Western World Cup Fans Demand Beer: Are They More Astray Than Animals?

This current FIFA World Cup (in Qatar) has witnessed Westerners making the most of their opportunity to recycle many Orientalist clichés, however there’s a particularly telling and recurring complaint that seems odd even by their own standards: the ban on beer (or at least the public consumption of alcohol, as there seem to be “designated fan zones” where alcohol consumption is permitted).

Numerous news outlets consider this to be absolutely outrageous and something beyond comprehension. How could Qatar have taken such drastic measures? For instance, the New York Times discusses it as part of some sort of “culture clash.”

Our focus in this article won’t be the dangers posed by alcohol or ethanol to our health. There are already countless articles on this particular issue.

Let’s instead evaluate the Western inability to live without alcohol. It is simply astounding that there’s an entire civilization that can do without God, without parents, etc., for most if not all of their lives. But here they are, completely unable to swallow the possibility that they may have to live without alcohol for less than a single month.

And why is it that they need and depend on alcohol so much?

Is it because they want to be “rational” (while accusing Muslims of being irrational)?

Is it because they want to “defend women’s rights” (while accusing Muslims of being misogynists)?

The answer to these questions is a pretty straightforward no. In fact, alcohol conflicts with all of the above and more. It transforms people into mindless brutes with no notion of self, consciousness, identity, and so on—basically everything that makes us human.

We could even say that it mutates them into animals or something more astray than animals.

The reason I would use such phraseology is because it is actually what we find in the Qur’an (7:179):

Indeed, We have destined many jinn and humans for Hell. They have hearts they do not understand with, eyes they do not see with, and ears they do not hear with. They are like cattle. In fact, they are even less guided! Such ˹people˺ are ˹entirely˺ heedless.

This is a “controversial” verse for many (if not most) of the disbelievers. However our point here is precisely this. Their entire civilization is obsessed with transforming humans into something more astray than animals.

Counter-intuitively, just to show how this actually goes much deeper, we’ll avoid delving into the most obvious intellectual animalization movement of the modern West that is neo-Darwinian evolution, with its ape-fetish.

Animalization in Philosophy

In modern Western philosophy, the two main philosophical traditions are known as rationalism and empiricism. The former is represented by René Descartes and the latter by British thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, and others.

For rationalists, the basis of their epistemology—or the means by which one may access certain knowledge—is human reason.

For empiricists on the other hand, the basis of their epistemology is the senses, through seeing, etc., and basing their epistemology on the senses led them to comparing humans with animals. After all, animals have senses too.

It is thus no wonder that Étienne Bonnot de Condillac (Locke’s main disciple in France) is described as “blurring of the oppositions distinguishing man and animal,” as noted in an academic article (p. 70). Then you have the aforementioned David Hume (one of the main empiricist thinkers), who proclaimed that “no truth appears to be more evident, than that beast are endow’d with thought and reason as well as men.”

After all, if access to truth is gained through the senses, then animals exploring their natural habitats are also seeking truth through experimentation.

Some two centuries later, this equating humans with animals would lead Peter Singer (one of the West’s most popular philosophers and “the father of the animal rights movement”) to try and justify bestiality (sex with animals). After all, they’re “just like us” right?

RELATED: Qatar: How the World Cup Is Being Used to Spread Liberalism to Muslims

Animalization in Economics

Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith is often considered to be “the father of modern economics” because of his 1776-essay, The Wealth of Nations.

Yet many place another name before his: the relatively unknown Dutch physician, merchant, and philosopher Bernard de Mandeville. This is someone that Adam Smith was indebted to and someone whose main essay also includes a reference to animals, The Fable of the Bees (published in 1714).

Mandeville can be described as being the father of liberal economics for having anticipated notions such as free-market and laissez-faire. And when applying these to morality, it becomes a paradigm that is not only centered around notions of egoism, selfishness, and ruthless competition but also as a rebuttal of any form of religious morality.

An article summarizes the book as follows:

In the poem, Mandeville imagines a hive of bees that copies in its every detail and activity everything seen in human society. Greed, selfishness, the pursuit of material profit and pleasure dominate everyone in their activities and in their conduct toward others.

