"Are these verses capable of a non-misogynistic interpretation?"
-- posted by Robert

No, but they can be handled through an adept admixture of occlusion, obfuscation, and taquiyya.

I predict that women will make some progress -- nothing revolutionary, but enough to keep the Jizya-paying infidels off the Moslem Man's back -- until such time that Sharia is attained in the West.

Then, look for Moslem Men to exact brutal revenge on their Arab/Turkic/Abyssinian/
South Asian women and switch over to white women for mates, much like black radical males did in the 70s.

Some Moslem Men might still hang with their Persian girls, so long as they have stopped being uppity.

Posted by: Chaz MarteL 732 at October 29, 2005 8:07 AM

Check out www.evilbible.com. There is a lot in there that would seem to preclude any feminist movement from succeeding in the Jewish or Christian culture. I admit right now, I am not an expert on the bible...feel free to refute my trust in this site.

These Muslim women can simply refuse to take the Quran literally, and explain the offending passages in their historical context. This opens the door to questioning the entire edifice of Islamic doctrine. Who are we to say they cannot succeed? Most Muslim women in the west want it this way. Islam has never faced such a superior culture as the secular west.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at October 29, 2005 9:26 AM

From above:

Some Moslem Men might still hang with their Persian girls, so long as they have stopped being uppity.

The problem with this is that uppity Persian girls are literally hung.

Posted by: QuickHenryTheFlit at October 29, 2005 9:26 AM

Dear Quijybo,

"These Muslim women can simply refuse to take the Quran literally, and explain the offending passages in their historical context. This opens the door to questioning the entire edifice of Islamic doctrine. Who are we to say they cannot succeed?"

Maybe they can. I hope they can. But I think you have slightly missed my point. The article says: "Islamic Feminism argues that the inferior legal and social status of women in Muslim countries is a result of misogynistic distortions of the teachings in the Koran."

I set out the verses to explore the claim that Islamic misogyny comes from a distortion of the Qur'an. I don't think it does; it comes, rather, from the plain words of the Qur'an. These feminists, like so many other Muslim reformers, don't seem to want to face that fact. But their reform will get nowhere until they do.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at October 29, 2005 9:45 AM

Hard to believe that someone would actually question the inclusion of women's issues on this web site. Do we really have that far to go to recognize that the 50% of humans with the female chromosome deserve equality with the 50% which has the male chromosome?

Marilyn Frye, radical feminist professor at Michigan State, accurately sums up the state of gender equality (or inequality) in the world (and here I paraphrase): Being female negatively affects whatever a woman does; being a male is always something positive that a man has going for him. This inequality is exaggerated for males and females in Islam.

The verses quoted cannot be intrepreted in a non-misogynistic way. Trying to blame the abysmal status of women in Islam to a distortion of the Qur'an is a cop-out. Call it what it is: blatant woman-hating by weak, insecure, Y-chromosomed individuals (in the original case, the woman-hating Muhammad) who feel they derive some degree of superiority by intimidating, threatening, and terrorizing those weaker (physically) than themselves. Sounds like bullying behaviour to me.

Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex tells us, "Man has the great advantage of having a God endorse the codes he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over woman, it is especially fortunate that this authority has been invested in him by the Supreme Being."

Which came first? De Beauvoir implies that the "sovereign" authority (as defined by males) came first; the religious endorsement of same then followed - yes, very fortunate indeed for men.

She goes on to say that the fear of God will repress any impulse to revolt in the downtrodden woman. Further, this impulse to revolt is also repressed by the claim that injustice has been overcome. This is where the going becomes mired in the mud: we see female Muslims blithely assuming that the Qur'an truly granted them equality (as those in this article seem to think) and it is only an unfortunate misinterpretation that has resulted in stonings, so called "honour killings," woman abuse, and the daily fear so many Muslim women endure -- trifling matters it seems, which can be eradicated by a proper interpretation of the Qur'an!

The problem of Muslim female inequality is rooted in verses such as those above; I see no other way to interpret them: they are clear examples of religious endorsement of the "superior" and favoured sex.

Posted by: Jen at October 29, 2005 9:54 AM

Jen - very well said. And yes, how irritating that people talk about 'women's issues' as if they were not also human issues. The subjugation of half the population in Islam-stricken countries, and the consequent false pride of the male, whose superiority is based on his gender rather than his achievements, play an important role in the stagnation of those countries.

