Abraham’s offering before Jehovah entered into a covenant with him shows that there were no offerings given for the purpose of thanksgiving before the law of Moses, only burnt offerings for the purpose of covenantal atonement, or atonement through promise. The promise of a future perfect sacrifice through Jesus Christ

Genesis 14 v

7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.

8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?

9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

A thanksgiving offering is a freewill offering and it is obvious that Jehovah is not offering a sacrifice of thanksgiving to himself by commanding Abraham to kill these animals. So this cannot be a thanksgiving offering. First of all the offerings before the law of Moses have to show how atonement is made before sacrifices can be offered which display thanksgiving for the giving of this blessing. This is the logical order. There could not have been thanksgiving offerings to God from the beginning.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Jesus is acknowledged by the unclean spirits to have the power to destroy them, therefore he must be God. This power belongs to God alone

Mark 1 v

Jesus Expels an Evil Spirit

(Luke 4:31-37)

21 And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught. 22 And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. 23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out,

24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.28 And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Angels, the Holy Spirit, the Samaritans and John the Baptist proclaim a Saviour who will save the world, and not just warn the Jews, as Islamists claim

Luke 2 v

4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)

5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.

26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.

27 And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law,

28 Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,

29 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:

30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,

31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;

32 A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.

John 1 v 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

John 3 v

15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

The Jesus goes to the Samaritans, who have been rejected by the Jews because of their impure lineage, to prove that he is the Saviour of the world:

John 4 v

40 So when the Samaritans were come unto him, they besought him that he would tarry with them: and he abode there two days.

41 And many more believed because of his own word;

42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Prophet’s Marriage to Zaynab: Why James White Needs Muslim Scholars, a discussion at BloggingTheologyNet

Yahya Snow comments: ‘James White really needs to sit down with a scholar and have these polemics he got from wild-eyed Christians he used to associate with ironed out. Learn from scholars, not from wild-eyed Islamophobic Christian polemicists who are looking to earn a few bucks out of the Islamophobia industry.’

65 replies

  1. Dr. White did an excellent job of answering this today on the Dividing Line program, from around the 38 minute mark to the 1 hour and 24 minute mark.

    Dr. White quoted straight from the Tarikh of Al Tabari تاریخ الطبری (The History of Al Tabari) and Surah 33:37-38.

    And he said it would be a great subject to have a discussion with Dr. Yasir Qadhi on.


  2. And it was weird to me that Dr. Yasir Qadhi did not mention the Tarikh of Al Tabari, which is a very important Islamic source and text for the history and tradition of Islam.


    • Have you not read Imam at-Tabari’s own disclaimer at the beginning of his work? He basically says “look, I put everything but the kitchen sink in here. It’s your job to figure out what’s what.”

      Liked by 3 people

    • In fact, Dr. White read 2 versions of the story, both are in Al Tabari’s Tarikh (history). (both versions he read confirm what you guys and “Flying Pir”s article calls Lies and fabrications. )

      Why would an Imam put these in an official history?

      Why is Al Tabari’s History considered one of the most important sources for Islamic history? (After Qur’an, Hadith, Sira . . . ?)

      It seems kind of arbitrary, like when Muslims don’t like so many embarrassing Hadith, they start saying things like, “NO, LA! Those are Zionist Hadith!!” ( Lol )


    • Why why why lol. Ask him! He’s pretty dead, so good luck. Lol “official history” like that’s a thing now. And I’ve never heard of a “Zionist” hadīth. You must talk to some real nutters. Anyway, goober, what I said stands whether you like it or not.

      Liked by 3 people

    • the Muslims who said “those are Zionist Hadith” were 2 Muslims who used to come to Paul Williams old blogs, before he deleted them. I don’t see them anymore.


    • Maybe they’ve been committed 😂


    • why Al Tabari doesn’t have the other sources that Flying Pir is quoting?

      Yes, why?

      We can demand this, just like you guys demand exact words and ask questions about the Bible, like “I demand that John’s “I am” statements had to repeated in Mark and Matthew and Luke in order for me to believe they are historical, etc. and Like, “If He is the God, why He don’t make the fig tree bring fruit?”

      Why didn’t Al Tabari include the other stories about Zaynab Bint Jahash, if he was throwing everything but the kitchen sink, but doesn’t have the other stuff that later commentators came up with, doesn’t that show they are very historical.

      And Shabir said we have to go with the earliest strand of traditions, so it seems Al Tabari is more correct, since those other guys came later and are embarressed about the story and have to claim that it is a fabrication.

      How come Al Tabari doesn’t have the other stuff, if he is including everything but the kitchen sink?


    • Apples and oranges. Anyway, he included any and everything he himself came across (no matter how mangled or full of liars the chain of transmissions).

