Islamism-The Scourge of the Modern Muslim Community!

This entire article can be summarized by an interaction between my Sufi Sheikh of the time, -Sheikh Nazim Haqqani, and a small group of Ikhwanis (Muslim Brotherhood people) who were heckling  him at a public event. He looked them in the eyes and said the following:” You don’t understand our religion. We are not agreeing to any ‘ism’’ -neither Socialism, nor Communism ,nor Feminism .Especially we are not agreeing to ‘Islamism’. People get the governments they deserve (i.e. you will not be able to improve their lot by establishing an Islamic state which is one of the core belie4fs of the Islamists).

Now if you truly understand these words, you can stop here! But I doubt that to be the case. It took me about 30 years to do so and the recent tragedy in the Middle East only served to underline how important  his words are ! What the sheikh is saying in essence is that the entire Islamist narrative is flawed from the start. And it is flawed for several fundamental reasons. Firstly, it is a man-made solution-a product of human hubris  (“mind-productions”).Unfortunately a typical human mistake.. We start with a problem- in this instance let’s say the corruption of the modern world, in values and behaviour-which has spilt out into the Muslim world .Both Syed Qutb and Abul A’la Maududdi ,the two principal thinkers of the Islamist movement, are quite clear that this is their starting point. Then you develop a theory to solve the problem. In both cases, the answer is the same. We need to recreate a Muslim Caliphate. And then you figure out how to implement your theory.

Notice already the difference from the origins of our Islamic Faith! Our Prophet saws was neither a theoretician (thank God) nor a politician. He received a Revelation and then communicated that to the people around him. He did not start with an idea!  He then promulgated the Revelation  with wisdom and discernment-not with Aristotelian logic. Thank God the Greek philosophers had not yet made their way  into the Arab world. That was only to happen much later starting with the Abbasids and reaching its culmination in the Andalusian period.

Now if you think about this process, not about the contents of the Islamist discourse, but about the philosophical underpinnings, you will see an ironic and significant parallel. The Marxist movement! Marx, too, identified a problem-the exploitation of the working class- a real problem which he described very well. Btw Marx was mostly right in his critique  of Capitalism. Where he went wrong was the solution. He, too, wanted a state to solve the problem. His state was called “the Dictatorship of the Proletariat”. The Islamic State and The Dictatorship of the Proletariat . Six of one, half a dozen of the other lol.. Have you noticed the catastrophe of Marxism and the massive loss of lives involved-40 million at least under Mao and another 30 million under Stalin. Not to mention Pol Pot in Cambodia and the North Korean regime. They outdid all others- including Christians and Islamists- in their murderous ways .Is that who we want to emulate?!

Then think of the abysmal failures of the so-called Islamic states-Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt under Al Morsi, And now, Turkey under the latest Ikhwani -Erdogan-all going in the wrong direction! There is no coincidence here. As long as man thinks he has a better plan than God, we are headed for disaster.

And how odd?1 This movement, that is so critical of Western society and so anti-Semitic at its core, is using the template of a European Jew(Karl Marx) to try to solve its problems. And btw there is evidence that Syed Qutb studied both Socialism and Communism in developing his ideas! How ironic?!
The secular Muslim journalist Tarek Fatah poses the dilemma this way in his book : ”Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic state”. “One could say there are two Islams that Muslims have introduced to the world. One peaceful, spiritual and deeply respectful of the ‘other’ an Islam that relied on the Quranic expression ‘To you your religion, to me mine” …However parallel to the spiritual Islam ,an equally militant stream of puritanism (read Wahhabbism) and supremacist philosophy(read Islamism)was evolving. It sought statehood, political power, and mastery not just over the conquered , but over competing Muslim interests as well(read the “takfiri” movement of which Algeria was the clearest example!).

Btw I used to think that the principal problem in the Islamic ummat was the Wahhabis. But they are a simple-minded, Bedouin people at heart ”Shirk”, “kufr” and “bida” Skeikh Nazim used to say.  ”Those are the only terms in their lexicon” lol.They did do the disservice of spreading a dry, lifeless, unspiritual version of Islam across the world with their petrodollars. But they are nowhere near as sophisticated and sinister in their influence as the Ikhwanis and the Jamat al Islamiya people- who claim to be reasonable and well-thought out . The latter represent  a significantly greater danger.

This article is not intended to be a comprehensive study of the recent history of Islamism. I will leave that to the academics lol. They love that kind of stuff. I am, at heart, an Essentialist-trying to get to the heart of the matter! But before getting to my “Charge Sheet” (a term I borrow from the great Quran scholar Israr Ahmad May Allah have mercy on his soul) let me say a few words about the major personalities involved. We could date the beginning of Islamism back to the 1920’s in Egypt with Hassan Banna who founded the Ikhwan Muslimun (Muslim Brotherhood). Others may predate it to Rashid Rida, the Muslim reformer, who predated Al Banna but these historical details are not really relevant to the discussion at hand. Of the 4 principal characters involved , the other three being Syed Qutb, Abul Ala Mauddudi and Ayotollah Khomeini, representing the Shia wing of the movement, he(Al Banna)  was the most moderate and probably the most likeable .He advocated a gradual, peaceful Islamization .By contrast, his successor in Egypt, Syed Qutb, was more militant ,more aggressive and later became one of the major inspirations for the Salafi Jihadists- including Ben Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri. Both Ben Laden and Zawahiri studied with his brother,  Muhammad Qutb, at his classes in Saudi Arabia1 Anwar  Al Awlaki, ,the head of al Qaeda in Yemen, was also an avid reader and follower of Syed Qutb. So the links between the terrorists and the Ikhwanis are very clear. But  take note: All Islamists are not terrorists but all terrorists are Islamists.