Islam is what it is. It can be diluted, it can be mitigated by cultural factors, it can be applied less strictly out of ignorance or laziness, but it is still Islam.

Islam cannot treat women as equals any more than Islam can renounce jihad and dhimmi status for non-Muslims.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 10:12 AM

RS,

Of course, you are correct about the verses, as well as the fact that misogyny is not a distortion, but a correct interpretation, of the Quran. We should keep in mind however that all over the Muslim world, and now in the west as well, blatantly absurd conspiracy theories pass as unshakable fact. We who have studied Islam and its intellectual consequences are far too well versed in this to bother reopening this discussion; we are in total agreement about it.

My point is (stated with much more clarity), we should be pleased that Muslim women are developing some false beliefs about their religion that can help undo the nightmare that Islam has perpetrated, particularly upon women. In cultures where women's rights and liberalism (small "l" again) are accomplished facts, Muslim women are casting about, in all sorts of ways, to make their traditions (at least the ones they want to keep) compatible with their cultural milieu.

After a time, I believe these women will succeed, at least in the United States, and possibly in Europe (witness the resounding success of the headscarf ban in France and its support among Muslim women, and organizations like Ni Putes Ni Soumises). I have known a number of second generation Muslim women, and they will never be slaves like women under the yoke of the "old" Islam.

In Judaism there is a strong current of feminism in the modern world. This is totally incompatible with the word and spirit of the sacred texts of Judaism, but it exists nontheless. This process is beginning in Islam, right here under our noses. Once it gathers momentum it will become unstoppable, and eventually spread to the Muslim world. This cultural force will be much more powerful in the Muslim world than Islam will ever be in the west. In the end, even Muslim men will be glad for it.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at October 29, 2005 10:28 AM

In the end, even Muslim men will be glad for it

Quijybo, I wish I could share your optimism. However, here in the UK we see second and third generation Muslim women wear the niqab where their mothers and grandmothers might have worn the shalwar khameez and a colourful headscarf. This despite immersion in Western culture, or even perhaps because of it - tolerance has given free rein to intolerance.

I strongly suspect that for many young men who choose Islam, part of the attraction is having control over 'their' women in a way that Western culture no longer allows. Theodore Dalrymple has commented on this in connection with men who convert in prison. Needless to say, the constraints that Muslim 'morality' places on their female property, do not apply to them.

However, I take your point, which, if I understand it correctly, is that a benign, even if incorrect, interpretation of the Koran is an improvement on a malignant but accurate one.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 10:52 AM

Interested,

I can see that the attitudes of second and third generation Muslims varies greatly, depending on which side of the pond you are on. Is this trend in Britain a majority one, or could it be that the women who choose to do this are just more vocal, and of course more visible, than those who choose western values? As for the motives of converts both in and outside of prison, I know little, and will definitely read what Dalrymple has to say.

You may remember that I have advocated a strategic disengagements on the Jihadwatch forum, like the Israeli separation plan, and also from Iraq. My thinking is that once these "injustices", however incorrectly they are perceived by Muslims, are mitigated, the natural steamroller effect of women's liberation and humanism will prove to be much stronger than Islam. I still believe this is the case.

Quijybo

Posted by: Quijybo at October 29, 2005 11:03 AM

Quijybo - I do not think that the trend is a 'majority one', but it is a growing one, and growing amongst younger generations, and therefore could easily become so. It bucks the trend of other immigrants, who assimilate and become more liberal as time goes on.

Theodore Dalrymple is a brilliant writer. Some of the best of his work is collected in a book called 'Life at the Bottom'. He writes with great compassion, and also dispassion about the plight of Muslim girls forced into marriage, but also on many other topics. Try www.city-journal.org.

Your last paragraph talks about Muslim 'grievances', which you acknowledge can be incorrectly pereived. My own view is that nearly all Muslim grievances are of their own making. Removing those grievances, for example, by giving them land, money, technology will not free them up to modernise but to become ever more Islamic, ever more intolerant, reactionary and misogynist.

Take the UK. Muslims living in the UK have never had it so good. They have wealth unimaginable in the countries from which their parents came. They have full democratic rights and the devotion of a race relations industry and even a government that panders to their every whim. No grievances there. Yet four of their number murdered 50 innocent people and others of their number are very equivocal in condemning this.

