Islamic Feminism, The Ultimate Contradiction

A few weeks ago, I was discussing the Hindu practice of sati with a fellow classmate in school. I was beginning steer the talk into the direction of the relationship of certain religions and the lack of women rights. The minute I mentioned Islam, someone who had been sitting around apparently eavesdropping on the conversation interjected with the common phrase of “its the culture not religion.” As the discussion was now between three people, I learned she was a self-described “Afghani Muslim Feminist.” Immediately, perhaps rudely, I interjected that a “Islamic Feminism” is a contradiction in terms. It seems she was not ready for such a retort and she looked dumb founded for a moment, gave me dirty look, and got up and left. Though, it is notable that she did not wear the Qur’an-mandated hijab, and so to me it was obvious that she probably was one of those who cherry-picked verses out of the Qur’an. Unfortunately, this ability to simply brush off criticism and act if it never happened is extremely common with religious folk, and even more so the case with Muslims.

I have already gone through and discussed specific passages of the Qur’an. So, I will not do that again, but just to summarize, in one chapter alone (the fourth), the Qur’an states that women are inferior to men, are worth half as much with regards to property, and creates the justification for the subjugation of women. Men are allowed to beat their wives and lock them away until they submit to them. In the following chapters it reinforces this imaginary inequality by forcing them to wear veils and references fairy tales that would be despicable to any person of reasonable morals. From what I have experienced, there are only two ways that Muslims attempt to get around it. The first is the assertion that I am taking passages out of context, this of course can mean two things. Either historical context or literary context. In the case of historical context, the argument is completely void as the Qur’an is the final revelation, and what ever was true for then, is true for eternity (or until judgement day). In the case of literary context, it is a bit more tricky, but nowhere near a convincing argument as, the overwhelming theme of the Qur’an establishes a separation between man and woman, even if it is not for purposes of superiority/inferiority, it is always clearly stated that men and women are not equal, and it goes on to say that women are inferior. So, it is not the case that I am taking the passages out of context, and thus the first objection is done with. The second objection is an odd one, but it is very common. It is usually coupled with criticism of Arabs. It happens to be the case that the Islam not only creates the inequality between men and women, but Arabs and Non-Arabs as well. So the argument goes, this female suppression is due to Arab-culture influence. This is often espoused by those liberal Muslims who are attempting to go against the grain and secularize Muslim countries (notably not the Arab countries). I do not think I need to insult the intelligence of those who read this by criticizing that point.

I hear this argument of “its the culture not the religion…” or “its the people, not the religion…” so often I feel I should address it again. To make sure I do not run into the same criticism again, I will concede (far more than I need to), that perhaps pure Islam does not contain the most vile sexist nonsense, and that it is indeed entirely a construct of local culture. Now, to be clear, I do not in anyway hold that position, and I am conceding it merely for the sake of argument. Now, the argument would go “don’t criticize the religion, but rather the culture/people.”  The minute one attempts to criticize the person who engaged in say, the forced marriage of a 6 year old girl to a 40 year old man, they automatically turn to the life of Muhammed as justification. There are only two ways to counter that, either to say, Islam is wrong or, it doesn’t really say that. In either case, it is impossible to avoid Islam in the conversation. It happens to be the case that, Islam does create the justification for a man to marry a young girl, and for me that leaves only one response. Islam is wrong.

Islam is not a religion of peace and it does not give respect to women, for respect is not something that can just be “given.” Islam does the exact opposite of giving respect to women, it belittles their intellect and treats them as the property of men. It was originally intended to favor the interests of the illiterate and disgusting men who created it. While it may be convenient for a male such as myself to support something so clearly in my favor, it just would not be intellectually honest. Karl Marx once said… “Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social Progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex…” These words were true then, and remain true to this day. If we atheists and rationalists are serious about changing society, working to support the global feminist cause is absolutely crucial to success.