The personality most linked to Islamism in the subcontinent but who had influence all over the Muslim world was Maududdi.  Like Qutb, he wrote a long tafseer of the Quran justifying his point of view and like Qutb he had a refined intellect and considerable knowledge. However, even at their time, the traditional scholars of Islam did not accept their point of view! Qutb was declared a heretic by Al Azhar University (I would totally agree with that assessment even if it is shown that Al Azhar was under political pressure to do so). The Deobandi scholars were somewhat divided about Maududdi but below you can find a typical assessment by a South African Deobandi. N.B. It takes Muslims a long time to find out the reality of a person if they speak the familiar Muslimese lol. I think the Turks will have a rude awakening with Erdogan just as the Egyptians learnt the hard way by having Mohammed Mursi (another Ikhwani) in power!

 About Maududdi:    “I admired many things about Mawdudi Saheb and detested many. For a long time I did not wish to degrade him. I felt that from his innovated style of presentation, the modern generation could benefit. Although at times such compositions appeared from his that it was not possible to endure it, but taking into consideration the Deeni well-being, I tolerated it and kept silent. I did not foresee that this Fitnah would spread worldwide and have a detrimental effect on the Arab world; that every day from his master pen new buds would keep on blossoming and indecent words would be used regarding the Sahaaba Kiraam (Radhiallaahu Anhum) and the Anbiyaa (Alayhimus salaam). Later on, such things appeared daily in the “Tafhimul Qur’aan”.(Maududdi’s Tafseer)

 

Now it has become known without doubt that his writings and publications are the greatest Fitnah of the present time, notwithstanding a few beneficial treatises that have appeared, it is the case that the sin of them is greater than their usefulness.? (Surah Baqarah 219). Now that stage has been reached where to keep silent seems to be a great crime. It is regretted that for forty years an offensive silence was kept. Now the time has dawned, where without fear of rebuttal and censure all his writings from A to Z should be thoroughly studied with a view to fulfil the demands for the preservation of the Deen with Haqq and justice.

Wallaahu Waliyyut Tawfeeq

Moulana Muhammad Yusuf Binnori

 

(under the supervision of Mufti Ebrahim Desai from South Africa).

 

Last, but not least, is the Shia version of Islamism under Ayatollah Khomeini. I had just become Muslim-in Jerusalem- in 1978 and shortly afterwards  we were all excited to see Khomeini return from France to Iran. ”Finally, a real Islamic country” we thought. It reminds me in retrospect about our enthusiasm when Mugabe came to power in Rhodesia! “Finally, an African leader with a pure left-wing agenada” Paradise was at hand lol. Well we know where that led ! And Iran is more or less on the same track! More people have left Islam in Iran because of the Mullahs than at any previous period I am aware of! That is the effect of Islamism in action! The Quran teaches: ”There is no compul.sion in Religion”.But the Islamists turn this teaching on its head! ” Compulsion leads to virtue. We need to force it upon people”. How much more un-Islamic could they be?!

 

The ”Charge Sheet” against the Islamists

 

Let me put the following figures in perspective since this article is being written during the Israel-Hamas war. The best figure I could find put Palestinian deaths between 1948 and 2020 at 31,000! With the current conflict that could easily rise to 45,000. Now 45,000 deaths is a very significant number, no doubt. And it doesn’t count the injured , the displacements and the general misery and economic consequences of war. But let us consider the following numbers-much of which is directly or indirectly caused by Islamism. And btw the excessive deaths in Gaza can also be traced to Islamism as well. That is not to negate the Israeli responsibility But think about it! 31,000 deaths in 70 years mostly under P.L.O. and Palestinian authorities and now  let’s say 15,000 deaths in six weeks with Hamas. Draw your own conclusions.

• Iran/Iraq war: 1980-1988 One to two million killed. Islamist contribution; Saddam Hussein was no angel but he was legitimately concerned that Iran would try to infiltrate and even take over Iraq where there was a Shiite majority So, Islamism certainly played a role.
• The Afghan Civ!il War:

Before Ben Laden and al-Qaeda.1978-1992

1.5 million  deaths

Afghanistan since 2001– 243,000 deaths !

