Counter-Currents
3,072 words
Foreword by Petr Hampl
Associate Professor Martin Konvička is a widely respected biologist. He is mainly interested in butterflies and other small insects. That’s of no interest to Counter-Currents readers, however. What is more interesting is that as a biologist he looks at different cultures, civilizations, and social classes and judges them in terms of mating patterns, and often in terms of the statistical incidence of various sexual deviations as well — because again, these are just certain mating patterns.
For years was regarded as a very interesting and entertaining intellectual — until he started applying these same research principles to Islam, and came to the conclusion that it was a psychopathological thing from the start. He also became involved in the movement to oppose the establishment of Islam in the Czech Republic. For radical progressivists for a time, he became the personification of evil. He was harassed, insulted, and sometimes even physically attacked — in fact, his reputation is very similar to that of Putin nowadays. He has long since retired from political activism, but he has not been able to overcome the impact all of this had on his career. For example, he has never been appointed as a full rofessor, even though he easily exceeds all the requirements.
The following is a translation of an earlier article by Prof. Konvička.
The Opinion of a University Biologist:
Islam and Mental Disorders
Every time a “good Muslim” mysteriously turns into an Islamist — i.e., goes out among the people in an explosive vest, in a truck, or with a machete, axe, or knife — and if he is not eliminated on the spot but rather detained, the media and experts soon label him as a “mentally disturbed individual.” From this it is inferred that “the act had nothing to do with Islam.”
“They were crazy about Allah,” we who know our stuff might retort. Islam was founded by a madman, and is indeed so insane and so out of step with other human cultures that it is hard to maintain one’s sanity within it. It may simply be a more complicated form of insanity. It is the forensic psychiatrists who tend to sign off on the diagnosis of “mental disorder,” and it is unlikely that all of these psychiatrists are being manipulated by the media.
Moreover, there is a historical question. The Prophet may have been mad, but why didn’t the “sane” ones around him moderate him, why didn’t Islam “recover” as the number of the faithful grew, and why did some believers succumb to fanaticism more than others? I am often accused of “sexualizing” the problem of Islamic expansion — of simplifying it to relations between the sexes and within families. I know why I do this: I’m primarily a biologist, and every clash of cultures has a (socio)biological level in which phenomena around reproduction are crucial. But I have gradually come to believe that it is necessary to go further.
I intend to psychiatrize the issue of Islamic expansion. I can appeal to the most competent authority: Bill Warner of the Center for the Study of Political Islam. He has repeatedly mentioned the need to examine the relationship between the Islamic faith and psychological disorders. I am now taking up his challenge.
An important warning: I have been researching the relationship between Islam and sexuality for years, have published two scholarly articles on a related topic, and have helped several girls to leave Islam. For all that, and because we all have some sexuality, I dared to speak from a position of authority. In psychiatric issues, on the other hand, I am a layman, and I can be wrong about many things. I will almost certainly will confuse the names of diagnoses, “illnesses,” personality disorders,” and the like. Yet, I immodestly believe that some of my insights should be of interest to professionals, at least as working hypotheses for further thought.
One more warning. As with sexuality, much of what I have observed in Muhammadans and Islamophiles can be seen, as in a mirror, in opponents of Islam. It is perfectly logical. A crazy system naturally attracts all sorts of lunatics: If anything, they “sniff” it, like a dog sniffs a bitch. After that, it is up to them — and their moral decision — which side they join.
1. First, the seemingly “superficial”: autistic, obsessive disorders, Aspergers . . .
There are situations where a person is as if locked in his inner world, from where he hardly finds his way to other people, does not easily establish normal interactions with them, does not understand the emotions of others or his own, and where he has to learn how to have interactions with others — often painfully. If he finds himself in a situation that he is not used to — in a strange environment, and so on — a panic attack may occur. He often feels the urge to perform repetitive rituals and activities, or to “think” repetitive and sometimes even destructive thoughts. I know I am simplifying things enormously.
You can buy Leo Yankevich’s collection Journey Late at Night here.
