So often we hear about how misogyny is inherent to Islam; how the Quran itself is thoroughly fucked up; and how Islam is incompatible with modernity and democracy and feminism because of what its texts say on their face. It’s not a religion of peace, conservatives scoff. They say we’re in a culture war. They say that Christianity and Judaism are premised on something more pure, less violent, less misogynist, and less immoral. Mohammad was a polygamist and a pedophile! they cry.
Now, I am not one to defend fundamentalist interpretations of religion. And I think that a lot of what’s being done around the world in the name of Islam is thoroughly fucked and deserving of condemnation. Kind of how I think that a lot of what’s being done in the name of Christianity is thoroughly fucked. And Judaism. And just about any other religion that harbors a handful of extremists.
However, I do not accept the idea that religion itself creates misogyny and violence and whatever other ills we often attribute to it. Religions didn’t form in vacuums; they are reflections of how societies were at the time the religion was intially formed. They continue to reflect social changes as much as they influence those changes. And human beings will always interpret religion selectively to suit their own interests.
So when I hear about how Islam is fundamentally flawed — how at its core it’s all kinds of bad things that Christianity just isn’t — I have to laugh. Because Christianity is pretty dirty.
I also laugh when the Christian purity crowd waxes poetic about their religions deep respect for marital sex and the body and whatnot. Now, look, I identify as a Christian and there are certainly many parts of the Bible and its subsequent interpretations that do reflect such a respect. But a lot of our text is full of concubines and de-virginizing young girls and multiple wives and incest and gang-bangs and eating feces and chopping up babies and nakedness and hot hot sex and whatnot. It’s sordid.
Point being, all religions have pretty messed up texts and roots. None of us are immune. What matters is how religions are interpreted and incorporated into modern life, and how we decide which pieces of the original texts to cling to, and which we conveniently ignore. Because all of us fit the texts into our lives, not the other way around — if that were the case, things would look very different. What we pick to focus on is more a reflection of ourselves than our faith. I say this to those who would argue that the Quran is justification for spousal abuse, archaic rape laws, honor killings and mandatory burka-wearing. I say this to those who would argue that the Old Testament is justification for expanding Israeli territory as far as possible, by any means necessary, without regard for the people who already live in those lands and without respect for international agreements. I say this to those who would argue that homosexuality is inherently immoral because the Bible says so, that God thinks abortion is murder, that women should resign themselves to “traditional” roles, that using birth control means you love your partner less, and that employees should be able to refuse to perform the duties of their job even when doing so could put someone else’s life in danger.
Hinduism/Buddhism aside, the major religions of the world all came from the same roots. Their initial development happened in the same part of the world. Where we are now as societies has far less to do with what each of those religions actually says, and much more to do with how we’ve allowed ourselves to interpret and understand our religions, and how much we allow our religious beliefs to influence public life and politics.
This is why I refuse to condemn Islam itself, but don’t find it inconsistent to condemn the handful of extremist individuals who carry out repressive and harmful interpretations of their faith. Ditto for Judaism. Ditto for Christianity. For all my complaints about the religious right and the theocons, I can say without hesitation that my problem is with individual bigots and hate-mongers, not the religion itself. And it comes primarily from a place of extreme frustration at seeing a faith that I find personally valuable being used as an excuse for intolerance and oppression.
Thanks to Lauren for the Biblical vulgarities link.
Why am I always pegged (ha) with the vulgarity?
I’m neither Hindu nor Buddhist, but I absolutely hate this meme. “Everyone is Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. Oh yeah, and the Hindus and the Buddhists, I guess”. If you look at the estimated numbers, Judaism is #14 on the list. There is a lot more to the world’s spirituality than the Abrahamic faiths, and the “Hinduism/Buddhism aside” thing is nothing more than an attempt to placate your guilt over Abraham-centric thought.
I said “Hinduism/Buddhism aside” because I was talking about how Christianity, Judaism and Islam came from the same roots. The website was addressing Christianity, which sparked an idea to post about the correlation between the “Abraham-centric” religions, which Hinduism and Buddhism are not. It wasn’t to say that those religions aren’t notable or important or quite large, just that they aren’t directly related to the specific point I was trying to make in that sentence.