      You’re just… not very smart. Bye 😂


    • “own disclaimer at the beginning of his work”

      I believe every Islamic scholar puts that disclaimer in their work. Think about how nonsensical such a statement is. Muslims, historians etc… depend on Scholars and histories like Al Tabari to “figure out whats what”. LOL

      Muslims just don’t think


    • No, they really don’t put that lol. Nice try, kiddo. You think Imām all Bukhārī called his entire collection “sahīh” and then added a “reader beware” disclaimer about the chains he included?

      What a joke.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Yes Paul, logic, reasoning, discernment, all these things are boring to a Muslim.


    • Lol a stupid and childish comment

      Liked by 1 person

    • Fine if it were just childish… my own comments so far have been a bit childish. But that dude’s just plain wrong lol.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abu wrote…
      “You think Imām all Bukhārī called his entire collection “sahīh” and then added a “reader beware” disclaimer about the chains he included? ”

      My response: Oh so Bukhari has no disclaimer, so can you tell me what allah is going to look like since your going to see him just like you see the sun and the moon?

      And please tell me what is the Shape of allah since he is going to appear just like you picture him in your mind.

      Are you going to prostrate to the SHIN, on the Day of the Shin?


    • I was careful to specify “chains” rather than information.


  3. Idiot said “I believe every Islamic scholar puts that disclaimer in their work”

    Then just like your pagan religion what you believe is wrong.

    At least you’re consistent.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. It seems like just like their own bible these pagans seem to have overlooked the very first page that basically says “I am not the author here is some stuff I collected good luck”

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Of course James didn’t answer ! He said it’s mentioned in Tarikh Al Tabari!
    What is this supposed to mean?
    Has he read the introduction of Al Tabari in his magnificent book? 10 Vol!

    Al Tabari himself mentioned his methodology in that big book. He wrote in the introduction – I’m paraphrasing- that
    ” my job as a historian to write everything I heard. However, that doesn’t mean I adopt these narrations, so if the reader happened to read something so questionable, that is not me. I’m just a reporter” .
    Many scholars of Islam know & adopt this methodology that as long as he mentioned his Isnad ( the chain of men), he is free from the responsibility.
    This is the page

    In sum, he was saying that his job right now is not to question rather to collect. Scrutiny is another step.

    However, because christians have no idea to question their narrations, and they have an easily susceptibility to adopt any narration to be the word of God himself even though they don’t know who wrote those narrations, methodology of Al Tabir is metaphysics for them .

    Regarding that narration,
    In short, that narration is WEAK. Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi said :
    “why would the prophet needed that long time to fell in love with Zaynab as if he had not known her while that incident ( i.e divorce of Zynab) happened before Hijab. She is allegedly his daughter in law”.
    Even if that narration were authentic, the prophet didn’t do any thing in intention! He was telling Zaid to not divorce Zaynab. I’ve no idea what the problem would be with christians if that narration were authentic which is NOT.

    Liked by 1 person

    • A good historian does not just throw every thing out there – that’s like taking things like Tabloid rumors as historical fact.

      A true historian documents his sources and makes sure the sources are good.

      Dr. White read from the English. it would be nice if someone gave the exact English translation of what Abdullah but up there in Arabic. (from Al Tabari’s History, Tarikh تاریخ الطبری


    • ” A true historian documents his sources and makes sure the sources are good”
      He did!
      Al Tabari wrote what he heard with his Isnad. Isand is his documents. When he told us form where he heard that, he gave his sources. He told that in his introduction.
      You will not find any writing like this in all historians before this age (i.e modern era). You judged that brilliant man based on our modern culture. Man, your bible and writings of Paul are not like this 🙂
      We see that you’re so happy with Josephus, but what did he write? What were his sources? Nothing!

      Al Tabari was a brilliant scholar no doubt. He was an encyclopedic man.

      I’m not familiar with the English translation for his magnificent book. However, this page in Arabic is 7-8.
      It’s in his introduction.

      Again, that narration which I don’t think it’s a problematic is WEAK.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Lol. I find it funny that Ken Temple of all people is lecturing Muslims on good historical analysis.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I agree! Such double standards


  6. White @ 58 seconds “He (Muhammad) destroyed the beautiful institution of adoption in Islam”.
    On the contrary Mr White. It was here that God sealed the institution of adoption from corruption. An adopted son is not your blood, no matter how much we make believe. The adopted son is the son of his father, good or bad name, inheritance or no inheritance. What greater crime than to rob a child of his true identity by calling him/her by your name? Nay, muslims who thereafter adopted children preserved the rights of these children, doing only the duty of safeguarding them until maturity. How unselfish an act is muslim adoption then? One’s motives are not corrupted in any way.

    Liked by 2 people

    • PS. Those who ‘rename’ the child to their own family name have basically ‘killed’ the lineage of the father. Perhaps it is his only son and through whom the family name is continued. Are we allowed with one simple stroke of a pen to wipe the name of an entire family tree out of existence?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Musa,
      You are right.

