Wednesday, December 5, 2012

phallocentrism as a history of the world


yesterday, after briefly introducing immanuel kant (MWF class 11am) i said that kant was a "phallocentric" philosopher.* i didn't mean that as an insult. had i been born in 1724, i would not have been that different, if not probably worse, than herr kant. then i said that "the history of the world is a history of phallocentrism" (also meant androcentrism and patriarchy).

i'm aware generalizations of this sort are problematic. but i stand behind them. mind you, i don't owe to this realization to self-discovery. i have learned these ideas from the courageous work of many feminist women. they finally made their plight known. all the while, men were -for the most part- silent. and when the time came to harken women's claims of servitude and exploitation, men felt, well, threatened. & they fought back. why? what was a stake was -men thought- too dear & significant to loose: political power. 

to realize that patriarchy & phallocentrism characterize the history of the world just follow the smell. for centuries upon centuries, who enjoyed absolute political power?* men (east & west). who exercised it? men. who owned the sources of wealth, means of production, capital, etc? men. who were the prophets, scribes and priests? mostly men. who enjoyed the kingdoms and fiefdoms? men. who had best access to schools and universities? men. who are the great artists and poets of antiquity & the great scientists of the ages? men. until the 20th century women were non-political entities!

(what's the role of women in world politics today? roughly a 20%. what progress!

which brings us to philosophy & the importance to question our received assumptions. the mysterious alliance between history and phallocentrism becomes an imperative: why?

from the patriarchal & androcentric POV men enjoyed more opportunities by keeping women exploited. they were taken care of, made wives & had offspring because of women. kant can lend us a hand here. his second formulation counsels: treat people as ends and never as means to an end. the male philosopher makes a fabulous argument in favor of a symmetry that he didn't really practice. men enjoyed centuries of, how to put it? uncontested impunity.

men are smart enough to come up with all sorts of justifications for their historic mess: 1- it's the woman's biology!  women bearing children and being less fit to take the early tough tasks of hunting and fighting for survival. 2- the sociological hypothesis of patriarchy claims that fathers (paterfamilias) assume an important "roles". some of these roles seem structural, as in the case of  maurice godelier's hypothesis that paterfamilias as provider of  financial support and making critical decisions, some of which must be obeyed without question by the rest of the family members. but following godelier's marxist argument, there must be economic conditions of production that perpetuate this sort of system. what's first, the chicken or the egg? 3- freudian psychoanalysis elaborataes the "penis envy" & "hysteria" hypotheses. did freud ever think that his sexual perceptions of what it is like to be a woman begged the question of his own gender? not that i know.  yet in honor to freud, he was able to observe that, as feminist naomi goldenberg puts it, "God the Father was responsible for keeping huge portions of the human community stupid" (goldenberg, p. 27).

it's at this point that i sensed a resistance from young, smart, males in the class. jeremy objected: "what is the problem of god being male (or father)?" none whatsoever. but remember that a woman may equally retort, "why not a female god?"

ideas come from language and language comes from practice & habits. women feminists have thought us how phallocentric language works. words carry a memory. they express cultural conventions & habits: "all men are created equal," words like "actor," "firemen," "chairman", "freshman," "salesman," "man-made," and so on, (these words in fact show who were in charge of these professions) "mankind," "fatherland." in spanish "patria" sounds feminine but it's masculine as in french "la patrie", german "vaterland." is this use of language not androcentric?

at some point aslan interjected that the east had a different history than the west. he mentioned a few islamic scholars, philosophers, scribes, etc. well, the west has them too. that doesn't change history's history because these examples constitute a negligible minority. in fact, defending this negligible minority only corroborates my point of male resistance to phallocentrism's alliance with history. 

of course, this discussion of whether god is male or female happens because we as humans need to  anthropomorphize theology's huge abstractions (god is the best example that comes to mind). ok, let's agree that the god of monotheism doesn't have gender. if god has the attributes that theology endows (which gender you prefer now? him, her, IT?) with, god has to be genderless.

yet, phallocentic language stubbornly re-appears. in the bible: "Not that any man has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father." (john 6:46). in the Qur'an 112:3–4: "He begets not, nor is He begotten. And none is like Him [It]."