My “spiritual” Journey, Part 1 (Marxism)

As a young child raised within a Muslim household and community, the notion of non-belief is regarded as high treason or more appropriately, apostasy. Luckily for myself, when I was younger, I rarely (if ever) gave any thought to religion. It was simply one of the constants of my life. I was far more interested in cars, cartoons and sports. I was never truly opposed to the idea of Islam either, in fact, I can specifically remember joyfully fasting during the “holy” month of Ramadan, and more over, I genuinely equated Islam with morality and decency. I can now look back and laugh at how horribly wrong I was about Islam and just how much the exact opposite was true.

I remember when I was around the age of 7, my mother had paid for a Mullah from the local neighborhood mosque to come and teach my siblings and I the Qur’an. I personally did not like this instructor very much as his presence meant less time for me to play video games or other fun activities. Now that I look back, he was quite harsh and really there really was not any positive qualities about the man. Though, these few years of religious instruction were cut far shorter than my mother would have liked them to be. Unlike my cousins and other relatives, there was quite the strife in my family between my father and mother on the topic of religion. My mother, coming from a background of extremely devout and generally decent people was and still is quite religious, as is much of her family. My father has been a lifelong liberal in just about every aspect of life. He did not really follow any sort of rigid ritualistic aspect to Islam, as he regarded such behavior as the antithesis to an intellectual person. As a young man, living in the extremely religious climate of Pakistan (a nation primarily established for religious reasons) he stood out like a black sheep. He wrote poetry that was often rejected without a proper reading simply due to its provocative nature. He also had a great deal of friends amongst the huge Marxist (or in other terms, young intellectual atheists) though one could not quite describe my father as full Atheist or a Marxist, rather a Deist and a Socialist. Looking back, this difference in my parents religious views seem to be the early roots of my current non-belief.

Well, this sort of cultural Islam and continued for many years. I never really gave religion a second thought, it was just there and the notion of it ever leaving were just not conceivable (nor desired). This period of time finally ended at the age of 13. I remember walking with my grandfather (from my mothers side) to the local mosque one day. He said to me, “Now that you are reaching an age of maturity, it is time for you to take religion much more seriously.” So, I almost immediately acted upon his words and began the shift from a cultural Muslim (essentially, a Muslim by no choice of their own) to a practicing Muslim. I began to read the five daily prayers, and reread the Qur’an in Arabic. I tried to live my life as closely to what I thought a proper Muslim should, which is quite difficult living in the Western world. As you may already know, I am not one for half-measures. I may begin with moderate stances, but rarely do they ever remain. They often become more and more extreme, until they really cannot go any further. By the age of 15, I was quite the religious fellow. I read the daily prayers, had completed the Qur’an in Arabic countless times and I even annoyed my father until he would finally drive me to the local mosque. I remember feeling a sort of hatred for Western culture as it was becoming more and more anti-Islamic (this is post 9/11). The odd thing about this time of extreme devout belief was that my father actually attempted to take credit for my religiousness (some sort of bizarre logic that basically said that his lack of harsh instruction led me to love Islam) and my mother also attempted to take credit for this “blessing from Allah” as she put it.

Around this period of time, I began to research my country of birth, Pakistan, and its leaders. This study led me to the discovery of Zulifkar Ali Bhutto. A man that was the idol of my father (though I had never known until I mentioned him to my father). Bhutto was quite good friends with another leader in the Islamic world, Muammar Al-Ghadaffi. Ghadaffi, a self described “Islamic Socialist” is another interesting figure. Ghadaffi stood for essentially, anti-West, anti-European principles, and this was very attracting to a young liberal Muslim. I was quite knowledgeable on the Islamic aspect of Ghadaffi, but not the Socialist aspect. This is when I began to research Marxism, Communism and came to a startling discovery. For the Marxist worldview, god was dead and more accurately, god was never alive. I tried to reconcile this notion of Marxist/Liberal thought which I had now come to favor with my belief, but it was impossible. Atheism is a prerequisite for Marxism, and if any of the two had to go, it was most certainly going to be my religious belief. Even though I was a very devout believer in Allah and Islam, I was also very much more inclined to the notion that political and economic change in societies is far more important than the religious belief. Though, letting go of faith and belief is far more difficult than just that. Even though I tried to move forward and reject god for the sake of consistency, Marxism really only ended the cultural and ritualistic aspects of Islam that I followed, not my belief in god. To remove that, I would need something much more powerful than Marxism, science.

