[Discussion] What happened to people like this?
- Thread starter Multiply
- Start date
Queen of Bananas
Active member
because this is the same man that said this:
">women should live for men. they should become educated to have a "good conversation" with a man.
women should live for themselves. men should live for themselves. once both are independent, mutual respect and acceptance for the best version of one another would be achieved, and thus coexistence would flourish as both are secure and prominent human beings that walk the earth.
the minute you do things for anyone other than yourself or allah, that's the minute everything goes haywire. never compromise. the minute you compromise you forsake not only yourself, but allah. allah makes each individual unique and therefore each individual has a subjective set of things they must accomplish to be independent, secure and fulfilled.
can you even imagine the stupidity of muslim men that try to impose the notion that women should be the dependents of men? that's basically saying a woman would be at the mercy of a man for the rest of her life rather than at the mercy of allah.
a father that deprives a female daughter of her rights to unconditional love, education that she excels in or that she feels secure in and forces her into a pathway that would result in her becoming his slave - i.e. not having independence; how on earth can you justify this?
ultimately, no matter how great the philosophy of any man woman or child, all are prone to bias, all are subservient to their inclinations.
the minute you think that you need to use another human being to survive and force your will onto them is the minute society fails.
malcolm x appears as a hypocrite, he speaks with wisdom on certain topics yet does not apply that belief in other circumstances because he has a subjective mind that considers multiple possibilities. in essence, i too have suffered from this, nifaaq they call it. but in reality it is because i understand that there are millions of underlying contexts that i don't correlate a definitive view of the world.
in the case of malcolm x, he justifies that separation should occur on the basis of race, which would mean a society that would be a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. however, this too, is racism in a definitive world view so he appears as a hypocrite. though again, when you examine it, he has beliefs on a religious basis that invoke the thought that separation is good. see, malcolm x is not a hypocrite and neither am i or any other person; we do not ave a definitive world view because a definitive world view cannot exist, things and people are always changing, so therefore, we must change as well. as we learn, as we grow and as we adapt, our views will also change. and much like the hypersensitive awareness of the global context, all must oblige by subjective view as the human element which comprises of a majority of processes in the world must also be subjective. what applies in one context today may not in the other tomorrow.
i'd like to point out a huge fallacy in his argument, the moment a woman lives for anything other than herself and allah is the moment she has committed shirk. women do not live for men and men should not live for women. they should be free to do as they feel is necessary. the islamic scripture is clear on this, men and women are equals before allah in terms of spirituality and intellect, men are simply stronger so they must protect and maintain women.
men cannot control women, that's foolish and absurd. if men and women are equals before allah and their noble creations, does it make sense to say that a creation should be controlled by another creation rather than it's creator?
does it make sense for allah to assign the control of a woman to a man knowing that a man is subject to his biases, flaws, nafs and will therefore at one point or the other, definitely make error in judgement? Is this not why many women ultimately suffer in cultural patriarchies given that they force the will of the man onto the woman and justify it as control as supposedly preceded in the quran?
bringing it to a simple relationship between a father and a daughter, does it make sense for a man to make her his emotional dependent so she lives at the mercy of men for the rest of her life? a narcissistic father will do anything to justify control over children because they view the progressive independence of their child as a threat. and this is not a female issue, men suffer as well; i had a friend in high school who came from a background where he had five brothers all of whom sat in the father's room all of whom shared a room. the father is an alcoholic, the five brothers were all dropouts because the father saw their growing independence as a threat to him so as a narcissist, his approach was to criticize and destroy all hopes of independence for the children.
the sixth son is the last hope for the father because the father realizes his mistake with the other five; the other five are useless and will not serve him for his survival so the youngest one because critical for the survival of the father. but this is not enough, this child must become a narcissistic parent's slave so the parent will feel secure; and he is overburdened to the point of constant mental breakdowns. The guy walked around school as a 20 year old, but he looked over forty years old; his face had melted, he was constantly stressed and he did well, but at what cost?