Freedom, democracy, prosperity, things that are good for everyone else, are not good for Islam. Islam needs constraints, repression and poverty.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 11:26 AM

Interested and Quijybo: We agree that women's issues can't be separated from human issues and that feminism will change the world.

Trouble is that women do not form a coherent group - identifiable, yes, on an individual basis, but not united in the way that nationalities, religions, or political parties are. And so women rarely say "we" when talking of themselves -- they say "women" as though this entity were a thing apart. If I were to write this post and continually refer to "we" you would wonder just whom I was referring to. So -- women see women as a group, but a group apart from themselves as individuals.

Think of all the political, nationalistic, and religious speeches you've heard. Once the identifying factor has been named, e.g., "Republican," it's rarely referred to again. This isn't the case when women are talking about women, even in an all-female gathering.

But once this force (of feminism) has been truly united, named, and has recognized its aim (which must be positive, e.g., advancing equality for all, not negative, e.g., stopping discrimination against females), then, yes, it will be much stronger than Islam.

So far, feminists within Islam (and other religions) have been constrained by, as de Beauvoir says, the fear of God, and also by the assurances of Islamic clerics that there really is no injustice (just a slight misinterpretation, my dear!).

And Quijybo, feminist liberation and humanism are the same thing (as I’m sure you know) -- when the world realizes this, then yes, look out!

As for the increasing fundamentalism of second and third generation immigrant Muslims, this is an indication that the dam has broken. The threats to their belief system are now seen as real and tangible, and so they regress in an attempt to preserve the status quo.

Posted by: Jen at October 29, 2005 11:52 AM

Trouble is that women do not form a coherent group

But should we/they, any more than men do? I've got much more in common with men who think like me than I have with other women who don't.

But yes, you're right that the regression is an attempt to preserve the status quo. The problem is that with the high birth rates that fundamentalist Islam leads to, this regression could become the way forward.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 12:02 PM

Interested:

My point was that without "group" status, women will be hampered in attempts to win reforms. Willy-nilly individual efforts, although laudable, are doomed to failure. This meeting of Islamic feminists is one example. Their identity is first Muslim, and second female. Any gains they make (I doubt anything positive will come from this conference -- I can hear the mullahs laughing now!) will be minor, fragmented, and parochial.

And yes, women definitely should form a group -- united, international, strong and effective, crossing all boundaries, be they religious, cultural, regional, ethnic, and so on. We have the power to change the world, but we haven't yet quite realized it.

Men don't need to form a group -- they already form a privileged group -- as Marilyn Frye said, being male makes everything the male does more noteworthy than if a female had done it. He wears his maleness as a proud badge and the world opens a path for him. Patriarchy is alive and well and every single male on this planet benefits from it.

Yes, I know what you mean about having more in common with some men than with some women -- I feel this also. But this is an indicator of how much you and I have broken free from the restraints society has put on us since birth, and is also an indicator of the extent of these restraints on other women. Also too, women and men are first of all people, with different personalities. It’s natural that you would have more in common with some than with others - - their sex is not relevant. And this is exactly what a women’s group would fight for: anti-sexism, or to word it positively -- gender equality.

In addition to needing group status, women must determine the criteria for inclusion in this group. And so my second point is that the salient identifying factor which culturally holds women back (the X chromosome) is also the factor which allows for their inclusion in a group. I may have lots in common with some male friends, but they don't experience what I do -- they have been born with the proverbial silver-spooned Y. If the X-chromosome identifies certain humans as candidates for oppression, then the X-chromosome should be the badge under which the oppressed should unite -- not "Islamic feminism," for example. Hard language - - but true.

No doubt certain educated black slaves in the American ante-bellum South had more in common with their masters than they did with the sweating black field-hands, but both were oppressed by reason of their blackness. The educated black slave might feel an affinity with the master, but he or she would still be a slave, nonetheless.

I see that, for the most part, the Muslim female still allies herself with Islam, the oppressor. She has not yet gained sufficient consciousness to discern the source of her oppression and to break free from the fear of Allah which holds her spirit in check.

Only a universal alliance of women, speaking with one voice, can accomplish what needs to be done. But until women stop allying themselves first with clan, nation, and religion, this group (there must be a better word) will be weak and ineffective.

