Books

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 13° London Hi 16°C / Lo 8°C

Continuum £14.99 from the Independent Bookshop : 0870 079 8897

Does God Hate Women?, By Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom

Do religions enshrine mysogyny? This book has all the answers, but is it asking the right question?

Reviewed by Sholto Byrnes

The question of whether God hates women is not one that can be answered with certainty; not least since, by the time any of us dared ask a putative deity such an impertinent question, we would be in no position to communicate the response to our fellows. You don't have to read very far into this aggressive polemic, however, to be sure that its authors certainly hate God. Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom have marshalled plenty of evidence to make their case that the "God of bullies" persecutes and subjugates women, and they hit the reader with some of the most horrific examples straight off. (By page three, for instance, we have already reached the anal rape of a 55-year-old widow with a chilli paste-covered police truncheon.) The main religions were all founded at times when patriarchy was an unchallenged notion, they argue, and still enshrine male domination today. Honour killings, female genital mutilation, violence against women, sexual slavery, marriage with minors: they're all explicitly justified or lent respectability by religion.

But Benson and Stangroom don't really have religion in general in mind – there's one in particular they're after. True, a few pages deal out blame to the Christian, Jewish and Hindu deities for the misogynistic activities of some of their more extreme devotees. For all the time this book spends excoriating the backward, sexist and barbaric practices it associates with Islam, however, it's clear that the question really exercising the authors is "Does Allah Hate Women?" Not that they need have bothered with the interrogative, as they take no serious account of any arguments that might lead to the answer "no".

This is a shame as, amid the torrents of invective, they allude to many matters worthy of calm examination, such as the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to his favourite wife, Aisha, when she was only nine. It is not enough to say, argue the authors, that similarly youthful females were married off in Europe at the time, because the Prophet's life is considered to be an example for Muslims today. This could have been the starting point for a thoughtful discussion about textual literalism and modernity. Instead, Benson and Stangroom attempt to trash the reputation of Karen Armstrong, a respected religious scholar who believes that "the emancipation of women was a project dear to the Prophet's heart" and quote, without qualification or disapproval, the view of an American Baptist leader that Muhammad's marriage means that the Prophet was a "demon-possessed paedophile".

This is inflammatory in the extreme. But that appears to be the point. Self-proclaimed champions of the secular right to challenge and insult others' beliefs, Benson and Stangroom show no desire to go beyond name-calling and distortion. They happily quote a reporter who refers to the abaya as "an all-enveloping black cloak that turns the women of the Gulf into mournful ghosts", but fail to add that this quote concerned Saudi Arabia specifically. (Professional women in Abu Dhabi and Qatar might be surprised to find themselves so described.) There is no mention, naturally, of the women who have led Muslim nations, from Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan to Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, and Megawati Sukarnoputri of Indonesia who, despite her sex, still became president of the world's most populous Muslim country. It is not convenient for them to acknowledge that there are swathes of the Muslim world where women routinely go without the hijab, let alone any further covering, serve as government ministers, run businesses and NGOs, and often lead lives as liberated as their sisters in the West. It suits the authors' purpose to declare that religion "turns reformers and challengers into enemies of God", and to pretend that there is simply no debate about how ancient religions should deal with change.

They cherrypick their evidence because they are as fundamentalist about their atheist liberalism as are the religious hardliners and primitivists they condemn. This book serves only to reinforce the prejudices of those who can attribute no good to any religion nor concede that every faith contains multitudes of moderates as well as conservative extremists. Fans of Richard Dawkins will love it.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Not true
[info]ophelia_benson wrote:
Sunday, 28 June 2009 at 03:01 pm (UTC)
An unfavourable review is all very well, and only to be expected on a controversial subject, but this one is full of factual errors. In particular, it is not true that we "attempt to trash the reputation of Karen Armstrong"; we dispute her scholarship, which is not the same thing. The comment by the Baptist preacher was included to show that the issue had been in the news, and it comes before the extended discussion of Armstrong, not after it; the suggestion that we passively endorse it is outrageous.
Re: Not true
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 06:34 pm (UTC)
"Honour killings, female genital mutilation, violence against women they're all explicitly justified or lent respectability by religion."

