Quran, Women's Section

Meanwhile, still back in Sura 2, starting at line 221 we come to the Women's Section. How do we know? Well, it's not like it leads into the new topic with a smooth transition—this is the koran we're reading—he just blurts out this line
(222) They ask you about menstruation. Tell them: "This is a period of stress. So keep away from women in this state till they are relieved of it. When they are free of it, you may go to them as God has enjoined. For God loves those who seek pardon, and those who are clean."
O rly? Who asks you this, and why? It's like having Sunday dinner with the family and somebody pipes up “I'm flowing really heavy” and the parent's “That's nice dear, I have extra pads” and it's the most natural thing in the world, and that would be nice but I doubt that's how went down in Olde Araby. I'm looking at the next line, Ewww, unclean, keep away, COOTIES! This is men, asking another man about “The Curse”. In fact, a guy who thought that whichever parent has the first orgasm is who the baby will look like. A-plus in Biology there, Mohammed.

Muslims always say Mohammed was a big fat feminist who came along and changed all the bad things those mean old pagans used to do but didn't leave any records of. “Look”, they say, “good stuff here”
(233) The mothers should suckle their babies for a period of two years for those (fathers) who wish that they should complete the suckling, in which case they should feed them and clothe them in a befitting way; but no soul should be compelled beyond capacity, neither the mother made to suffer for the child nor the father for his offspring. The same holds good for the heir of the father (if he dies). If they wish to wean the child by mutual consent there is no harm. And if you wish to engage a wet nurse you may do so if you pay her an agreed amount as is customary. But fear God, and remember that God sees all that you do.

See? Take care of new moms for two years. Maternity leave, woot! And here's life insurance, and no-fault divorce
(2:240) Those among you about to die leaving wives behind, should bequeath a year's maintenance and lodging for them, without expelling them from home. But if they leave (of their own accord), you will not be blamed for what they do with themselves in their own rights. God is all-mighty and all-wise.

But as I wandered these fields of ambrosia, I kept stepping in cowpies of misogyny and got really pissed at how it's all addressed to men, only ever refers to women in the third person. It's never 'Ladies, do X', it's always 'She should do X'. Obvious, women are not fit to talk to, they should be seen and not heard. Or just fucked, not seen or heard.

He keeps talking about dowries. Wtf, who has dowries? The fucking Bronze Age is over, this is the third fucking millenium. When you give
money to the woman's family and take the woman home, it's not a marriage it's a purchase, and she's not a wife she's a slave. But oh but wait, they say, see, the woman kept the money, for in case her hubby got killed, lost his job or whatever, its like early life insurance, so it's all good. See? Yay, Mohammed! And look he allows divorce
(2:230) If a man divorces her again (a third time), she becomes unlawful for him (and he cannot remarry her) until she has married another man. Then if he divorces her there is no harm if the two unite again if they think they will keep within the bounds set by God and made clear for those who understand.
The fuck? Get divorced, remarry, do it again, three times, marry somebody else divorce them remarry the original what the hell who does this? Has this ever happened in real life or even on daytime TV?

Take a close look. Notice it's not 'they get divorced', it's “a man divorces.” Ahhh, it's the men that do this. Adultery would be
horrible, y'unnerstand, so he just says “I Divorce You” and goes out and gets some strange pussy, then he comes back and remarries hisself. Meanwhile she sits at home, does she even know about it? Well after three times she has to go do the slut wife thing, so yeah, but then it's back to normal. Normal? What am I saying?

You know what I like? Prostitutes. There's no transparent bullshit about not being a sleazebag, you just buy the product. And take a closer look at Line 233 up there. Sounds good, right, till you notice “for those (fathers)”. It covers “if the father desires” and later if “by mutual consent”, it just never covers if the mother doesn't want. In other words, whatever the father wants goes, and there's no anti-waterboard clause about how he gets her consent either. If this is pro-woman so are George Sodini's diaries.


PersonalFailure said...

It's feminism when compared to Leviticus, but burning women at the stake was feminism compared to Leviticus.

Anonymous said...

Completely I share your opinion. It is good idea. It is ready to support you.

Hanna said...

Surely a marraige that sets clear terms for there and then is better than prostitution- even if they divorce and marry again- they know exactly what the deel is for both sides. I think you need to be a little bit more liberal minded to get that. Also for a religion where dating is not prphibited but marriage is encouraged it just sets things in stone. But interesting musings- am looking into all the comments you make where you have placed a question mark over a phrase. Thanks!