theologians (christian, islamic) retort that "he" really means "it", but the problem is that humans are gender-centric. Hu or Huwa are commonly translated as he. ** check out this video. an islamic scholar is presented with the same question: is allah a he or she? he tries really hard to explain that though referred to as he, allah is really genderless. but his explanation is totally circular. why? it begs the question on the use of language! which is precisely the feminist point: allah is genderless! yet, it's presented as he. why? oh, because of the conventions of the arabic language. and what are language conventions if not practices and habits translated into language?

the question persists, why? 

feminist and scholar amina wadud in her excellent Quran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective explains:
 (...) The established order within the Arabian peninsula at the time of the revelation was patriarchal: a 'culture built on a structure of domination and subordination ...' which 'demands hierarchy'. It was a culture with an androcentric bias, one where the male and the male experience are looked upon as the norm. (wadud, p. 79)
let's give the male species the benefit of the doubt. when they handle & own theology, (philosophy, science, etc) they forget they become androcentric. this is what wadud calls "male authority": 
Although the basis of Qur'anic discussion on society was particular to the existing system, it also gives general principles from which to derive solutions to social problems in other contexts. With regard to authority, the prevailing attitudes were patriarchal. As with other matters in society, the Qur'anic solutions to social problems reflect the prevailing attitudes in ancient Arabia. The general principle for leadership in the Qur'an is similar to the rule for fulfilling any task, that it should be filled by the one 'best suited'. That person is the one best suited on the basis of whatever qualifications or characteristics are necessary to fulfil that task: biology, psychology, education, finance, experience, etc. This principle works in a number of complex social arrangements: the family, society at large and leadership. (wadud, p. 88)
 wadud cites islamic scholar Al-Zamakhshari, who stated:
(...) that men are 'preferred' by Allah over women in terms of 'intelligence, physical constitution, determination and physical strength', although he cites no place in the text which states this. Such an assertion cannot be erased by saying that 'men have no right to overcome women by coercion, or display arrogant behaviour towards them'. Al-'Aqqad says that men deserve preference over women. (wadud, p. 35)
a note: when i said to aslan "i am arab" (which frankly doesn't add anything to the argument), my intention was merely to show you that i also feel invested and not just being flippant about these important issues. this is a minor point. 

* kant, listing all those unfit to vote because of their dependence and subordination, remarked that they (women) had "no civil personality and their existence is, so to speak, purely inherent." He included in this group "women in general" (anne phillips, p. 108). after the enlightenment, men's "sexual contract" was essentially an agreement among men on sexual hierarchy based on sexual difference. & this difference would be used to exclude women from citizenship and keep them subordinate within families. ** so, as it were, androcentrism enters through the back door of theology. i'd like to share with you some feminist views from the middle east:

the well-known declaration of women in islamic societies of 1997 (signed by a distinguished group of middle eastern scholars and muslim feminists, amongst them: mahnaz afkhami, seema kazi, mervat tallawy, etc).

egyptian author mona eltahawy on aljezeera.

repressive policies against women in iran.

fatema mernessi, a well-known arab feminist presents the problem as such:
in western culture, sexual inequality is based in the biological inferiority of the woman. in islam is the contrary, the system is based on the assumption that the woman is powerful and dangerous. all sexual institutions (polygamy, repudiation, sexual segregation) cab be perceived as a strategy for containing her power. 
it needs to be said that feminism in islam is a variegated phenomena. there is islamic feminism (with proponents like ziba mir-hosseini, mai yamani & nilufer gole, they deal with the issues of equality from within islam). for many of them the issue of discrimination and exploitation of women comes not from the teachings of the quran, but instead from prevalent androcentric attitudes of men's interpretations and fabrication of theological systems within islam. islamic feminists work within the traditions to preserve and change them. some are conciliatory, some are more radical. malika hamidi, french, of algerian origin, points to the needs of muslim women:
"victims of domestic violence, polygamy, those threatened with honor killings, circumcision, discrimination of all sorts, forced marriages, with little Turkish and Moroccan girls in Brussels just disappearing to be married. Muslim women are not involved enough in these debates, but we have to denounce that these are traditional and cultural practices - it has nothing to do with Islam."
let's come back to our initial question. if none of this has to do with islam (christianity, judaism, hinduism, you name it), why does it happen? 


aslan lamarche said...