      The western form of adoption is really detrimental to the child, who has no choice in a decision to adopt which results in the loss of the child’s true self identity, lineage, original familial ties, historical knowledge of family, and even sometimes ethnic, cultural, and lingual ties.

      In U.S. we often see children from Asian (or other) countries adopted into American families and subsequently being raised and taught to adopt the religion (usually Christianity), language, and name of those families. As a result these children are cut off from the ethnic culture that they were born into, their roots have been cut, and have absolutely no connection with or knowledge of their own family of origin. it is a tragedy, that the child does not fully comprehend until later in adulthood when it may cause extreme psychological pain, trauma, and conflict with the adoptive parents as the child questions everything in their life.

      The Islamic form of adoption helps to avoid these types of problems, by honoring and respecting the child’s own lineage and not seeking to erase it.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Al Tabari wrote what he heard with his Isnad. Isand is his documents. When he told us form where he heard that, he gave his sources. He told that in his introduction.

    Is Al Tabari’s source the same one that Dr. Yasir Qadhi named in the video?

    I read over “Flying Pir”‘s first article – from what I can tell; all of them are commentators who come much much later after Al Tabari – and all they do is assert – “lie and fabrication!” – anyone can say that, “no, you are wrong!” Hardly any real argumentation or documentation.


    • “anyone can say that”
      That’s not true. We don’t just say that narration is not authentic. We can discuss the narration from Hadith perspective,and you will see it’s not authentic. There are at least 3 issues.

      When James and other christians were using that narration which I think it’s not problematic , they didn’t use it to discuss the adoption matter. They wanted to attack the character of the prophet pbuh.
      And here I like to quote Bassam Zawadi who cuts this mentality from its roots,yet it only works if the christians are honest with themselves.
      He said:
      “Christians have attacked the Prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH) by claiming that he is a murderer, rapist, pedophile etc. They charged him with all these disgusting things and they have all been soundly refuted. However, only for sake of argument let’s assume that their arguments against Prophet Muhammad are true. Does that disprove his Prophethood?

      The Prophets of the Old Testament have done countless acts of horrible things. Things ranging from getting drunk, having sex with their very own daughters, murdering women and children, worshipping idols, sleeping with prostitutes etc. Yet the Christians acknowledge this and still believe that these people are Prophets. But when Prophet Muhammad does something wrong (allegedly) that means he is not a Prophet. You see the hypocrisy?

      The criteria that Christians use to disprove and attack the Prophethood of Muhammad can be used even more forcefully against the Prophets of the Old Testament. So even if Christians were able to prove these arguments against Muhammad (if true, are still no where as bad as the acts of the Prophets of the Old Testament), they still do not disprove his Prophethood. If they insist that this disproves his Prophethood then they also need to insist that the Prophets of the Old Testament are not Prophets as well. Therefore, they should renounce their faith in Christianity. “

      Liked by 2 people

    • You make a good point; if it was not for the fact that new revelation in the Qur’an – Surah 33:36-37 is given and commanded by Allah for Muhammad to take her and marry her, and Allah says “no one can question what Allah has commanded” etc. (verse 36), and it says “you were hiding in yourself that which God was to disclose” (verse 37)
      and “So when Zayd had no longer any need for her” ( ?*!!# !!!!) – that is especially ugly.

      It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.
      Surah 33:36

      And [remember, O Muhammad], when you said to the one on whom Allah bestowed favor and you bestowed favor, “Keep your wife and fear Allah ,” while you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose. And you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him. So when Zayd had no longer any need for her, We married her to you in order that there not be upon the believers any discomfort concerning the wives of their adopted sons when they no longer have need of them. And ever is the command of Allah accomplished.
      Surah 33:37

      , whereas the OT passages of Abraham lying, David’s adultery and murder, and Solomon’s polygamy and idolatry are NEVER condoned. Allah approves of Muhammad doing this and yet God in the Bible does not approve of the sins of the prophets. God is recording their sin in Scripture, but never approves of it. By the way, we don’t consider Lot a prophet. Lot is called “righteous” in 2 Peter 2:7, but I have never heard of anyone considering Lot a prophet. He gave no prophesy and wrote no book. He was a weak character, and did several really strange and sinful things. Maybe somewhere in Genesis he is called a prophet, but I don’t think so.

      It seems obvious that even the Qur’an is embarrassed about this, but it is justified by a new revelation, and even says, on top of the new revelation, “no one can question what Allah has commanded”.


    • You have a problem with professional hadīth graders doing their actual jobs? On a text that pretty much invites them to do so? Yeah, anyone can say anything they want, but you’re in a mood because people who have the necessary skills and training do so authoritatively…

      You need to quit throwing these tantrums. Grow up.