Yes, but there are major religions in this world other than those five.
Hi Jill. I really liked your article. Lots of great points.
I understand what Gordon is saying, but I wasn’t really offended by the “major religions” statement. However, I suppose that’s because I’m not an adherent of any particular religion.
Here’s the weird thing though, it appears that the non-religious might very well be the third largest “religious category” in the world.
Now, can one trust that statistic? Dunno. However, if it’s true, it certainly goes against my own assumptions about the world’s demographics–and heck, I fall into that category.
Wacky.
Can’t resist:
Song of Solomon
Chapter 7:1-9
How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, O prince’s daughter! the joints of thy thighs are like jewels, the work of the hands of a cunning workman.
Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies.
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins.
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory; thine eyes like the fishpools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim: thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.
Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, and the hair of thine head like purple; the king is held in the galleries.
How fair and how pleasant art thou, O love, for delights!
This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.
I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;
And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine for my beloved, that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak
What would be the thoroughly fucked thing done in the name of Judaism?
So… When did you turn to Victorian morality? Why is “dirty” (nakedness, sex…) so bad (no, “but according to Dawn Eden…”, or any other examples of hypocrisy, doesn’t cut it, why do you think it is bad)? I can not understand the point of this Biblical vulgarities -thing. Sure, it does illustrate hypocrisy in the Puritan interpretation, but it doesn’t compare to slaying infidels and apostates at all.
Your logic is backwards.
Any conscientous humanist sides with the Muslim (the human), not with Islam (the idea). The tragedy that is Islam undoubtedly hurts Muslims most. Ditto for the bad aspects in Christianity.
That is, of course the problem is with inviduals, but one must not restrict him/herself on looking at the structure/content of the faith that tends to encourage certain behaviour.
Surely you do not think it is mere coincidence that Islamic nations, as a rule, support terrorism and are far more misogynist and homophobic than Western, secularized/Christian ones (Christianity, btw, contains roots to secularizing itself, which is just one point where it is better*), or Far Eastern (non-Islamic) ones?
Because something (=like the Koran) supports those negative things. Duh!
* Pardon my cultural imperialism.
At my church a couple of years ago, there was an adult forum about a draft denominational statement on human sexuality. At one point in the discussion, someone said something about “the biblical view of marriage.” Before the pastor could say anything, someone else piped up: “Which view of marriage? Abraham and his two wives? Solomon and his 1000 concubines?” It brought the house down, and added a seriously needed dose of reality to the class.
You gotta love folks who actually read their Bibles and then think about it (as opposed to folks who think they’ve read it and so don’t have to think)!
All religions reflect the cultural biases of the societies that practice them.
Look at the difference between the secular and Wahhabi sects of Islam, or the Episcopal and Southern Baptist sects of Christianity. Islam is only considered misogynistic because many of the cultures that practice it have misogynistic traditions.
It’s not a faith thing, it’s a cultural thing. Islam is experiencing a rash of upheavals right now similar to the Protestant Reformation. Remember that, and think about what will emerge when all is said and done.
P.S. Think about what would would emerge in an Islam that were, say, practiced in an entirely matrilineal society?
Freeman:
A considered response. I wish I could share your optimism.
I’d say the correlation-causation here is different. I’d say that a religion like Islam could have only been formed in a culture with misogynist tradition. Therefore, Islam in a matrilineal society seems an oxymoron.
Furthermore, Islam is not only faith. It is also politics and culture, an entire way of living. Via Shari’a. Thus, whereas much of the problems in Islam are cultural rather than religious, they are not seperate, but linked. Islam is essentially a religion that calls for reformation of the culture in its image.
This is close to historical fallacy. The situations are not equal, and one point to consider is that Koran is considered direct word of God (Bible does not claim this despite what fundies think, Koran does), and strictly forbids any changes to the scripture. And from the scripture follows the Islamic way of life. Thus, I think that secular factions of Islam are an aberration, an oddity not worth serious note. Only thing that keeps Islam from radicalization is secular tyranny or pseudotyranny (essentially that the leaders consider their political power more important than faith, and suppress purist interpretation of faith), or apostatism from True Islam.