Islamist contribution: The Taliban and other Islamic parties like Hizb Islam Gulbuddin and Hizb al Wahdat certainly played the major role let alone al Qaida and Isis in Khorasan- two Salafi Jihadist groups directly derived from Islamist ideas

• Syrian Civil War: 500,000-600,000 deaths. Islamist contribution :No doubt the Assad family is the principal culprit but the threat of an Ikhwani uprising was always in the background-especially after their attempt to assassinate the elder Assad in Homs failed!
• Algeria I.S. (Front Islamique de Salut1 What a strange name?! “salut” means salvation in French. Should rather be called Front Islamique de L’enfer.The Road to Hell.- 200,000 deaths!
• India/Pakistan separation.2-3 million lives lost  Islamist contribution Muhammad Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was not an Islamist but rather a secular Indian. However, the project of having a Muslim state can be considered  a consequence of of Political Islam even if it is not properly Islamist. Btw the traditional Deobandi Islamic scholars were not in agreement with this project The debacle of separation was followed by an unnecessary war between Pakistan and Bagladesh which claimed another million lives(estimates range from 300,000-3 million!)

This is admittedly a cherry-picked list- cherry-picked for the numbers of deaths involved. Not included are the deaths in Pakistan caused by the Pakistani Taliban, the Lebanese Civil War ,  the people murdered by the Mullah’s regime in Iran, the deaths of Iraqis due to sectarian violence after the Americans pulled out. the deaths in north Africa with the Arab uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt , the deaths from Al Qaida and Isis(the latter 33,000 -outdoing the Israelis in a few short years!), Boko Haram in Nigeria, The Al Shabbab in Somalia etc ,etc.. Many if not most of these deaths  can be traced back to Islamism.

 

At this point, the conclusion should be clear. As the formerly cited South African scholar said about Maududdi, this political current is the greatest “fitna” (civil disturbance ) that Islam has know-possibly since the Mongol Invasions in Iraq and the Crusades in the Middle Ages .It far outstrips the problem of Israel that Muslims seem to be obsessed with-as it goes to the very heart of out tradition. In reality, it should be considered a “heresy” in the same class as the Khawarij and the Mutazili heresies before it. More than destroying lives, it ends up destroying Islamic consciousness which is about being humble and peaceful and surrendering to the Divine will-NOT about showing how clever and willful and strategic we can be. Not about self-assertion , but about  self-discipline and self-control(the jihad-a -nafs thats our Prophet  saws  taught us was much greater than the jihad of War) .As Muslims we are surrendered and obedient to Allah-not to any theoretical doctrine that sounds Islamic. That is a subtle but fundamental understanding that the ummat needs to appreciate if it is to survive and thrive, May Allah protect us all.

Salaams, Sufi Ibrahim

 

 

 

“Fascinating Womanhood” by Helen Andelin:

The Antidote to “Toxic Feminism”

In the 1980’s, I would go to Peckham, London every year during Ramadan to be with my Sufi Sheikh -Sheikh Nazim Naqshbandi. One of the things he would do later in the day was to go touring around London to rest from his grueling schedule. I accompanied him on several occasions on his “rounding” trips and I noticed something peculiar during those times. Generally Sheikh Nazim was a good-mannered, jovial person. Everyone loved him for his good character and good humour. But I noticed that there were two things that would get him upset. Let’s remember that these were the days before the internet so London was plastered with billboards of all types. Two of those types would bother him. So what were they? Billboards praising Communism and billboards praising Feminism.

It must be remembered that this was the sheikh’s first incursions into the Western world. Previously his life had been confined to Turkish Cyprus, Turkey, Damascus and regular visits to the holy sites of Mecca and Madina-that is until the Wahhabbi Saudis blocked him lol(or he blocked himself-not sure which lol).But this was his first real contact with the West.

Now there was something very special about Sheikh Nazim’s relationship with the West. Unlike almost every other Eastern spiritual teacher I have met, he seemed to immediately understand what was going on- better than most Western people in fact! He appreciated Western peoples’ open-mindedness, their capacity to invent new technologies and their desire to do things well. And occasionally he would joke about it saying if we had left technology to the Easterners we never would have had cars or airplanes.

He also understood racism and nationalism and would bring up hadith like “Love of the homeland is from Faith” And the Quranic ayats about Allah having created tribes and nations to indicate that it was all fine. Except he had none of the liberal delusions about us all being the same. He could address the strengths and weaknesses of all peoples without disparaging any of them. ”Germans they are walking like this” he would say in his inimical TurkEnglish. And he would imitate a militaristic walk. ”But the English ones, they are lazy ones” and he would imitate their slow walking into the zawiya-as if they were resisting all the way. He would even take to task his own people saying: “Turks, they are foolish ones, like sheep. But they are very strong militarily. And he would bring up the fact, hitherto unknown to me, that during the Korean War the first ones to break the Northern Korean lines were the Turks. No wonder they ruled the Islamic world during the Ottoman Empire for 500 years! Everyone seemed to take his comments in stride as they were all said in good humour. But there was an important point being made at the same time! We are all different-different strengths and different weaknesses. So stop trying to homogenize humanity, O liberals. Just as individuals are different so are nations. Woke liberals, get used to it lol.

So with such loving acceptance of differences, why was he upset with Communism and Feminism. Over the years I have come to see the wisdom and depth of his vision. Now, remember, I was coming still at that time from a liberal, left-wing perspective. I had left Marxism 10 years earlier but I was still sympathetic to left-wing causes . And as to feminism, I was still generally sympathetic. Now most people at this point, have long since rejected Marxism. Even Jean-Paul Sartre although it took him a long time lol! The cost of being an intellectual! .After the tyrannical excesses of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung’s Great Leap Forward and  the Cultural Revolution that together probably caused over 40 million deaths! After Pol Pot in Cambodia and Kim Il Sung in North Korea not too many people give Classical Marxism any credibility nowadays. And they shouldn’t !