Unfortunately for Prof. Triff, not only did he not prove his position from Quran and Sahih hadith or sunnah, as I repeatedly explained in class, but he hasn't used any daleel from qualified Islamic scholars ,meaning an alim,hafiz, Shaykh-ul-Islam or Shaykh-ul-Hadith,a Faqih etc..) In fact, he hasn't even proven his position from the actions of Sahaba(companions of the Prophet(pbuh) or the actions of the mother of the believers. Also more unfortunately for Prof. Triff, these "scholars" such as Amina Wadud that he has mentioned are not only NOT Islamic scholars, but they have confused themselves on how to use ijithad properly. Point in case, Wadud qoutes a scholar, Al-Zamakhshari, from the now long-extinct school of Aqeedah, known as the Mutazilite school. The positions held by these scholars were filled with false/da'ef narrations and anthropormophism and was finally defeated by non other than Imam Al-Ghazali(ra). Anyways, I sense a pattern with the Professor's position, since he can't prove it, he resorts to classifying me as "resistant" because I am, unfortunately, a male.

Secondly, and this is a pet-peeve of mine, Prof. Triff doesn't even spare the Quran in his lack of understanding the Islamic sciences and Fiqh. He qoutes Surah Ikhlas( which many Muslims including myself have memorized and recite in our Salat,) as proof that Allah(swt) addresses himself as "HE" and means it as such.However, he has failed to also make known, that Allah, refers to himself as "we", ("Inna" verily we) or "innahu"(we)) also( Surah 12-107, amongst many other ayah) prove what I am implying. The explanation is very simple to both of these points, and does not take much searching. It is a matter of speech(in the case of "we", it is a royal-decree), believing that Allah or God is a "she" or "he" or plural, will take you outside of the fold of Islam. (My evidence is from the fatwa of the largely-renowned Shaykh-ul-Islam in his Al-‘Aqeedah al-Tadmuriyyah, Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah(ra), p. 75,) which sums this topic precisely. Quite frankly, you have no Islamic sources to prove your conjecture,hence you resort to calling me "resistant" or that my point is somehow invalid because I am a male.

aslan lamarche said...

Thirdly, Triff states that women played a maligned or rare role in Islamic leadership in Islamic history similar to that of Europe at that time. A yet another, rather ridiculous claim unsupported by sahih hadiths or fiqh. Islamic science and jurisprudence, are ONLY set by the precedent of of the Prophet( sallahu alahi wasallam) or secondary sources by the Salaf-us-saliheen and Ummahat ul Mumineen or the Prophet's wives). Aisha(ra), narrated over 2,000 hadiths and commanded armies and was one of the first and most important Islamic scholars to teach Quran. She is the most vital aspect to understanding the Seerah, or biography of the Prophet(saaw). Because she behaved so during the Prophet's life, sets the precedent to be followed by women much later. What happens after this, is on the fault of the society and not Al-Islam, as bid'ah in religion( or innovation) is haram or forbidden.Aisha(ra) is only one example amongst the high status women are given in Islam, and to deny that is extremely ignorant.

I do not deny that the Islamic community is facing many problems, including that of women's rights. However, the Islamic Aqeedah and Fiqh are not on the side of phallocenterist, and in fact to deny women as equal is a dangerous bid'ah in Islam. Prove of this, is the mere fact, that there is not ONE sahih hadith or properly qouted verse along with tafsir to support such a position. Many non-Muslims hostile to Islam, unfortunately qoute ayats out of context and/or da'ef narrations and unqualified fuqaha,or as in this case, mere conjecture or appealing to false authority.

