at May 18, 2007 9:37 AM

Sheesh. And I couldn't even get the word "obey" into my wife's wedding vows. There's a whole 'nother level I'm missing here.

Posted by: justin case at May 18, 2007 9:43 AM

No problem, Amy.

Its based on living and visiting the region for 9 years.


I've spoken to many clerics on the Islamic agenda for the take over of the West. One Egyptian cleric in particular told me it would take an average of 200 years and plenty of deaths on all sides, but with Ismshallah, the faithful will be triumphant in the end. Without the modern tech advances in weaponry it would at least take 500 years. He even opened himself up for interpretation by saying it could take less than 200 years if the Americans are truly passive as they seem to be in our movies and the public perceived images viewed around the world.

Now your immediate response to this incident would be ‘wishful thinking’ on the cleric’s behalf. Right? Not so with them. They have 3 secret weapons within their arsenal:

1. Patience.
2. An understanding of history.
3. Religious zeal and discipline ranks.

Of course this was common polite after dinner conversation with an infidel (yours truly) within the M.E.

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 10:03 AM

Oops. Its Imshallah. Damn typos.

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 10:06 AM

I understand this -- which is why I contend that those who don't hold a similar view are simply uninformed.

Here's an interview with Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim who speaks out against Islam, that you might like to read:,,2075590,00.html

Finding her voice has, she says, been 'a gradual process', marked by pivotal moments such as the time her brother - who was injured when her father was killed - suffered a stroke. His life was saved by doctors at an Israeli hospital. She still remembers the respect and compassion the medical staff showed to all their patients, regardless of faith.

Darwish converted to Christianity 10 years ago. Some of her supporters have argued that she would be a more effective voice if she had remained a Muslim: 'But I needed a spiritual life, I needed to be among a religious community that wants me to be a better person. I don't want to talk about how wonderful Mohammed was, how many battles he won. I was flipping channels on a Sunday morning and I saw this preacher who touched me. He was praying for the whole world, for humanity, for love and friendship. Your neighbour could be Japanese, or a Jew, or a Muslim. You should still love them. This is not a message I heard in mosques.'

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 10:12 AM

And we could get hit by an asteroid or a nuclear device from NKorea in those intervening 200 years. There's no reason to invent trouble when we've got enough as it is. Stay alert but fercriss'sake don't spend your energy on stuff like this. There's already more than enough trouble to worry about.

Posted by: moe99 at May 18, 2007 10:12 AM


I agree on your points, but they thrive on American's short attention spans and their religious arrogance. Also, our naive need to be liked by everyone in the world. My views in combating Islamist groups is quite different from the war nerds and the current policies of the White House.

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 10:22 AM

One thing that I think the Islamists understand is that they can't get away with too many direct attacks on the U.S. (vs. soldiers in other places). If they piss us (or Israel) off too much, they'll just get bombed back into the stone age (which maybe isn't that far for some of these places). Instead, the strategy has to be a combination of militarily wearing us down by keeping us involved in places like Iraq where our soldiers are subject to the stresses of daily attacks, and establishing beachheads in Western countries and having lots of babies. Once they get into the free societies, they can exploit freedoms of religion and speech to their advantage - it's hard to do much about someone preaching hate and destruction when it's done inside a mosque (or church for that matter!). But there's one great weakness to this plan: it assumes that the children of Muslim immigrants stick with the program in very large numbers. I think that's a very large assumption.

Posted by: justin case at May 18, 2007 10:47 AM

Wow, and to think - all this time, my only associations between spanking and Christianity involved role-playing fantasies about cute teenaged Mormon boys coming to my house. Whodathunk?

Posted by: Pirate Jo at May 18, 2007 10:58 AM

> There's no reason to invent
> trouble when we've got enough
> as it is.