No regard is shown for others in market conduct, with each one following their own defined self-interest for personal gain and enjoyment for the fulfillment of their earthly desires. Yet, out of these “vices” of materialistic self-interestedness comes industry, innovation, a mass of goods and services that generate a life of material and culture comfort and ease that benefit all, even though it was no one’s intention, design, or purpose.

In other words:

Acting evil is not only good, but also necessary “for the economy.” (It should also be noted here that according to Mandeville, bees don’t often appear as evil as they should, unlike humans.)

Those who want to personally evaluate the conclusions of such a liberal, individualist, and utilitarian approach to the economy can read a book by Austrian School economist, Walter Block: Defending the Undefendable (published 1976). Within this book, he basically defends drug dealers, pimps, etc., on the basis that they are, from a purely materialistic perspective, “important” economic actors that are “contributing” to society.

I mean, how would many women “generate wealth” that is “contributing to society” if they didn’t become prostitutes? At the end of the day, all of these “contributions” increase the country’s GDP!

Just let that crazy line of thought sink in for a moment.

RELATED: Will Muslim Feminists Justify Online Prostitution Next?

Animalization in Psychology

In psychology there was a strong trend towards animalization too. We could argue that part of this was with Freud’s overt sexualization, but it was mainly manifested by the behaviorist movement, which was very influential after WWI up until the late ’50s when Noam Chomsky dismantled it (and empiricism as a whole), enacting the so-called cognitive revolution.

It was founded in the United States by Watson and in the Soviet Union by Pavlov, and this was for discernible reasons:

America was going through Fordism (the idea of standardized mass production), and the Soviet Union itself was totalitarian. Thus both civilizations essentially needed a “mechanical,” soulless individual. And behaviorism, which desired to study humans as animals in terms of deterministic laws and conditioning, was obviously the perfect psychological tool.

Just as Pavlov famously conditioned his dogs (for which he’d receive the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1904), behaviorism aimed for the conditioning of individuals in the same way—as valueless workers in Communist Russia or as brainless consumers in Capitalist America.

RELATED: Synthetic Babies: A Generation of Slaves for the Modern Machine

The most famous of the American behaviorists, B.F. Skinner, would regularly try and remind us that humans and animals aren’t that different.

So, Are They More Astray Than Animals?

This kind of animalization in philosophy, economics, and psychology wasn’t to be kept in the books of a few select individuals. Instead, it would define the nature of Western civilization, something William Davies calls The Happiness Industry (within his book, named as such).

It is basically the godless civilization of soulless individuals who seek some elusive happiness through their hedonistic lifestyles.

This explains the latest episode in Western behavior with what’s going on in Qatar:

They no longer have God, family, values, etc., but for some reason they’re outraged at not having a beer for a few weeks while watching some silly and completely inconsequential football matches.

Is getting drunk—and temporarily annihilating the very “reason” they try to employ against Muslims—really that important and vital to their existence?

Contrast this with the very purpose of our creation:

And [know that] I have not created [either] jinn or human beings [for any other end] but to [know and] worship Me [alone]. (Qur’an, 51:56)

They are more astray than animals.

Animals at least submit to Allah.

RELATED: The Genius of Islam | Episode 1, The Modern Human Condition

MuslimSkeptic

Un-Islamic Masjid Guidelines

Un-Islamic Masjid guidelines

“Verily, he among you who lives long will see much conflict. Therefore, keep to my
Sunnah and to the Sunnah of the Khulafa-ur-Raashideen (the rightly guided Khulafa), those who guide to the Right Way (Deen). Cling to it (the Sunnah) firmly. Beware of the new norms (Bid’ah in Deen), for verily, every Bid’ah (new norm) is misguidance (Dhalaalah). And every Dhalaalah is in the Fire of Jahannam.” (Abu Dawood and Tirmizi)

FATWAS OF THE JAMIAT KZN

THE BUNKUM FATWAS OF THE BOOTLICKING JAMIAT KZN MORON MUFTIS

Q. According to the KZN Jamiat, hand sanitizers and disinfectants which contain ethanol/ethyl alcohol are permissible because this alcohol is not prohibited in the Shariah. Is this correct?