Posted by: Jen at October 29, 2005 2:09 PM

Spencer makes a simple but crucial point that shatters the facade of rhetoric about women's rights in Qur'an; the Qur'an plainly speaks against equal treatment of women, and openly justifies sexual and domestic abuse. What is one to do? Say that the words do not mean what they plainly mean? Reject these portions of the Qur'an? But, this cannot be done without rejecting the Qur'an as a direct recitation from Allah to the Prophet, a standard view; or one must accept that the Prophet got it wrong sometimes. But in that case, what else did he get wrong? The dominance of divine command mentality (i.e. that an action is right or good because Allah commands it) in Islam makes these issues deal-breakers for believers; the text must be right. But, on the other hand, in speaking to non-Muslims, one looks like a fool if one says such things. So, one must resort to deception or irrationality: one either ignores these texts, imagines them away with a fanciful interpretation, or one lies about it; the texts are not there.

There is also the tone of the Qur'an, the male voice, Allah is a man who only speaks about what is to be done 'to' women. And, then, of course, there are the hadith and many texts which express the Prophet's fear of female sexuality, the obsession with covering the female body, menstruation, the impurity of blood.

A side note: Ayaan Hirsi Ali in a piece the other day used the term 'puritanical Islam' in referring to the kind of Islamic ideology that threatens European society. The term 'puritanical' suggestion literalism, and that seems to fit. But, this term carries a connotation that evokes the common notions of 'radicalism' or 'extremism'. These terms only play into Islamic attempts to deflect criticism of the core belief system of Islam: 'its only extremism. Islam is a religion of peace. These ideas are not the norm.' Spencer's technique of simply quotation followed by questions about the plain meaning of the text suggest to me another term: 'plain Islam', i.e. Islam that plainly follows the instructions of the Prophet in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and the examples of the Prophet in the Sira. Plain Islam is not extremist or radical; one is simply doing what one is told. And, as the Qur'an says many times, in conjunction with threats of hellfire or worse, that is exactly what one must do.

Extremism in Islam, on the contrary, is not doing what one is plainly told to do. And folks like Irshad Manji obviously fall into that category. Infidels under Islamic attack should prefer the real Islamic extremists to those who practice plain Islam.

So, viva extremism!

Posted by: JTF at October 29, 2005 2:16 PM

Jen (and other Toronto area bloggers), very on topic, an article in the Toronto section of the Oct. 29 Globe and Mail on an Islamic girls-only school that has opened up in Toronto's western suburb that is drawing young Muslim women from great distances. The teacher is a Pakistani woman who dismisses complaints about her teaching her students to be subservient as she is only teaching the word of God. Big question from me is that she is able to operate while charging her students only $60/month: who is subsudizing this?

I can't find a URL on the G & M site, so try your newstand.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 29, 2005 2:36 PM

And, perhaps the most odd thing about these self proclaimed 'gender jihadists', and folks like Irshad Manji, for example, is that they shy away from proclaiming their extremism (Manji is more direct about this. But, even she falls short of expressing and embracing just how radical she is.). Instead, there is a tendency to argue validity or authenticity in Islam for their views. They have the 'right interpretation'; they understand the authentic, beautiful core of the tradition, like the flowering of Islam in the Itjihad.

I don't understand why these folks just do not come out and say it: 'we are extremists. We are revolutionaries. The Qur'an is wrong and here is why.' But, this cannot be done, because it will kill any claim to having 'Islamic' views. One must play 'nice-nice' with one's rhetoric about the Qur'an to stay in the Islamic game, so to speak, or else one might end up with Ali Sina at faithfreedom.org.

The entire 'Islamic-reformer' games is surreal. Declarations, meetings, books, papers, proclaiming 'We got it right and its great. You just need the correct, fancy, learned interpretation' (that is difficult to understand), against the background of others who threaten violence or censorship with plain, simple language that a ten year old could understand.

Posted by: JTF at October 29, 2005 2:53 PM

waterdragon52:

Thanks for telling me about the Globe and Mail article. I'll have a look for it. It's scary how schools such as the one in this article seem so popular. Teaching young Muslim girls to be subservient is a tragic waste of good minds.

$60 per month? That's a great tuition rate for a private school -- yes, I wonder who's behind this?

JTF:

You're right about the "male voice" in the Qur'an -- it's the only voice there, as far as I know. And why, oh why, do so many women gladly acquiesce? It's something about identifying with the oppressor - when there's no other way out.

"Puritanical" -- this doesn't seem quite the right word to describe extremists in Islam. It creates an image in my mind of religious severity, such as that of the Puritans, not bomb-throwing, knife-wielding murderers. I like your term, "plain Islam." Unadorned, bare-bones Islam. What you see is what you get. No interpretation needed.