I had attempted to write this down before, but, I want to give it another go. Part two (science) of three, coming soon...

Take it one god further

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

This chart (reposted from somewhere) beautifully puts into perspective the above posted quote.

god Loves Me!

Choosing the right university was very important to me personally. Out of my options, I figured, the one with the best science department surely would have a limited religious population as compared to those with a more, liberal-arts type students. Well, with a full semester done and a few weeks into the second semester, it seems, I was dead wrong. The amount of religious students in this school is beyond disappointing. Ever so often however, the religious provide for some entertainment. A few days ago, a  campus group, B.A.S.I.C or Brothers and Sisters in Christ (don’t ask) had a table in the lobby of the Student Union building at my school. Personally I despise this group in specific, as I have proven they have been tearing my SBU Freethinkers posters around campus and placing their posters right in the exact same spot. They had a banner which read, “GODISNOWHERE.” I suppose to the religious, this means “God is Now Here,” but due to the lack of spaces, it also reads “God is Nowhere.” I suppose I can agree with that. The other interesting thing they had at their table was a little handout which, pictured above stated, “SMILE, God Loves YOU!” I guess that’s nice enough, though I felt this was a bit misleading. A few minutes later, I checked the back and well, this handout had something on the back.

I suppose this kind of bigotry shouldn’t surprise me, but as said earlier, the religious never cease to provide entertainment.

Hitler, Stalin and Faith

When everything else fails for the religious in a debate, instead of trying to assert their particular religions’ truth, they try to bring atheism, non-belief, and skepticism down to the same level as religion. To do this, they bring up the “unholy trinity,” two people (Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin) and one concept, Faith. They argue that, even though religious people have done some bad things, atheists are equally as guilty. Sometimes they go one step further and say that Hitler and Stalin killed far more people than the Inquisition ever did, therefore, simply due to the numbers, Hitler and Stalin were worse. They also bring up faith, and how atheism is just another faith. The faith/religion argument is more or less the same concept as the Hitler/Stalin, basically trying to assert that atheism is not superior to their organized religion, and they are intellectually equal. While the arguments are not very good, and normally I would not really waste my time with them, they seem to come up every time the religion/atheism argument comes up, and I might as well respond to them now, so I can save time in the future.

Adolf Hitler

This is by the weakest link of their argument. Adolf Hitler’s religious views were certainly not Atheistic. There are probably only two important aspects of Hitler’s religious views that matter anyway, and those are his public policies based on religion, and his personal views. Out of those two, his public policies are the most important. Hitler created strong pact with the Catholic church. This pact was not broken until his death, as every Catholic church in Germany celebrated his birthday based upon a direct order from the Pope himself. The Catholic church was also instrumental in smuggling large numbers of Nazi war criminals (who happened to be confirmed Catholics) to South America, instead of facing trial for their war crimes. It is true the church has apologized for these actions, though, really, actions speak louder than words, and their actions indicate nothing more than a “mistake” rather than a deliberate support of a mass murderer, and genocidal maniac. Hitler’s personal views on religion are technically impossible to really know. It is however, possible to look up Hitler’s record of mentioning Christianity and Christ. While, one could easily make the argument that, he used Christianity as a tool, and wasn’t a true Christian himself, well, even if that is the case, it does not rewrite history. In fact, it only furthers my original point, that, it is not the Atheist who must constantly defend the source of their ethics and morals, but rather, it is when one believes god is on their side that anything is possible (and usually recommended). Hitler’s hatred of Jews could also stem a fellow German (though a few centuries before), Martin Luther. Luther is often praised as the father of the Protestant Reformation, and I know quite a few people who label themselves as Lutheran to this day. That of course, is usually without knowledge of his infamous, “On the Jews and their Lies” (warning that link contains quite a lot of antisemitism and bigotry). It is without much effort that one can easily draw parallels between Hitler’s antisemitism, and the pre-existing antisemitism that existed in Germany especially due to its history as a Christian region. It simply cannot be argued that Christianity played anything but a large role in Hitler’s Germany, even if it was simply a means to a non-Christian ends, though, even that could be refuted easily.

