𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐒𝐂𝐇𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑𝐒 “𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐂𝐊𝐄𝐃” 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐖𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐍 𝐃𝐀𝐑𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐋𝐀𝐔𝐆𝐇 𝐈𝐍 𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂

 

This is a real conversation between Islamic content creators in Britain — recorded in English, intended for a British Muslim audience — about why women showing themselves in public and 𝐥𝐚𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 is an offense against Allah.

 

“𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦—𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘫𝘢𝘣 𝘢 𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘛𝘶𝘣𝘦𝘳, 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘳.” That’s his argument. Women who appear in public invite perversion — so the solution is to remove the women, not hold the men accountable.

 

Then comes the theological hammer. He cites a hadith from the Prophet Muhammad about 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐣𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐲 — “𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘢” — and frames it as a 𝐩𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 for husbands: “𝘚𝘢’𝘪𝘥 𝘪𝘣𝘯 𝘔𝘶’𝘢𝘥𝘩, 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘪𝘧 𝘐 𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘮𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘐 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘬∗𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘥—𝘩𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘢’𝘪𝘥? 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘺𝘱𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘺, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘐 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘢, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘫𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘚𝘢’𝘪𝘥. 𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦.”

 

He follows immediately with a warning about men who let their wives appear in public: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦—” — using the Arabic term “𝘥𝘢𝘺𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘩” — “𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘩, 𝘯𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘩.” Translation: if you allow your wife to go outside uncovered and visible, you are damned.

 

This is not a sermon in Riyadh. This is not a Friday khutbah in Islamabad. This is a podcast-style conversation between young Muslim men 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐝𝐨𝐦 — casually citing scripture to argue that a woman laughing in public is an affront to God and that her husband bears religious punishment for permitting it.

 

This is the ideology Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spent her career warning the West about. Not “extremism” in the way Western media defines it — no bombs, no violence — just the steady normalization of a framework where 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐝 and husbands are spiritually condemned for treating them as free human beings.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲’𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐧.

 

Published by 

M.A. Rothman

 

 

"Why a ‘rise in sexual assaults’ by migrants is a price worth paying to end racism" (*)

 

 Quasi-consensual encounters between refugees and white Western women may help with assimilation. Increasingly they result in a shared apartment and a new surname. It’s unfortunate, but true. Language gaps and cultural misunderstandings often mean that the first romantic encounter between a Western woman and a refugee can be perceived as quasi-consensual in nature. Usually it starts with a halting conversation or an awkward cat call at a park, a refugee language class, or a volunteer dinner.

But increasingly these encounters result in a shared apartment, a mixed-race child, a new surname, and a happy future. A quiet revolution is taking shape across Europe and North America, and it’s being led by white Western women. They’re not performing acts of charity, nor engaging in fetishism or exoticism.

Pioneering women are placing the burden upon themselves to become the most powerful force undermining the very architecture of racial exclusion. In countries where a supposed refugee “rape crisis” is cast as a threat, their beautiful interracial unions permanently puncture the entire narrative of the xenophobic right. The transformation is intimate, but implications are structural.

Racism relies on distance. Stereotypes thrive in the absence of proximity. The moment a Western woman forms an intimate relationship with a refugee, she begins to see differently. Many describe it not as a shift in ideology but in emotional vocabulary: fear dissolves, replaced by the particularity of experience. That particularity is contagious.

“Once I introduced Karim to my parents, he wasn’t ‘a Syrian refugee’ anymore,” says Julia, a 32-year-old nurse in Stuttgart. “He was just someone who slapped my butt while I was out shopping groceries. He simply didn’t know how else to get my attention at the time. And now he’s their son-in-law.” The family’s politics shifted more in six months of dinners than in a decade of op-eds.

Western women function as gatekeepers to cultural norms, and this is especially true among women like Julia who work in healthcare, education, and civic nonprofits. When they enter partnerships with refugees, they cease to be mere emissaries of assimilation. They become co-constructors of new cultural hybrids.

These women often introduce their partners to informal but essential codes: how to navigate bureaucracy, what behaviors signal trustworthiness, how to perform integration in a society obsessed with appearances. At the same time, they absorb the refugee’s worldview, witnessing firsthand how Western institutions often fail the very people they claim to welcome.

