THE legal momentum for and against same-sex “marriage” here in the United States is quietly tearing away at the moral fabric of America’s society and is poised to redefine the traditional meaning of marriage on a global scale, one that is firmly rooted in centuries of religious tradition.  The traditional conception of marriage, one based on a firmly-rooted religious foundation, is the bedrock of human civilization and has served to transmit unshakable moral and ethical values among its inhabitants.  That same-sex “marriage” is now an “issue” or “debate” only points to a cataclysmic proposal that, if granted the force of law within all nation-states, will debase civilization’s moral standards still further.  Indeed, if same-sex “marriage” becomes a social reality for all societies around the globe, then all moral standards will collapse.

For hundreds of years now, unchecked capitalism is the main engine that renders all religious moral values null and void; it has guided the European idea of a “separation” of “Church and State”.  Now, gay-rights advocates are grasping the legal momentum for “marriage equality” and nation-states are all too eager to reap a financial wind-fall.  We must understand that the European legal tradition, to which other nation-states in the Middle East and elsewhere seek for guidance, prizes economic, not moral, considerations as the primary engine of social change.

Marriage is big business.   The aura of romantic bliss fades as soon as the future bride and groom consider the projected cost of the wedding bill:  the wedding ring, the tuxedos, the dresses; the wedding venue (usually a religious one), the photographers, the food, the cake; the invitations – well, you get the idea.  Consumers spend, and retailers relish the profits. The economy improves.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2004), consumer spending topped $3 trillion and constituted more than one-third of consumer spending here in the United States.

Same-sex “marriage” is big business, too.  We imagine homosexual couples experience the same economic travails consistent with wedding preparations as much as heterosexual couples do.  According to a May 2009 economic projection analysis conducted by the New York City Comptroller’s office, New York State’s economy could gain as much as $210 million within three years, providing that New York State legalize same-sex “marriage”.

If gay-rights advocates succeed, no longer will the traditional definition of marriage be a social necessity.  No longer will “marriage” be associated with religious elements, such as “the sacred relationship, in the Sight of God, between a man and a woman”.  The main core of marriage will then be based on legal and economic foundations alone. The religious dimension of marriage, a solid foundation that has guided civilizations for centuries, will then be ignored and thus receive little or no consideration.  The European Enlightenment philosophy of individual rights and liberties led its legislators to canonize a separation of Church and State.  One U.S. sociologist now propose that individual states no longer marry couples in the hope of ending the debate between “traditional” (i.e. religious) and “legal” marriages.

Nearly seven months ago I attended a wedding in a Pentecostal Church in Kingston, Jamaica, the West Indies.  Before the bride and groom said their “I-Dos” before the pastor and the congregation, significant church members escorted them into a tiny room, where both signed a legal, or civil, contract.  The contract informs the Jamaican government that both parties are now married and are entitled to all the legal and economic benefits granted to them and their children. Heterosexual couples here in the United States also sign legal contracts recognized by all 51 states in the Union.  New York State, like other states, does not recognize a marriage without a legal contract, even though religious authorities bind both parties in marriage.  A heterosexual married couple in New York State who decides to move to another state is still married.  They remain entitled to the legal and economic benefits granted by that state.  There is legal uniformity.

This legal uniformity, however, remains intact, at least for now.  In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, or D.O.M.A., that exempts states from recognizing “same-sex marriages” performed in another state.  Opponents of gay rights within the U.S. Congress were so concerned that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage in every state was proposed in 2003, 2004 and 2006. Their collective efforts failed; the amendment failed to garner a two-thirds majority of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, the legal benchmark for sending a federal constitutional amendment to the respective states for ratification.

Gay-rights advocates are now challenging this legal uniformity throughout many states of the Union.  Armed with financial capital, lobbying finesse and significant contributions from Hollywood elites, gay-rights advocates are persuading state legislators throughout the United States to legally recognize same-sex “marriage”.  Their political efforts are posting some positive results.  Six states in the Union now legalize same-sex “marriage”, including Massachusetts and Connecticut.  About a month ago the New York State Senate voted down an amendment to the state constitution legalizing same-sex “marriage”, sending many gay-rights advocates, including heterosexuals, into the streets of New York to air their concerns and bolster their determination to win their legal battle in New York within the near future. New Jersey’s state legislators are poised to vote on an amendment to the state constitution legalizing same-sex “marriage” soon.

The legal battle over legalizing same-sex “marriage” is won when the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether homosexual couples have a constitutional right to do so, because then its decision will strike down all state laws prohibiting same-sex “marriage” throughout the United States.    This legal battle is anchored to whether the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to privacy.  The word “privacy” does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, but it does recognize certain rights relating to privacy.  The 4^th amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures”, while the 9^th amendment declares there are rights “retained by the people” that do not explicitly appear in the Bill of Rights.  The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has made many rulings during this past century that has expanded privacy interests; in 1905 it struck down state laws denying employees the right to enter into employment arrangements on their terms [Lochner v. New York]; in 1965 it struck down state laws prohibiting the sale and use of birth-control, thus granting married couples the right to determine whether to have children or not [Griswold v. Connecticut]; in 1967 it banned state laws banning interracial marriage [Loving v. Virginia]; and in 1972 it struck down state laws prohibiting women from aborting fetuses, thereby declaring that the U.S. Constitution implicitly guarantees women the “right” to an abortion [Roe v. Wade].  Given these U.S. Supreme Courts’ legal rulings so far that now extend individual privacy interests – to employment relations, contraception, interracial marriage, and abortion -, expect the U.S. Supreme Court to entertain the constitutionality of “same-sex marriage” in the near future.