Some analysts find something obsessive-compulsive in Muhammad: both in his obsession with Allah, angels, and jinn, and in his detailed instructions on how to pray, wash, eat, have sex, defecate — and, of course, how to interact with other people, from wives and children to infidels and enemies. All religious systems instruct their believers in how to pray or what to eat — but none, as far as I know, emphasizes the smallest details, and thus none relies on the constant repetition of all prescribed actions. Some of the Muhammadan injunctions — do not cross the channel, cover the dishes before going to bed, wash your hair and beard after sex — are downright “autistic,” to put it in a folksy way, and many of those so affected have noticed.
Amongst atheists I have met a surprising number of people on the autistic spectrum — people with stronger or weaker indications of the above. If the subject came up, they confided that the obsessive or autistic side of Islam frightened them, and that they recognized themselves in it, could empathize with Muhammad’s motives, and were able to glimpse the ways in which the Prophet had exploited his “weakness” to enslave other people. They even confessed that they could be comfortable in Islam. It would have provided them with a guide to managing complex interpersonal relationships. But they refused — which was already a conscious, moral choice. I deeply respect them for that, but I also recognize that others in their situation may not have a moral compass.
2. Now the scary part: psychopaths
The term is used in a narrower or broader sense. In the broader sense, it is any personality disorder with socially harmful consequences; in the narrower sense, it is the so-called “anti-social personality disorder.” The psychopath is supposed to thrive on behavior that is harmful to others; he lacks empathy and conscience. He is sovereign, he does not restrict himself in anything, he feels neither shame nor remorse, and his only concern is his own benefit. At the same time, he is emotionally cold, as if dead inside. The only thing that can warm him up and get him going is when he can manipulate, use, and abuse others. He sees the people around him as toys, hurting them for his own amusement. Psychopaths are said to lack a conscience. These evil qualities often go hand-in-hand with personality and sexual attraction, making them all the more dangerous. Evolutionary psychologists view psychopathy as “social parasitism.” If a psychopath is discovered by those around him — which happens to the stupider ones — they often end up in prison. If not, he can be found in the top echelons of politics, business, or the academic hierarchy.
Islam, as is well known, and unlike all other major religions, does not reckon with human conscience. While Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and others try to cultivate the human conscience by acknowledging its greater or lesser independence from the divine will, Islam, in the famous Qur’anic verse 8:17 (from which, of course, the whole “philosophy” is derived), exempts man from conscience. Whatever you do is Allah’s will. You are controlled, of course, but not “from within,” by conscience, but “from without” — by the commands of Islamic law and other fellow believers. The Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels explains it well: “Islamic law, as we know, allows a great deal — if you commit actions directed towards the outside, towards unbelievers, or towards weaker fellow believers, women, and children.”
A clever and successful psychopath doesn’t need Islam for his exploits; he’ll climb high in the social hierarchy without it. (Or he’ll climb nowhere and cultivate a sadistic murderer’s hobby without being caught at it.) But psychopathy is not related to intelligence — and to those stupid psychopaths who fill the prisons and staff the gallows or electric chairs of the normal world, Islam offers a real blessing: to be able to do whatever you want with other people — and still be appreciated by your fellow believers for it. Perhaps no society has been able to harness the pathological energy of psychopaths. (Even the Nazis occasionally conducted purges targeting pathologically violent people in their ranks.) Islam has done it: First, it attracts psychopaths from the ranks of the infidels, and second, it involves them in its propagation.
Watch closely when you hear someone powerful, influential, or rich waxing lyrical about “Islamic values” again. If it is a charismatic, magnetically attractive person, he is highly likely to be a psychopath.
3. Finally, the mysterious: Type B personality disorders
A true psychopath is usually not diagnosed until he or she is caught in the act and thus comes under the “supervision” of a forensic psychiatrist. He does not seek medical help because he does not suffer as a result of his “disorder”; he kindly leaves the suffering to others. There are, however, several other “Type B personality disorders” which cause considerable suffering to their bearers. This is not to say that they cannot also properly torment those around them — but the point is that, unlike the “anti-social” psychopath, they suffer from deep inner pain.
