Jean-Luc Mélenchon, leader of the biggest far-left party in France, says that Muslim women are free and it’s Christian women who are oppressed:
“Christianity is patriarchal, and women have to cover up and submit to men. In Islam, women submit to God only, therefore, their veil… pic.twitter.com/xQXSQZAz0g
— Dr. Maalouf (@realMaalouf) December 12, 2025
The Qur’an teaches that men are superior to women and should beat those from whom they “fear disobedience”: “Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.” — Qur’an 4:34
The Qur’an likens a woman to a field (tilth), to be used by a man as he wills: “Your women are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth as you will” — Qur’an 2:223
It declares that a woman’s testimony is worth half that of a man: “Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her” — Qur’an 2:282
It allows men to marry up to four wives, and have sex with slave girls also: “If you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly, then only one, or one that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice” — Qur’an 4:3
It rules that a son’s inheritance should be twice the size of that of a daughter: “Allah directs you as regards your children’s inheritance: to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” — Qur’an 4:11
It allows for marriage to pre-pubescent girls, stipulating that Islamic divorce procedures “shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated” — Qur’an 65:4
Jean-Luc Mélenchon, of course, doesn’t know any of that, or care about it. All he wants to do is lessen the suspicions of the native French population toward the Muslim migrant newcomers. If women suffer as a result, that’s just the price of leftist hegemony.
Tony says
The virtue-signaling Leftists are deceitful and totalitarian as they partner with Islam’s Muslims against Non-Muslims to help gain more power and control.
Our Western Leaders, the Leftists pushing a Totalitarian System of State-Control, Censorship, and Discrimination, falsely paint Islam as peaceful, tolerant, and benign like other religions while Politicians and Bureaucrats help Muslims migrate into the West to ultimately conquer Christendom with incompatible Sharia, Islamic Law, and with Propaganda from their ahistorical Qur’an and its Islamic Sources. Islam is a satanic serpent seeking who it may rape, murder, and devour when Muslims infiltrate Western Institutions and Western culture for totalitarian power and control(Qur’an (9:5, 29, 111; 49:15, etc.).
Troybeam says
Freedom, freedom is not a word associated with Islam. Jean-Luc Mélenchon, just wants to appease Islam and that people is how a nation loses its sovereignty.
WPM says
Women in Islam have the right to be raped if uncovered in public and or not guarded by a male relatives in public . They have the right to be force to marry 50 year old men at the age of 9.Women in Islam can be killed (honor killing) by male relatives (father, husband ,brother ,possible cousins) if the male relative “feels” his honor was disrespected by the daughter ,wife sister of the male relative .Dishonor could be talking to another male outside of the family circle especially a nonbeliever ,or even another Moslem male from a revival tribe ,acting western , being too “demanding” anything really ? They women of Islam have the right to be beaten by husbands or and fathers for any reason the husband and or father feels necessary example, burnt toast .husband had bad day at work ,a unfriendly look from the wife , anything really .Women of Islam have the right to be genitally mutilated against their will. They have the right women of Islam to be the second third or fourth wife and share their husbands affection with women of the right hand without complaining or face a beating or honor killing .They have the right to be stone to death for adultery by everyone in their Islamic community in the town square (with little or no proof). If the women of Islam is homosexual she has the right to thrown off a tall roof top by high Imams “men of god ” in the Islamic community. They have wonderful rights to die or have to live a life in a constant threat of violence by family member and members of the Islamic community. Christian base society in the 21 century women do not have these rights with Christian base society men of the 21 century under modern laws break laws in western society face punishment by western law for performing Islamic “rights” . These rights ,to be raped ,beaten, murdered ,disfigured ,mutilated ,forced child marriages ,all allowed and encouraged monitory in sharia Islamic law.
40 rounds says
Gaslighting to the enth degree.
Westman says
Jean-Luc Mélenchon – an amazing contradiction to represent Muslim values.