Posted by: Jen at October 29, 2005 4:34 PM

Jen, I know what you mean. I've agrued both in cyberspace and with real life with supposedly progressive men who just cannot see the harm in Islam because it would harm them far less than it would harm me.

I'm a feminist through and through and think that women should be as uppity and feisty as possible. However, I have reservations about empowerment of Muslim women if the constraints of Islam are still there. You say:

for the most part, the Muslim female still allies herself with Islam, the oppressor.

True. But do we really want outspoken, confident Muslim women if they are going to speak out about the empowerment that the hijab brings, if they are going to demand halal food, banning of piggy toys, the 'right' to mutilate their daughters, the 'right' to enter a polygamous marriage?

An example of an empowered, uppity, outspoken Muslim woman is power-hijabette Salma Yaqoob, Galloway groupie and hater of the West. To be honest and un-PC, I'd rather she stayed in the kitchen.

What is good for others, feminism, money, technology, education, tolerance, freedom is bad for Islam. An empowered Muslim feminist is just Leila Khaled with a nuke.

Posted by: Interested at October 29, 2005 7:31 PM

Ladies and gentle men,

Here are some links and some of my notes concerning women and girls in Islam.

Links.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/510290908.htm
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm#women
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm#wives

Notes so far (mostly from the Koran).

Women:

(i) Women treated very badly/unfairly/as inferior (2:191, 2:216, 2:223, 4:3, 4:11, 4:14, 4:15, 4:19, 4:20, 4:24, *4:34, 4:176, 24:31, 63:9, 64:14-15, 70:10).

*4:34 does say “beat” her (or hit, or scourge). Some apologists have tried to get around this by claiming that the Arabic word does not say “beat” or means a light symbolic hitting (Yusufali added the adjective “lightly,” but this is his addition; it is not in the Koran). At least 10 available respectable translations of the Koran say “beat” (or scourge, or hit). In 4:34, beating is the last in a progression of increasing punishments named in 4:34. A discussion of 4:34 and the word “beat” can be found at
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm

(ii) Women are unclean. If a man has touched a woman at all before prayer time, he must wash up before doing the prayer. If he can’t find water, he should rub himself with dirt (5:6).

(iii) Woman’s testimony worth half a man’s (2:282).

(iv) Women (and children and the “feeble”) are unable to devise a plan (4:98).

(v) Wives (e.g., Noah’s and Lot’s) who are false (i.e., show the slightest sign of disbelief in Allah) to their husbands will be killed by Allah (66:10). The wives of disbelievers will also be doomed with their husbands (37:22-31).

(vi) Allah (Mohammad) may replace wives who criticize their husband (66:5).

(vii) On the Last Day, pregnant women will suffer miscarriages, and nursing mothers will abandon/forget their infants (22:2).

(viii) Disbelievers name the angels with female names (53:27). They invoke in His stead only females (4:117), also see 37:150-153. (Over 200 verses in the Koran condemn various kinds of disbelievers to hell-fire).

(ix) Allows Muslim men to take girl-slaves for sex. (23:6, 33:50)

(x) Marriageable age in some Islamic countries for females is nine years of age. This follows Mohammad’s example, because the age at which he consumated his marriage with Ayesha was 9. (He married her when he was in his fifties and when she was 6; he fantasized about her when she was five. He also was interested in other females, actually infants, who could potentially be his mates. This pattern fits the profile of someone with pedophillic tendencies).

(xi) Ayesha said “I have not seen anyone suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” Bukhari. The “green” adjective is apparently in reference to the bruising from all the beatings.

“He (Muhammad) struck me (Aisha) on the chest which caused me pain.” Muslim, no. 2127. Mohammad’s child-wife Ayesha tells of how the prophet struck her hard enough to cause pain (and an enduring memory of it).

----------------------------------
A Note on Mohammad’s Family Values:

A Muslim man’s wives and children are mere temptations and should not distract him from his devotion to Allah (64:14-15)

Posted by: Archimedes at October 29, 2005 7:38 PM

i recently read a book called "Stepping into the Shadows" by Rosemary Sookhdeo. It explains why many British women are converting to Islam, and what they discover as they lead the life of a female Muslim. The book is about 120 pages and is available from Barnabus Fund (www.barnabasfund.org).