One point also about the reformation: I do agree in sort, but I think the correct interpretation is certainly not secularist (whereas Martin Luther had a point, based on scripture of Christianity. Which compelled changes in the Catholic Church, too.).
Doom and gloom (off for Easter vacation and no net, so no responses for a while)…
I don’t buy this radical interpretational view of religion. That religion is at its heart pure. That it’s just society that warps it into misogyny and violence. And that all that needs to happen it for it to cease being selectively interpreted by believers.
“Where we are now as societies has far less to do with what each of those religions actually says, and much more to do with how we’ve allowed ourselves to interpret and understand our religions… This is why I refuse to condemn Islam itself”
I just don’t get this. There’s is absolutely foul stuff written in religious texts by various madmen. You just can’t get away from this unless you jetison the idea of a holy text and revealed truth in favour of some form of “spirituality”. The holy books are flat out anti-feminist, so there’s nothing we can do with Christianity or Islam unless they ditch their central message, but that can’t happen and have them remain Christianity or Islam.
I also think you’re soft on Islam, whatever the problem with christianity there aren’t any christian theocracies any more.
Tuomas, Nik,
One important factor to consider is this: Christianity, as a faith, is fully six-hundred years older than Islam. Islamic societies have not had sufficient time to cultivate secularist thought, a la the Renaissance/Enlightenment eras.
Radical societies embrace religion as a justification for further radicalism. Even early Hebrews were exorted by God to go and kill civilian Gentiles. However, outside of the forced nation of Israel and the Jewish Defense League, one doesn’t exactly see a lot of radical Judaism, now, do we? Japanese Imperials embraced Zen Buddhism–itself a philosophy of Compassion–as a means of justifying and preparing for death. But we don’t see modern examples, now do we?
Six hundred years ago, Christians were murdering unfaithful women and non-believers with fervor equal to that of the Shar’ia clerics of today. It’s foolish to believe that such steps toward secularism will occur overnight. No, they take centuries. But I maintain my current stance: Radical Islam as a societal model remains in place because it fits with the historical biases of the cultures in which it has taken roots.
Mark my words, religion ALWAYS serves society, not the other way around.
(Still here)
Again, that is historical fallacy. Age matters not as much as content.
I think we’re talking past each other: What I’m trying to say is that Islam is (mostly) a tool of 7th century Arab cultural imperialism. It changes the cultures it assimilates to it’s liking (to a greater extent than other religions do).
And furthermore,
Islam rose out of the same misogynistic pre-industrial Middle-Eastern culture system as our own. Anyone who wants to argue about the superiority of our own culture, without considering the important historical changes that Time has wrought, is now and forever full of shit.
Bong.
Tuomas,
I see your point, but I still disagree. There’s plenty of evidence to support my claim. When Haitian slaves were force-fed Christianity, the new converts simply co-opted the new philosophies into their current animist model, resulting in what we know today as vodun. Same with Chinese Buddhists who merged the new Dharma they received with existing Taoist philosophy, to create Ch’an, and later Zen.
…Right. On Planet Islam, lightyears from here.
Jill didn’t say it was dirty in the sense of sexee. She pointed out that it was dirty in the sense of butchered concubines. She also pointed out that Christianity in general seems to have a whole ‘nother sensibility these days, unless Ratzinger’s “God’s Rottweiler” nickname refers to something else entirely.
And try being one of those “dirty” people. Christianity has enforced that hypocritical ideal on the bodies of a whole lot of apostates.
“Sure, it does illustrate hypocrisy in the Puritan interpretation, but it doesn’t compare to slaying infidels and apostates at all [sic].”
Sure it does. Go look in the Book of Leviticus on what they say about homosexuals.
“And try being one of those “dirty” people. Christianity has enforced that hypocritical ideal on the bodies of a whole lot of apostates.”
Piny is right. People–especially women–have been getting raped/mutilated/killed in the name of God since the faith was born. We try to lecture other cultures about women’s equality, when our leaders would rather see women carrying handguns in their purses instead of birth control.
But Piny? Based on my reading of Jill’s article, Islam, NOT Christianity, was the topic being defended. I won’t say we’re ON Planet Islam, but it’s definitely hanging in low orbit. I don’t see how the above post was in any way inappropriate.