One could say, if Muslim women are so free, why isn’t your wife wearing Muslim garb to increase her freedom? It seems he has children by two women and didn’t bother marry either one – how Islamic? One can just imagine how shared child-raising has been while Jean trots off to the next philosophical orgasm with his socialist friends – shades of Marx while seeking executive power in France.
Why is it the people Islam will eliminate last, yet eliminate nevertheless, are its greatest proponents? Do they subconsciously recognize, as a physically weak group, that being totally illogical in the face of facts is the best option to avoid conflict?
Mélenchon’s education is in philosophy and his career is politics, both which seem to enhance the construction of limitless delusions. Maybe like Winston in 1984, his best allowable decision is, 2 + 2 = 5.
40 rounds says
I don’t think we need to dig too deep. The left, communists, socialists, whatever you want to call them, lie about everything and unfortunately half the population falls for it or at least endorses it.
Westman says
True, 40. It certainly seem strange that this man promotes Islam when he is the very essence of what French Muslims describe as the, “dirty French”. It isn’t a term of endearment.
Alkflaeda says
Christian and Jewish women are a lot more free than Muslim women. Jesus was consistently courteous and considerate in His dealings with women, unlike Mohammed, who dares to claim equality with Him.
gravenimage says
France: Leftist leader says Muslim women are free and Christian women are oppressed
……………………………………………..
Well, sure! Muslim women are “free” to suffer FGM, pedophilia, child marriage, polygamy, wife beating, summary divorce for Muslim men only–the “Triple Talaq”, and Honor Killing.
It’s true that Christian women don’t get to have any of this stuff. How sad! 🙁
OLD GUY says
That spells it out in plain English gravenimage, something these lefties don’t seem to understand.
gravenimage says
Thank you, OLD GUY.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof says
Refuting Robert Spencer’s Islamophobic Gender Polemic
Robert Spencer’s reaction to Jean-Luc Melenchon’s remarks on Muslim women is not an argument but an ideological performance. It exemplifies how Muslim women’s bodies are routinely weaponized in Western culture wars to legitimize civilizational superiority claims. Melenchon’s provocation—that religious submission may, for some women, be a source of dignity rather than oppression—invited sociological and theological engagement. Spencer instead responded with decontextualized Quranic citations designed to reaffirm a familiar binary: Islam as inherently misogynistic and the “Christian West” as the natural home of women’s freedom.
This binary is historically false, theologically incoherent, and methodologically dishonest. It rests on what may be called a hermeneutics of hate: a way of reading scripture that actively seeks the most violent interpretation while denying religious communities the interpretive pluralism routinely granted to Christianity. Against this, an interfaith feminist perspective reveals a shared struggle within both Islam and Christianity to liberate sacred texts from patriarchal captivity.
Spencer’s primary technique is proof-texting—isolating verses from the Quran and treating them as timeless legal commands detached from language, context, and ethical trajectory. This approach ignores fourteen centuries of Islamic jurisprudence and the polysemic nature of Quranic Arabic. More tellingly, it mirrors the method of the very Islamist extremists Spencer claims to oppose. Islamophobes and the Taliban are united by a literalist-absolutist reading that collapses divine revelation into patriarchal control.
Islamic feminist scholars such as Amina Wadud and Asma Barlas insist that the Quran must be read through its overarching moral vision, grounded in divine mercy and justice. If an interpretation produces systematic injustice, the flaw lies in the interpretation, not in God. Spencer’s reading assumes the opposite: that cruelty is the clearest expression of divine intent. This is not analysis; it is malice masquerading as scholarship.
Spencer mocks Melenchon’s claim that submission can be dignified, revealing a secular fundamentalism incapable of recognizing religious agency. In Islamic theology, tawhid—the oneness of God—undermines all human claims to ultimate authority. If God alone is sovereign, then no man, husband, or state possesses divine jurisdiction over a woman.