Next I am going to post a few sahih hadiths and tafsir concerning the role and rights of women in Islam.(Notice that my sources are from Quran or authentic Sunnah):

narrated by abdullah ibn abbas: a virgin came to the prophet and mentioned that her father had married her to a man against her will, so the prophet allowed her to exercise her choice.

another hadith asserts this point.

narrated by abdullah ibn abbas:

the prophet said: a guardian has no concern with a woman previously married and has no husband, and a virgin must be consulted; her silence being her acceptance. (book 5, number 2095: abu dawud)

narrated by ar-rubai’ bint mu’auwith( a woman): the prophet came to me after consuming his marriage with me and sat down on my bed as you (the sub-narrator) are sitting now, and small girls were beating the tambourine and singing in lamentation of my father who had been killed on the day of the battle of badr. then one of the girls said, "there is a prophet amongst us who knows what will happen tomorrow." the prophet said (to her)," do not say this, but go on saying what you have spoken before.( on the rights of women playing music)

narrated abu musa al ‘ashari: allah’s apostle said, “wearing silk (clothes) and gold is not allowed for the males of my ummah but allowed to the females.

Abu Hurayra stated, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'The most perfect of believers in belief is the best of them in character. The best of you are those who are the best to their women.'" [at-Tirmidhi, Sahih hadith]

For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast, for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in Allah's praise, for them has Allah prepared forgiveness and great reward." [Noble Quran 33:35](Ibn Kathir provides sufficient tafsir for this verse)

And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women." [Noble Quran 2:228]

aslan lamarche said...

Lastly, I apologize if I may come off aggressive or just plain mean. Please forgive me in advance. However, I will not stand by as falsehood or incorrect beliefs circulate concerning Islam. I respect Professor Triff for the knowledge and respect he has dispensed upon me, as it has proven to be invaluable.

I urge anyone who wishes to start learning the authentic "sahih" sunnah, hadith collection and Seerah( Biography) of Prophet Muhammad(s.a.a.w) start with Ar-Raheequl-Mukhtam( the sealed nectar) by Safiur Rahman Al Mubarakpuri, a prominent scholar of Islam and graduate of Madrasah Fia Aam in India, amongst the many men and women who are qualified scholars.

Anonymous said...

I love these discussions in the blog. I just hoped to have taken this class.. guys you are lucky.
Rodolfo Sanz

atRifF said...

thanks, aslan for the exchange. i hope at some point you consider reading some of these feminists' works. who knows what you may find!

thanks, rodolfo. there's always time.

aslan lamarche said...

I will, I actually do like Amina Wadud, but she is not an Islamic scholar and shouldn't pretend to be.However, one of her positions, which is rooted in Islamic tradition is that of women Imams which has been ruled and still is permissable(halal) in a portion of the Maliki fiqh during the early years when the doors of ijithad were open. I was just attempting to segeragate pretentious psuedo-scholarship and the actual academics. May I mention as a last note, there have been over 8,000 women Islamic scholars and Imams. One of the most famous, Fatimah bint Muhammad al Samarqandi. Check her out.

atRifF said...

she is not an Islamic scholar and shouldn't pretend to be...
I was just attempting to segregate pretentious pseudo-scholarship and the actual academics...

aslan, what's your criteria for "scholar" and who establishes it? what does "pseudo" mean in this case in reference to wadud?

she is considered an islamic scholar by other islamic scholars, and has been a professor of philosophy and comparative religion at american universities.

aslan lamarche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
aslan lamarche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
atRifF said...

aslan, you speak of as if you knew wadud's work in depth, but you don't (by the way, i have two of her books).

one thing is to say, "i disagree with dr. wadud's views," another is to disqualify her work tout court and the opinion of the scholars that defend her work.

for a neutral observer as myself (and a more compassionate reader of dr. wadud), the first thing i'd say is that i siply disagree with you, for two reasons. 1- as a feminist woman and a corageous academic, dr. wadud deserves -at least- a close reading of her work. 2- her resume speaks for itself:

*ph.d in islamic studies & advanced studies in arabic at the university of cairo.
*assistant professor of quranic studies at the international university of malasya.
*a well-known published author on islamic issues.
*a professor of philosophy and comparative religion at university in virginia.
*now a visiting professor in cross cultural and religious studies at the gadjah mada university in indonesia.

sadly, but not surprisingly, dr. wadud has, because of her views, has become the target of death threats from muslim androcentric circles of extremists, which only proves my point about the ills of phallocentrism.

for all your insistence on academic pedigree as prerequisite to discuss these issues, you yourself are not -i presume- a scholar. at least not yet). :)

atRifF said...

wow, aslan. my comment above is a response to your comment at 5:41pm, but now it disappeared.

Anonymous said...