So why do homosexuals want to marry?  Why not settle for “civil unions”?  Besides, “civil unions” grant homosexuals the legal and economic guarantees traditionally granted to heterosexual couples.

Gay-rights advocates are now convinced that there is no social distinction between “traditional (religious)” marriage and “legal” marriage.  They are convinced that the ultimate force of law, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, will ultimately enforce a new social meaning to the definition of marriage.  To buttress their position on marriage, gay-rights advocates now merge their political cause to win similar legal gains granted to African-Americans through the civil-rights movement.  Gay-rights advocates now say that they, like African-Americans before them, deserve expanded legal protections due their “disadvantaged social status”.  This legal strategy was proven to be successful in the past; however, there is no similarity between the gay-rights movement and the civil rights movement.  A black man has the right to marry a white woman, and vice-versa.  But does a mother have the right to marry her son, and vice-versa?  Does an uncle have the right to marry his niece, or a brother the right to marry his sister?  While these relationship scenarios are morally repugnant, even for those who are unbelievers who subscribe to the maxim “equality for all”, they are certainly within a rational realm of possibility, if gay-rights advocates continue to win legal battles that point to the social reality of same-sex “marriage”.

Reacting to foreign influences, some African countries are now considering laws banning same-sex “marriage”.  Uganda is now considering legislation that would mandate the death-penalty to active homosexuals in cases of same-sex rape or H.I.V., and friends would face up to seven years in prison if they fail to report them to the authorities.  Anyone convicted of a homosexual act will face life in prison, if convicted, and anyone with “religious, political, economic or social authority” would face three years in prison if they fail to report anyone violating the law.  David Bahati, a legislator sponsoring the bill, asserted that these strict measures were necessary to stop homosexuals from “recruiting” school-children. “The youths in secondary schools copy everything from the Western world and America… A good number of students have been converted into gays.  We hear there are groups of people given money by some gay organizations in developed countries to recruit youths into gay activities”.  Uganda’s ethics minister, James Nsaba Buturo, concedes that the death penalty clause should be considered but that the law serves to resist foreign influence.  “I feel that the law is good and necessary, but I don’t think gays should be killed. They should be imprisoned for about a year and warned never to do it again. Homosexuality “is not natural in Uganda”, he added. “The family is in danger in Uganda because the rate at which vice is spreading is appalling”, said shopkeeper John Muwanguzi.  Nigeria is now considering strengthening penalties for activities deemed to promote homosexuality; the practice is now punishable by imprisonment or death.  Burundi recently banned “same-sex relationships” and Rwanda is considering it.

Same-sex “marriage” is not a “debate”, nor is it an “issue”.  Stand tall for moral decency by considering the cataclysmic moral consequences associated with “same-sex marriage”.  Resist the rising tide of global moral degeneration by paying close attention to this growing issue and register your disapproval with this “same-sex marriage” proposal through political might and social action.

The writer is a recent revert to Islam and can be reached at:  drummondhugh@verizon.net

First posted at dailymuslims.com on June 26, 2008

WESTERN civilization has sunk itself deeper in the gutter of secularism. In the name of equality, State of Colorado passed a law which will make all public accommodation – malls, restaurants, schools, small and even home businesses gender free. It means that there will be no men and women signs on restrooms. Men can legally use women’s restrooms and women can legally use men’s restrooms. For pervert secularists, it is another victory for gender equality. For pervert feminists, it is another victory against gender discrimination.

View from any angle, this law has no merits. It does not serve the cause of any body in the society except the perverts – cross-dressers, trans-genders, gays, lesbians, sexual predators, child molesters, atheists etc. etc..

The surprising fact is that how a pervert minority has destroyed a traditional society like America in forty years. How every sin in Old Testaments, New Testament and Qur’an is legalized or accepted by society. Every sin in Old Testament, New Testament and Qur’an is legalized in the name of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Man can marry a man and woman can marry a woman. This is the hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Sodomy was once a crime; now if it two adults consent, it is not a crime. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Once having a child without marriage was not accepted by society; now out of wedlock children are permanent fixture of society. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Even teenagers are allowed to have children out of wedlock. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization. Once men and women living together as husbands and wives without marriages were not accepted by society; now men and women living together as husbands and wives are a permanent fixture of society. This is another hallmark of pervert freedom and pervert equality of western civilization of western civilization.

Even today, in a population of 300 million there are only 35 millions perverts in American society. How this pervert minority has destroyed a traditional society in forty years? Why the majority of the Americans has allowed this tiny pervert minority to perverts the traditional society? Where is the leadership of ‘democratic America?’ Why the leadership of democratic America cares more for 35 millions perverts and ignores 365 millions Americans? The answer is very simple to all these questions. Democratic leadership of America itself is pervert.