From this perspective, Islamic feminism understands submission to God as resistance to patriarchy. Asma Barlas argues that patriarchy is itself a form of shirk, an attempt to share in God’s authority. When a woman declares allegiance to God alone, she denies men theological supremacy. The hijab, for many women, functions not as submission to men but as a refusal of commodification—a rejection of the male gaze rather than obedience to it. Spencer’s inability to comprehend this reflects his refusal to allow Muslim women moral subjectivity.
Spencer’s argument collapses further when subjected to comparative scrutiny. He contrasts “oppressed Muslim women” with “free Christian women,” erasing centuries of Christian patriarchy sanctified by scripture. The freedoms enjoyed by women in the West were won against institutional Christianity, not bestowed by it. Until modern legal reforms, doctrines such as coverture stripped Christian women of property, legal identity, and autonomy, justified through biblical readings of marital “oneness.”
If Spencer applied his Quran-reading method to the Bible, Christianity would appear irredeemably misogynistic. Ephesians 5:22 commands wives to submit; 1 Timothy 2:12 forbids women from teaching. Christians contextualize these texts, recognizing historical patriarchy. Denying Muslims, the same hermeneutical right is an act of civilizational bad faith.
Spencer’s fixation on Quran 4:34 exemplifies his distortive method. He renders qiwamah as ontological male authority, ignoring its linguistic roots in responsibility and care. The verse conditions male responsibility on economic provision and explicitly avoids universal male superiority. In societies where women are economically independent, the legal rationale dissolves, yielding the Quranic ideal of partnership.
His insistence that daraba means “beat” is equally selective. The Quran uses the same root to mean travel, separation, and example. The Prophet Muhammad never struck a woman, a fact that decisively frames the verse as a restriction of violence, not its endorsement. Contemporary Islamic ethics increasingly recognize that any reading legitimizing domestic violence violates the Quran’s higher objective of human dignity.
Christian feminists have undertaken an identical struggle over “headship” language in Ephesians. Both traditions wrestle with patriarchal inheritance. Spencer’s polemic conceals this shared labour to preserve a fantasy of civilizational purity.
Spencer’s reading of Quran 2:223 reduces a contextual sexual metaphor to agrarian rape imagery, ignoring verses emphasizing mutuality, consent, and female bodily comfort. When read holistically, Quranic sexuality affirms reciprocity in ways comparable to the Song of Songs, long celebrated by Christian feminists.
Similarly, his critique of inheritance law isolates numbers from obligations. Islamic law paired differential inheritance with mandatory male financial responsibility and full female property rights—rights Western women gained only in the modern era. This historical silence is not accidental; it is necessary for Spencer’s narrative to function.
Spencer’s framework depends on the “clash of civilizations,” with women’s bodies as the boundary markers. The Quran explicitly rejects this logic, affirming diversity as divinely intended and ethical competition as the goal. Christian ethics, from the Good Samaritan onward, define neighbourliness through mercy, not theological conformity.
The oppression of women in parts of the Muslim world is real—but it is rooted in war, poverty, authoritarianism, and patriarchal interpretation, not Islam as such. Muslim societies have repeatedly entrusted women with political leadership, shattering the myth of a uniformly misogynistic “Islamic mind.”
40 rounds says
Wow, you must have gone to college
WPM says
True 40 rounds that Mohamad wrote alot of words and never address one point about how Islam treats women today. Rape , honor killing ,child force marriages ,tribal warfare ,stealing from non-believers ,sharia law are not western concepts or cultural ,or law. Islam has been at war against the west for over a thousand years .It has treated its own women like shit even when their is money and housing ,and health benefits when these savages enter into western countries. Even educated Moslems who have money ,position ,and power in the west are savage to their own woman folk by and large if they are following Islam to the letter of religious law. If one tries to follow Christian law or tradition beating raping ,child marriages ,honor killings are not tolerated or excepted as a given to please a Christian God .The concept of slavery is still an excepted practice in Islam today as it was over a thousand years ago. Islam has brought misery ,death ,poverty to the Moslem world because it bring chaos and instability .If they are no Christians or Jews to fight Moslems fight between different Islamic sites or villages or family clans .There can be no peace with Islam or between different Islamic groups unless they have a common enemy .That enemy could be “the Jew” or “that Christian” or “that Hundi” if the Moslem who if he practice Islam has no self awareness just look in the mirror he is his own enemy .His religion is his own ball and chain that keeps him forever in a rage of projection and pride.
