the sincerity of your words and in my own days as a Muslim once found them very attractive. Golden Boy and david sugarman and some of the other longtime commenters on the threads know my story.

The bottom, bottom, bottom line is that you still follow a religion which explicitly states in its holy book that men can beat their wives, can punish them by denying them sexual relations, and can control their movements (the Q'uranic translations are consistent on this point starting with Marmaduke Pickthall's version up to the present, although some people try, unsuccessfully, to deny this). Of course what women should wear is prescribed for them as well. In the last speech of the Prophet, almost his very last words on earth, he was concerned with women....namely with instructing men that they should control if their wives have friends and if so the husbands should say who they are friends with!

Now in your local women's shelter you will probably find a pamphlet describing the signature behaviors of abusers, and you will find on that list:

*imposed isolation, control of friendships

*the abused partner is told how she should dress and how she should wear her hair

*denies sex as punishment

*physical abuse, especially with objects (some people say the Q'uran "only" permits striking the wife "with a thin stick", something along the lines of England's old "rule of thumb")

*confinement, restriction of movement, allowed out only in the company of the abuser

and there are more!

In other words, we don't have to scratch very deep at all to see that the Islamic instructions for the interactions between men and women according to Q'uran, Sunnah, and Hadith are an exact prescription for a controlling, abusive relationship. No surprises that this is generally true of Christianity and other patriarchal formats also, but in Islam it is amazingly, exhaustively detailed and all this is an inseparable part of a woman's deen. It's all very concrete, you cannot manipulate it or twist it to mean something different (not to say that many women and decent hearted men don't try).

At the end of the day you are going to keep coming up against this. That's why I think Islamic feminists, while they are pursuing a worthwhile goal, are setting up an irreconciliable dichotomy they cannot escape from. Eventually it will come around to get them, like it did me, and my ex-friend. It is expressed well by the hypocrisy of the woman who called herself a feminist and then trashed Durrani for speaking up against her horrific marriage and the rape of her sister and God knows what else was in the book (it's been a few years).

It's tragic and there are no easy answers, but I don't think true feminism can be found within sincere observance of this faith. There are plenty of Muslim feminists who are Muslim only through a familial or cultural identification; in other words, they don't practice but have never taken the trouble to renounce Islam. But a Muslimah who is on her deen and a feminist? I don't believe it can really be done.

Well, I know people are trying and I wish them good luck but I am no longer among them. In fact I don't see any religious answer to this problem and it makes me feel kind of lost but I am no longer willing to check my brain and identity at the door for the temporary comfort of any faith.

Aaron: well, Muhammed and his followers were real people, who have been idealized as time passed--but, I don't really see how that would change anything I've said. The verses I referred to are specific instructions concerning marital relationships. So not much use in talking about archetypes there.

Anon: I wasn't trying to call you a hypocrite, but I'm afraid there's some hypocrisy inherent in the position; that's the problem. It's not an accident that you just totally ignored everything about the religion I brought up. Perhaps your idea of personal interpretation is just to pretend Islam doesn't say what it says? This is exactly what I am talking about. And the whole idea of Islam is that there is no pluralism. Observe the rituals, including the hajj. The point is to minimize and eliminate the differences between people, not celebrate them.

As for Durrani, well, if her husband is a politician and corrupt, in Pakistan what's the surprise there? Benazir Bhutto's husband is totally corrupt. So is Nawaz Sharif. Corruption is the order of the day in Pakistani politics. The Chief Justice appears to be an exception, at least according to the press, and look what is happening to him! Mush was admired for his candidness and honesty early in his presidency and it seems he too has succumbed. It's a discussion for another place and time, but the Pakistani political environment is not healthy. You can even blame the Americans for it if you want, but I don't think Durrani's choice of subsequent husband made a difference as per the book. For that matter Khar was a politician and an aristocrat too. There's not much to admire in the whole lot of them. Durrani is an upper class woman with a military officer father who is marrying among her peers. Who else do you expect her to end up with besides another corrupt zamindar/politician?

But now we are far from the topic at hand, so end of rant!