A while ago, Marwa at Between A Veil and a Dark Place unleahed a “tirade of snark” upon a correspondent playing the “No True Muslim” and “Not All Muslims” cards with a heaping helping of apologia. If you haven’t read it yet, it’s about time for you to give it your attention. It’s long, and it has a lot of important ideas to digest, so pick a time when you can devote yourself to it. Get comfy, and read on:
You can string out the same tired sentences and stances a thousand and one times and they’ll still be as flawed and dishonest and inhumane as ever, these phrases, ‘oh, Islam grants women her rights, don’t you know, preserves honor, dignity, and doesn’t condone mistreatment’ and seriously, I ask you, do we live in the same world?
So…you think that a woman should have sex when she doesn’t want to so her husband doesn’t fight with her, abuse her, and cheat on her? And you call this PROTECTION? I hate to break it to you, but what you described is the goddamn definition of marital rape.
And give me a moment for every goddamn LOL on the planet to your self righteous indignation at the suggestion that Islam condones marital rape when you then turn around and explain why a woman should have sex if she doesn’t want to SO SHE CAN STAY SAFE. As if safety is not a fundamental human right regardless of any goddamn circumstance without all these dehumanizing conditions.
You know what’s really gut-wrenchingly hilarious (in the sense that it makes me goddamn sick to my stomach) about the stark majority of these ‘women’s rights’ claims touted by Muslim apologists like you? They are all fucking conditional, these so-called rights. Hijab up so that you don’t get harassed, raped, so you can be treated like a human being instead of a piece of meat. Get permission to marry, divorce the husband of your ‘choice’, work the job of your ‘choice’. Have fucking sex with your husband when you don’t fucking want to so you don’t get fucking beaten and cheated on and divorced. Here’s a hint: if it’s conditional it’s not a right. It’s not magnanimity or justice to conditionally grant things that are supposed to be inalienable human rights to begin with.
Let’s make something clear. One should not have to cover her body in order to NOT be assaulted or harassed. One should not have to have sex if she doesn’t feel like it in order to NOT be yelled at, beaten, or cheated on.
Sex agreed to in order to avoid anger and violence and holding a marriage hostage to it is not consensual sex. It’s pretty fucked up and totally unacceptable and there’s something seriously wrong with any religious code that condones something like this, yet you someone think it’s expected, you present it is something standard in ‘any religion’.
There’s more, and all of it’s important, especially for those who are uncomfortable with that line between criticism and phobia.
One thing you may notice: religious apologists are remarkably similar the world round. And their arguments, no matter the horrible aspect of religion they’re trying to twist and defend, have a common core of ridiculousness. People are people…