Take the curse of homosexuality which is plaguing American society. Where the leadership of democratic America stands? Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) found herself being jeered and booed by thousands of New York firemen and policemen at a 9-11 benefit concert on Saturday evening. VH1 cameras caught New York's finest screaming at the Senator to get off the stage. One police officer yelled, "Get off the stage! We don't want you here!" Senator Clinton apparently cut short her speech and her time on stage. Senator Clinton, of course, found a far more receptive audience when she gave a speech at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) dinner on October 5. She is obviously more at home among homosexuals and leftists than with firemen and policemen. During her speech, she likened the terrorist attack on New York to a "hate crime" and suggested that Congress should pass pro-homosexual hate crime legislation. She also said she wanted federal legislation passed to legalize homosexual "domestic partners" so that homosexuals can have the same "rights" as married couples reports Traditional Value Coalition. Title of the report is ‘Hillary Clinton Booed By New York Heroes But Applauded By Homosexuals.’

“Domestic partner” is another name of marriage between man and man and between woman and woman.

Think about if this pervert is president of the United States, who will rule the United States and the world? The perverts like Senator Clinton.

And what about another pervert called Obama. How he views homosexuality? “In a sit-down interview with the "gay" magazine the Advocate, Sen. Barack Obama said, if elected, he foresees eliminating the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" and passing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, opposed by many faith-based groups that argue it would force them to accept homosexuals in leadership. Obama also boasted he's been more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history. Obama said that throughout his career he has fought to eliminate discrimination against LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) Americans." (Obama promises 'gays' 'strongest possible bill'. Tells homosexual mag he's 'more vocal' for them than any candidate in history, WorldNetDaily, April 10, 2008)

The good news is that perverts secularists are facing a challenge from the value voters. “Congress may be adjourned for the Memorial Day recess, but a series of misguided state bills aren’t providing any relief for pro-family groups. Just ask the residents of Colorado, where locals are bracing themselves for an “anti-bias” law that is actually changing where people use the restroom. Yesterday, over the protests of thousands of families, Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, “gender-free.” In other words, anyone–regardless of their biological identity–will be welcome in the men’s or ladies’ room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who haven’t made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines “public accommodations” as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses. The other side says this is about discrimination. But the chance of offending a few people hardly justifies putting everyone else at risk, which is exactly what SB 200 does. For every transvestite who takes advantage of this law, there are a dozen sexual predators who will see this as a chance to put women and children into a vulnerable situation. Focus on the Family launched a statewide awareness campaign, but in the end, even Colorado’s largest Christian ministry couldn’t compete with Ritter’s desire to pay off liberal financier Tim Gill, who sank serious dollars into the governor’s election campaign in 2006. From here all eyes will turn to MontgomeryCounty, [Maryland], where a November ballot initiative will determine the fate of its bathroom bill.”(FRC Takes on Colorado Transgender ‘Bathroom Bills, American for Truth for homosexuality)

Pervert Obama who has a prime seat under his big tent for the pervert lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender, have no space for the Muslim mothers and sisters with head scarves. Note what happen to two Muslims ladies who wanted to attend the rally of pervert Obama. “They were attracted to his message of diversity and unity, but two Muslim women who went to Barack Osama’s rally at Joe Louis Arena on Monday went home feeling left out. They were barred from prime seats behind the stage because of their traditional Muslim head scarves, after campaign volunteers had invited their non-Muslim friends to the seats.” (FREE PRESS, June 19, 2008)

Introduction of free-gender restrooms demonstrate that Americans have no right to lecture other nations about morality and values. It is a nation of perverts, of the perverts and by the perverts.

Pervert defined: To cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right (Merriam-Webster dictionary

WHEN a reader tipped me to a talk delivered by a slave owner in 1712, entitled "The Making of a Slave," I decided to compare past and present.

Past methods of enslavement were highly sophisticated, and closely resemble modern feminist social engineering.

Willie Lynch was a British slave owner in the West Indies. He was invited to the colony of Virginia in 1712 to teach his methods to slave owners there.

He advised slave owners to foster division, "fear, envy and distrust for control." Pit young versus old, light skinned versus dark skinned and most importantly, male versus female.

In a section called "The Breaking Process of the African Woman," he advocated shifting her dependency from the African male to the slave owner.  This is achieved by beating and humiliating the male in front of the female. Then, beating the female if she doesn't get the message. This instills a kind of frigidity.

"We reversed nature by burning and pulling a civilized nigger apart, and bull whipping the other to the point of death, all in her presence. By her being left alone, unprotected, with the male image destroyed, the ordeal caused her to move from her psychological dependent state to a frozen independent state. In this frozen psychological state of independence, she will raise her male and female offspring in reverse roles."

"For fear of the young male's life she will psychologically train him to be mentally weak and dependent, but physically strong. Because she has become psychologically independent, she will train her female offspring to be psychologically independent. What have you got? You've got the nigger woman out front and the nigger man behind and scared. This is a perfect situation of sound sleep and economic."

She will teach her female offspring "to be like herself, independent and negotiable (...we negotiate her at will.)" She will raise her "nigger male offspring to be mentally dependent and weak, but physically strong, in other words body over mind."

"We will mate and breed them and continue the cycle. This is good and sound and long range comprehensive planning."

Sound familiar?  We recognize these patterns in the US Black community, and, thanks to the hidden agenda of feminism, increasingly in the White.

AVOIDING SELF CORRECTION

"Willie Lynch" starts to sound like the Cabalist author of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

"By reversing the positions of the male and female savages, we created an orbited cycle that turns on its own axis forever.." But "our experts" warned us of the danger that the mind might correct itself  "if it can touch some substantial historical base." They advised us to "shave off the brute's mental history and create a multiplicity of phenomena of illusions, so that each illusion will twirl in its own orbit, sometimes similar to floating balls in a vacuum."