A. The KZN Jamiat muftis are moron, bootlickers of the western kuffaar, hence they issue such baatil and stupid fatwas. All forms of alcohol are haraam. Like their counterpart devils of Daarush Shataan, they have ruined Salaat, and are in the process of demolishing Salaat which Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said is the Central Pillar of Islam.
Q. If hand sanitizers containing alcohol are used, will it be permissible to perform Salaat? The Jamizt KZN mufti says that it is permissible.

A. The maajin mufti speaks rubbish. The hands should be thoroughly washed to remove the najaasat – the najis alcohol. It is not permissible to perform Salaat with the najaasat on the hands.
Q. Is it permissible to discourage or prohibit the elderly from attending the Musjid? The Jamiat’s mufti says that the elderly should not come to the Musjid. Is this correct?

A. The advice of the Jamiat KZN is haraam. The old and the young should be encouraged to attend the Musjid. It is the Sunnah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to rush to the Musjid whenever he discerned some calamity such as stormy weather and the like. Now is the time for Muslims to observe Jamaat Salaat with greater diligence. Inordinate fear for the China pig virus has constrained these molvis to disrespect and to shun the aged. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that those who do not revere the aged are not from among us. In other words, they are not Muslims.
Q. The Jamiat KZN’s mufti says that ‘infected’ persons should not come to the Musjid for Salaat. Does the Shariah prohibit such people from attending the Musjid?

A. The Jamiat KZN’s mufti maajin as well as all the other spineless scoundrel, munaafiq, crook ‘muftis’ who fear their shadows more than fear for Allah Ta’ala, have been driven to insanity by the pig virus in their brains. Thus, they excrete the effluvium of bunkum, baatil fatwas to mislead the ignorant ones.
Q. While the government is allowing 100 musallis to assemble in the Musjid, the Jamiat KZN has reduced this number to 50. Please comment

A. This reduction by the moron, munaafiq molvis speaks volumes for their inordinate fear acquired from the bogey. It testifies to the total lack of tawakkul on Allah Ta’ala. It is evidence for the treason against Islam committed by these crank molvis and maajin muftis. They are a bunch of miserable shayateenul ins. They should don women’s garments and hide within their homes in the hope of the pig virus not apprehending them.
Q. The Mufti of KZN Jamiat says that Iznul Aaam (general permission) is not necessary when performing Jumuah Salaat in multiple places.

A. The mufti speaks drivel. He is plain stupid. Iznul Aaam (free and unfettered permission for all Muslims to attend) is an imperative requisite for the validity of Jumuah Salaat. The China Pig Disease does not waive this condition. If the government enforces its oppressive and unjust 100 man limit, it will be a valid excuse for restriction of the number to 100. But where it is absolutely haraam to abrogate the Iznul Haraam condition if the number is less than 100.
The jaahil molvis of the Jamiat KZN have sucked the kufr number of 50 from their vile nafs in a most despicable bootlicking exercise.

28 Rajab 1441 – 23 March 2020

DECEPTIVE INGREDIENTS

A Brother writes: I would like to share this information, perhaps it may benefit others. Many Halaal conscious Muslims who constantly check the ingredient list of products before purchasing might get caught in the trap of the term ‘nature identical flavor’. It gives the impression that the flavouring is as good as natural. However it is not. It is actually completely chemical and 100% unnatural.
Regarding the chemicals and methods used to produce these ‘nature identical flavors’, one will find great difficulty in getting accurate information from manufacturers, especially with regards to ethanol and alcohols used as catalysts in the manufacturing processes of these flavourants.
‘Nature identical flavors’ are very often found in fruit juices that have the deceptive label of ‘100% fruit juice blend’. The 100% claim gives the impression the juice is pure however the word ‘blend’ means a blend of the fruit juice with any chemical muck they wish to put in.
Due to the high cost or unavailability of natural flavour extracts, most commercial flavourants are “nature-identical”, which means that they are the chemical equivalent of natural flavours, but chemically synthesized rather than being extracted from source materials.
Juice flavoured drinks, fruit juice cocktails and fruit juice blends may only be five to 15 percent fruit juice. Look on the product label to find the percentage of fruit juice. The only way to confirm if your fruit juice is 100 percent pure is to read the ingredient list.D