According to the textbooks, there are three subtypes in Group B — narcissistic, histrionic, and borderline — and of course there are borderlands between them, borderlands to psychopathy and borderlands to “normality.” (We are talking about the human soul, not species of bugs or chemical compounds, so any classification is necessarily simplistic). If they have anything in common, it is a “broken” experiencing of emotions and relationships.
The narcissist is emotionally flattened and believes that the people around him owe him something, and that he is entitled to their admiration and to his own success. The histrion craves attention and draws attention to himself; his emotions alternate quickly, but are flat and volatile. A borderliner, on the other hand, has his emotions completely aroused; he is their plaything and slave, and the main emotion that completely controls him is the fear of abandonment — which he “prevents” by, among other things, throwing himself into previously lost relationships. All three of them, of course, suffer from it: narcissists internally, enviously, and jealously. Histrion is theatrically, noisily, somehow fatally and yet frequently and annoying to everyone around him. The borderliner is then “absolute,” because nothing can satisfy his need for peace and security. (Persons with the latter diagnosis are the most likely of all psychological disorders to die prematurely, by their own hand.)
You can buy Fenek Solère’s novel Rising here
And now the horrible part: Although no one knows exactly where these conditions come from, the consensus in the literature I have (superficially) studied is that they are related to emotional trauma in early childhood. The future narcissist has been humiliated or overpraised — most often both — and is desperate for approval. The future histrion has been overlooked and neglected, hence his need to be the center of attention. The borderliner experienced what the childlike soul perceived as abandonment or betrayal. All of them struggle to overcome these wounds throughout their future lives. The narcissist fixates on himself and tries to stand out, to “prove it to everyone”; we don’t just find them among athletes or in show business, but perhaps even among scientists. The histrion will make brief, “dramatic” friendships and relationships, ruin the well-being of those around him, and successfully spoil corporate meetings and friendly parties. The borderliner will turn every close interpersonal relationship into a horror for all involved.
Now let us understand how the ideal Islamic upbringing works: strict rules, including prohibitions on activities that are as essential to children as water is to a fish such as singing, dancing, and artistic expression. There are completely twisted relationships within the family, where the father bullies the mother and the sons are elevated above the mother and daughters (regardless of age or “merit”). There is a constant emphasis on the precise performance of rituals, as well as continual appeals to the frightening nature of Allah, jinn, and Jahannam, threats from which not even your family can protect you – and which are used to scare believers from infancy. If it’s true that Type B disorders arise in early childhood, all of this must mass produce . . . I don’t want to say crazy, I don’t want to say broken personalities; I’d rather say victims.
I realize what a terrifying hypothesis I’ve outlined. Just as an Islamic upbringing, albeit perhaps in a milder form, any “strict” religious upbringing must operate within a frame where the child is never good enough (narcissist), not given enough attention (histrionics), and fears outside forces beyond the protection of the family (borderliner). It suggests that the occurrence of the listed “disorders” is temporally and socially conditioned. Sigmund Freud began his career by treating “hysterics” (which was probably anything between histrions and borderlines); today, the classic manifestations of hysteria are almost unknown. Freud’s female patients, however, were raised in an environment of nursemaids, governesses, the catechism, and the fear that “the indecent girl will not marry.” The medieval religious fanaticism and the “narrow-mindedness” of the Victorian world-conquerors comes across as perfectly narcissistic. Well, today, in an age of divorce, shared custody, and fluid relationships, there are clearly more and more borderliners: those who don’t believe they should watch videos of a Left-wing demonstration.
Many of the outward signs we stereotypically associate with Muhammadans also hint at personality disorders: the “hysterical” displays of fanatics at demonstrations or “discussion meetings,” the ostentatious friendships that can be turned into vicious hatred at the snap of a finger, the Muhammadan — ostentatiously emotional, “passionate,” and “burning,” but which fizzles out the moment the seduced prey is captured. There is also the “hunger for cuddling” (the term of one former Muslim woman), a longing for affection and security that is literally maternal.
