JUNE 2000

The title of this piece is itself a redundancy. All Muslim women are captives, assuming they live their lives according to the Koran and the Prophet Muhammad. Islam does not recognize women as human beings. Just as American slave-owners considered African Americans to be three-fifths of a human, so Muslims consider women to be roughly one-half of a human. For all the ranting I do about the Judeo-Christian tradition, it's hard to beat Islam for all-around woman-hating. Its sheer malevolence against all females is appalling, far-reaching and still flourishes today.

"Honor killing" is alive and well today. Directed only against women (now there's a surprise) "honor" killings punish women who have lost their virginity before marriage—even if they have been raped. In the Near and Middle East rigid Muslim fundamentalists take such things seriously, and consider death the proper punishment. We have walked on the moon, built space stations, mastered gene splicing, linked the entire globe with the Internet, and still, some of us believe it is morally correct to murder women because of their hymens. We still have a long, long way to go. Baby.

Perhaps one of the most touching, heartwrenching speakers I've ever been privileged to hear is Taslima Nasrin, author of the book, Shame. On May 5, 2000, at a conference of the Council for Secular Humanism in Los Angeles, Taslima Nasrin delivered a talk to an enthralled, pin-drop quiet audience. She is eloquent; she is an M. D.; she is kind; and she is lovely. She is also living under a death sentence.

Raised in a Muslim family, she soon outgrew belief in the strictures of the Koran as she became educated. (This is one of the reasons, by the way, that Muslim men want to keep women veiled and secluded from an early age—if girls can never learn anything, they can never question anything.) Once she realized the horrific nature of Islam's misogyny, Nasrin began writing against such bigotry. Her book, Shame, however, was the last straw for Muslim fundamentalists. They issued a fatwa (literally a death sentence) against her, and she was forced to leave her native Bangladesh. The main thrust of her book is the criticism of Bangladesh's majority Muslims and their cruel persecution of the country's minority Hindus. As if to prove her point for her, fundamentalist Muslims all understand and agree that any Muslim who tracks this woman down and kills her will be and should be rewarded. She has bodyguards at all times. Allah be praised.

During her talk, Nasrin received appreciative chuckles at her wry comment that her idea of "Paradise" would not be to watch her husband copulate with seventy virgins, a scenario promised to males by Muslim doctrine.

How on earth did Islam arrive at such a ghastly, cruel, completely intolerant position? That's easy. It began that way. From the day the Prophet Muhammad uttered his first sura (the equivalent of a biblical chapter or section) Muslim women were doomed. The Koran is so packed with unveiled (!) contempt and loathing for women that's it's hard to know where to begin. Let's start with this: The word "Islam" itself means submission or surrender. Bad start.

My copy of the Koran was translated by AMATUL RAHMAN OMAR and ABDUL MANNAN OMAR, copyright 1997, published by Noor Foundation —International Inc. Their so-called introduction to it, a whopping 58 pages of tiny print, is no more than an exceedingly defensive harangue about how bad the Koran isn't. For example, on Introduction Page 6-A (IP 6-A) they claim that "their [sic] is no inconsistency and contradiction anywhere in the Holy Book." They further state on IP 9-A, "The Koran is admitted by friends and foes alike to be the very Book presented by Muhammad…" Pardon me, but no, it isn't. I admit no such thing. And I'm certainly a foe!

On IP 30-A, "Peace be on Muhammad who…..said that every human being is born with a clean slate and with perfect freedom of action." From the Koran itself, Koran 16:75, there is a description of a wealthy master and a destitute slave. A comparison is drawn between the two, and following immediately is the inane question, "Are they equal?" This rhetorical question is actually answered with, "No, not at all." Duh. This is perfect freedom for all? Don't think so, fellas.

On IP 35-A, "The duty of JIHAD is far from being synonymous with that of war…" Koran 9:5 instructs the faithful to "slay such polytheists" wherever they are found. Koran 47:4 tells believers to strike off the heads of those who disbelieve. Sounds like war to me. Kill the infidels.

On IP 40-A, "In the matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance women are given the same rights as men." Koran 4:20 tells men that if they want to take one wife in place of another, feel free. They can trade in wives, like used cars. Of course there is no equivalent trade-in policy offered to women. Koran 4:3 says men should marry whichever women appeal to them, "two or three or four"—you know, shop around. Collect a whole set! One learned Mullah had eight wives in his harem, but justified it by adding up the numbers two, three and four, and figured he was still one shy since he was entitled to nine wives. But in reality only the Prophet, who received this Wisdom from On High (wasn't he lucky?), was allowed as many wives and he wanted. Mere mortals were "restricted" to four. Of course divorce is so easy (just say the magic words, like "Get outta here!" and you're divorced, no muss no fuss—really! True story.) that men can have innumerable wives in a lifetime.

