Poor M.D. Nalapat. The UNESCO Peace Chair India’s Manipal University has surely penned what he believes is a bitchin’ defense of Islam’s treatment of women against its detractors. And maybe it is…in India. But something gets lost in translation when an American reads it. After announcing that “the Koran espouses a gentle, moderate philosophy” that doesn’t enslave women, Nalapat says:

It is therefore ironic that many Western commentators regard as “pure Islam” the Kharijite practices followed by groups such as the Taliban, who claim that Islam legitimizes their policy of forcing women indoors except when absolutely necessary; wearing a chador that covers even the face; depriving women and girls of access to education and employment; making them in effect the chattels of their menfolk. Contrast this with the example of the Prophet Muhammad, who did not hesitate to serve as the employee of a woman, and who gave considerable freedom to the womenfolk in his care.

“The womenfolk in his care”? In other words, these women were chattel – but extremely well-treated chattel.

But oh, it gets worse. How does the Koran suggest you deal with adultery, for example?

Consider these lines: “As for those from whom you apprehend infidelity, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and finally [if such admonitions do not cause a change in behavior] hit them [gently]. Then, if they obey you, take no further action against them.” Contrast this gentle directive with the stoning to death practiced by those who claim to be following “pure” Islam, but in fact are deviating entirely from the word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

You’ll notice that “gently” is an editorial insertion. And hey, who can argue that a gentle beating is a step up from being stoned to death by your own village? This reminds me of how the so-called “Middle Way” of Buddhist enlightenment still enjoins you to give up sex, booze, and garlic. (I’m down with the booze. But forsake sex and garlic? You might as well shoot me where I stand.) So what are you supposed to do if the “gentle” beating fails? Bring out the stones? And what constitutes a gentle beating, anyway? Perhaps it’s of a piece with the parental stylings of Michael and Debbi Pearl, the fundamentalist parenting “experts” who command that you switch your children until their cries become a “wounded, submissive whimper.” Hey, perhaps the Pearls have found their home in the wrong religion!

Polygamy and soft beatings: the New Wave of Islamic feminism? Goddess help us.

Uncategorized afghanistan, feminism, india, islam, religion, spirituality, women

Oh…blech. Blech and ick upon Saudi Arabia, whose system still considers it right and proper that a father can marry his 12-year-old daughter off to his 80-year-old cousin in exchange for an ample dowry. At least this time, this suck-tastic story comes wrapped in a possible not-so-miserable ending. The country’s Human Rights Commission has interceded in the case, assigning the girl a government lawyer to argue her side before a local court. Whether this will do the poor child any good remains to be seen.

Traditionalists are arguing to keep the practice, because, hey, the Prophet Muhammed had a 9-year-old bride! Top Saudi Cleric Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh argued just one year ago that people who say a girl under 15 can’t take a husband are being “unfair” to the child. At the time, Al-Sheikh, a.k.a. His Venerable Horniness, was reacting to a judge who had refused to annul the “marriage” of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old degenerate.

Sigh. And you wonder why some people hate religion. Two words, Saudi Arabia: human trafficking. These aren’t marriages. These girls were sold into sexual slavery.

I’m no American exceptionalist, but I’m glad to live in a country where men who even contemplate this are considered candidates for state-sponsored castration.

Uncategorized feminism, islam, marriage, saudi arabia, women

Earlier this year, I went off on male-only poker meet-ups that excluded women. For some reason, I found myself thinking about this today. Particularly, I wondered: why have all the “poker championships” I’ve seen on TV consisted only of men? And where are there tournaments solely “for the ladies”?

Little did I know that at least some women in poker want it this way. Debbie Burkhead makes the case in her article “Why Have Ladies-Only Tournaments?” that too many women are “intimidated” by a room full of male poker players. Burkhead further argues that ladies-only tournaments will attract more women to the game, thus increasing the paltry 10% female representation seen in professional poker today.

Personally, I think that’s bullshit. If you foster an independent “ladies’ circuit”, you’re doing nothing but ingraining prejudices that ought to be weeded out. But hey, I’m married to a strong woman who eats “intimidating” men for lunch, then grinds their bones to make her bread. Besides, I’m neither a woman nor a poker player, so what do I know?

Uncategorized feminism, poker, texas hold 'em, women