I haven't heard our society described better. Our collective identity (race, religion,nation and family) is being systematically erased and replaced by air. Lynch goes on to promote interracial breeding so the slaves are different shades of color befitting different levels of labor "and different values of illusion at each connecting level of labor."

"Cross breeding niggers means taking so many drops of good white blood and putting them into as many nigger women as possible, varying the drops by the various tones that you want, and then letting them breed with each other until another cycle of color appears as you desire."

In Orwellian fashion, Lynch concludes by stressing the importance of creating a new language befitting slavery. "We must completely annihilate the mother tongue of the new nigger..."
Again sounding like a Cabalist, he says, "language is a peculiar institution. It leads to the heart of a people. The more a foreigner knows about the language of a country the more he is able to move through all levels of that society. Therefore if the foreigner is an enemy, the country is vulnerable to attack or invasion of a foreign culture."

For example, the slave should learn the term "hog pen" but never "house."

CONCLUSION

Some people think this speech is apocryphal. The language has been modernized. Was the term "nigger" used in 1712?

However, Blacks seem to think the speech is genuine. It is on many Black websites.

The point is that we are being socially engineered to be slaves in much the same way as Blacks were, and by the very same people.

The modern female has been "frozen psychologically" and now depends on the slave owner (government, corporation) for her security. The modern male is emasculated, strong in body but not in mind, grateful to be allowed to serve a master, often a woman. (www.henrymakow.com)
--
Related--Makow "The Cabalist Plot to Enslave Humanity"

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8081

First time posted at DailyMuslims.com on February 6, 2008

REVOLUTION implies an extraordinary change. But the change is not always the antibiotic that kills the infection and treats the disease. Instead it may be the hypnotic that sedates, addicts and slowly poisons. For any colossal transformation to be valuable, it has to be for the better. If huge changes do not end into salubrious fruition, they have no credentials to be called a Revolution. Imperialism, which has economic fundamentalism as its backbone, has used every tactic to strengthen its stronghold on the masses. What can be a better way to do this than to commercialize human susceptibilities? And what can be the most paying of all susceptibilities except sex. This wholesale commercialization of sex has spawned what the forces of modernity boastfully call Sexual Revolution.

“Sexual Revolution” is in truth the nadir of human behavior. It has proved to be not the antibiotic but the hypnotic. It has heralded nemesis of individual’s peaceful existence, family’s peaceful sustenance and society’s peaceful countenance. It has derailed every body from the right course, nailed every institution and failed every development; it has only bailed the merchants. It has made humanity look ludicrous; it has thinned to almost non-existence the demarcating line between human and animal. It has sacrificed abiding happiness at the altars of instant fun; and has crucified health on the cross of wealth. It has made character moribund by slaughtering the inspector of conscience that sustained it. It has pierced childhood, hanged womanhood and polluted manhood. It has snatched the apron of shyness that used to adore and protect woman, and has made her transvest the lingerie of shamelessness. It has transfigured man from a lover and protector of woman to mere usurper. It has made love without sex to look abnormal and ridiculous but sex without love to appear natural and admirable. It has reduced love to lovemaking, and has made lovemaking a perpetual captive of unadulterated lust. It has trounced parenthood and transfixed childhood. It has buried fatherhood and sickened motherhood. It has bulldozed the world and brought mankind to the verge of total collapse. Sexual Revolution is the python that must be trapped at the earliest and killed without delay.

Sexual Revolution has taught us that sex is not for life but life is for sex. That sex must overrule every other consideration and overcome every obstacle in its way. If it is the custodian of Law, it must learn to behave; if it is the inspector of Religion, it has to be dismissed; and if it is the police of morality, it has to be confronted. It has made us believe that sex must not necessarily be between a human and a human; it can be between a human and an animal. That sex must not always require two sexes; it may be between a man and a man, and between a woman and a woman. That sex must not have to be between two adults: it may be between an adult and a child. That sex may not unfailingly involve those who are not linked by blood; it may involve a mother and a son, a father and a daughter and a brother and a sister. That sex should not always be limited to two individuals; many may join simultaneously. That sex must not necessarily use organs that are naturally meant for it. That sex must not necessarily be enjoyed away from the public gaze; it may be performed in front of staring eyes and exhilarating hearts and brains. That sex must not necessitate any formal declaration; any two consenting individuals can have it without warranting any social or legal sanction. That, in extreme circumstances, sex does not even require consent; if one is smart enough to hoodwink Law or bold enough to face it, one may even rape without fearing too much. That sex does not have to be for fulfilling one’s legitimate physical and psychological desires; it may also be for filling one’s coffer. That sex need not be the corollary of love; it may be purchased or sold in the market. That whatever comes in the way of sex must be mercilessly got away with even if it is a human-in-making. In nutshell, Sexual Revolution has convinced us that sex knows no bounds. The old saying must be redefined thus: everything is fair in love, sex and war.

Let us trace the history of Sexual Revolution! Its history is in fact the history of the rise of economic fundamentalism that is the pivot around which imperialism revolves. Let us focus here on some specific events that are regarded as important “milestones” in the triumphant march of Sexual Revolution! The first major work on the subject entitled Psychopathica Sexualis was published in 1886. The book discussed sexual oddities like arousal of women by putting on men’s clothing and attraction of men to women’s gloves. Obviously, it coincided with the early advance of Industrial Revolution that had put economic fundamentalism in the lead in the world developments. It was at about the same time that Sigmund Feud’s “celebrated” work shocked the world. He proposed the thesis that adult sexual proclivities had their origin in childhood. In the following years, the gay rights movement was born in Germany. Its founder, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs campaigned for legalizing homosexuality.