However Feminism still rides high in public opinion. Even the Eastern cultures are adapting it’s principles more and more-leading to the inevitable increase in family tensions, divorce rates and illicit sexual behaviour. But it has penetrated deeply into people’s unconscious-so much so that even our Western Islamic scholars(I will not name them here but you know who they are. Think of any of the high-profile scholars of Islam in the West!)) are unwilling to challenge them. When I told one of my American Sufi teachers that all his Western female disciples were still deeply feminist, he dismissed the idea completely .  He may, at this point, be reconsidering as they are the very group who brought his reputation into disrepute with a scandalous story of child abuse in his Community school. Ignoring reality is never a good option-even for Sufis!

This article is one of the most sensitive and personal and controversial I have written. And admittedly I approach it with a certain trepidation. I know that people have very strong feelings about this subject. But it’s content needs to be heard. Just like the vaccine mandates across the world( I am not talking about Covid vaccines but the child mandates required to go to school in California for example) are destroying a generation and possibly two of children, Feminism is the corresponding toxin that is destroying generations of Couples and families and the plague is by no means over.

Experts like John Gottman (“The Seven Keys to Successful Marriage”) are now finding that if we follow married couples in the U.S. for fourty years, the divorce rate is somewhere between 60-70 %.And that is for married couple?! Imagine the others. The” experts” in the field like Gottman and Terrence Real both of whom I respect -in Gottman’s case for his assiduous research and as to Terry Real for his obvious clinical acumen-don’t get it! They, too, have drunk the Koolaid of Feminist ideology. Both believe largely that the problem is individual and Tewrry Real(what a name for the irrealitry of his sociological position lol) believes the problem is “toxic masculinity”. Really?! In what world is he living in?! Toxic masculinity has been denounced for more than fifty years at least We hear terms every day like”male chauvists”,”macho” ,”misogynist”, “patriarchical” etc.,etc. Not that there aren’t toxic and sicko, paranoid males out there. But I would contend that in the grand scheme of things “Toxic Feminism ‘ is a much more corrosive force in the word than ”Toxic Masculinity”!

As I hinted at earlier in this essay, this is a very personal issue for me. Both my family of origin ( domineering mother and weak father) and my current family of an ex-wife and three daughters have been negatively affected by this toxic feminism. I cannot here go into all the details as too many people still alive would probably be offended, but let me say in all humility that since becoming Muslim in 1978,I have had four marriages including a 24 year-long marriage to the mother of my three children. And I am convinced that Feminism was a determinant factor in the ultimate termination of each of these relationships! Don’t get me wrong here lol. I am not claiming to be a perfect character or an easy one. I do get upset from time to time especially when I feel I am being unfairly challenged. But I have never hit or threatened to hit any of my marital partners. I have always assumed my responsibilities and done my best to take care of the people around me-something I still do every day. So there was no reason for these marriages to “fail”.

But I am a man lol. And I have a strong sense of mission. Unlike the Red/Green limerick: ”I’m a man, but I can change if I have to I guess’ lol You can hear the intonations of Feminism in that very limerick. The man has to change. Not the woman, right? She is “full of sugar and spice and everything nice” . Isn’t that what the poem says?

Well, I am a man and there are things I can change but one of them is not my sense of mission. And as Helen Andelin will tell us shortly, it is the job of the woman to support the man’s mission!

More than supporting her own ambition (a basic teaching of Feminism)and the ego-centric desires of the children she needs to support his mission and thereby his leadership. Anything else will lead to disharmony and conflict and misery all around-both for the man and the woman and the children. And that is precisely what we see all around us! So now let us explore the remedy-the work of Helen Andelin!

Firstly, who is Helen Andelin. Most of us including the well-read amongst us have never heard of her! Not surprising since the Feminists “love to hate her” lol and they have the same control over the main stream media that Fauci had over the vaccine question lol!

Helen Andelin ( May 22,1920-June 7 2009)was the founder of the “Fascinating Womanhood” movement and taught marriage classes in the early 1960’s.She was born into a Latter-day Saint Mormon family in Arizona. and received a Bachelor’s degree from Brigham Young University-he (B.Y.) is the successor of Joseph Smith) in Home Economics! How quaint. Muslim readers should note that the Mormons are considered non-Trinitarian Christians in that they believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are separate personalities. That brings them closer to Islam in their theology.

Now, on a personal note, I have met numerous Mormons proselytizing in my childhood neigbourhood and have followed others like Mitt Romney and Orrin Hatch over the years in American Politics. My personal take is that they are very upright moral people(I can never stop being grateful to Rep.Hatch saying to Congress: ”You will never take away my vitamins and supplements” when the U.S. Congress was being lobbied by the Pharma companies to regulate natural products and thus put many of these companies out of business! Thank you Orin wherever you may be lol).