Moe99, you should go back a few months and read about Danicki's assaults in London. Amy's not fearmongering. It is coming. Listen, Amy's not saying that every woman in America will one day have to resist this attitude in her own home, she's saying that this attitude is going to be present in a lot of people who are coming to live here and other places we like, and it needs to be overwhelmed. There's a fight coming. Bring it, sez me, I'm ready.

The clown in those images seems like a young fucktard drunk on his own masculinity. But that's not the only problem. The clips are from a religious channel in Saudi Arabia. Here's another hot little number:

Ann Richards used to tease George HW Bush for the privilege of his upbringing by saying that he was born on third base, so he woke up thinking he'd hit a triple. So it is with Saudi Arabia; They have the wealth under their feet, so they been able to go directly to an age of modern television without having to deal with an Elizabeth Cady Stanton first. Let's face it, the little girl in the first clip (now aged nine) has worse things to worry about than Israel.

Posted by: Crid at May 18, 2007 11:05 AM

Also, if you want to see some wonderfully snotty TV clips about religion this week, go to youtube and search "hitchens hannity" and "hitchens cooper falwell".

In daydreams of being a blogger, I used to think it would be called "esprit d'escalier". Now I'd need to name it for my own porcine anatomy:

Posted by: Crid at May 18, 2007 11:14 AM


Is Aishwarya Rai as popular in the Middle East as she is in India? Even though she's Hindu? I liked her before she was hella popular and now I see her everywhere (esp. now that she got married). Even doing commercials in Spanish. What is the popularity of Bollywood actors in Muslim countries?

Posted by: PurplePen at May 18, 2007 11:25 AM

> The hispanic birth rate
> is far more of a factor

Swear to God, I wanted to mention this before Moe said that, but I was stopped by pure ol' White Liberal Guilt.

All those Hispanics we're making room for --and the blacks who still aren't as integrated in the economy as we'd like-- are going to offer a special buffer of resistance when Achmed comes to our urban centers to make trouble, and a callous sociologist may think that makes our quarrels over abortion on the Supreme Courth worthwhile.

Consider again how events progressed (or didn't) when Danicki was assaulted: She went to the London Bobbies. But when one of our immigrant Hispanic sisters on an LA bus gets clubbed on the head, she's going to go home and tell her brothers. Rather than go to the police, they might be expected to respond to the assailant more directly, by going and finding him... without police assistance. From my experience in Central America, these cultures take their Catholicism seriously, and are not going to want to reflect for an afternoon of Santa Monica-style multi-cult rhetoric before they take fuckin' steps, Mang.

Similarly for the African Americans. Look at the slender, bottommost, diagonally-hatched stratum of data on this chart:

That stratum represents a disproportionate will to live. When the shit hits the fan, we're going to be counting on it to make a lot of things happen.

The Melting Pot has mysterious powers.

Posted by: Crid at May 18, 2007 11:51 AM


It matters on the nations and the individuals within the M.E. She is popular among secular or ’observant’ Muslims, but highly unpopular among the devout, because she is Tuluva. Most Tuluvas share the religious diversity found in India, except Islam. I’ve even met Christian Tuluvas in Mumbai, but no Muslims. There is a natural cultural hostility found among the Tuluvas in India and around the world.

Aishwarya Rai is quite popular within the nations around India even in Pakistan. But most Bollywood movies are heavily censored within the secular M.E. nations. Now DVD copies of Bollywood movies are another story and I've been in many homes in the M.E. with large collections of Indian and Western movies.

The two most popular Hollywood actresses are Salma Hayek and Sandra Bullock within the Middle East.

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 12:33 PM

While I tend to agree with you moe99, I think that one reason for that should be our strong insistence on the separation of church and state.

To the extent that taxicabs are a regulated business providing service to the public, I agree with Amy that we should not less taxicab drivers determine who they can or cannot serve, especially based on religious reasons.

I think that's true of pharmacists refusing to sell legally prescribed emergency contraceptives.

Or of Minnesota colleges using taxpayer funds to install basins for wudu practices in their restrooms.