so when i see people like this:
You must be registered for see links
i become disheartened. it doesn't matter whether one is male or female, it matters that they are healthy, first of all, the muslim ummah should ensure that they are healthy mentally, physically and psychologically. then they should ensure that that person achieves their full potential, which means becoming the best version of themselves. the third would be to ensure that she is contributing to the muslim ummah in general. the fourth would be to ensure that she is able bodied to care for herself for the rest of her life, because if everyone leaves her, then she should be able to care for herself and stand on her own two feet.
this applies for a man as well. and this is not a religious problem, this is a human problem. using allah to justify your actions is a sign of your insecurities as a person. think of all the people in india that justify widowing women being tortured and living in isolation because their god said that if the husband dies, it's the woman's fault.
how is this any different than a man coming into the house and seeing his wife or daughter doing well in highschool or securing a job and being financially independent; he feels insecure and therefore decides to suppress or hurt them in return just to feel secure? that's like saying that my friend in high school, his father who psychologically and emotionally and most likely also physically traumatized his 5 other children while they were developing into being his slaves and doing as he bid; yes, let's justify this oppression of the child using religion because in Christianity the man is the head of the household and can therefore never be wrong.
a secure head of any household, be it female or male would never be threatened by the growing independence of their child and actually encourage the child to progress further in life.
children rebel against parents and hurt their parents and others and disrespect them as well because parents disrespect, hurt and rebel against their children.
i went off topic, but it's all quite intertwined, in the case of Malcolm x, he too is subservient to his own negative nuances, the belief that women should do anything for any man is to believe that they are the objects and property of men. and when men use the religion i love and the god i love to justify doing this, it hurts me. it hurts me most when they use this to justify the abuse of children as well.
i was on another forum and these weird muslim folks who hate on jews and dehumanize them told me stupid shit like they're out to kill you, they're out to get you. this is absurd. yes, it's true that all world banks are governed by a jewish entity, but if you become angry and lash out like that and choose to believe they are out to kill you, then you become a fool. if you're that concerned, then unite and form an alliance of investment business management skills for the greater necessities and empowerment of individuals in your community. i.e. mutual communal trust fund that empowers others and does not rely on the banking system that is affiliated with these jewish organizations that appear to be robbing people. and of course you'd need a bank that is separate from this global affiliation of networks, so make your own. malaysia is a unique case study, affin bank and all these other banks operate on a scale of abiding by supposed islamic interpretations of financial management.
and why should it be inclusive to muslims alone? why not allow the other people who are also suffering from this elitist global network of banks who are not muslims to also benefit? why must we distinguish between race when assisting others? must humanity have a checklist for it proposition?
albeit one might scoff at the application of my philosophy, perhaps banking systems are complex as i agree they are but verily, there are solutions to anything if one is determined enough. using religion as a scapegoat for your insecurities and justifying using other humans to meet your needs is incorrect and a poor display of character.
so again, it's really a human problem; malcolm x views women as objects to do with as he pleases; this denies the right of a woman because very simply put, the woman does what the man wants her to do and not what she wants to do which is shirk as she compromises for him as opposed to her verification of what she believes is right with regard to her creator.
my only question is, why should women have to always compromise for a man's incompetence? why should a boy child have to compromise for a father's incompetence?
does it make sense that if there is widespread rape in a pakistani city of young girls being kidnapped that men should confine their daughters and force them to wear clothes that cover them completely and not go to school? or does it make sense that parents get out on the field and actually form unions and unite together and patrol the streets and take active actions to change the system so that it is better for all who abide within it?
you can learn from non-muslims too; knowledge can come from every individual, everyone you meet knows something you don't know and is therefore worthy of respect no matter how insignificant you may feel that piece of knowledge may be. if you look at the crisis in Ireland 20 years ago, there were children out and about drinking and staying late and this resulted in poor performance and changes in all aspects of life that were negative.
the parents and the government now do routine assessments of students in all regions where they do tests to determine the mental, emotional and physical health of these individuals, examine the children with regard to their family structure and intervene where things are not going well.