On the other hand, these same Mormons always appeared to me as overly strict and moralistic-as some “good people” tend to be. So I am wary for sure. As to how this may apply to the current discussion, I don’t think anyone -man or woman- can quite meet the standards of behaviour that Helen is advocating in her writing. That being said, I think the general thrust of the argument is correct and with some adaptive manoeuvres to prevent becoming too ideological, I think her ideas represent a potent instrument in cleansing contemporary relationship of “Toxic Feminism” something that even the conservatives and right-wing Christians AND Muslims have not been able to formulate so far.

So without further ado lol. let us present the ideas of Helen Andelin directed at women wanting to improve their relationships. Next to each of these ideas I will present the current Feminist positions that make these ideas-as practical and true as they may be-seem counter-intuitive!

A-The Two Ideal Female Types. Hele4n begins by defining two ideal types of women–the Angelic and the Human. The Angelic woman understands men, has deep inner peace ,has a worthy character and is a “Domestic Goddess” (a bit of a hyperbole but let’s say she really enjoys her vocation as  a home-maker).

The Feminists are already up in arms lol ”Why can’t she have a career? Why does she have to understand men? Don’t they also have to understand women” We will try to answer these objections as best we can. I don’t believe Helen was against womens’  careers- she just wanted them to prioritize their family life .When the research  psychologists study happiness and success, they find that women prioritize their relationships and men prioritize their work! Vive la difference. Genetics is still a powerful force indeed.After all it represents God’s will!

The second type of ideal woman is of Human nature. She is ultimately feminine, charms, fascinates and amuses. She arouses a desire in the male to protect and shelter. She has a childlike-ness about her.

Feminist response: Why do women have to be charming to get what they want?! Why can’t they be strong and self-sufficient? Why should they be childlike? Isn’t it better to be an adult? The answer to all that is that by women trying to be more and more like men, they alienate the latter and turn them off. That creates more and more friction and ultimately relationship failure!

To illustrate her points, Helen uses the novel “David Copperfield” and talks about the latter’s two partners-Agnes who represents the angelic type and Dora the human type Here is what he says:

“The feeling David had for Agnes was one near worship(haven’t seen much of that nowadays lol).She had a sacred influence on him. She brought him peace and happiness and without her he seemed to “go wild and get into difficulty. Thinking about her ‘soothed him imto tears’. He felt like she was a part of him-as one of the elements of my natural home” The feeling he had for Dora was different. She fascinated him and amused him’ She was more than human to me. She was a fairy and a sylph…All of her delicate and bright mannerisms aroused his irresistible longing to shelter and protect her. The kind of love David felt for Dora was forceful,consuming and intense. He felt like “biting the key of his carpet bag”( we would probably say biting our lips from disbelief!).He was in “fairyland.He cwas a captive and a slave.”

This type of love was not complete however. While married to Agnes (after Dora died-this is England not Saudi Arabia lol) he experienced peace and happiness and he loved her dearly, but he still had tender recollections of Dora which sent stirring feelings through his heart.

Now this may all sound whimsical and phantasmagoric but it is not that distant from our own experience- if we look closely. In Islamic history, as we study carefully the life of our Prophet saws, we will see the two types in Khadija r.a. the first wife of the Prophet a.s was like  Agnes, the angelic type and Ayesha r.a.was the Dora type

Prophet Muhammad (saw) remembered  his beloved wife Khadijah (ra) fondly  as “she believed in me when all others disbelieved; she held me truthful when others called me a liar; she sheltered me when others abandoned me; she comforted me when others shunned me; and Allah (SWT) granted me children by her while …  Prophet Muhammad once said that the four greatest women of mankind were: Khadija bint Khuwaylid (his first wife), Fatima bint Muhammad (his youngest daughter,) Mary bint Imran (the Virgin Mary) and Asiya bint Muzahim (the wife of Pharaoh.)

So she was the Celestial wife. As to Ayesha r.a. she was young and charming and childlike. They raced with each other and played with each other and enjoyed each other’s company. She was the Prophet’s favourite wife after Khadija died. And it remained so til the end of his life.

Now for each of us, we can think back to our own relationships and find instances of these kind of feelings. Unfortunately, in the modern world, they usually do not last very long. The received wisdom” in the world of psychology is that the honeymoon feeling is over by three-six months. Often shorter than that! But perhaps it doesn’t have to be so. So let us continue with the ideas of Helen Andelin

B-Accept the Man at Face Value:

And what does that mean? Helen explains: ”It means that we recognize him as a human being who, like ourselves and all  other humans, is part virtue and part fault. It is a very honest approach. We realize that the faults are there, but we are not concerned about them. for we accept the total man. If he wants to change on his own, that is his business. We are satisfied with him as he is.

N.B. We are NOT talking about abuse here! Neither physical nor emotional abuse. Neither Ms. Andelin nor the author here can accept that .I will mention a little later Helen’s ’approach to that problem.

She goes on to mention how and what women try to change in their partners.

a-Personal Habits: poor eating habits, poor table manners, neglect of appearance, poor grammar, bad temper, depressed mood, careless driving, being untidy (leaving things lying around the house). etc.etc.

