Why rape is so intrinsic to religion, says the header of the Salon article by Valerie Tarico*, "a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington and the founder of Wisdom Commons". Apparently she writes for AlterNet and Truth Out as well - but it's high holidays time and we shouldn't hold it against her - or against anyone else for that matter. The first sentence of the article is quite combative:
Powerful gods and demi-gods impregnating human women—it’s a common theme in the history of religion, and it’s more than a little rapey.And every religion gets its fair share of blame: the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Christians (early and otherwise), the Jews, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, the Buddhists, the... let me see, I have a feeling that someone was unfairly overlooked in this list. Let's start again: the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, the... nope, still someone is missing.
I am sure that by now you have already guessed the name of that missing religion - Islam, the Religion of Peace. The whole first part of the article, where the basis for its conclusion is built, avoids mentioning this most exalted (or is it excited?) of the world religions.
Oh well, as an avowed atheist I am not into defense of any specific religion or all religions. However, that omission goes a long way to show how far have the modern feminists gone in their mortal fear of offending Islam. Not mentioning the peculiar habit of Islam's main prophet - to marry and defile little girls - seems to be a glaring black hole in the article on the subject of rape and religion.
And the first reference to Islam by Ms Tarico comes in this peculiar sentence:
The men at the top owned concubines and harams, and virgin females were counted among the spoils of war.(Emphasis mine).
To be frank, the reference to "harams" threw me for a while. Of course, the author meant "harems"... but the mistake is kinda symbolic, because "haram" means "Forbidden or unlawful according to Islam".
Interestingly, marrying and raping underage girls is not haram in the tenets of RoP...and no mention of this peculiarity in a feminist article? Beats me.
Oh well, eventually Islam gets a direct mention:
Two thousand years after Hebrew and Aramaic texts were assembled into the modern Jewish Bible, 1600 years after a Roman Catholic committee voted books in and out of the Christian Bible, 1400 years after Muhammad wrote the Koran (which draws heavily on the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition), we still struggle with the question of female consent.Even this mention goes only so far as to blame the "Judeo-Christian tradition" - the real culprit in Islamic ill-treatment of women.
The most valiant attempt at criticism eventually comes in this sentence:
The most extreme example may be a document published by the Islamic State, outlining rules for the treatment of sexual slaves, rules drawn from the Koran.And even here, Ms Tarico kinda softens the blow, blaming the IS barbarians, which is a fashionable and PC thing to do anyway.
The article, in short, is an excellent example of what is really haram for certain progressive thinkers nowadays. They know it, we know it, but how to make them to confess it and to change it?
(*) The person in the picture starting this post is not Valerie Tarico, to make sure.