If my reasoning so far is correct, then Islam offers much to such “broken” people at the same time — much as it does to autistic or anti-social people. Above all, there is Allah/Islam itself: endless opportunities to easily stand out for the narcissist (in Western society the narcissist has to actually prove something, while in the Islamic world you just have to be sufficiently fanatical); someone who makes you the center of the action for the histrionics; and someone who won’t actually leave you for the borderline. There is also the Islamic habit of constantly praising brothers and sisters — something irresistible, especially to narcissistic and histrionic types. Finally, there is the Islamic family that, while held together by force, would rather kill you than leave you — the borderliner will give anything for such an assurance of permanence and non-abandonment. In the accounts of female converts, including such prominent ones as Tony Blair’s sister-in-law, we repeatedly find the motif of inner peace, security, and “spiritual heroin.” And again, the same may be true of other strict religions, just to a lesser extent.
Normally, functioning societies somehow penalize their “malfunctioning personalities” — especially “evolutionarily” in terms of their number of offspring. The narcissist may get his coveted recognition, but he remains alone and inwardly desolate. A histrionic person may be entertaining for a while, but hardly anyone can tolerate him for long. The borderliner is similar: his relationships may be solid, but will end badly with consequences for the offspring. Islam is different again, for it ensures that unions once made are not easily broken, even if all involved suffer humanly in every way. And in its uniform regulations on child-rearing, however pathological they are, it ensures that children are born, grow up, and carry on the pain of their parents. If all mental conditions are likely to have a genetic component in addition to the induced component, and traditional Islamic societies have been highly consanguineous, any genetic predispositions can quickly become prevalent in entire family lines. Thus, Islamic societies will be, on average, “crazier” than non-Islamic societies.
4. What does all this imply?
First of all, if forensic psychiatrists detect a “mental disorder” in a fanatic, bomber, or terrorist, they are probably not lying to us. The mental disturbance may not have been caused by a recent reading of the Qur’an or listening to a fanatical preacher; the person in question may have gotten it from his family, or even inherited it — but Islamic upbringing, and marriageability, has a huge part to play in it.
Further, the mysterious and controversial Islamic sexuality may be intertwined with the above in various ways. It’s quite safe to say that classical psychopaths and “Type B” can be utterly irresistible — coitus and what precedes it is a rare means of honest communication for them.
The strange attraction of Islam for many, especially for young people and especially for those from the upper echelons of society, may be related to the pervasive breakdown of the Western family. Islam does indeed have something to offer all those anorexic, bulimic, anti-depressant-eating girls and suicidal boys — albeit a most diabolical offer.
The cooptation of “madmen” — and the spreading of their madness across family lines — has probably always been a means of helping Islam grow and ensure its stability. Get the relationship-troubled, psychopathic, and emotionally unstable loonies together, ensure that all those loonies breed, and wait a few centuries. What you get is a society that, while crazy, is also very effective at spreading and preserving that “craziness.”
If I’m even a quarter right, the whole Islamic problem is much scarier than we superficially admit. It is a Gordian knot that we can untangle endlessly, but which can only be cut by the Muhammadans themselves — by rejecting Islamic fatalism, blind obedience, and not least, family upbringing.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
26 comments
And ‘Muhammad Aryan’ will chime in about the awesomeness of Islam in five…four…three…
Yep.
An interesting piece. It does seem to me that there is a certain strain of exasperation within Islam which attracts the fanatic, if not the lunatic. Apropos, the learned Rabbins of former times, while acknowledging that Islam approximates the ideal ‘Noahide’ ethical monotheism that is ordained for all Gentiles (*), nevertheless referred to the founding Prophet of that faith as “ha-Meshuggah” — the Madman.
(*) Unlike Christianity which was deemed to be idolatrous.
Firstly, it is puerile rambling more worthy of a grifiting forum like Robert Spencer’s “Jihad Watch”. That it appears on an intellectually serious nationalist platform like CC is strange to say the least.
Secondly, if this is the intellectual state of Czech nationalist undercurrent then the nation is really doomed. Nevertheless, I do hope it is otherwise.
Thirdly, we are told that “Prof”. Konvička had never been appointed as full professor. Well, on the basis of the “scientific” “observations” he makes here about Islam, it is really astonishing that he reached the post of “Associate Professor” in the first place.