Great article! And so true! It seems to me that sex was so feared yet so coveted by men of this particular culture that they had to say it was the women’s fault.
Yes, it does. Hypocrisy is a very dangerous thing. It shows how fundamentally flawed the argument of these Bible-thumpers is. And when an agrument fails – so can the system that the argument is based on. This article also shows why these fundies fear sex – look where all reference to sex is in the Bible – it is as sin!
Given my own negative experiences with religion, I’m not a big fan of any form of organized religion. So, seeing similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism doesn’t seem too far-fetched to me. I even have a hard time trusting pagan/new age religions. When a religion grows large enough, politics and power often seem to intertwine with spirituality. After that, things can get ugly.
Plus, one has to consider that the Middle East has been subject to tons of social stressors in the distant and not so distant past–many of them rooted in the devastation that comes from colonial rule. (Ironically, the Christian belief in the need to spread itself has often been used as a justification for colonizing non-Christian lands in past centuries. You can still see vestiges of this belief in action today.)
Given the kind of chaos that can evolve in colonized societies, I’m not terribly surprised by the social dysfunction that we see in the Middle East. Consequently, I don’t really think the problem is limited to religion. As Jill indicates, many of the world’s religions are rather nastily patriarchal in their texts and histories, but religion alone is not the sole reason behind a society’s dysfunctions. Christianity has treated women and non-Christian countries in some fairly horrid ways until very recently. Heck, if religion served as the main determinant of a culture’s mores, this blog probably wouldn’t even exist.
Personally, I worry about the cultural and political shifts that I see taking place here in the US. The rise of religious fundamentalism in the US shouldn’t be taken lightly. I see the religious fundamentalism of the Middle East as a an example of how bad things might become in any culture, should religion come to govern most aspects of a society.
My own suspicion is this: should a major disaster hit the US–one large enough to cause serious damage to the government and the distribution of resources, we would come to witness portions of this country descending into religious barbarism.
It seems to me that religion, by it’s very nature, is a political entity and is all too willing to assume control of a society under the right circumstances. Is this not one of the reasons that people spend so much time struggling over the issue of separation of church and state?
What would be the thoroughly fucked thing done in the name of Judaism?
There’s *lots* of sexually-perverse repressive stuff in Orthodox Judaism. Women believed to be spiritually unclean due to menstruation/childbirth, men forbidden to touch any woman they’re not married to, even fiancees, to avoid being “tempted” into sinful lust, all marriages arranged to prevent temptation – no girlfriends = no premarital sex, right?, married women/widows required to cover their hair to avoid being a temptation to men, rabbis who never even saw their wives naked held up as moral heroes – there’s a whole group dedicated to helping kids who run away from this make the transition to the outside world, in fact. Google “haredi” if you don’t believe me.
The Brick Testament is a great visual, convenient depiction of all the stuff that’s seriously fucked (usually literally) with the Judeo-Christian tradition…
Since haredi women can’t work outside the home (or, for many daughters, even go to school), and since they’re required to have a “Quiverful” of children, the Orthodox in Israel insist they are entitled to be subsidized by the government in helping feed their large families…
But, then again, the Patriarchy ran rampant and nasty in ancient Greece and Rome, and in Japan and China, and in Mesoamerica and Africa, so it can’t be blamed exclusively on the Big Three religious cultures, nor even on our Indo-European cultural heritage of all us who had great-to-the-Nth-power grandparents about the shores of the Mediterranean…
No, it’s a human thing. (And a chimp thing.)
*sigh* I do my best to remain optimistic that these behaviors can change over time. If not, I’m putting in a request to be born on another planet as a member of a gender-free species during my next life…
Now, where did I put the requisition form for that?
See, my interpretation was that Jill was not going to single out Islam for its sins, given what’s in the Bible. Mote and beam, and all that.
I’d like to advance a theory. Just a theory, based on human history.
Bellatrys has a point. Misogyny is everywhere in early history. Why is that? I don’t believe it’s because men are naturally inclined to treat women like inferiors or property. Rather, I believe that if one consults the recorded histories of the world’s remaining matrilineal societies, versus those of the patrilineal, I believe a pattern can be distinguished.