I welcome all religious groups here, but to an extent, only if they all can agree on separation of church and state.

And that goes double for Opus Dei and our Washington Elites.

Posted by: anon at May 18, 2007 12:33 PM

establishing beachheads in Western countries and having lots of babies.

There's one little flaw with that strategy: said babies will have spent their entire lives living in Western countries, among Western people.

The constant "death to the evil infidels" speech is going to ring hollow with kids who've spent their entire lives living with infidels, befriending infidels, being treated with respect by infidels, and seeing firsthand the great lives that infidels lead.

Let's not overestimate the appeal of Islam. They offer a strict authoritarian religion where God tells your wife to clean up your boogers. America offers a life filled with free expression, wealth, alcohol, junk food, pornography, casual sex, drugs, shallow consumerism, moral depravity, and your choice of consequence-free belief systems to enjoy it all with. Who do you think is going to win more converts?

Posted by: Gary S. at May 18, 2007 12:40 PM

I agree with Amy that we should not less taxicab drivers determine who they can or cannot serve, especially based on religious reasons.

I think that's true of pharmacists refusing to sell legally prescribed emergency contraceptives.

Or of Minnesota colleges using taxpayer funds to install basins for wudu practices in their restrooms.

There's this notion that everybody has a right to every job or to have every practice they favor coddled to. It's idiotic.

For example: I would have loved to spend some time as a flight attendant so I could travel on the cheap. Unfortunately, I get very sick on planes. And then there are equally good reasons I'm not playing forward in the NBA. If you can't carry people carrying wine or accompanied by a Leader Dog, don't be a taxi driver.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 12:50 PM

Apologies for an offtopic comment, but earlier today I ran across this quote from Bill Cosby.

I am proud to be an American. Because an American can eat anything on the face of this earth as long as he has two pieces of bread.

Hmm, two nights ago's roast on two pieces of bread with bbq sauce!

Posted by: jerry at May 18, 2007 12:51 PM


the original statement that I objected to was:
"...but maybe some or many of us will either be forced to convert or be killed within your lifetime, for refusing to bow to primitivity like this."

You offered up 200 years as the time span needed for a Muslim takeover of the US. Explain to me how to reconcile those two statements.

Posted by: moe99 at May 18, 2007 1:45 PM

Or of Minnesota colleges using taxpayer funds to install basins for wudu practices in their restrooms.

I heard some discussion of this on NPR. The president of one school said they made the decision to install the basins for safety reasons, not multi-culti reasons. People were using the sinks instead, and were making the floors slippery. I can see why a school would make this sort of decision - cater to a minority group, hire "bathroom police"(a nasty notion all around) or face liability for injuries.

Posted by: justin case at May 18, 2007 1:58 PM

There's one little flaw with that strategy: said babies will have spent their entire lives living in Western countries, among Western people.

A flaw you might have encountered had you continued to read my post.

Posted by: justin case at May 18, 2007 2:01 PM

“the original statement that I objected to was:
..but maybe some or many of us will either be forced to convert or be killed within your lifetime, for refusing to bow to primitivity like this."

How would I know which specific line of Amy's comment you would find offensive?

I offered the example of ONE Egyptian cleric's views on the takeover of the USA. Now did he specify the exact details of the takeover? No. This is an example of the cultural arrogance found within the rigid clerical class of Islam. The actual details originate with the Jihadis. The clerics do the inspiring of the rank and file.

My views are quite different from the online war nerds and the White House. I don't believe there is an A.Q. terrorist under every American's bed. One of the strengths of Islamist movements is the lack of a centralized structure. You can take any Muslim community within the USA and not find one Jihadi cell. But in a week,… could one be established in short notice. Will this happen? Perhaps. There is plenty of physical evidence of recruiting, financing and plenty of PR videos.

