when she was 9, (40 years his junior) is such a feminist thing to do.

Also, the parts of the Koran dealing with women's testimony counting for so much less, is right up there too.

"the Koran granted women unheard of rights"--it whitewashes how the Koran said men could beat their wives. Not much rights given there, when you're beaten down.

I'm supposed to be impressed by this?? Women's lives were still restricted, what the article extols is just how some of Muhammad's wives were able to do some stuff within narrow confinement. like help on missionary work or whatever. One who genuinely is supposed to love women as the article proclaims would have tried to do a lot more than that.

Also one of his wives was 6 years old!!! How is this loving women? On what planet???

Of all the major religions, Islam offers the least freedom and agency to women. Not a great track record, nor a great example from our OP, I think.

And thus missed the point of the article.

and the author doesn't understand the hypocrisy of talking about Feminism and a man with nine wives, including a child.

At least he admits the majority of Muslims, today and through history disagree with him about the Quran.

your Abrahamic religions are "pro-women" is to note the women who SUPPORT all your male prophets.

In other words, you are celebrating women being relegated to a secondary, supporting role.

Why didn't Jesus have a single female disciple? Why didn't Mohammed name a female successor?

I guess strong women are OK only when they support men. That's what you choose to celebrate. Pardon me if I don't think that's particularly noble.

I read it. Apologetics don't cut it. All one need do is look at the plight of the modern Muslim woman to see that this is just a puff piece that chooses only positive stories to tell, out of all the rest.

Surely you can find better material somewhere...

don't notice what is contradictory when quoting such things. That's always amusing.

Nope. If it seems patriarchal, it's probably because it was written by, and thereby reflects, the sexual ideals of 7th century Arabian men.

Mohammed married an independent successful woman under pre-Islamic conditions, which means women did have some rights at that time. Then it laments the loss of women's rights under Islam.

A passing mention is given to Aishah. The author says she's strong and her story "well known", but beyond that doesn't elaborate.

That's because Aishah was six or seven when she was betrothed to Muhammad, and that shit really doesn't jive with the author's schtick.

second class citizens, effectively minors, their legal rights controlled by a male guardian, either their husband or a male relative.

The title of the article itself unintentionally illustrates just how deeply embedded misogyny is within Islam.

Or at least the resurgence of it, brought to you by the forces of fundamentalism. Prior to that many Islamic countries were pretty progressive as far as women's rights were concerned. Meanwhile right here in the US fundamentalism is turning back the clock on not just women's rights, but pretty much all human rights. Nevertheless we must believe more organized religion must be a good thing.

Old fundamentalist men.

secular and were part of the pan Arabist nationalist movement that fought colonialism and promoted modernity and socialism. That all fell apart in the 70s and 80s, creating an opening for resurgent Islamic fundamentalism.

The more power religion has in society is almost universally correlated with a proportional decrease in the status of women.

So while the idea of separating church and state might seem plausible, in reality it never is.