I believe that patrilinealism arose with the advent of cross-societal trade, and the demise of subsistence agricultre as a means of support.
Think about it: in early (pre-David) Hebrew history, the Jews were pastoral nomads with a matrilineal social structure. Even the Hebrew God was referred to as a female entity. The same is true in pre-Roman europagan cultures (e.g. the tribes of Willendorf). Patrilinealism doesn’t appear in early cultures except in ones where men were expected to travel long-distance during hunting parties or raids, such as the feudal Norse or early Babylonians. These extended “deployments,” if you will, later led to cross-societal contacts and the beginnings of commercial trade.
Just consider it: in cultures forced to travel out-of-camp and barter for resources just to survive, it’s only natural to expect that sex and breeding would become just another resource. Thus, with the rise of large-scale settlements and early commerce came the rise of patrilinealism to dominance. And over time, women were treated increasingly as the sexual property of men.
Sorry to get a bit off-thread here, but what I’m arguing is that misogyny has less to do with religion than it does with culture. Tt’s a phenomenon that goes back to the very roots of civilization.
You aren’t off thread at all, Freeman. That’s pretty much exactly the point I was trying to make.
Thank you, Jill. :)
What zuzu said about the beam and the mote. I’m not saying we’re on Planet Islam; my point was that describing that religion/culture and its inhabitants as though they exist on some separate sphere–another planet, as it were–is stupid.
Ahh. *Nods* Very well. Carry on, then.
Why do you care to discuss religion ? I s it necessary. I f one is an atheist,should one also be a determinist?Does determinism negate responsility?
Somebody’s offended because today is Easter.
There seems to be a lot of that going around.
Happy Zombie Jesus Day, indeed.
Have some candy!
Ask a Tamil about Buddhist benevolence.
Saying Islam is inherently inclined to social ills and Christianity is textually inclined to peace reminds me of 19th Century views of Protestantism as the religion of freedom, commerce, and individuality, and Catholicism as the religion of indolence, tyranny, and ignorance. But (domestic Low Country politics aside) does anybody care anymore that Holland was (more) Protestant and Belgium Catholic?
I think all religions are conducive to antisocial behavior because they begin with a fundamental falsehood; that there are answers to be found for Earthly questions in the realm of the supernatural. Once a person accepts this lie into their heart they are susceptible to all kinds of anti-humanistic suasion. Even Quakers started out as creepy millenarians.
Are some more or less inclined to irrational and unpleasant behavior because of the basic content of foundation texts? It’s theoretically possible but not even Islam lives constantly up to the strictures of the Qouranne. Religion as practiced is a negotiation between the culture and the texts. The Reformation did not liberate Christian women (if, indeed, they have been). Nothing new was found in the Gospels to justify women’s freedom. Feminism is not an interpretation of the Epistles of Paul. Women freed themselves when they awoke to the necessity of liberation and the culture and economy were strong enough to accomodate them. Liberal theology grew from Feminism, not the other way. Likewise with gaiety.
The most recent closest thing to a Christian theocracy was South Africa 1950-1990. But even there the secular-Roman tradition of the supremacy of the law [minimally] protected [white] women (and [male] blacks) from arbitrary assault. When Muslim nations, as a whole or one at a time, develop a secure means of moral and cultural valuation independent of (even if parallel to) the Book their religion will cease to matter. [Let's hope it's something more like the Lex Romana than the Deluxe Americana of money and fame]
For what its worth I would much prefer an organized, institutional, and established church sapped of all content by cultural change to a single person of true faith wishing their spells on a streetcorner.
But Christ brought the aspect of forgiveness to Christianity: First stone and all. I can understand the criticism toward Christianity and Christians (hell, I do take a potshot myself at times at them), but really, Islam and Christianity are different. To put it bluntly: Christianity is better from a humanist viewpoint. Not “better”. Better.
You still keep pushing the time will cure Islam – theory. Okay, if we assume that Islam will go the same road, then after a few decades France, for example, will go back to 15th century. Not really that great for France (especially minorities therein), now is it?