Joseph Stalin

This one is probably the strongest claim the religious have out of this weak bunch of three, but nonetheless, it can be argued against as well. Unlike Hitler, it is pretty clear that Stalin was indeed an atheist. Obviously it is impossible to know, however, the evidence could not point more in one direction. Not only was he personally an Atheist, but he adopted a philosophy, a perverted form of Marxism which was also, explicitly atheistic. However, one could not in their right mind call the murders of Stalin as directly influenced by his atheism. There is no evidence that suggests, Stalin ever had the mindset of, “All believers in god, round up, you’re going to die.” In fact, many of the people that Stalin killed, especially the political rivals and intellectuals were also atheists. While I know full well that during the immediate Soviet rule, the church officials were rounded up and many devout worshipers were sent off to labor camps. Most of the theological seminaries were shut down, and patriarchal elections were halted. We should also not forget that after the Nazi invasion on the western front, the church was revived, and those same theological seminaries were opened. It seems that as a young man, Joseph Stalin actually studied at one of those theological seminaries and was training for the priesthood. While Stalin is a bit more tricky, and really, one cannot dismiss him very easily, I would instead like to argue why atheism on its own, is impossible to murder for. Which brings me into the faith conversation…

Faith

Here is the most frustrating and by far the most common. Here is more or less what the religious say: “Yes, there are flaws in (insert religion here), but, Atheism, too has flaws, and is no better than any other faith.” I deal with this nonsense all the time, and it seems most believers are oblivious to the refutations to this argument. First, there are no flaws with atheism. I define Atheism as, the lack of belief in gods. This, is not an affirmative stance, it makes no positive claim. When a child is born, unless you tell them about the specific religious dogma, more than likely, their first words won’t be, “the holy trinity” or “immaculate conception.” Atheism is the default position. We do not call “not-playing-chess” a hobby, and thus, “not-believing-in-god” is not a belief either. What is faith anyway? Faith is active belief without evidence. Faith involves one making a positive claim, without having evidence to substantiate their claim. So when someone says, “I don’t have enough faith to believe there is no god,” they miss the point entirely. There is no faith involved in the lack-of-belief, as, by definition, faith requires a positive claim, and the lack-of-belief is a negative claim. This is why atheism cannot be responsible for Stalin’s actions. Atheism cannot influence anyone to do anything just like not-playing-chess cannot influence someone to murder. Sure Stalin was probably not a believer in god, but attributing his actions to his atheism is not very logical.

A slight variation on this is, “I don’t have enough faith to believe that the natural and physical constants are the way they are without an intelligence” or, “I don’t have enough to believe in the big bang.” I’ll take the two in reverse order. The big bang requires no faith. There is evidence involved, and a great deal of it. This situation is slightly different, because in this case, technically, believing the big bang happened is indeed a positive claim. However, it is not a faith-based claim, and that is an important aspect to realize. One simply cannot compare the Big Bang Theory to any god hypothesis, as the former is supported with a great deal of evidence, while the latter does not have a shred of evidence. Now to the fine-tuning argument. Of course the natural constants are the way they are such that they provide for life. If they were shifted ever so slightly, perhaps life wouldn’t exist as we know it, but so what? Who is to say that life wouldn’t have adapted to those natural constants? And some design by the way. This “fine-tuner” is playing quite the sick joke on us, why not create a little comfort zone for the natural constants. It is always interesting to me how quickly the religious go from a fine-tuning argument (a deistic argument) to a theistic argument within seconds. It always goes something like this, “The fine-tuning of the natural constants is so accurate that, Jesus was born of a virgin and he is the only way to salvation.” Sure the natural constants may be incredible and we are quite lucky to have them exactly how they are. But they do nothing to further any sort of theistic argument.