The reader might ask, “What branch or flavor or definition of feminism is really the problem here?” The truth is, it is feminism itself at its core, in its generality that is the problem. To draw an analogy, most of us will recognize that racism is a problem and that racism against people of a certain skin color or ethnicity is toxic to faith. In reality, however, the racism within the ideology of the KKK is not exactly the same as the racism within the ideology of Neo-Nazis or the “Alt-Right,” etc. There are nuances. But does it really matter when the core of racism is shared among all the disparate groups?
To be clear, my point is not that the problem with feminism is that it is a racist ideology. The problem, one of many, with feminism is simply that adopting a feminist outlook consistently and systematically leads Muslims into crises of faith and the leaving of Islam entirely. And this is not a coincidence or a statistical anomaly. When we understand the process of Muslims progressing from Stage 1 to Stage 5, it is clear how this happens. And if we are still not convinced, we can look to the roots of feminism itself, as expressed by some of its most notable figures throughout history.
From its very inception, feminism has been anti-religion. In fact, the most prominent figures of each wave of feminism have been viciously anti-religious.
From its beginning in the 19th century as a social movement for women’s suffrage, feminism in its “first wave” targeted traditional religion as the source of women’s subjugation. The earliest feminist thinkers believed that religious institutions not only contributed to attenuating women’s rights but, indeed, were the original fount from which anti-women beliefs and practices emerged. Susan B. Anthony, one of the central figures in the women’s suffrage movement, noted, “The worst enemy [women] have is in the pulpit.”17
Anthony often railed against traditional religion and was considered agnostic by those who knew her personally. Among her statements on religion, included is: “What a dreadful creature their God must be to keep sending hungry mouths while he withholds the bread to fill them!”18 On the idea of organized religion in particular, Anthony stated: “I can not imagine a God of the universe made happy by my getting down on my knees and calling him ‘great.’”19
Another early first wave feminist from the 19th century, Helen H. Gardener, wrote at length about the “crimes” and “abuses” of the Bible and Christianity in their treatment of women:
This religion and the Bible require of woman everything, and give her nothing. They ask her support and her love, and repay her with contempt and oppression […] Every injustice that has ever been fastened upon women in a Christian country has been ‘authorised by the Bible’ and riveted and perpetuated by the pulpit.20
Gardener’s contempt for religion did not stop at Christianity, however. She comments in her book Men, Women, and Gods:
Even though a religion claims a superhuman origin — and I believe they all claim that — it must be tested by human reason, and if our highest moral sentiments revolt at any of its dictates, its dictates must go. For the only good thing about any religion is its morality, and morality has nothing to do with faith. The one has to do with right actions in this world; the other with unknown quantities in the next. The one is a necessity of time the other a dream of Eternity. Morality depends upon universal evolution; Faith upon special ‘revelation;’ and no woman can afford to accept any “revelation” that has yet been offered to this world.
That Moses or Confucius, Mohammed or Paul, Abraham or Brigham Young asserts that his particular dogma came directly from God, and that it was a personal communication to either or all of these favored individuals, is a fact that can have no power over us unless their teachings are in harmony with our highest thought; our noblest purpose, and our purest conception of life. Which of them can bear the test? Not one ‘revelation’ known to man to-day can look in the face of the nineteenth century and say, ‘I am parallel with your richest development; I still lead your highest thought; none of my teachings shock your sense of justice.’ Not one.21
We can find this animosity towards religion throughout the writing and speeches of many of the most prominent first-wave feminists, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who spearheaded the writing of the highly subversive The Women’s Bible. If Muslim feminists today wrote The Women’s Quran, they would just be catching up to feminists from over 100 years ago who were part of the first wave, which was supposedly the least extreme and the least objectionable of the feminist waves.
But the anti-religious animus does not end there. Consider the so-called “second wave.” The philosopher who is said to have ushered in this glorious wave is Simone de Beauvoir, who expressed her opposition to religion thus:
Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god that endorses the code he writes; and since man exercises a sovereign authority over women it is especially fortunate that this authority has been vested in him by the Supreme Being. For the Jews, Mohammedans and Christians among others, man is master by divine right; the fear of God will therefore repress any impulse towards revolt in the downtrodden female.22
On religion, prominent second-wave feminist Gloria Steinem contends, “It’s an incredible con job, when you think of it, to believe something now in exchange for life after death. Even corporations, with all their reward systems, don’t try to make it posthumous.”23
In a recent interview, Steinem was asked, “What do you think the biggest problem with feminism today is?” to which she remarked, “What we don’t talk about enough is religion. I think that spirituality is one thing. But religion is just politics in the sky. I think we really have to talk about it. Because it gains power from silence.”24
Within the third wave, the animosity towards organized religion only intensifies, but this animosity takes many forms including the form of devotion to “alternative religion” and “non-denominational spirituality.” Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Susan Shaw argues that, in light of traditional religious institutions like the Church, the Mosque, and the Synagogue, “Patriarchy is the prevailing religion of the planet,” and:
The world has a problem of gender of religious proportions. We need a reformation, perhaps a revolution, to tear down the altars to male power and rebuild a global sanctuary of inclusion, equity, justice, peace, and love.25
Radical lesbian feminist philosopher Mary Daly believed that religion was inherently oppressive towards women and characterized this by saying, “Woman’s asking for equality in the church would be comparable to a black person’s demanding equality in the Ku Klux Klan.”26
Daly also noted in her provocative essay “Sin Big”:
The word ‘sin’ is derived from the Indo-European root ‘es-,’ meaning ‘to be.’ When I discovered this etymology, I intuitively understood that for a [person] trapped in patriarchy, which is the religion of the entire planet, ‘to be’ in the fullest sense is ‘to sin’.27
In the essay, Daly encourages women to have the “courage to sin,” where sinning in the religious sense is conceived as the highest form of protest against patriarchy. Subverting patriarchy goes hand in hand with subverting religious norms. In fact, no distinction exists between the two since religion is patriarchy and patriarchy is religion. To destroy one is to destroy the other.
The feminist canon is saturated with similarly subversive views, enough to fill multiple volumes. And of course we see that religious subversion and blasphemy mirrored by Muslim feminists themselves (especially those in Stage 5). One learns from one’s teachers, even despite one’s self.
Given the sheer ubiquity of caustically anti-religious sentiment across all strands of feminist thought throughout history, how could we ever imagine that adopting such an ideology in any way, shape, or form would do anything other than decay a Muslim’s faith?