On this note, I remember a female client complaining about her partners leaving his dirty socks lying around. When I questioned her further, I found out that at the same time, he had spent 35 hours building a deck outside this house. When I questioned wasn’t it worth it to her to spend a few moments picking up some dirty clothes for the services she was receiving, she responded that it was not a matter of time, but a matter of principle! Not the first person I have met who made themselves miserable through questions of principle l,ol!

b- How he spends His time: Complaining that he spends too much time with the boys, watching sporting events (I’m with you on that one ladies lol) or simply napping on the couch.

c-Duties: neglect of home repairs, yard work, painting, taking out the garbage(that’s a popular one lol)

d-Social Behaviour-talks too much, brags too much, talks too little (guess you can’t win!), says the wrong things. doesn’t treat people properly (I personally witnessed a seventy-year old couple in a restaurant where the wife was chewing out her husband for not being nice enough to the waitress.I wonder how long that had been going on for?!)

e-Dreams and desires: Husbands don’t have enough ambition, shift their goals too often, have too wild dreams (seen lots of that lol)

f-Manly Accomplishments: want the husband to be more successful, to make more money, to be more decisive.

f-Money: Manages money poorly, spends too much-especially without consulting, or are too stingy-can’t win, again, eh?

g-Neglect of Children: doesn’t take enough responsibility with respect to the children.

h- not religious enough. Doesn’t pray regularly, doesn’t go to Church

 

Then Helen goes on to say why the women should not complain

• It causes marriage problems
• It destroys love
• it doesn’t work
• It causes the man to become resentful

Instead she recommends the following:

• Get rid of your self-righteous attitude ( the worst cases of this I have seen in women who have alcoholic husbands .It is then always the husband who is wrong! And the woman can be addicted to being right! Oddly enough when the husband cures his addiction (and yes, the gender roles can be reversed here!) the relationship often disintegrates. Intriguing?!)
• Look to his better side!
• Do not compare him to other men (for reasons that will soon be explained-male pride!)
• Express your acceptance

The Feminist reply: How can I accept the unacceptable? Why should I keep quiet? Should I let him walk all over me and still keep silent?” The answer: “Only if you want to maintain a harmonious marriage .If you want to keep quarreling, that’s fine. You will certainly be consistent with social norms lol

 

C-Express Admiration ( The feminists are already saying: “Now you are going too far. Why should I do that?! Am I not as good as him?!The answer to that question is: ‘it will improve and save your marriage’! A word of wisdom from Helen on gender differences here; ”The center of woman’s happiness in marriage is to be loved by her mate-but the center of man’s is to be admired” Beautiful insight! Yes, we are different. Vive la différence!

She goes on to explain that deep in the heart of every man he longs for admiration-of his abilities, his ideas and his dreams.

: his physical strength

: his manly courage

: his sense of duty and honour

: his leadership ability

: his sexual skills;

:his determination and power;

:his devotion to a cause;

:his intellectual capacities;

:his achievement or success;

:his judgment and discernment:

:his noble ideals and aspirations

Of course no man will have all of these, so women need to know what their priorities are in selecting a mate .Once selected, however, they need to affirm him rather than constantly challenge him as contemporary females are wont to do.

I can hear the Feminist chatter already lol.” Are you kidding me. Do you want me to be a lapdog , a brown-noser, a wimp?”  Only if you want to be happy in your relationship. If you instead choose to prove that you are his equal and constantly confronting him with his limitations, you are sure to fail! One of the factors that is sure to lead to failure comes from envy. Freud called it “penis envy” but it is far more than that. It is envy for the male position as opposed to the female one. The roles  are complementary, of course, but if the female challenges for the leadership which is not the “firah”( the natural way),the result is going to be misery-without a doubt!

A spiritual anecdote here. In 1975 I attended my first spiritual event -an EST seminar in a hotel room in San Francisco. In front of an audience of 25 people the” trainer” ( that’s what they called the teacher at the time) looked directly at the audience and said the following. I will never forget it as the phrase resonated throughout my spiritul journey!  “You say that what you want is to be happy, but if you look carefully at your thoughts and behaviour, you will see that what you really want is to be right”. Deep! Ajib! True!

 

D-Male Pride:

Quoting Helen Andelin again “he is proud of his manly qualities…he likes to show them off, to call your attention to them in both conversation and actions.

But it is here that man is most vulnerable, for his pride is extremely sensitive. He cannot bear to have his masculinity belittled, ridiculed or treated with indifference.

When a man is belittled frequently he tends to build a tight wall of reserve around himself-an impenetrable barrier against those who have offended him” i.e .he closes down and becomes non-communicative. John Gottman calls this “stonewalling” It is one of the four horseman of the apocalypse of the marriage.

Feminist response: Who does he think he is?! Does he think the whole world revolves around him?! And the answer: ”In the family ,he is central. He has been given authority by his Creator. As it says in the Quran: 4:34 (Yusuf  Ali tr.): “Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard.”

And Quran 2:228

“And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power and Wise”

Interestingly enough you can see that Feminism has penetrated even into even the translations of the Quran by pious Muslims! How so? Well, the word that is translated as rights is . معرف which means benefits not rights( Ah the twists of modernism!That is a significant change of meanings-from rights to benefits!) and the word in Arabic درجت which refers not to a degree of advantage(Yusuf Ali translation) but rather to a rank. ( another significant change of meaning).So in brief, at least for those who believe in the Holy Books, man has a rank above women i.e. he has the authority in the family as a God-given right.