Also, you ignore the inherent secularism of Christianity (which allows ‘Christian nations’ to have stronger influence from culture), and the inherent non secularism and cultural imperialism of Islam.
Uh, leviticus says that men who lie with men are abominations i.e. an icky goyim thing. It also advocates slavery and the redistribution of land to peoples who you’ve attempted to wipe off the face of the earth, yet it’s always about the homosexuals and the slavery, not only do the native and african americans deserve more lands in america if we’re going to go by leviticus, we’re also going to have ot reintroduce slavery and ban shellfish.
That’s gonna hurt the coastal economy something wicked.
Plus you’re forgetting that if we go back to the islam’s origins, we find a large bunch of theocratic jew killers trying to wipe the religion out, guess what C-Word they named themselves? Not to mention more recent genocidal psychopaths who talked alot about christ.
Has islam manged to out do hitler, the conquistadors, the inquisition and all the crusades for deaths and violence? because that’s the stanard it’s up against if it wants to be considered the more evil religion, and that’s without even considering the whole varied and sundry crimes against humanity the USA has committed since jsut ww2 (ignoring the slavery era and the philipines and our treatment of native americans), between nuking japanese civilian populations (which might have been neccesary but was still a crime against humanity regardless), mass murder in south asia, mass murder in the middle east, funding and supporting mass murderers in south ameirca and the middle east… all things done by vocally “christian” leaders you’ll note.
Islam would need to return to the days of the ottoman empire before it had the power with which it could start to commit acts which might allow it to lay claim to being the more evil religion, it’s not even in the top three, once you consider the documented genocides in the OT by the jews, the genocidal campaigns of roman pantheon polytheist generals, the past 1000 years of christian evils and the aztecs’ religious worship, they run a cool fifth place every time, just pegged out by the jews, who have mellowed out for the past few 1000 years, and even then they’ve been making huge gains recently thanks to the occupation of palestine.
If judaism allows mass murder, and christianity is currently justifying mass murder (while pretending hitler was an atheist and the inquisition didn’t exist), and islam is currently… not, which is Better?
(hint: it’s a trick question, “my religion can beat up your religion” is a stupid discussion, all religions lead to good and to evil, because they are followed by good and evil people, implementation and the individual actions of the faithful are what seperates good from bad, better from worst)
Ho hum.
At least according to revisionist view of Muslims (who have a duty to lie to unbelievers for tactical purposes). If it is true, too bad they didn’t succeed.
Yes, Hitler the Christian. No matter the fact that he despised the weak Christian faith (“You can be a German or a Christian, not both”) It really bores me when people try to nail Hitler to some favorite hated ideology etc. they have, be it Christianity, Science, or Patriotism.
Inquisition? How many did the inqusition kill? The extent of the inquistion is greatly exaggerated (and the fact that many were found not guilty, or received only small sentences. And as a general rule, the closer you get to Vatican, the fairer the trial in inquisition. The worst was rural regions with superstition and bad blood between neighbors.).
Crusades? Bah! The medieval times were a confrontation between the Christian Europe and Islam, with Islam being the attacker (and conqueror) far more often (Crusades being the exception of Christian aggression against Muslims, and they still whine about them. As do PoMo leftists). Heard of Byzantium? Syria being a Christian nation? Charlemagne? Reconquista? Perhaps the right thing to do would have been just accept the rule of Islam in Europe. At least according to lefty whiners.
Christianity currently justifying mass murder… Oh, you mean Iraq?
Of course inviduals vary. But do you think that a religion that demands it followers to wage holy war on infidels is not one bit better than a religion which advocates turning the other cheek?
Probably not. All religion good and bad. All ideologies same.
I’m not going to defend leviticus, btw, because I’m not arguing about this out of uncritical praise of Christianity. I just think Christian dogma (altough not probably the actions of people who call themselves Christians) is less objectionable (this does not mean all good or without flaws, for the slow) than the expansionist, conquering dogma of Islam.
Hmph, I probably went bit far in #39, about the lefty whiners and all. Sorry.
Spam, but obviously I meant the other way around in But do you think that a religion that demands it followers to wage holy war on infidels is not one bit better than a religion which advocates turning the other cheek?