You must be registered for see links
this is an example of an outward positive set of actions for collective benefit.
and there is this approach that means that protection and maintenance does not become over-protection and over maintenance that is therefore detrimental to the health of these individuals;
You must be registered for see links
there should be a balance. in a truly safe society, women and children would be able to travel freely and go anywhere they please because there would be an aspect of trust and mutual respect among all members.
You must be registered for see links
the more united and trust in a society, the more capability of individual expression and mutual growth:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
apologies for ranting somewhat and going off topic, but your opinions pissed me off slightly. you assumed that just because macolm x is right about one thing, that he is right in everything. every human is flawed, all are capable of sin and all are capable of blessing. even prophets were not exempted from this. a human is a human after all.
incompetence is the cause of suffering.
i rest my case.
Last edited:
Urda
Active member
Awards
">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always">
women should live for men. they should become educated to have a "good conversation" with a man.
women should live for themselves. men should live for themselves. once both are independent, mutual respect and acceptance for the best version of one another would be achieved, and thus coexistence would flourish as both are secure and prominent human beings that walk the earth.
the minute you do things for anyone other than yourself or allah, that's the minute everything goes haywire. never compromise. the minute you compromise you forsake not only yourself, but allah. allah makes each individual unique and therefore each individual has a subjective set of things they must accomplish to be independent, secure and fulfilled.
can you even imagine the stupidity of muslim men that try to impose the notion that women should be the dependents of men? that's basically saying a woman would be at the mercy of a man for the rest of her life rather than at the mercy of allah.
a father that deprives a female daughter of her rights to unconditional love, education that she excels in or that she feels secure in and forces her into a pathway that would result in her becoming his slave - i.e. not having independence; how on earth can you justify this?
ultimately, no matter how great the philosophy of any man woman or child, all are prone to bias, all are subservient to their inclinations.
the minute you think that you need to use another human being to survive and force your will onto them is the minute society fails.
malcolm x is a hypocrite, he speaks with wisdom on certain topics yet does not apply that belief in other circumstances because he has a subjective mind that considers multiple possibilities. in essence, i too have suffered from this, nifaaq they call it. but in reality it is because i understand that there are millions of underlying contexts that i don't correlate a definitive view of the world.
in the case of malcolm x, he justifies that separation should occur on the basis of race, which would mean a society that would be a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. however, this too, is racism in a definitive world view so he appears as a hypocrite. though again, when you examine it, he has beliefs on a religious basis that invoke the thought that separation is good. see, malcolm x is not a hypocrite and neither am i or any other person; we do not ave a definitive world view because a definitive world view cannot exist, things and people are always changing, so therefore, we must change as well. as we learn, as we grow and as we adapt, our views will also change. and much like the hypersensitive awareness of the global context, all must oblige by subjective view as the human element which comprises of a majority of processes in the world must also be subjective. what applies in one context today may not in the other tomorrow.
i'd like to point out a huge fallacy in his argument, the moment a woman lives for anything other than herself and allah is the moment she has committed shirk. women do not live for men and men should not live for women. they should be free to do as they feel is necessary. the islamic scripture is clear on this, men and women are equals before allah in terms of spirituality and intellect, men are simply stronger so they must protect and maintain women.
men cannot control women, that's foolish and absurd. if men and women are equals before allah and their noble creations, does it make sense to say that a creation should be controlled by another creation rather than it's creator?
does it make sense for allah to assign the control of a woman to a man knowing that a man is subject to his biases, flaws, nafs and will therefore at one point or the other, definitely make error in judgement? Is this not why many women ultimately suffer in cultural patriarchies given that they force the will of the man onto the woman and justify it as control as supposedly preceded in the quran?