Now would you consider their views as a pure fantasy? Wishful thinking? An exercise in futility? Does your inability to see the potential threat validate your own false sense of security? Or stop them from trying to carry out their plans? What are your views of this particular behavior? A jihadi version of a harmless boy scout jamboree? A Middle Eastern version of paint ball war games on the weekends?

Posted by: Joe at May 18, 2007 3:00 PM

A flaw you might have encountered had you continued to read my post.

My face is red. That's what I get for responding to a comment that caught my eye, and not reading the whole thing.

Posted by: Gary S. at May 18, 2007 5:57 PM

> The two most popular Hollywood
> actresses are Salma Hayek and
> Sandra Bullock

That's fascinating. Hayek has fabulous breasts, but Bullock is only conventionally attractive. I saw her on the street once in Santa Monica walking out of the Georgian Hotel in (or thereabouts) in the mid 90's... I think she was shooting "The Net." She was pretty, but no prettier than the waitress in coffeehouse I was on the way to.

Also, I saw Aishwarya Rai serving pies with extra mushrooms at a Chuck E. Cheese in Culver City in 1998.

(OK, that last part is not really true.)

Why, mammalian protuberances excepted, are these particular actresses beloved? Brunettes are not that hard to find.

Posted by: Crid at May 18, 2007 6:11 PM

I would guess that they look to them like women they're used to, and that they find more western women (blondes and redheads and women with sandy-brown hair) strange and off-putting...much like ethnic groups tend to keep to themselves if they haven't had exposure to other groups/races. In studies I've read, the comfort level with "other-looking" people improves with personal exposure.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 18, 2007 6:20 PM

Well, Salma isn't Mexican in the true landscape of the nation. Her mother is one of the direct descendents of the Conquistadors. The father side is Lebanese Catholic. Also, most people don't know the ruling elite of Mexico, besides the higher castes are Middle Eastern Christians. So she has that Middle Eastern flair, along with Shakira.

Sandra Bullock is the ideal American girl next door dream for Middle Eastern men and a modern role model for the women without the 'tramp' baggage. This is the public image around the Middle East about embracing modernity.

Both actresses would be the ideal outside of their similar physical appearances. The whole package: looks, appearance, sexiness without sluttiness, intelligence and the healthier views of modernity. Femininity in balance. So Salma and Sandra would be the ideal girls to bring home to the parents and relatives.

Now if you debating on which actress is ideal for a one night stand it would be quite different. Also, it would be difficult to gather the information in a public forum, because these matters are not discussed with strangers.

Remember, people in the M.E. place a higher value of symbols along with their history and culture.

Posted by: Joe at May 19, 2007 11:52 AM

I've noticed that before Joe, but never thought about it. Most Mexican actors are at least in part Middle Eastern and something else. Carlos Slim Helu comes to mind too.

Posted by: PurplePen at May 19, 2007 1:27 PM

That's what I get for responding to a comment that caught my eye, and not reading the whole thing.

Happens to everyone from time to time.

Posted by: justin case at May 19, 2007 5:05 PM

hey Joe
Do you know how Middle-Easterners felt about what they told you in terms of how much they told you when you live/d there?

I mean you probably could tell if they distrusted you and didn't say much - but then of the guys that did tell you what they thought- did you you see a diffence in where they would tell you what they thought by bragging vs what they said when they thought you agreed with them vs what they just let out not worried about what you thought.

I don't know - I'm just sort of curious about the length of time you spend in the area and your knowledge of tiqyyya.

Posted by: newjonny at May 19, 2007 8:08 PM

> Now if you debating on which
> actress is ideal for a one night
> stand it would be quite different.

Well, now that you mention it, those are the preferred parameters of my appraisal. It's an American thing.

Seriously... Nobody (here) cares whether Scarlett Johanson comes from money or abject poverty, from a family of great achievement or a string of poor fisherman. The theme of American stardom, as of so many American movies, is that a single individual can through heroic effort be an agent of pivotal change, if only in their own life.