Fourthly, the introductory lines say that the “Prof” was involved in the movement to oppose the “establishment of Islam” in the Czech Republic. Who was establishing Islam there? What percentage of native Czechs profess Islam? It must be an alarmingly huge figure. Otherwise, our bright scholar wouldn’t have embarked upon this sacred struggle.
Lastly, you consider Islam as your enemy. Fine. At least, properly know thine enemy.
This is just ad hominem. Care to attack any of the claims the writer was making? Europeans didn’t want Islam in 732 and we don’t want it now either.
“Given demographic and immigration trends, Canada to become a majority Muslim country by 2050!”…”..American Thinker ..16 March 2016” ..then what?
..economic /military/ infrastructure/law & order collapse..!..? What happens when the electrical generating stations STOP..?
@K.
Care to attack any of the claims the writer was making?
Of course, I am not going to attack these “claims” because these are not “claims”. This is “race is a social construct”-tier nonsense [even below that], which you don’t refute. You hope that the one who is making such a “claim” curb his/her powder or opioid intake and look at the world outside with a discerning eye.
Also, this is like spitting on the face and then expecting the other one to just take out his handkerchief, wipe his face, and begin his arguments. No, it doesn’t work like that.
100%
No white society should tolerate the presence of Muslims, the practice of Islam, the architecture of Islam, the halal diet of Islam, within its borders under any circumstances.
Muslims exist and should be (cautiously) tolerated, but only ever from a distance and with one’s guard up, because apologists for Islam know that there is a mandate to spread Islam to the world (much like Christianity’s “Great Commission”) and they are determined to do just that, even by force and violence if necessary.
(Everybody knows this; please forgive Capt. Obvious here.)
Islam has no place in a white society. It is alien and inimical to the European heart.
I agree completely. I’m an atheist, but gun to the head if I have to choose between a world dominated by Christians or one by Muslims, that’s not a tough choice. I don’t care if they’re white Muslims or not.
Hear, hear, James Kirkpatrick.
And I think this way about Jews, too, now. All of them. They need to leave– and live, flourish, and die in their own homeland, whether that is Israel or some other new place meant just for them.
No more “co-existing” (peacefully or otherwise) in our nations.
I am getting very irritated with a lot of Christians now, too. Perhaps they need their own nations, too.
I totally agree about Jews and Muslims, but I don’t agree about Christians.
Christians “can” coexist with Agnostics and Atheists. In 1950, we did just fine. In fact, I’d say that Agnostics and Atheists tend to do best in a majority white, majority Christian society.
Absolutely right about Islam. It should not be tolerated in any healthy society.
Thirdly, we are told that “Prof”. Konvička had never been appointed as full professor.
Pan Konvička is mostly known for his strange public performances. He rode the camel thorugh Prague, his people imitated terrorist attack, “shooting” with sub-machine-guns from a car in the middle of the city, e.a.
Yeah well, Islam is the religion of peace.
So checkmate, Konvička.
I’d put the personality disorders stuff in the category of ‘wacky theories’ although several good points are made about Islam without comment on the eerie resemblance to Judaism in terms of weird injunctions and dual morality. Although, in fairness, Christian Europe, when it was healthy, also practised a ‘sacriligeous’ dual morality against heretics, Moslems, Jews and heathens.
The usual Czech animus against Germany is present in the dig at ‘Nazi psychopaths’, rather than Communist or Jewish ones.
Czechia is in the hands/pockets of German and Russian oligarchs.
Christian Europe, when it was healthy, also practised a ‘sacriligeous’ dual morality against heretics, Moslems, Jews and heathens.
Well that’s not really true, it’s redolent more of the black legends continually pumped out by the anti-Christian crowd: all the wild fables about how Charlemagne slew 4000 Saxons in an afternoon for refusing to be baptized, or the confused idea that the Inquisition had something to do with persecuting Jews (when the Inquisitors ran out of Albigensians, I suppose?). Erik the Red lived and died a Norse pagan, while his wife and son Leif were Catholic, but there was no persecution or arm-twisting of old Erik.