Havelook Ellis’ Studies in the Psychology of Sex carried the theme forward. He attempted to depathologise masturbation, orgasm, sexual pleasure between husbands and wives and homosexuality. These seeds had for obvious reasons the support of the merchants who had started visualizing sex as a great money plant. Celia Mosher discussed women’s orgasm and lambasted Victorian clothing that could ‘distort’ the internal organs. The first sex institute was founded in Berlin. Margaret Sanger is credited with the legalisation of birth control. That can obviously be regarded as a giant leap ahead in the march towards Sexual Revolution. She founded Planned Parenthood. The first nudist colony was opened in Germany as early as in 1903. The discoveries of sex hormones in the 1920s simplified the birth control measures. The period after the World War II witnessed huge activities at the sexual front.

People perhaps wanted to bury the savage memories of the war in the fantasies of sex. Alfred Kinsey published his massive studies of the males and females in 1948 and 1953 respectively. He proved that about half the men had been unfaithful to their wives and one fourth of women to their husbands. This was a clear attempt to normalize promiscuity. He also tried to normalize homosexuality showing that it was much more common than was believed. This survey sought to convey the message that, if one committed a sexual misdemeanor, one should not hide it. Hypocrisy was worse than the sin itself. Strange argument indeed! To commit adultery is alright. But it is not right to hide that you have committed it. You can do a major evil. But you must not indulge in a smaller one. This was a conscious attempt to make people express what they had been doing. This would convince people that they were not alone in committing those evils. This would reduce the feeling of guilt from their hearts. More and more people would jump on the bandwagon of freedom of sex. With the demolition of guilt by the normalization of perverse sexual behavior, those involved in it would not even think of reforming themselves. They need not because they were only doing what most of the others did.

The media then got into the act with the publication of the first edition of Playboy in 1953. The films started depicting sexual intimacies and naked bodies. Playboy encouraged women to bare themselves before the camera because, “if they are beautiful, they must show it to the world”. And if they had a hidden asset, why not cash in on it? By now the researches related to sex had started attracting all the disciplines.

The first serious study of the physiology of sexual arousal and orgasm was published in 1960s. This study demonstrated the utility of vaginal lubrication and established a formal mechanism of sex therapy. With the “baby boomers” becoming sexually active, the real Sexual Revolution began in the 60s. Sex education was introduced in schools and colleges. Premarital sex became a norm rather than the exception. Striptease, cabarets and pornography had already started making huge inroads into the private lives of men and women. The increasing promiscuity, homosexuality and other perversities combined to elevate the incidence of STDs. The biggest jolt to the Revolution came in the form of AIDS. But by now, sex had become such a force in the economic development that nothing could stop its advance, which still continues almost unabated. And at the turn of the Century, Viagra made its grand entry. It was hailed as big a revolution as was the contraceptive pill. The pill “revolutionized” sex by substantially diminishing the fear of pregnancy that made women feel safe in sex outside marriage. Viagra sought to “revolutionize” sexuality by taking the libido to new heights. With all the fears gone and exciting prospects, the “Sexual Revolution” is well on the course to ultimate “glory”.

As America and Europe can be regarded as the pivots of the revolution, their histories can be a valuable guide to understanding the transformation from a puritanical society to a depraved one. Goodbeer in his book “Sexual Revolution in Early America” has described the difference in the popular beliefs about America’s puritan past and the reality prevalent there. A review of the book says:

“In 1695, John Miller, a clergyman traveling through New York, found it appalling that so many couples lived together without ever being married and that no one viewed “ante-nuptial fornication” as anything scandalous or sinful. Charles Woodmason, an Anglican Minister in South Carolina in 1766 described the region as a “stage of debauchery” in which polygamy was “very common”, “concubinage general,” and “bastardy no disrepute”. These depictions of colonial North America’s sexual culture sharply contradict the stereotype of Puritanical abstinence that persists in the popular imagination. …Godbeer’s absorbing narrative uncovers a persistent struggle between the moral authorities and the widespread expression of popular customs and individual urges…”

It can be safely argued that “Sexual Revolution” has contributed immensely to the economic power that the West in general and the US in particular has enamored itself with. It is no surprise that the US also boasts of being the sexual superpower of the world. This confirms the extraordinary role sex has played in the exaltation of the US. But alas! This zenith in the economic and military fields has run a concourse with the nadir in moral values, social security and family peace. The superpower of the world is also the superpower in terms of crimes, suicides, broken marriages, single parenthood, child molestation and bastardies. Hundreds of times the number the Americans killed on account of Terrorism are killed through the sexuality preached and practiced by the forces that control their minds. Yet, the US government seems to be preoccupied only with “Islamic Terrorism” for which it has brought almost the whole world to the brink of disaster. Sexual Terrorism that kills millions of people throughout the world, murders millions of children before they are born, torments millions of families and exploits and assaults millions of women and children is ignored with criminal neglect.