Prof. Triff. I cannot speak of the discusion because I was not in your class but I can see your point for what men think we are and how they have the wrong idea of how much women are capable of.

Liz Gutierres

aslan lamarche said...

I deleted it because I felt I was trolling too much on your blog, not because of a change of opinion.

Let me keep my point very short for the sake of not writing too much.

She is not Fuqaha, she is not shaykh ul hadith, nor is she in a position to practice Ijhtihad.

To use her as a source of "reforming" or as a mainstream academic (ulema) on the complex positions of fiqh and a mujatihad is appealing to false authority on these issues.

My position comes from various proper Ulema,Quran and Hadith( nor have I have ever claimed to be a scholar).

By the way, I also would suggest you seek proper sources when make an argument on Islam. Start by reading an authentic Seerah of Prophet Muhammad ( sallahu alaihi wassalam), understand the beginnings of Islam and the various personalities( sahabah, wives, enemies,ansar,muhajirun etc..) Most of your views I sense are unfamiliar with Islam and rather, dare I say Islamophobic( which I don't think you are, just some of the things you say).

Thank you Triff though, many professors wouldn't entertain this.

Anonymous said...

Hey Triff. I was wonderong if I could pass by your office next week before the finals.
Rodolfo Sanz

Naima Mompoint said...

For many years I was questioning why they were treating women in a certain way in Islam religion. I was always trying to defend them based on my opinion on how would I feel like if they were treating me like that. I realize later that I was and am a feminist for the past years. I do not want to get involve in the discussion between you guys but I have to say one thing as a women Aslan you might be right about we can not talk about Islam if we are not Islam. Why I think so is because as an Haitian I hate when people think they know about Haitians just by stereotyping or on some books they read about Haitians. You will really know about Haitians once you a Haitian. Does that sound right I don't know, but what I feel like is a person who is scared or who is tired of judgment against their nation. You have to admit that there is some true on the book as hard as it is to admit there is some true about the books. They might not have all the sources but there is some true on the books. All to conclude that we might not know all the informations about a religion but we might know some true about that religion whether or not we are the nation of that religion. One question I want to ask everybody is what image of sex you see when you pray YOUR GOD? Me personally I try to see a women but I can't all I see is an image of a men. Don't lie really think about that question what do you really think or see as an image when you pray YOUR GOD> and something else If one day God talk to you what kind of voice you will here a soft women voice or a deep men voice. Good luck answering,and be honest.

Anonymous said...

prof i noticed others have asked as well but you gave no answer, how much of our grade is the final paper worth? i would really like to know because i need to know how well i must do to try and get a good grade in your course. thank you

atRifF said...

the final paper adds about 10-15% to the final grade.

yes, rodolfo.

naima, so i cannot talk about haitians because i'm not haitian? mais je me sens haïtien! :)

imane souabni said...