40 rounds says
Thanks, I may not be as sophisticated as Mr Ashrof, but I know gaslighting when I see it
OLD GUY says
He knows all the big words, just dosen’t see the truth.
gelga says
No, NEVER muslims will interpret the koran like you do… you are just using your great vocabulary to show up…
Read what I copied from the above article:
Syria: Muslim militia groups carried out ‘sexual terrorism’ against Druze women
The rape of non-Muslim women is a gesture designed to assert the victory and dominance of the Muslims, and to humiliate the non-Muslims. Find out more about this in Holy Hell: Islam’s Abuse of Women and the Infidels Who Enable It.
gravenimage says
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof’s claim that not agreeing that women should be subject to FGM, pedophilia, forced marriage, wife beating, and Honor Killing is “weaponizing” women’s bodies is perverse. It is sacralizing the Islamic mistreatment of women that does this.
What is the proper “context” for this savagery?
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof says
What is truly perverse here is not the rejection of female genital mutilation, pedophilia, forced marriage, wife beating, or so-called honor killing, but the assumption—implicit in the accusation itself—that these acts somehow belong to Islam and require a “context” to be understood. Islamic feminism begins by dismantling this false framing. These practices are not Qur’anic mandates, nor do they emerge from the moral architecture of Islam. They are manifestations of patriarchal power, pre-Islamic tribal customs, and authoritarian social structures that were later clothed in religious language to secure male dominance over women’s bodies and lives.
To reject these abuses is not to “weaponize” women’s bodies; it is to refuse their continued use as sites of control, silence, and sacrifice. The language of weaponization here performs a moral inversion. It shifts attention away from women’s suffering and instead treats feminist critique as the real transgression. Islamic feminism insists that women are moral subjects, not civilizational liabilities, and that naming violence is an ethical obligation, not an ideological attack. Silence in the face of abuse is what truly instrumentalizes women, reducing their pain to something that must be endured for the sake of communal respectability or religious image management.
There is no proper Islamic context in which savagery becomes sacred. The Qur’an consistently grounds moral legitimacy in justice, compassion, human dignity, and mutuality, and it condemns oppression in all its forms. Any practice that violates bodily integrity, denies consent, destroys life, or normalizes fear stands in direct contradiction to the higher objectives of Islamic ethics, which prioritize the protection of life, dignity, intellect, and moral agency. When violence against women is defended in the name of religion, what is being sacralized is not Islam but patriarchy itself—male authority, sexual control, and coercive power masquerading as divine will.
somehistory says
Anyone who wastes their time reading your garbage, will then gag. You are one sick muzzie.
gravenimage says
No, rejecting female genital mutilation, pedophilia, forced marriage, wife beating, and honor killing is *not* perverse.
And yes–all of these horrors are part of Islam.
The Qur’an is supposed to be the word of Allah, good for all time–and the Prophet Muhammed, the perfect man of Islam. was also a pedophile and rapist who raped sex slaves and a 9-year old girl, and castigated his companion for *not* raping their captives (no compassion there; they just wanted higher ransoms). He also beat his child bride.
How is the “Prophet” Muhammed pre-Islamic?
gravenimage says
Taqiyya artist V.A. Mohamad Ashrof also wrote “Islam and Gender Justice”. So perverse.
jerry glenn says
France surges in the European Islamopandering derby.