When Christians fought Mohammedans it was more of a nationalist/cultural thing, not a theological fight, and relations were peaceful more often than not (putting aside 732, 1099, 1453 & c. & c.). The Crusades were not fought to make Mohammedans believe in a Triune God, but to recapture the Holy Land and make it again safe for Christian pilgrims. The most famous heretic-burning in history was that of St. Joan in Rouen, and that was entirely a political matter among the English, Burgundians and French, and had nothing to do with heresy at all. (Which is why her conviction was soon overturned.) The notion that the Thirty Years’ War was all about fine theological points is one the nuttiest legacies that ‘Enlightenment’ thinking has left us with.
There was no sacrilegious (N.B.) dual morality at work during the millennium from 500 A.D. to 1500 A.D. If there had been a dual morality with a sectarian basis (e.g., you may kill a heathen or Jew at will, without incurring sin) it would have been denounced as un-doctrinal and un-Christian, the same way simony was in Tetzel’s time.
Thanks for the correction. There was no doctrinal dual morality, only a tacit understanding that there were jobs to be done and hard men were to be sent to do them. To my mind European Christianity has always had this feature, that it relied on a warrior caste which ignored many of its pacifist strictures with a nod and a wink from the cardinals.
Sura 8:17 “I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels (i.e,, me and thee). Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger tip,”
And if you didn’t get the message clearly, here’s another reminder for us infidels.
Sura 4:21-22 “And when you go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime in you to cut short your prayers, if you fear lest the infidels come upon you. Verily, the infidels are your undoubted enemies”.
I see the entire book — The Koran — to be a hash of crazy-making: a blueprint for psychotic development. I have the reprint of the 1909 translation by Everyman Publishers, which presents you with 500 pages with notes and index to drive you yourself crazy.
However, the book that pointed me to enter the dark pages of Islam in hopes to understanding what was the problem in Europe today, with the Islamic invasion there, was a book entitled “Inside ISIS” by Benjamin Hall, a free-lance war correspondent, covering the many threads of the various terrorist groups in Middle Eastern hotspots, and specifically the rise of ISIS from 2012 to 2015.
Believe me, covering just those three years will curl your hair. Placed alongside the Koran and its histrionics, Hall spells out exactly where it leads and surfaces, and exactly what horrors lurk in the convoluted minds of boys and men raised on Koranic porridge as a daily diet.
Don’t miss the joy of reading these two books together — the ‘then’ and ‘now’ of Islam.
With our borders wide open to allowing these psychotic freaks into America as they are now flowing freely into Europe by land and sea, we must now seriously become acquainted with the outlooks and fanatic intents of these Islamic terrorists whose only goal is to “convert the world.”
@Alexandra O.
1. It is not “Sura 8:17”. The verse which you have selected here is the 12th verse of section 8. The context is the battlefield. What is one supposed to do in the battlefield?
And I am surprised that you have counted yourself amongst the infidels here. Why would you put yourself adjacent to ignorant Arab Bedouins who considered women as chattel? Some of them used to bury their girl-child alive because they deemed her a sign of shame and weakness. Those who were not killed in infancy were later on traded like lifeless commodities to settle tribal disputes or satisfy out of control lusts.
Certainly, when sick men like these impose war and torture upon those who vehemently reject this diabolical social existence, it is only logical to draw a sword and strike effectively.
2. Again, you have wrongly quoted the verse. It is not “4:21-22”. It is section 4 and verse 101. Moreover, it is a very dishonest translation because no matter how many somersaults one makes, it is just impossible to adjust the phrase “to war in the land”. There is NO such thing in the original Arabic. It is not shocking since the translation you possess carries notes from a “Victorian clergyman”. I guess the gentleman’s grasp of the Arabic language was pedestrian or, perhaps, he was deliberately deceiving his readers.
3. Here is a verse from the Sacred Word to address the rest of your comment:
They follow nothing but conjecture and conjecture avails nothing against the Truth. [The Star (53), 28]
We are all endowed with the capacity to reason. Let us not suspend, denigrate or outsource it.
I suppose I should direct this question to a Muslim, even better that it’s an “Aryan” Muslim, just how old was little Aisha when she met the son of Abdullah?