“if none of this has to do with islam (christianity, judaism, hinduism, you name it), why does it happen? “
It has to do with gender. No matter what religion you are following or where you live on this earth, if you are a FEMALE you have probably been harassed, discriminated upon, objectified, or abused.
Some statistics:
1. “Every 9 seconds in the US a woman is assaulted or beaten.”
2. “Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime. Most often, the abuser is a member of her own family.”
The problem was NEVER religion, it was the egoistic and misogynistic MAN who felt superior physically and mentally. Beating, raping and degrading women are a way to gain or maintain power and control over them, because women are a threat to men’s patriarchal system. Men need women to be dependent on them, rather than to be autonomous and emancipated from such intolerable control.
In regards to the discussion about women in Islam.
Firstly I would like to say, as an Arab Muslim woman, I find it frustrating discussing such a controversial topic, because most of the west have a misconception and mistake the actions of a Muslims with Islam itself. To clarify, a Muslim, solely represents himself and his actions AT TIMES are autonomous from the teachings of Islam.
Now to discuss the main topic, are Muslim women being mistreated in Islam? The answer is NO, Islam has brought rights to women and has given them dignity. You have to read in-depth about Arab history pre-Islam to understand how Islam has changed women’s role and status in society.
What is happening in the Arab world, in regards to women, had never been about Islam. It is more about misogynistic sadistic males who ignore or turn a blind eye on the teachings of Islam because of their inferiority complex. Just like in the rest of the world, women don’t have enough voice. Women’s problems in the east are not worse than women’s problems in the west, they are just different but equally grave.
One of the main problems that I always here about from people here is: “why aren’t women allowed to drive in the Middle East/Arab world?”
The answer: Women ARE allowed to drive in the Middle East/Arab World that is except to Saudi Arabia, even in Iran (a Persian State) women can drive. Why can’t women drive in Saudi? Well that is a baffling question that has nothing to do with Islamic teachings and more to do with Saudi Arabian culture.
Even honor killing, no matter how much they try to justify it, is a despicable criminal act that has NOTHING to do with Islam. (Which is a major predicament in turkey and Jordan, as far as I know)
In regards to the Islamic feminists, I have read the article of Mona Eltahawy, and I think there is some truth to what she is saying, but she generalized a lot of the predicaments that are happening in Egypt and stretched them to the rest of the Arab world. A non-Arab person who had never visited the middle east/Arab world wouldn’t have noticed the difference and the glitches in her arguments. Even the manner and her tone is very provocative. Other than that I think she is brave to stand up and speak out, kudos to her.
Unfortunately I haven’t read about the other feminist, hence I’m resistant to comment or discuss their work.
Professor I urge you to read the QURAN/KURAN that is if you haven’t read it yet, it might give you a different perspective about Islam and Muslims.

atRifF said...

The problem was NEVER religion, it was the egoistic and misogynistic MAN who felt superior physically and mentally. Beating, raping and degrading women are a way to gain or maintain power and control over them, because women are a threat to men’s patriarchal system. Men need women to be dependent on them, rather than to be autonomous and emancipated from such intolerable control.

great good point imane

Edwar Ricardo said...

Man has always been the dominant sex, women have been repressed by it. I agree with your article Triff.

Anonymous said...

I think this is a stupid argument, first of all Aslan said G-d is "Inna" which contradicts Islam because I thought God was one god so how could he be we? I thought he was one god. but now he is gods?

imane souabni said...

@Anonymous, your comment is senseless and inane. It just demonstrates that you haven’t comprehended the point Aslan was trying to make. Have you ever heard of “Majestic plural” or “Royal We”? Well let me elaborate, the majestic plural is the use of a plural pronoun to refer to a SINGLE person holding a high office or authority, such as a monarch, bishop, pope or in this instant GOD. Since God holds great authority, he refers to himself as “We”. Many leaders when they speak, they refer to themselves as “WE”, even if it’s just one person who makes the decisions. It doesn’t mean that there are many people, it just as an honorable way to address oneself and it’s much more diplomatic and honorable , rather than constantly referring to oneself as “I” . I hope I enlightened you a little, anon. A little food for thought for you ;)

aslan lamarche said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Naima Mompoint said...

Mr. Triff what I said is if I would said that only Haitians could talk about Haitians it would not make sense. What I m trying to said is you don t have to be that nation to know about that nation. I was actually supporting your point.

imane souabni said...

I just want to clarify that in my first post I stated that men are responsible for the misogyny and phallocentrism of this world. I would like to say that, not all men are to blame and not all Arab men are misogynistic. I’m trying to clarify this because I have noticed that some ignorant souls might misunderstand and misinterpret my message, and might spread their ignorant misapprehension/poison around.

aslan lamarche said...

Thanks Imane for clarifying my point and also the clarification of Arab men and/or Muslim men. It's quite interesting that many would speak of "acceptance" or "tolerance" of other various lifestyles or ideals, yet Muslims as a whole are almost constantly left out. Islam is so poorly understood by most non-Muslims, that they may innocently misunderstand or misrepresent us. My message is simple to those who do not know much about Islam. Muslims make up almost 25% of the World's population, at least attempt to understand the Islamic Aqeedah(beliefs) before making critical comments. For the sake of world cohesion and the eradication of ignorance and falsehood, it would behoove you to heed my advice as I would for ideals I am not familiar with.

name said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...



Anonymous said... - Learn how to turn $500 into $5,000 in a month!

[url=]Make Money Online[/url] - The Secret Reveled with Binary Option

Binary Options is the way to [url=]make money[/url] securely online