Islâm has not insulted the woman, but you have insulted motherhood!
November 1, 2008 in Uncategorized | Tags: islam, love, motherhood, Mustafa Islamoglu, paradise, Paradise under the mothers’ feet, woman
Is it a mere coincidence that someone comes and claims that Islâm has insulted the woman? The issue is in some way related to motherhood. How’s that? Once you look into the motives of the ‘modern’ gentlemen or ladies who claim that Islâm has insulted the woman, you will see how badly they have insulted the motherhood. This is their mid-point.
They employ many a technique of insulting the motherhood. Among these first comes treating mothers, who do the most honourable job in the world, as “jobless” women. In their opinion, one has to leave home in order to be working. One has to see the street and let the street see oneself. So that a woman counts as “being working”, it is made a condition for her to show herself to the public. She is required to do work from 8 o’clock in the morning till 9 o’clock in the evening (because the woman is a cheap labour force).
There are also other things that are necessary for these: They are the things which are stipulated by the modern visibility. It is absolutely impossible for one to go to work wearing the same clothes, having the same hair colour, in the same shoes and with the same handbag everyday! It is necessary to become renewed, to adapt one’s colour. It is required to have a dress suited to one’s hair, shoes suited to the dress, a handbag suited to the shoes, a wallet suited to the handbag and a mobile phone suited to it.
As for the items that are out of fashion, they have to be replaced. That’s why one has to follow the fashion. In brief one has to become oil in the production-consumption’s wheels and become flour in the production-consumption’s mill.
One has to work for all of these. How can one gain the resources to meet these expenses unless one works? If this too is not sufficient, one has to gain more and more. If it is not possible to gain more without spending more, one has to spend more. If it is not possible to gain more and more without showing oneself, one has to show oneself more. If it is necessary to attract more attention in order to show oneself more, one has to do so. If it is necessary to spend more than everybody else in order to do it, one has to do so. And, in order to spend more than everybody else, one has to gain more than everybody else.
Which was necessary for which? I got confused about it…
That which is done by a woman without leaving her home and doing regular paid work outside is not “work”. It is regarded as an “inability” and treated with contempt even by a loose woman curling her lip and saying ‘she is just a housewife’. The modern think that being a housewife, i.e. being a woman who looks after her home is a job which should be treated with disdain. Being a businesswoman is liked more. Being a streetwalker is even liked more than the other.
In the eyes of the modern, she plays duck and drakes (!) with her husband’s money. Is it her boss’s money? Or is it her superior’s scolding? Is it the unpleasant smell coming from the mouth of this and that man? Is it the humiliating condition endured in overcrowded buses and minibuses on the way to and from work? Well, they are part of the job, one would say. She is supposed to depend on anything else but not to make use of her husband’s earnings. She is supposed to receive a scolding from anyone whether it is the superior, foreman or boss, but not from her husband. Even a remark made by a street yahoo or a market macho lout is considered less harmful…
When talking about housewives, the first thing they would say is ‘Ugh! She is not free (!).’ In their opinion, they are themselves free even if they get told off for leaving work half an hour earlier. They are free in spite of the strict control applied at work. They are free even though when asked, ‘Are you available tomorrow?’ they say, ‘I’ll be at work and I return home very tired.’ But, they would say, ‘a housewife is almost a captive, my dear…’
But she is a mother, she has children. In other words, she is doing the most worthy, the most noble and the most glorious job in the world. That is to say she is bringing up a human being. Children cannot grow in the street. They grow at home.
Even so, she is still an unemployed woman. Motherhood doesn’t count as work. According to the modern, motherhood counts as unemployment. Motherhood is regarded as drudgery. And what is comic about it: To work at sectors established for looking after other people’s children is considered as “work”, whereby the woman working there is considered as “a working and producing woman”, but to look after one’s own child doesn’t isn’t considered as “work”. The following happens when one of the modern by accident becomes a mother: the father goes to work, the mother goes to work, the child goes to a day nursery, the home is boarding-house, and the family are boarders…
What comes next is the dilemma “a baby or a dog,” as it is common in France, Germany and Holland. Dogs are becoming more adorable than children to a modern woman. First of all, it doesn’t deform the body… Of course: It is necessary to see that these are the facts of the selfish modernity.
But there is a small problem: The dog must necessarily be small; as small as to be taken on one’s lap and to be loved. After all, she is a woman. She is born with the instinct to take a living being in her lap and to love it. It can’t be helped. She will love. Well, couldn’t she love a baby rather than a dog? When we compare the figures of babies and dogs in Europe (I know that they are not quiet comparable with each other, bur try to understand), we receive the following answer: No, not by any manner of means! (The number of registered dogs in Germany nearly equals its population.)
All right, but a dog is as expensive as a baby.
Even so! One should not take notice of such small faults.
Even if she happens to have given birth to a child, she has not loved motherhood and has not been a loving mother to her child (At the same time, there are also those who mother marvellously even though they haven’t had a childbirth). Since she hasn’t been a loving mother she hasn’t developed her feelings, hasn’t broadened her horizons, hasn’t acquired experience and her wisdom is zero. Yet, it doesn’t matter to her; she has a dog and also a job with working hours. She regards herself to be in a position to put on airs before all mothers.
And this is what I am writing here: Islâm, that has spread Paradise under the mothers’ feet, has not insulted the woman. But the modern ones who only believe in the life of this world and who seek Paradise in this world insult the motherhood in a cool-blooded manner. What’s more, they are so despite the fact that each of them was born to a mother.
How shameful! How impudent! How silly!