bringing it to a simple relationship between a father and a daughter, does it make sense for a man to make her his emotional dependent so she lives at the mercy of men for the rest of her life? a narcissistic father will do anything to justify control over children because they view the progressive independence of their child as a threat. and this is not a female issue, men suffer as well; i had a friend in high school who came from a background where he had five brothers all of whom sat in the father's room all of whom shared a room. the father is an alcoholic, the five brothers were all dropouts because the father saw their growing independence as a threat to him so as a narcissist, his approach was to criticize and destroy all hopes of independence for the children.
the sixth son is the last hope for the father because the father realizes his mistake with the other five; the other five are useless and will not serve him for his survival so the youngest one because critical for the survival of the father. but this is not enough, this child must become a narcissistic parent's slave so the parent will feel secure; and he is overburdened to the point of constant mental breakdowns. The guy walked around school as a 20 year old, but he looked over forty years old; his face had melted, he was constantly stressed and he did well, but at what cost?
so when i see people like this:
You must be registered for see links
i become disheartened. it doesn't matter whether one is male or female, it matters that they are healthy, first of all, the muslim ummah should ensure that they are healthy mentally, physically and psychologically. then they should ensure that that person achieves their full potential, which means becoming the best version of themselves. the third would be to ensure that she is contributing to the muslim ummah in general. the fourth would be to ensure that she is able bodied to care for herself for the rest of her life, because if everyone leaves her, then she should be able to care for herself and stand on her own two feet.
this applies for a man as well. and this is not a religious problem, this is a human problem. using allah to justify your actions is a sign of your insecurities as a person. think of all the people in india that justify widowing women being tortured and living in isolation because their god said that if the husband dies, it's the woman's fault.
how is this any different than a man coming into the house and seeing his wife or daughter doing well in highschool or securing a job and being financially independent; he feels insecure and therefore decides to suppress or hurt them in return just to feel secure? that's like saying that my friend in high school, his father who psychologically and emotionally and most likely also physically traumatized his 5 other children while they were developing into being his slaves and doing as he bid; yes, let's justify this oppression of the child using religion because in Christianity the man is the head of the household and can therefore never be wrong.
a secure head of any household, be it female or male would never be threatened by the growing independence of their child and actually encourage the child to progress further in life.
children rebel against parents and hurt their parents and others and disrespect them as well because parents disrespect, hurt and rebel against their children.
i went off topic, but it's all quite intertwined, in the case of Malcolm x, he too is subservient to his own negative nuances, the belief that women should do anything for any man is to believe that they are the objects and property of men. and when men use the religion i love and the god i love to justify doing this, it hurts me. it hurts me most when they use this to justify the abuse of children as well.
i was on another forum and these weird muslim folks who hate on jews and dehumanize them told me stupid shit like they're out to kill you, they're out to get you. this is absurd. yes, it's true that all world banks are governed by a jewish entity, but if you become angry and lash out like that and choose to believe they are out to kill you, then you become a fool. if you're that concerned, then unite and form an alliance of investment business management skills for the greater necessities and empowerment of individuals in your community. i.e. mutual communal trust fund that empowers others and does not rely on the banking system that is affiliated with these jewish organizations that appear to be robbing people. and of course you'd need a bank that is separate from this global affiliation of networks, so make your own. malaysia is a unique case study, affin bank and all these other banks operate on a scale of abiding by supposed islamic interpretations of financial management.
and why should it be inclusive to muslims alone? why not allow the other people who are also suffering from this elitist global network of banks who are not muslims to also benefit? why must we distinguish between race when assisting others? must humanity have a checklist for it proposition?
albeit one might scoff at the application of my philosophy, perhaps banking systems are complex as i agree they are but verily, there are solutions to anything if one is determined enough. using religion as a scapegoat for your insecurities and justifying using other humans to meet your needs is incorrect and a poor display of character.
so again, it's really a human problem; malcolm x views women as objects to do with as he pleases; this denies the right of a woman because very simply put, the woman does what the man wants her to do and not what she wants to do which is shirk as she compromises for him as opposed to her verification of what she believes is right with regard to her creator.