Still, I hope American people can play the most powerful role in eradicating this deadliest form of the world terrorism. They have suffered the most on account of this and would benefit the most if they succeed in giving it a fatal blow. They have to convince their government to choose priorities among threats, on the basis of the havoc they cause to health, family and society. And if they fight this terrorism, “Islamic terrorists” will join them – they will have no other option – as friends not foes. The real peace at the international level will then no longer remain a dream. It will become a reality for all to see and enjoy. And it is commendable that there are people in the US already who have been campaigning for sexual restraints and promotion of marriage as the standard method of realizing sex.

The United States Welfare Reform Act 1996 was a step in the right direction. It recognizes marriage as “the foundation of a successful society” and “an essential institution of a successful society, which promotes the interests of children.” This is quite remarkable in the situation that prevails in America. The Act emphasises and promotes “abstinence” as the only fully safe method to avoid pregnancies and STDs. It teaches “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children.” Endorsing this Act, President Clinton was quoted by New York Times, January 5, 1997, as saying, “All of you need to help us send the strongest possible message: it’s wrong to be pregnant or father a child unless you are married and ready to take on the responsibilities of parenthood.” Great words from Clinton. Unfortunately, however, there seems to have been little progress on the social field that can attest to any remarkable change in the sexual lives of the people of the US after the Act.

It may be wrongly concluded that I have fixed my guns only at West. The truth is that no part of the world is absolutely free from the ill effects of the modern sexuality and the marketing of sex. Women and children are sexually abused and exploited all over the world in varying degrees. But West is to blame more for it has provided the ideological basis for the so-called Sexual Revolution. The evils are there in other societies as well but they are treated as such; they do not glorify them or justify their commercialization. It cannot be said that East is free of women’s exploitation. Apart from the reasons prevailing in West, they have their own reasons. These reasons are rooted in the denial of the rights that women enjoy in law, social backwardness, poverty and old customs. Eastern women are too subdued to face male chauvinism It can also be argued with conviction that sexuality in East is not fully explored even within the boundaries of marriage. I have heard Western women as saying that eastern men are horrible in bed. And eastern women will naturally be much more horrible for Western men. Western women and men are too aggressive for eastern men and women to pair.

There may be substance in the suggestion that the latter must learn to explore their sexuality. But Western people must not underestimate the amount and the longevity of peace and happiness that the eastern couples enjoy within their limited sexuality. There is no harm if eastern men and women take some tips from Westerners for their sexual pleasures; but they must never learn the lessons of promiscuity and perversions from them. And they must not forget to teach Westerners the lessons of fidelity, loyalty and devotion. At personal level, I don’t believe in East-West conflict – cultural or otherwise. I believe that an evil is an evil wherever it is committed and whoever commits it. West deserves kudos for its extraordinary technical and scientific development and for its concern for its own people.

The scientific and technological development, advances in medical sciences, the building of infrastructure in the countries, the transport and communication and the religious tolerance for others (which though has lately taken a nosedive) are characteristics that West deserves to be emulated for. If they learn to translate their knowledge of sciences even in their private lives, things would change for the better: for them and also for the whole world. Western people deserve respect and love like any other people. What are to be fought are certain dangerous aspects of Westernism.

What is being intentionally or unintentionally ignored is that the huge transformation in sex and sexuality has not been the product of natural human evolution. Evolution is and must always be for the better. In contrast, the so-called Sexual Revolution has been a well planned, artificially monitored and promoted, dextrously and meticulously executed and aggressively pushed transformation by the forces of merchandise that had only their vested interests in mind. People are not changing themselves; they are being made to change. It is not the nectar of their strengths but the hillock of their weaknesses and their tendencies to succumb that is being used as the catalyst for this change. They are being driven to a weird world of phantasm that has nothing to do with reality. It is not sciences or medical sciences that are instrumental in bringing about these pernicious transformations on the basis of their good impact on society; but it is the corporate interests that are creating new values and burying the old ones.

The tree of Sexual Revolution is not being watered for the production and distribution of sweet grapes of love among the people but for the ultimate aim of the fermentation of grapes to manufacture the muscatel of “sex” that brings more money. And yet, instead of claiming responsibility itself, the corporate world tends to blame the people and their weaknesses for the growth of the evils as businesses. They ignore the fact that people are largely naive and unsuspecting. They read only what they are made to read; they read the lines, not between the lines. First their weaknesses are purposely exploited and then they are held responsible for succumbing to their weaknesses. People will have to observe the net that is laid to entrap them. They have to learn not to be governed and goaded by the merchants. Otherwise they and their posterity will continue to suffer.

Sex is not something that needs to be suppressed. Sex is the well that gives life. But the need of the hour is to cleanse the well not pollute it. If it gives pure water, it would ensure health; if it is adulterated with pollutants, it can kill everybody. The goblet from the well of sex is to be taken to satiate one’s desire; it can be sweetened with a sweetener, or made a bit salty by adding a pinch of salt or may be warmed or cooled depending upon the requirement. It is all right to make sex lively and not let it become livid. But don’t mix in it anything that poisons it! Sex is the gift of God that must be fully enjoyed. But don’t let the Devil wrap this gift in a colorful paper soaked with the cyanide of wild sex. If we have to save the world, we will have to guillotine the Devil of corporate sex at the earliest. If we do not get it doomed, we all will be consumed. Let the business help sex but don’t let the sex itself become a business. That is the only mantra for the salvation.