A friends from India says the plot of every Bollywood movie goes: Boy meets girl and falls in love; her father rejects the boy; the boy presses and is rejected again; a "whole bunch of stuff happens" (ie, nothing); father finally relents, and boy and girl live happily ever after.

Theme of American movies: Arnold fucking Schwartzegger kicks ass, dude! He rescues the very fabric of the space/time continuum itself!

One the sweetest news stories that came out of these wars was word that once the Taliban had been overwhelmed in Afghanistan, millions of young men went out and got haircuts like Leo in Titanic. Our heroic images are just that powerful, even when the hero dies.

America still leads the world in its hospitality to aspiration.

Posted by: Crid at May 19, 2007 9:31 PM


Its about the tone of the conversation. Arabic is very expressive and the use of particular words would have significant meaning within their conversations. Also, consistency is very important. A lot of times they will tell you want you want to hear at the moment, because they believe you are not going to be sticking around in the area. This is a common practice among Iraqis towards the US authorities. The infamous Arab Doublespeak. The reason I have real friends in the Middle East is based on my years there and the consistency in actions and attitudes on both sides. Also, I have a special technique in making friends/connections in hostile or chaotic places through the basics of group psychology. I will joke with my Western friends on having a PhD in Arab Mindfuck techniques. You do not learn this in the Diplomatic Corps or any major Mid East Studies Departments (the scum of academia) located at the various ivy league universities. Only through years of experience.

It is quite common to practice tiquyya where the Muslim population is a distinct minority. Are you surprised that actual board members of CAIR have been indicted, arrested, tried and in some cases deported from the USA on terrorist related activities? Also, the practices comes in many forms or versions.

Personally, I label it as explicit and implicit tiqyya. The implicit version are Muslim activists who preach diversity, modernity, they want special protections based on their minority status and value interfaith dialogue, but they still practice a literal version of Islam. Also they demand the West to recognize all their practices, even the ones that openly conflict with our secular laws. The explicit is the hidden practice of jihadis who pretend to be completely Americanized and are part of the nation’s fabric until their day of martyrdom. Even these groups are easy to spot based on the year of their arrival into the states. Work histories. Living arrangements and everyday conversations based on the subject and tone in Arabic.

Now notice the cultural differences from a Western point of view of the terms implicit and explicit? This is an example of their regional doublespeak. Its not the value of the terms, but the end goals of the agenda that is important. The hidden jihadis have an explicit goal, but they will use secretive, dishonest techniques and public forms of blasphemy. The opposite of the vocal activist who demands one sided diversity and multiculturalism with an implicit goal. The goal of establishing a safe haven or launching pad by weakening the nation’s secular laws. Thereby weakening the effectiveness of the particular nation’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

I hope this helps with your questions.

Posted by: Joe at May 20, 2007 11:07 AM

Very interesting thanks.
No, between CAIR and the explicit side they seem to have a well rounded plan - and they don't even need to discuss or plan in concert.

Now I just shake my head and worry when I see stuff like Islamberg and the place in Albermerl Virginia (related to Sheik Gilani) if I remember correctly. From Gates of Vienna - you may have come across it. They are adding another dimension if he has his facts correct. I don't see why they wouldn't be accurate though.

Posted by: newjonny at May 21, 2007 10:45 AM

I've written a few past posts on Gilani's Jamaat ul-Fuqra's involvement in the murder of Muslim schismatic (subsect of the Qur'an Alone movement) leader Rashad Khalifa in 1990.

Posted by: Joe at May 21, 2007 12:59 PM

Without minimizing the importance of your post ( I agree with you whole heartedly) but I laughed so hard I cried at the dinner napkin comment.

Keep up the good work!

Posted by: Erika at May 21, 2007 5:38 PM

Thank you...if anything, I'm not P.C.!

And Joe, thank you, yet again.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 21, 2007 5:56 PM

Useful site. Thanks!!
generic viagra zenegra

Posted by: generic viagra zenegra at April 2, 2008 1:01 PM

Leave a comment