my only question is, why should women have to always compromise for a man's incompetence? why should a boy child have to compromise for a father's incompetence?
does it make sense that if there is widespread rape in a pakistani city of young girls being kidnapped that men should confine their daughters and force them to wear clothes and not go to school? or does it make sense that parents get out on the field and actually form unions and unite together and patrol the streets and take active actions to change the system so that it is better for all who abide within it?
you can learn from non-muslims too; knowledge can come from every individual, everyone you meet knows something you don't know and is therefore worthy of respect no matter how insignificant you may feel that piece of knowledge may be. if you look at the crisis in Ireland 20 years ago, there were children out and about drinking and staying late and this resulted in poor performance and changes in all aspects of life that were negative.
the parents and the government now do routine assessments of students in all regions where they do tests to determine the mental, emotional and physical health of these individuals, examine the children with regard to their family structure and intervene where things are not going well.
You must be registered for see links
this is an example of an outward positive set of actions for collective benefit.
and there is this approach that means that protection and maintenance does not become over-protection and over maintenance that is therefore detrimental to the health of these individuals;
You must be registered for see links
there should be a balance. in a truly safe society, women and children would be able to travel freely and go anywhere they please because there would be an aspect of trust and mutual respect among all members.
You must be registered for see links
the more united and trust in a society, the more capability of individual expression and mutual growth:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
apologies for ranting somewhat and going off topic, but your opinions pissed me off slightly. you assumed that just because Malcolm x is right about one thing, that he is right in everything. every human is flawed, all are capable of sin and all are capable of blessing. even prophets were not exempted from this. a human is a human after all.
incompetence is the cause of suffering.
I rest my case.
Queen of Bananas
Active member
He interprets that which benefits him. But there is a way to correctly interpret the quran and to incorrectly interpret. It's very simple and it is a wisdom I have realized after philosophizing for quite some time:
when you interpret the quran with regard to your needs, you find that you ascribe meaning from divine text that is pure, but when you interpret quran with regard to your desires, you find that you ascribe meaning from divine text that is impure and therefore not righteous and therefore, wrong.
this is because when people live for their needs, then they will empathize with themselves and go for the best possible solution that benefits all. whereas if people live for their desires, then they will become corrupted with themselves and act for the possible solution that will entertain their criminal curiosities.
i.e. if a mother has the needs for socializing and has no other desires such as using people as a means to secure herself, then she will view her children positively and give them unconditional love as she realizes that she needs them and empathizes with herself and her children. but if a mother desires for socializing and has desires to use people, then she will give conditional love to groom them into doing her bidding; essentially making them her slaves.
in this way, trust is critical. if the mother were to trust the child to care for her, and the child were to trust the mother to give unconditional love, then both would be able to abide in unity.
the most progressive society is one where the mother would realize she needs to socialize with others in order to survive and it need not come from her children. for example, if her child were to leave for a few years for education or job experience, then she would be able to rely on her family to protect her and care for her instead. or if the system were to be efficient, then the girl can take the mother with her to the place of study and both can live together while she studies, and both can return once they have studied. trust is essential for survival because unity depends on trust. a good society is one where the trust encompasses and the unity encompasses the familial border to the system and the government. in denmark, the government is not corrupted at all, and everyone functions on a mutually agreeable recourse for collective growth.
and it's a funny thing, really, because the mother fears the child that is the source of her emotional needs will abandon her, so she abandons the child when the child doesn't do so.
trust, respect, discipline and tolerance lead to successful societies.
this is really a human issue and not religious at all. just look at the extreme end of the bargain below:
You must be registered for see links
this is what mistrust and insecurity can do to people and destroy families. so where do we draw the line?