The above have nothing to do with religion, and since you have singled out Islam, they definately have no place in Islam. Many of these are traditions of certain regions of the world.
Re: Not true
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Monday, 29 June 2009 at 06:40 pm (UTC)
With regards to the part "the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to his favourite wife, Aisha, when she was only nine".

I hope you clarified that Prophet Mohamed did not consumate the marriage with Aisha until she reached the age of puberty, thought to be about 13 or 14.

Also, that at that time it was common practice for girls to marry from 12-13 onwards and boys to marry from around 14-15 onwards. The children were treated and behaved as adults at a much younger age than in the 21st century. This practice and behaviour was not limited to Arabia but too place in most parts of the world.
Re: Not true
[info]stoobop wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 04:06 am (UTC)
It seems to me that there is alot of disinformation surrounding these subjects..... mythos amongst the mythos if you will. According to scripture and scholarly works A'isha was seven years of age when betrophed to Muhammad and nine years of age when he consumated the marriage. Muhammad was about thirty at the time. Although it was common practice for girls and boys to marry younger but i hope we can all agree that this is excessive to say the least. Maybe it is purely symbolic?? her youth, virginity et al.....

Part way through a translation of the Qur'an now. I have been informed by several folks that as it is in English it is not the true book, I have to learn to read Arabic.....which is a shame. But I'm sure that even if I were to learn Arabic I would still find the text very psychologically disturbing and would notice the contradictions within it nonetheless.

I leave with a quote from a true prophet, George Carlin: 'Religion, it's bulls**t and it's bad for you folks'
Re: Not true
[info]corporeal4now wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 07:56 am (UTC)

With regards to reading the Quran in English, the reason why you have been told that its not actual book when in English is because you loose information in the translation. God has forbidden its translation. The older Books of Islam, like the Old Testament and the Gospels of Jesus have been lost through translation. But for the most part you will get the message even in English. So I would not discourage you from reading it in English.

Aisha is the only wife, out of many, he married who was young - Aisha was also the daughter of his long standing, best friend. Other wives were widows, divorcees or marriages from other tribes for political reasons. At that time, Polygamy was not limited to Arabia, it was common practice within Christian and other communities as well. I have no idea why he married her so young, because it tends to divert attention of some people from looking at his main mission and people tend to home in on this one thing.
Cherry picking, anyone?
[info]parrhesia_77 wrote:
Wednesday, 1 July 2009 at 02:01 am (UTC)
To accuse Benson and Stangroom of cherry picking the data for evidence of the religious justification of misogyny is laughable. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of Benson and Stangroom's position. However, it is the author of this article who is cherry-picking the data when he refers to female luminaries like Bhutto and Sukarnoputri. It's a bit like claiming that the education system is predicated on equal opportunity because there are undergraduates at university from state schools, while ignoring the fact that 80% of undergraduates are from private schools. I don't think Benson and Stangroom were claiming that there are never any examples of female empowerment in Islamic communities, I think they were claiming that religion is often used to justify misogyny. So the examples the author of this article has cited completely miss the point that Benson and Stangroom were making. This article is just a straw man with a cherry on top.
Makes me want to read the book
[info]aatishb wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 05:38 pm (UTC)
Wow, this review is filled with all the right buzzwords and cliches. Fundamentalist atheists with their 'aggressive polemic' and 'torrents of invective'. This kind of writing can only be the product of someone who has bought in to the common societal notion that religion should be given a free pass, no matter what. When referring to Muhammad's marriage to a nine year old at age 9, the author writes "This could have been the starting point for a thoughtful discussion about textual literalism and modernity", with no further explanation. Why don't you provide such a discussion instead of these platitudes. Singling out a handful of fortunate and successful women in politics in the Muslim world has nothing to do with the argument that a large number of Muslim woman are mistreated and denied basic human rights.

If this review has convinced me of anything, it's that if it riled up this reviewer far enough to bring out the usual cliches against atheists who write books criticizing religion, it's probably a worthwhile read. Just as you know that if Fox cancels a TV show, it's probably worth watching.
Re: Makes me want to read the book
[info]aatishb wrote:
Saturday, 4 July 2009 at 05:40 pm (UTC)
Oops, I meant nine year old (not at age 9)

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date