@K.
Good question. I was wondering when this issue would pop up.
Anyhow, how do we know how old we are?
We calculate it via hospital records, birth certificates, local registers, alma mater, and eyewitness accounts of those [like parents, elder siblings and other relatives] who saw us in our mothers’ wombs and were there to know the hour of our birth. Moreover, we observe ourselves and compare our constitutions and statures with those around us to reach a conclusion.
Now, travel back to 7th century Arabia and imagine what mechanisms people had at their disposal to compute their ages.
A paucity of the scribes and writing made elaborate record keeping an impossibility. There were no calendars or clocks hanging on the walls. There were no ID cards. It was largely an Oral culture. People only had their memories to store information that was passed from generation to generation. Also, apart from the verbal accounts of parents and relatives, people used to mark significant events as milestones in their heads to recall the temporal distance between one event and the other. For instance, a war, a long-distance journey, a personal calamity or joy, etc. helped one recollect the trajectory of one’s life.
Now, when we approach the issue of Lady Aisha’s age within the aforementioned parameter, we conclude that at the time of her marriage her age was somewhere between 18 and 25.
Remember, no oral tradition is taken in isolation. It MUST BE consistent with the rest. The evaluating process is extremely rigorous.
That 6 & 9-year old thing was an argumentative ploy contrived by later polemicists to elevate the Lady’s stature.
Why?
Well, it would take a lot more space and the comment would become an article.
Suffice it to say, those who couldn’t undermine the strength of one’s message in his life tried it very hard to attack him on the pages of history. They sought to create an atmosphere of controversy around his exalted personality. But they failed miserably and drowned in their own sea of contradictions because they forgot that to reason is a fundamental property of Man’s nature.
“Surely, there are signs for those who reflect.”
Regards
*the word elevate in the comment above should be read within inverted commas.
…to “elevate” the Lady’s stature.
You are correct in your criticism and comments, and I accept that I don’t know the Koran or how to find specific quotes, but what I did find — even if mislabeled — was directly quoted from that 1909 edition.
What I am really trying to explain is why do Moslems (and I use the older spelling from my teen years in high school in the 1960s) want to move to Europe and North America? If they already know that our two civilizations and religious teachings are vastly different, enough so that we would be continually ill at ease with one another — though most working people learn to get along with each other in the workplace and social occasions.
But, you are commenting on a website — where you are most welcome, as am I — to share our opinions on sensitive topics — where you must know that Europeans are feeling as if they are being invaded from the Islamic counties and other countries in Africa and points south. When an obviously well-educated gentleman as yourself sees that Europeans are feeling ‘invaded’, why do you not carry that message to those peoples. Islam is fine — if it remains in its homelands. Do you not agree? And I am speaking here as well for North Americans.
Well, we could go on for hours on this topic, but we know the outcome is always the same — each race or religion which has its own homeland are best served when they remain in their homelands. I know that America advertises itself as “The Great Melting Pot”, but try as we may, it has never become a reality, nor do a great many in this country wish it to continue to be invaded at our wide-open borders. Do know that if I had more money, I would use the rest of my years traveling in Europe.
So I think I will donate my copy of the Koran to our public library for others to access, even though it seems to have errors.
Thanks for your informative comments.
@Alexandra O.
You’re welcome.
Checkmate, Ms. O.
Looks like Islam is in fact the Religion of Peace after all, and wants only the best for the white man, woman, child. Oh well, I guess resistance was futile when contending with both God and His Prophet (not to mention his legions’ meat cleavers).
In light of these developments, have you picked out your summer burqa yet? Might I suggest something breathable, but definitely not see-throughable!
In the future, please quote all Koranic verses in the approved Arabic–and mind those calligraphic swooshes. The Truth depends on it!
Admittedly, I remain skeptical of Islam’s benevolent intent toward European peoples myself, given its track record; but I’m sure that has more to do with my having not yet spent enough time trying (as the Bible might put it) to see what isn’t as though it were.
Good luck under the new caliphate. And cover up those ankles! No matter how hot it gets.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.