That by no means suggests that he is free to be abusive or demeaning! He has to responsibly and compassionately exercise his leadership. As they say in American politics: ” The buck stops here!”

 

E- Sympathetic Understanding

 

H.A. “The majority of men, when they come of age and marry, take on an enormous burden, which they may not lay down with any conscience this side of the grave. They put aside, in the name of love, most of their vaunted freedom and contract to take upon their shoulders full social and economic responsibility for their wives and children”

“But few women know how to give true sympathy. It isn’t that they don’t try but that they don’t know how(especially nowadays!).He comes to have his soul restored, his self-esteem re- established and his self-doubt removed” And ,in fact how can the wife show sympathy and understanding if she is competing with him?!

 

F-Man’s Role: Guide, Protector and Provider

We have referred to this important function in our Quranic references. Again this underlines the leadership role of men in families.

H.A. ”We have often heard the statement ‘marriage is a partnership’ But what kind of partnership? It is not an equal partnership(as democratic ’modernist’ thinking would like us to believe!) “for man’s role is to be guide, protector, and provider ,whereas woman’s is loving wife, mother and homemaker.

This is one of the key issues in the entire discussion! We have two options-the ideological, egalitarian option which btw is failing miserably something we can see all around us or the “fitrah” option. ”Fitrah” refers to the underlying nature of things-as God designed it- as opposed to man’s idea which he, in his infinite hubris, thinks is better than God’s idea. Religious positions aside, if we adopt the true “scientific” position- of observation, hypothesis and conclusions we have 200 years, at least, of experimentation to tell us that man’s ideas have failed! How much more evidence do we need?!

 

G-Make Him Number 1

A heinous idea to the Feminists! “Why shouldn’t the woman be number one?” they would argue. My answer is; ”Because that’s not the way God set it up. Sorry ladies! It is not what you want, but you don’t get to decide.”As say the Americans in business-”That’s not your pay level” lol Or to refer back to the EST seminars, they compared these realities to the laws of gravity! “You don’t get to decide whether the ball falls to the ground when you let it go.The laws of nature are what they are. Outside of your control!” “

So he is number one-even before children (yes, a common option amongst women and part of their genetic programming) before homemaking (yes, housekeeping is important but heart-keeping is more so. I have heard this one from many of my patients-that their mother was more concerned with the state of the house then the state of their hearts); money and security(many women oppose their husbands business initiatives and personal projects-even spiritual ones-on the argument that it would threaten their economic security).

I, personally, suffered from this as my Mom vetoed my father’s desire to open his own technology repair business, which he loved doing and brow-beat him into staying at a job in a factory that he hated-all for fear for our financial well-being.

Another wrong priority-her parents. Gottman makes it clear in his chapter on in-laws that both partners need to prioritize their current families. However, I have seen this particularly amongst Muslims who use religious phrases like “bir walidayn” (filial piety) to deprive their current partners of their rights. I have several clinical vignettes about this but will leave them for a later time as this article has already gone beyond the intended length.

Careers: This is a “biggie” for feminists. “Why shouldn’t we have a right to careers just like men?” they will assert .The answer to this can be quite complicated but essentially it comes down to biology or should I say neuroscience” as this is a modern catch-phrase. The psychology researchers find, for example, when women come to evaluate the success of their lives, they look to their relationships whereas men turn to their professional success. This is changing somewhat as men become more feminized and less aware of their masculine nature! But the basic premise remains true. This is the way we are hard-wired!

 

H- The Domestic Goddess

The domestic Goddess is a woman who really enjoys being a housemaker. She is proud of her house, proud of her children and yes, horror of horrors to Feminists, proud of her husband! She puts a “light warmth and spirit into the home”, and sees homemaking as a celestial activity-attempting to generate an earthly form of the garden (as fragile as that may be in this life of suffering).She does not fall for the argument that her duties are drudgery and monotonous- as contemporary social conditioning would have her believe!. A brief aside here. As these career women, often totally stressed out, go running to mindfulness workshops to unstress. What could possibly be more boring than sitting on your tush for hours on end?! Lol. Cooking and cleaning are in comparison a veritable delight-especially if you see it as an act of worship and service. The Hindus rightfully consider that “karma yoga’. But these same New-Age women who take a delight in washing dishes at the Ashram find it beneath their dignity to wash dishes for their family?!

 

I-Femininity-The The gentle, tender quality

Obvious, no? H.A. “No heavy, physical work, no slapping men on the back, no whistling loudly, no drinking by throwing your head back, no walking heavily, no looking fierce or hard, no speaking harshly(swearing),no tailored clothes(the male suits of Feminists )” these are some of Helen’s suggestion!

“Femininity is acquired by accentuating the differences between yourself and men, not the similarities. You apply this principle in your appearance, your manner, your actions and even your attitude. The more different you appear than men the more feminine you become.”

“What is feminine manner? It is the motions of a woman’s body, the way she uses her hands, her walk and her talk, the sound of her voice, her facial expressions and her laugh” And all this without excessive affectation or seductiveness I would add.