I have doubts if the people would be ready to chant this mantra because, as addicts they can understand and even desire to get away with their addiction; but the addiction has shackles that are too difficult for them to break. Sexual Revolution is the monster that requires the sword of Counterrevolution. Insurrections here and there will not suffice. Let its elegy be sung by its progeny as soon as possible! A victory against Sexual Revolution will be a victory against Imperialism.

First time posted at dailymuslims.com on December 23, 2007

HIJAB is surely one of the major social issues in discussion these days particularly in the West. Is this issue merely an indicator of the growing feelings of hatred against Muslims after 9/11? Isit merely because the Hijab is believed by many to have become a symbol of Islamic revivalism and assertion of Muslim identity? If people tend to think that to be the case they are awfully mistaken. It can be true that the campaign against Hijab has gathered momentum after 9/11. But the truth is that Hijab is a constant thorn in the flesh of the corporate world. Recent events have only given it a fresh reason to press the campaign against modesty with a renewed vigour. But the real motive behind this campaign remains economic, not the religious or political.

With the beginning of Industrial Revolution and its capture at the ideological level by what I call economic fundamentalism, the feminist movements in the West and elsewhere spawned a socio-cultural milieu that encouraged women’s participation in social activities. Feminism imbued their minds with a falla­cious sense of euphoria over their newly found liberty and free­dom. Freedom was too fantastic a slogan to resist and the prospects of riddance from the ennui of routine menagerie was a dream come true. Hardly did they realize that the freedom they were being made to achieve was but a mirage and the movement for women’s liberty was a calculated move initiated or supported by the cunning merchants. Having excelled in misusing fascination between men and women to further their business, it was now time to sexually abuse women for money. The economic fundamentalists had pretty well recognised the big potential of sex as market. The desire for cars, scooters, fashionable garments and other items of luxury could be wanting in a number of human beings, but sex is a universal human urge and even the most pious tends to succumb to sexual advances of a member of the opposite sex. Man longs to have as many partners in bed as he can lay hands on. The immanence of this human tendency throughout the world is an irrefutable fact of life. The commercialisation of sex there­fore was expected to generate massive dividends, unparalleled in any other business. Furthermore, sex could be used for boosting other markets as well. A number of stumbling blocks in the path of merchandising of sex had already been crushed or made defunct. The women were now willing to be active participants in any dispensa­tion. Their longing for luxurious life was rapidly intensifying; they had smelled economic independence. Unfortunately however, women failed to exercise their wisdom in distinguishing between true freedom that would elevate their social and economic status without turning them into victims of savage exploitation and fake freedom that was advertently inculcated in them by the merchants in order to expand their financial empires. Little did women understand that their personal rights would be used as instruments for their abuse.

The first necessity for the commercialisation of sex was that women must get accustomed to revealing their anatomy before others. This could not be accomplished overnight. The first step in that direction was popularisation of 'fashion' which soon became a word most dear to men and women of all ages and groups. Fashion as an industry developed by leaps and bounds; and corresponding to its growth, the size and volume of clothes adored by women got shortened. Covering the heads had always been regarded both by men and women in almost all the faiths that flourished anywhere on the globe a sign of virtue. It indicated the decency of personali­ty and righteousness of character. Head-kerchief was the first casualty of the storm of fashion. This led to the display of dozens of attractive hairstyles. Then the arms and shoulders were bared and the neckline started descending. Skirts began to shrink, and miniskirts and shorts steadily marked their presence on the fashion scene. Swimming suits were then popularised through sports--women had the right to play--and films. Within a short period of time the topless blondes and brunettes could be seen on hundreds of beaches all over the world. The business through beaches reached great heights. The nude poses of women--even an ugly woman could be made sexy by an expert photographer--started regularly appearing in some maga­zines and newspapers. The films excelled in showing them taking bath or changing clothes. The portrayal of sexual acts was soon to follow.

In this background, it can be easily understood that Purdah or Hijab (veil) was the most abomi­nable sight for the economic fundamentalists donning the garb of feminism. It must be clarified here that purdah (covering of body) was not limited to the Islamic world, as is often believed. Almost all the races, communities and sects, except some tribes, insisted on covering most parts of the body. Women, especially belonging to the upper class, usually covered their heads and put an extra cloth on their bosoms. The difference in the case of Islam was that it had assumed the shape of burqua. The campaign of the pseudo feminists was therefore directed against all such societies that prescribed some code of dressing. How a woman re­luctant even to show her face and hair could be persuaded to bare her breasts, thighs and butts! The unholy war against the 'veil' in the countries, where it was still in practice, got intensified. It was condemned as the greatest obstacle in the development of women. Acrimonious debates ensued in newspapers, magazines, social circles and public platforms. Army personnel and policemen could cover their bodies with thick uniform and head with heavy helmets, and yet the heat in the atmosphere and density of clothes would not interfere in their normal functioning; advocates and judges could don jet black robes, even at the height of summer, and yet the travails of weather would not impede their work; doctors could put thick white aprons without feeling uncomfortable; nurses and nuns’ head-kerchiefs would not hinder their movements; bishops could perform all their celebrated duties wearing extra robes and covering their heads; but women’s freedom of movements would be severely jeopardised, as the feminists believed, if they covered their body with some additional piece of cloth. If women wore a hat to cover their head, it was not unwelcome, as it normally did not indicate a desire on her part to practice some piety. Hijab on the other hand was not acceptable as it demonstrated a conscious conviction and effort on the part of the woman to lead a chaste life. Chasteness was and is not acceptable to the economic fundamentalists; chasteness does not bring money.