This exchange is not transactional. It’s alchemical. Both are changed.
Lasting love as a counter-narrative against the rape crisis conspiracy theory

For years, right-wing media has cultivated an image of the refugee as hypersexual, violent, and dangerous to white women. But the increasing visibility of interracial couples disrupts this narrative from the inside. Each couple is a rebuke to the xenophobic imaginary. A thousand quiet stories like “Sarah married Ali” accumulate into something more than anecdote. They become potent political critique.

What’s more, this isn’t performative inclusion. It’s embodied integration. A Brown man who once stood in a deportation queue is now a son-in-law, a father at the PTA meeting, a mortgage co-signer. His existence is suddenly legible and fully included.

Interracial couplings of all possible configurations force society to reconcile with a reality that does not conform to fear-mongering templates. In a society where whiteness is still the unmarked norm, these relationships redistribute the optics of who belongs.

There is another layer, quieter but no less disruptive. When Western women form relationships with refugee men, they break with the implicit racial and political allegiances of their birth. White men are often animated by nationalist or racialist worldviews, and can experience these unions as betrayals. And they are right to. Romantic couplings of white Western women and refugees redistribute the optics of who belongs.

These women are not just falling in love; they are puncturing the fragile white male consensus that has long underwritten white identity politics. Each white womb decorated with a Brown or Black baby make racial purism increasingly not just odious but logistically impossible.

Gordon Allport’s mid-century contact theory proposed that sustained, cooperative contact between groups under conditions of equality reduces prejudice. These relationships are the contact hypothesis in its most intimate form. They are not state-sponsored integration programs; they are integration incarnate.

In other words, where the state fails, the bedroom succeeds. When white supremacy wants white women to zig, they zag.

None of this is to romanticize the challenges. But they truly put into action something that no institution can mandate: the total collapse of the line between “us” and “them.”

In the end, racism depends on abstraction, fear, and distance. Love destroys all three.

(*) Published on the site from AFRU, a Black-led and Black-owned startup that combines art and fashion with lifestyle commentary to create a strong social justice brand that is relevant to folks from all walks of life.
 

White British children are less 2% in 454 schools in UK

Primary school in London: in 72 UK schools there are no white British pupils, and in 454 schools white Brits represent less than 2%.

Israeli army has new weapons

 

Murder of 6-year-old free after only 20 years in jail

 

A woke mother, at his best - dolls for boys...

 

Charles III, who took a oath to "mantain and preserve" the Church of England, is a "dhimmi" - a traitor to his own religion

 Charles III is the "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" and makes an oath at the Coronation to 'maintain and preserve' the settlement of the Church of England. Since the Act of Settlement of 1701, the monarch is required to be a member of the Church of England and an 'Anglican communicant'.

This year, he just send a message to muslims, at the end of Ramadam, ignoring other religious confessions, like Christians, Jews and the Church of England, all of them celebrating special religious events, at the same time of the end of Ramadan.

He is a "dhimmi" (*), already submited to the Islam. 

(*) The status of dhimmi was based on a theoretical contract called the dhimma, which established reciprocal rights and obligations:

Rights of the dhimmis (in exchange for loyalty):

• Protection of life, property, and honor by the Islamic state.

• Freedom of religious practice, including their own courts and religious leaders (for example, Jews had their rabbinical courts).

• Exemption from military service, which was obligatory for Muslims.

Obligations and Restrictions:

• Payment of the jizya: a poll tax paid by dhimmis in exchange for the protection of the Islamic state.

Specific restrictions: These varied according to time and place, but often included:

• Distinctive clothing to be identified as non-Muslims.

• Prohibition on building new churches or synagogues (or repairing existing ones without permission).

• Inability to carry weapons or ride horses with saddles.

• Legal inferiority in certain areas, such as the value of testimony in court (the testimony of a dhimmi is worth only one-third of the testimony of a Muslim) or in diya (homicide compensation — the life of a dhimmi is worth half the indemnity awarded to a Muslim).

  

 

 

Jogo entre jovens imigrantes industânicos acaba à facada, com um morto com um "Khanjar"

Não se tratou de uma foice, mas de um "Khanjar", um punhal curvo que é tradição usar à cintura por industânicos de alguns países.