Further, in Koran 4:34 men are described as being superior to women because Allah made them to "excel over the other" and because men spend money supporting women. I wonder how much thought was given to the fact that if men weren't considered superior, women could easily take care of themselves! In Koran 2: 223 wives are described as "tilled fields" that men should, literally, plow through. You know, have a good time, get some kids going. Equality, huh?

The Prophet Muhammad had a baker's dozen wives, and countless concubines. The second female to occupy his newly forming harem was nine years old at the time of consummation. But the little girl, Aisha, was at least allowed to keep her toys and dolls with her when she was sent to Muhammad's bed. I may throw up.

Muslim Paradise consists of males lounging on couches, being waited on by virgins who don't sleep, perspire, get pregnant, menstruate or ever get sick. And the men get to screw these nymphs forever and ever! No mention is made of how this could ever be considered "paradise" for the females.

When stoning men and women for adultery (adultery meaning another man's property, one of his wives, has been tampered with), the offending male is to stand out in a clearing while people throw stones at him till he dies. If he manages to run away, and does escape, he's safe. Death sentence over. Kind of like the game, "Red Rover, Red Rover" that we used to play as kids. But the stakes are a bit higher. However, if a woman is to be stoned, a pit is to be dug, waist/chest high, and she is to be stuck in the hole in the ground, buried up to her chest, allegedly for "decency." Imagine a "decent" stoning. Wouldn't want to see any naught bits of her body while you're bashing her bloody! Tsk, tsk! Of course the semi-burial makes it impossible for her to escape, doesn't it? These still take place, in some countries, as I write.

Koran 4:34 instructs men on dealing with "rebellious" wives. First admonish; second kick them out of your bed (poor things!); and, if that doesn't do it, punish them. So, men are supposed to beat any really "rebellious" women. That's what the old slave masters used to say.

Well, I've had enough. There is much more; but just as reading too much of the Bible's Old Testament can make you ill, this Koran can only be taken in small doses. Like arsenic. And to think we atheists are assigned the moniker of "immoral." Compared to a fundamentalist Muslim I'm a True Goddess of Perfection. All of it is sickening. All of it.

Why is it humanity cannot seem to shed these ancient, intolerant, cruel superstitions? Fundamentalist Christians hardly fare much better, but at least they've abandoned stoning (as far as I know). But time marches on, people! These old so-called holy books long ago lost any possible relevance to the real world. They must have served some purpose at some point such as uniting tribes and offering justification for slaughtering other tribes; but today they are 100% counterproductive to human progress. They demand bigotry and hatred. Secular humanism on the other hand calls for just the opposite—tolerance and compassion. But I fear I shall never see a tolerant world in my lifetime. To those who would accuse me of intolerance toward religions, let me say this: Some things do not deserve tolerance of any kind, such as murder, stoning, female genital mutilation, slavery, fatwas, harems, purdah, 9-year-old brides…..

Another wonderful writer who spoke at the L. A. conference, Parvin Darabi, wrote another grim book about fundamentalist Islam titled, Rage Against the Veil. Along with her son Romin Thompson, she wrote about her sister, Homa Darabi. Homa was a child psychiatrist in Iran, and was the first Iranian ever to be Board Certified, in the USA, in Psychiatry and Neurology. But she wanted to stay in Iran to help her fellow citizens, especially the children. As a result, she was hounded relentlessly in Iran by the Revolutionary Guards who made it their business to check up on her to make sure she was observing hijab (dress code) in her practice, which Khomeini was resurrecting.

Now this makes perfect sense to me. I can think of nothing more logical than for females in medical school or in practice to conduct their business fully veiled. "Push, Mrs. Ali, it's almost here. I can't tell if it it's a girl or boy because my veil is in the way." But of course there is nothing funny about purdah, (veiling) and its only reason for existence is the male desire for total domination of women, eliminating any possible sense of female personal identity. The preposterous assertion that women who show any part of their bodies other than their eyeballs will bring about wide-scale, wanton lasciviousness is pure BS. What's the matter, Muslim men, can't you control your penises? No, it's control of women that is at the heart of this nonsense.

Because of this nonsensical insistence on veiling, Homa Darabi was finally forced to close her private practice and then give up her professorship at the University of Tehran. She sank into a deep depression from which she never recovered. On February 21, 1994, in the middle of a square in Tehran, she poured gasoline on herself and set herself on fire to protest the outrageous tyranny of her native country. She died, as planned. 

Allah be praised.

© 2000 Judith Hayes

Back to Main Page                              Back to Previous Columns