Posted by: bgordon at October 29, 2005 11:03 PM

Interestingly, the article also indicates the wide-spreadedness of Dhimmitude, provided that the published readers' comments do indeed "reflect the balance of views received", as the Bastion of Bolitical Correctness claims.

I find it frightening then to see how many of their kefir readers (by my rough count more than 75%) actually believe Islam has paradoxically nothing to do with the mysogyny inherent to the Islamic sources that are blindly refered to by both Muslims and Dhimmituders alike. As far as the latter are concerned, Augustine was right to say that no servitude is more shameful than that which is self-imposed.

Here is my unbalanced, and, I imagine, therefore not published view:

"Some are quick to explain the conspicuously backward position of women in Islamic societies as stemming from diverse forms of misinterpretation of the Islamic sources. I feel, however, that to point the blaming finger merely at interpreting issues is a risky rhetorical manoeuvre. For it conveniently forgets about the first sentence of the Qu'ran: "This Book is not to be doubted." I do not understand how one can be a true Muslim while at the same time allowing some room for doubt about Qu'ranic verses. To the best of my knowledge, subjectivity, and therefore doubt, is inherent to the interpretation of things, but I guess that is a Western misconception too."

Posted by: neo-thermopylaean at October 30, 2005 6:45 AM

Quijybo,

You are much more optimistic than I am.

"Women from the Islamic world are attending ..."

Anyone from Saudi Arabia needed permission from her mahram ("protector" - male relative) to attend.

Then look at the common thread in honor killings. Everywhere in the world (not just the Muslim world), honor killings are the penalty Muslim women receive for showing signs of independence.

jay

Posted by: jay at October 30, 2005 6:49 AM

I guess I will have to wait and see how islam decides to handle women such as the one I am married to; were a regiment of like-minded females formed and sent to Iraq, the war would be over soon.

Islam in its current form is a cancer but there are certainly broad obstacles in its path, one of them being westernized females. To my mind, they are an untapped resource of strength and resolve and should be given the right to take a more prominent role in this fight.

At the very core of fundamentalist islam is the unequivocal rights of the male at the expense of the female, highlighting this horrid discrepancy can best be accomplished by a western female.

There are so many interesting ways this could be done, from using female prosecutors and deputies in civil trials against terror suspects, to having strong women in positions of international diplomacy to utilizing female fighter pilots. Your average muslim mysogynist wouldnt like having to face such women and would have a touch choice; accept it and be humbled or denounce it and let the world see their true face. I love the idea of a woman laying down the law on some Iranian thugocrat.

Want an acid test? Tell your local soccer-mom that she and her daughter now have to stay at home to cook and clean. Then run for your very life.

There are strong men willing to stand up and fight for us, a great many are in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. There are also strong women available all around, we just need to mobilize them.

Posted by: Dead Infidel Walking at October 30, 2005 11:26 AM

While Islam is undoubtably guilty in its mis-treatment of women, it is not the only race or peoples to do so. For many the problem started a long time ago in the Garden Of Eden when that pesky snake convinced Eve to eat some apple and share it with her hubby Adam. That got them into big trouble with the boss. Adam being the first man to know his place, hid behind Eve's fig leaf and said' The woman made me do it'. God punished all involved. The snake got to crawl on it's belly and eat dust, Adam got evicted and forced to do an honest days work, and Eve, poor thing, was punished most of all. Her childbirth pain was increased. (thats interesting because she had not yet had any children), she was made subservient (slave) to her husband. But wait...a good lawyer could have gotten her off. God did not tell 'her' not to eat the apple, he told that to 'Adam', she was still a rib when that happened.
And then she had no mother to give her advice, her father was too busy. She got a bad rap.
Allahs version has her slashing a tree (wheat) with a knife and making it bleed. For that Allah made her bleed (monthly) and according to Tabari,
created all women 'stupid' because of what she did.
Turtullian, an early church father had this to say in a sermon...to all women...'Dont you know you are an Eve?' and then went on to blame women as 'Eve', 'for bringing death into the world'.

Now I would say that any woman who took advice from a snake, corrupted her husband, lied to God, made a tree bleed, ate some of the apple, and brought death onto the planet, deserves to be punished. Six months on the county work farm at least... Thats 'if' all this bad rap stuff is true, but I suspect that its not.

You have come a long way baby, but there is another six blocks to go...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 30, 2005 11:48 AM