 

 

J- Feminine Dependency

Whoa! Now we are hitting a core sensitivity nerve amongst the Feminists! “What?! Why should I depend on a man? What if he leaves me in the lurch? What will I do then?!  I don’t trust men enough to rely on them. I want to be “autonomous”(the core tenet of Feminism).”

There are many answers to this position. Let’s first listen to Helen:” The role of man …is to lead, protect, and provide for women. Her need for his manly care is called “feminine dependency”. Rob him of this sensation of superior strength and ability and you rob him of his manliness. You must dispense with any air of masculine strength and ability, of competence  and fearlessnes and acquire an air of feminine dependency upon man to take care of you.The air of being able to “kill your own snakes” is just what destroys the charm of so many women(Think Hilary Clinton lol)

And in any case, have women become more secure with this autonomy?! They put their relationships in jeopardy, they are still subject to the vagaries of the job market, their husbands have become reliant on their income which just puts them under more pressure and their health is never certain especially with the double role of worker and housewife. Ultimately despite what the psychologists teach us lol, we cannot rely on ourselves-whether man or woman.The only entity we can rely on is God-(tawakuul’ it is called in Islam)but  it  takes a lot of work to develop that spiritual virtue.!

 

 

K- Childlikeness

Another one that upsets the Feminist clan! “Why should we be like children?! Can’t we be adult, mature a d responsible/!” they will say

Let’s see what Helen has to say on this one:  ”Childlikeness is one of the most charming qualities in the entire philosophy of Fascinating Womanhood. Dora (one of her female role mode4ls) was ‘captivating, girlish and bright-eyed. Amelia (from Vanity Fair)had the tender emotions of a little child, for her eyes would fill up with tears. Déruchette ( Victor Hugo) had the giddiness, vivacity and teasing playfulness of a little girl”

Are you getting the picture by now ?!  If not, think of the opposites-Hilary Clinton(mentioned above), Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher., Indira Ghandhi. These are all women who, for better or for worse, identified with the masculine gender in order to fulfill their leadership roles.They are not good models for women.

And in case people are thinking that Helen is condoning abuse by encouraging dependency and child-likeness. here are a couple of other quotes: ” Must you accept a man at face value when he mistreats you and just overlook it? I am referring to times when he may be thoughtless, unfair ,impose on you, neglect you too fasr ,or is extremely harsh or critical. Man is entitled to many freedoms but he does not have the right to mistreat you…In fact it is difficult for a man to feel romantic towards a woman he can mistreat! It is likewise difficult for her to feel romantic towards the man who mistreats her”! ”When men’s mistreatments  are severe, childlike behaviour is not the answer. The entire philosophy of Fascinating Womanhood must be applied to melt a normally tender heart.There is no excuse for brutish behaviour in men(i.e. if they refuse to change, get rid of them!) In the Islamic tradition, this is confirmed by several hadith of the Prophet saws like this one “Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The most complete of believers in faith are those with the best character, and the best of you are the best in behavior to their women.”

 

Conclusion: People who know my thinking are aware that I do not like ideologies! So I am not trying to start another ‘ism’-by going from Feminism to “Femininity-ism” lol I am not suggesting that we should consider Helen’s writings here as cathecism. I am however suggesting that she is indicating a radical shift in attitude(yes, a 180 degree shift) from asserting one’s rights to asserting God’s rights-i.e. playing our different gender roles as they are designed to be by our Creator- as opposed to how our minds would like them to be. That could be a solution in many other areas of life as well!

There is much more in Ms. Andelin’s book for those who seek to research the subject further. In Helen Andelin’s writings we have a recipe for success! It flies in the face of a large-scale consensus around feminist ideals and targeting of the evil patriarchy (which is God’s way btw0.Some will find it over-simplistic and unrealistic. Others will find it outrageous and extremist-pandering to the enemy if you wish. Although I too believe that it can be too idealistic as a format and does need to be adapted to specific circumstances-financial and characterological-, it must be said that is largely consistent with traditional values throughout history and with the vast majority of the scriptural texts-at least in the Western religious traditions.

Personally I believe there is a strong core of Truth in these ideas. And it gave me hope that mutually satisfying couple relationships are, in fact, possible-something I had begun to doubt after looking at the relationships in my own life and those around me. I would counsel you,if you are at all open-minded, to have a look and see if there is not something here that you could apply in your own life. It could be a game-changer! Salaams, Sufi Ibrahim

 

Addendum: Instructions for men

One of the possible criticisms of Helen Andelin’s work was that she only addressed proper behaviour for women. Interestingly, I don’t see that criticism coming from the Feminist reviews opposing her work! Another proof of the Narcissism of Feminists lol. Only their gender counts!

But from my point of view, that aspect is necessary as well-if only to create balance and complementarity. Take note that men are simpler creatures, so the instructions do not need to be so elaborate lol So here are my complementary recommendations for men :

1-Assume your leadership role with vigour and firmness -but not with aggression and stubbornness

2_ Be generous and gentle and kind

3_ Work strenuously on yourself-what we Sufis call “jihad-a nafs:-the struggle with the ego(see my Youtube videos on the “klesas” for instruction on this subject)

4_ Be aware of the gender differences (no, we are not the same!) and adapt and adjust accordingly

“And he just said-Good Luck” lol (Bob Dylan)