to illustrate how severe my case had become, my parents started denying me food unless i did what they wanted; i was 17. that's why i went to my neighbor and spoke to her - she's a psychologist. instead of helping me, she told me, "obey your parents," and "put your foot down but respectfully" but she was such a retard, she didn't realize my parents were narcissists and as a narcissist's child, you are not allowed to have any boundaries or an identity of yourself because it is a threat to the parent. and the parent is in power; and the parent is therefore free to abuse that power, and a narcissist will only respect themselves and do for themselves, which is why everyone else will ultimately suffer when the narcissist sees no use for them.
thing is, parents destroy the trust between themselves and children due to repeated abuse; and then blame the children for non-compliance and not "loving" them. even things like attention seeking are significant, because that means the child was emotionally neglected for a majority of their life and continues to be done so as they grow up. the child believes that they must actually make a mockery of themselves lest they be forgotten and left to loneliness and isolation because they know that that will hurt them.
in many cases social isolation can arguably lead to even more detrimental impacts than any other form of abuse:
narcissistic parents take and take and take and take, and they never give back. you do not exist, you are simply an extension of their needs and if they see no need for you, they will abandon you. modern-day slavery.
Last edited:
Sagebee
Active member
Awards
I don't think true unity is possible because everyone's not going to like or agree with each other but the standard should be we are respectful and if you can't then don't do harm to others.
And who decided that racial unity was an entirely good thing?
i rest my case.
This is a nitpick of Malcolm X himself, not the bigger picture. Me pointing out MLK jr was a adulterer and sympathized with communist, or that Gandhi hated black people would not take away from the bigger picture either men had in mind.
Last edited:
Dreckerplayer
Active member
Lmao, doesn't take much for you to show FAVORITISM.
Go to jail/prison...you'll see tons of guys like him.
It's hard to tell what his true intentions are, or what place he's coming from...honestly, I don't see a place.
However, I still like his stance of "race segregation"...even though I hate the way they use to talk back in the day, and take forever to get the point.
And his stance on the placement of women, that's how they use to think BACK IN THE DAY.
Go to jail/prison...you'll see tons of guys like him.
It's hard to tell what his true intentions are, or what place he's coming from...honestly, I don't see a place.
However, I still like his stance of "race segregation"...even though I hate the way they use to talk back in the day, and take forever to get the point.
And his stance on the placement of women, that's how they use to think BACK IN THE DAY.
Dreckerplayer
Active member
Actually, you miss me right here. That actually makes you a HYPOCRITE.
I'd never listen to some guy that has such low self-esteem. He's a complete joke.
I don't know much about ghandi, but by looking at photo's of him, he looks like a TARGET for bullying. You in a black neighborhood wearing cloths, while everyone else is wearing regular american clothes...you're ASKING for it.That's actually a lack of respect.
Lightbringer
Active member
Queen of Bananas
Active member
This prompted me to have an epiphany that involved the bigger picture, hence, why I expressed my findings. I'm just answering why such men don't exist anymore; because they're ideology of Islam was wrong; therefore they were demoted.
Dreckerplayer
Active member
Lightbringer
Active member
Dreckerplayer
Active member
Awww...
still struggling with that ego collapse, huh. Trapping me into yet another argument...
bro, that's a little too desperate, don't you think?That's rhetoric, cause it just is...
Lightbringer
Active member
Chikombo
Active member
Awards
">" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always">
women should live for men. they should become educated to have a "good conversation" with a man.
women should live for themselves. men should live for themselves. once both are independent, mutual respect and acceptance for the best version of one another would be achieved, and thus coexistence would flourish as both are secure and prominent human beings that walk the earth.
the minute you do things for anyone other than yourself or allah, that's the minute everything goes haywire. never compromise. the minute you compromise you forsake not only yourself, but allah. allah makes each individual unique and therefore each individual has a subjective set of things they must accomplish to be independent, secure and fulfilled.
can you even imagine the stupidity of muslim men that try to impose the notion that women should be the dependents of men? that's basically saying a woman would be at the mercy of a man for the rest of her life rather than at the mercy of allah.
a father that deprives a female daughter of her rights to unconditional love, education that she excels in or that she feels secure in and forces her into a pathway that would result in her becoming his slave - i.e. not having independence; how on earth can you justify this?