Nudity is an antidote to chasteness. Nudity needed glorification in order to be popularised; the shame attached to it was to be mercilessly ravished if society had to “develop”. The “Operation Nudity” began with the glorification of nude paintings and graffiti. The artists who marvelled in eroticism were admired as some of the greatest ar­tists of all times for the reason that their compositions were portrayals of “reality” and “beauty”. Films also started presenting woman in her full naked glory in the name of art or reality. The opponents were spurned as the enemies of truth and art. When the money poured in as the result of depiction of truth, truth was eulogised; when it required falsehood, it was adored as a work of fiction or creative imagination. With the beginning of the globalisation, which meant that now Muslim countries too would be globalized, the forces of the corporate world have realised that the true picture of globalisation cannot emerge unless the Islamic practice of Hijab is challenged and abolished.

Islam the balanced social system

During the life-time of Prophet Muhammad and in the early part of the Post-Muhammad era, the dress code that was applicable to men and women did mean neither a specific type of dress like burqua for women, nor total segregation. Women, with their heads covered and their bodies adorning simple, non-provocative, decent garments and their bosoms further protected by chadars, used to offer congregational prayers in mosques along with men. Their participation had been remarkable in almost all the battles that Muslims had to engage in. While some women took arms and fought valiantly at the battle front, most of them worked behind the ranks nursing the injured with religious fervour and passion. The advent of Muhammad (PBUH) brought education at the top of the agenda of the activities of his followers; women did not lag behind. They used to furnish themselves with knowledge along with men in the classes conducted by Ali, the most acknowledged expert of the religious sciences. But all these assemblies stuck to certain regulations to prevent any mischief. In the mosques, women's row would be behind those of men and children; they would be the first to leave mosques, and when all of them had left; men would come out. In the classes, women would sit on one side and men on the other. With the passage of time however, the provisions of purdah took the form of a specific robe, bruqua, for women going out of their houses; their participation in congregational prayers was forbidden by the latter clerics and segregation became too impervious to allow any scope for their participation in educational and other pursuits that could require going out of their houses. Islam has wonderful counterpoise in its social system; it has no scope for feminism or male chauvinism. It gave women extraordinary rights and at the same time took extremely effective steps to safeguard them from all types of exploitation. It bestowed on them economic rights comprising the right to inherit (in proportion to their economic obligations), share in the properties of their fathers, mothers, husbands, sons and daughters, made a provision of dower for them (in consideration of their marriage) that was obligatory on their husbands to be given before consummation of marriage and the right to own properties. It awarded them, like their male counterparts, the right to earn but did not make it obligatory for them, thus giving them not only the choice to earn but also the choice not to earn; in that case, the husbands were duty-bound to maintain them in a way befitting their status. Besides the economic rights, Islam also excelled in giving them equal rights in social life, such as the absolute right to choose their spouse, the right to seek from their husbands or sue them for divorce, the right to receive maintenance from husbands till their divorce was formalised and maintenance for their children till they were looked after by her, the right to remarry after divorce and after her husband's death the right to have or not to have children in consultation with their husbands, and the right to look after their children, in case they are divorced, till a certain point of time. Islam not only endowed women with the right to learn, equal rights in religion, education and prayers were made obligatory on them, just in the same way as they were on men. Of still greater social significance is the fact that Islam imposed such restrictions on men (and women) as would ensure physical and mental security of women. These include total ban on alcohol, gambling and adultery. Purdah was not obligatory, as is commonly understood, on women alone; men also could not reveal most parts of their bodies and would preferably cover their heads. Unfortunately however, several of these rights were compromised with in successive Muslim societies. This provided the economic fundamentalists an opportunity to malign Islam as anti-women. Their aim was obviously to incite women against their religion. The game-plan met with partial successes, especially in those countries that either had either a foreign rule or rulers influenced by the West or Westernism. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many governments in Muslim countries including Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon strove to impose western values on their people. The purdah was forcibly abolished, and the women of these countries, willingly or unwillingly, started participating in the same form of activities as the western women were engaged in. At one time, night clubs flourished in Tehran, Cairo and Beirut. But the roots of faith were too strong in Muslims to allow it to continue for long. Within half a century, men and women in these countries in increasing numbers developed aversion for the new values. The on-going nakedness stopped, and women again started wrapping themselves in the garb of purity; they continued to engage in the educational and other social pursuits in a way as would not make them vulnerable to exploitative practices. In some countries however, like in Taliban’s Afghanistan, the Islamic shariah was interpreted too rigidly to allow women to get higher education.

I have been advocating for several years that if Deen is to be established, Muslims should wage an aggressive ideological war against the ideology of economic fundamentalism, Westernism being its most visible face in today’s world. We should stop just keeping on defending Islam and Muslims. We must attack the false ideologies. If Hijab is to be protected, the only way to do is to wage a full-fledged attack on nakedness and all forms of its commercialisation. Women of the West must be made aware of the designs of the forces of economics. This has to be done through a well-orchestrated collective effort, which has been missing now. I find it very hard to get my books published and distributed, as they attack the designs of the market forces. I have also not got the support of the Muslim organisations. When my book, “The Killer Sex” was published, several American women who read it via Net opined that every western girl of more than 12 years must be given this book to read. But how? I had no answer.

(Dr Javed Jamil is the Executive Chairman of International Centre for Applied Islamics.)