ultimately, no matter how great the philosophy of any man woman or child, all are prone to bias, all are subservient to their inclinations.
the minute you think that you need to use another human being to survive and force your will onto them is the minute society fails.
malcolm x appears as a hypocrite, he speaks with wisdom on certain topics yet does not apply that belief in other circumstances because he has a subjective mind that considers multiple possibilities. in essence, i too have suffered from this, nifaaq they call it. but in reality it is because i understand that there are millions of underlying contexts that i don't correlate a definitive view of the world.
in the case of malcolm x, he justifies that separation should occur on the basis of race, which would mean a society that would be a salad bowl rather than a melting pot. however, this too, is racism in a definitive world view so he appears as a hypocrite. though again, when you examine it, he has beliefs on a religious basis that invoke the thought that separation is good. see, malcolm x is not a hypocrite and neither am i or any other person; we do not ave a definitive world view because a definitive world view cannot exist, things and people are always changing, so therefore, we must change as well. as we learn, as we grow and as we adapt, our views will also change. and much like the hypersensitive awareness of the global context, all must oblige by subjective view as the human element which comprises of a majority of processes in the world must also be subjective. what applies in one context today may not in the other tomorrow.
i'd like to point out a huge fallacy in his argument, the moment a woman lives for anything other than herself and allah is the moment she has committed shirk. women do not live for men and men should not live for women. they should be free to do as they feel is necessary. the islamic scripture is clear on this, men and women are equals before allah in terms of spirituality and intellect, men are simply stronger so they must protect and maintain women.
men cannot control women, that's foolish and absurd. if men and women are equals before allah and their noble creations, does it make sense to say that a creation should be controlled by another creation rather than it's creator?
does it make sense for allah to assign the control of a woman to a man knowing that a man is subject to his biases, flaws, nafs and will therefore at one point or the other, definitely make error in judgement? Is this not why many women ultimately suffer in cultural patriarchies given that they force the will of the man onto the woman and justify it as control as supposedly preceded in the quran?
bringing it to a simple relationship between a father and a daughter, does it make sense for a man to make her his emotional dependent so she lives at the mercy of men for the rest of her life? a narcissistic father will do anything to justify control over children because they view the progressive independence of their child as a threat. and this is not a female issue, men suffer as well; i had a friend in high school who came from a background where he had five brothers all of whom sat in the father's room all of whom shared a room. the father is an alcoholic, the five brothers were all dropouts because the father saw their growing independence as a threat to him so as a narcissist, his approach was to criticize and destroy all hopes of independence for the children.
the sixth son is the last hope for the father because the father realizes his mistake with the other five; the other five are useless and will not serve him for his survival so the youngest one because critical for the survival of the father. but this is not enough, this child must become a narcissistic parent's slave so the parent will feel secure; and he is overburdened to the point of constant mental breakdowns. The guy walked around school as a 20 year old, but he looked over forty years old; his face had melted, he was constantly stressed and he did well, but at what cost?
so when i see people like this:
You must be registered for see links
i become disheartened. it doesn't matter whether one is male or female, it matters that they are healthy, first of all, the muslim ummah should ensure that they are healthy mentally, physically and psychologically. then they should ensure that that person achieves their full potential, which means becoming the best version of themselves. the third would be to ensure that she is contributing to the muslim ummah in general. the fourth would be to ensure that she is able bodied to care for herself for the rest of her life, because if everyone leaves her, then she should be able to care for herself and stand on her own two feet.
this applies for a man as well. and this is not a religious problem, this is a human problem. using allah to justify your actions is a sign of your insecurities as a person. think of all the people in india that justify widowing women being tortured and living in isolation because their god said that if the husband dies, it's the woman's fault.
how is this any different than a man coming into the house and seeing his wife or daughter doing well in highschool or securing a job and being financially independent; he feels insecure and therefore decides to suppress or hurt them in return just to feel secure? that's like saying that my friend in high school, his father who psychologically and emotionally and most likely also physically traumatized his 5 other children while they were developing into being his slaves and doing as he bid; yes, let's justify this oppression of the child using religion because in Christianity the man is the head of the household and can therefore never be wrong.
a secure head of any household, be it female or male would never be threatened by the growing independence of their child and actually encourage the child to progress further in life.
children rebel against parents and hurt their parents and others and disrespect them as well because parents disrespect, hurt and rebel against their children.
i went off topic, but it's all quite intertwined, in the case of Malcolm x, he too is subservient to his own negative nuances, the belief that women should do anything for any man is to believe that they are the objects and property of men. and when men use the religion i love and the god i love to justify doing this, it hurts me. it hurts me most when they use this to justify the abuse of children as well.
i was on another forum and these weird muslim folks who hate on jews and dehumanize them told me stupid shit like they're out to kill you, they're out to get you. this is absurd. yes, it's true that all world banks are governed by a jewish entity, but if you become angry and lash out like that and choose to believe they are out to kill you, then you become a fool. if you're that concerned, then unite and form an alliance of investment business management skills for the greater necessities and empowerment of individuals in your community. i.e. mutual communal trust fund that empowers others and does not rely on the banking system that is affiliated with these jewish organizations that appear to be robbing people. and of course you'd need a bank that is separate from this global affiliation of networks, so make your own. malaysia is a unique case study, affin bank and all these other banks operate on a scale of abiding by supposed islamic interpretations of financial management.
and why should it be inclusive to muslims alone? why not allow the other people who are also suffering from this elitist global network of banks who are not muslims to also benefit? why must we distinguish between race when assisting others? must humanity have a checklist for it proposition?
albeit one might scoff at the application of my philosophy, perhaps banking systems are complex as i agree they are but verily, there are solutions to anything if one is determined enough. using religion as a scapegoat for your insecurities and justifying using other humans to meet your needs is incorrect and a poor display of character.
so again, it's really a human problem; malcolm x views women as objects to do with as he pleases; this denies the right of a woman because very simply put, the woman does what the man wants her to do and not what she wants to do which is shirk as she compromises for him as opposed to her verification of what she believes is right with regard to her creator.
my only question is, why should women have to always compromise for a man's incompetence? why should a boy child have to compromise for a father's incompetence?
does it make sense that if there is widespread rape in a pakistani city of young girls being kidnapped that men should confine their daughters and force them to wear clothes that cover them completely and not go to school? or does it make sense that parents get out on the field and actually form unions and unite together and patrol the streets and take active actions to change the system so that it is better for all who abide within it?
you can learn from non-muslims too; knowledge can come from every individual, everyone you meet knows something you don't know and is therefore worthy of respect no matter how insignificant you may feel that piece of knowledge may be. if you look at the crisis in Ireland 20 years ago, there were children out and about drinking and staying late and this resulted in poor performance and changes in all aspects of life that were negative.
the parents and the government now do routine assessments of students in all regions where they do tests to determine the mental, emotional and physical health of these individuals, examine the children with regard to their family structure and intervene where things are not going well.
You must be registered for see links
this is an example of an outward positive set of actions for collective benefit.
and there is this approach that means that protection and maintenance does not become over-protection and over maintenance that is therefore detrimental to the health of these individuals;
You must be registered for see links
there should be a balance. in a truly safe society, women and children would be able to travel freely and go anywhere they please because there would be an aspect of trust and mutual respect among all members.
You must be registered for see links
the more united and trust in a society, the more capability of individual expression and mutual growth:
You must be registered for see links
You must be registered for see links
apologies for ranting somewhat and going off topic, but your opinions pissed me off slightly. you assumed that just because macolm x is right about one thing, that he is right in everything. every human is flawed, all are capable of sin and all are capable of blessing. even prophets were not exempted from this. a human is a human after all.
incompetence is the cause of suffering.
i rest my case.