    • “Allah approves of Muhammad doing this and yet God in the Bible does not approve of the sins of the prophets”
      Why would Allah disprove the prophet pbuh? He didn’t do anything wrong!
      Listen to Dr. Shabir at (1:15′)


    • It is wrong because Zayd should not have divorced her and Zaynab should quit nagging and complaining and manipulating. The only legitimate reasons for divorce are 1. continuous hard-hearted adultery (Matthew 5:29-30 and Matthew 19:8-9) and if an unbeliever desserts the spouse because of the spouse’s faith ( 1 Cor. 7:15).

      Words are put into the mouth of Allah in order to justify the sin of marrying her.

      The true God would never do such a thing.


    • Ibn Arabi came just over 100 years after Tabari, and he called that story a LIE:

      IMAM ABU BAKR IBN AL-ARABI (b. 1165) said,
      “‘THEY ARE ALL LIES which should not be depended upon, for she used to be with him everywhere and time and there was not anything to prevent him from marrying her. Besides, they grew up together and he would always see her every now and then. Despite the fact that Zaynab did not hide her wish to marry the Prophet right from the beginning, he did not seize that opportunity to marry her, then what for Allah’s sake would have given birth to that unusual love which had not existed before! Allah forbids! THAT IS NONSENSE!” (Ibn al-Arabi, Ahkam al-Qur’an, volume 3, page 1543).

      If you’re going by using fabricated stories to attack the Prophet Muhammed, would you like me to show you early apocryphal writing from your religion, some dating earlier than some books of the NT, where a woman circumcises the pen*s of Jesus with her mouth?

      Would you accept the above report, going by your standards we should accept it because it is early as your standard is against Muslims?


    • Ken, if a husband beats his wife,is she allowed to get divorced according to the criteria you gave, because you only included adultery and faith. What about if she isn’t being treated right, and if neither of the husband/wife are happy with their relation?


    • What a great summary of the Koran!!!


    • Paulus, you realize that Al Tabari was talking about his book which is a book of history.
      Do you have that sense for your scripture? Do you have a half of that sense for Paul’s writing? 🙂
      You can imagine the answer from christians who believe that the KJB is the words of God !

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abdullah,
      Thanks for the English of that. I am not sure exactly what Al Tabari means. But he seems to be saying that people can “disapprove” or “find detestable” of what he has written as history, but Al Tabari does not seem to be saying it is not history, nor that history can be changed; nor that those things maybe are just rumors or lies or fabrications.

      We disapprove of what David did in 2 Samuel 11 and what Solomon did in 1 Kings 11, and what Abraham did in Genesis 20, and what Abraham did in Genesis 12:9-20 and what Lot did in Genesis 19:8 and 19:30-38 – those actions are sinful and disgusting and we disaprove of them and find them detestable, but they are still historical fact – they happened. God records the sinful actions of people; and exposes the sinful hearts of mankind.


  8. It’s amusing to see the fundamentalists insisting all that is in Tabari must be authentic and true are not Muslim.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Another problem is that the reports in the sources that “Flying Pir” ‘s first article gave, it seems clear, that according to that view and those sources that Zaynab was complaining all the time about being married to Zayd, because Zayd was poor and an adopted slave and that was beneath Zaynab’s dignity as she was a woman of the upper class. That is very arrogant and ugly of character on Zaynab’s part. It is not impressive – she is like a selfish, spoiled rich girl who is nagging Muhammad, especially after he is winning more wars after 625 and becomes more and more famous as a prophet, warrior and political leader – seems like she is the one who manipulates and keeps nagging him until he comes up with a new revelation.

    If the Bible, after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires to work on love and righteous character – love is a commitment of the will to do good and right to the other person. She was also nagging Zayd and “killing” him with her nagging. wow. . . so either one of the sides of the story is a big problem, whichever one is right.


    • So pathetic!

      “after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires”
      Ashley Madison has proven these slogans more than you can imagine, Ken.


    • Muhammad, Zayd, and Zaynab, either of the 2 scenarios, do not seem very righteous at all. In one, Zaynab is the one manipulating and orchestrating and complaining, and in the other Muhammad was struck by her beauty and came up with new revelation to get her. The psychological pressure on Zayd was tremendous. “keep your wife and fear God” sounds pious, like a slogan (as you accused my statement of principle from the Bible.). it was just a slogan, because he did not obey. Why didn’t Zayd obey Muhammad? Muhammad had to come up with a new revelation in order to contradict the principle of “keep your wife and fear God”. that statement was right; but since they did not do it; it became an empty slogan in the story.


  10. The apostle Paul and the other NT writers are always backing up what they wrote with OT Scripture quotes and allusions and phrases.


  11. Whereas the Qur’an shows no real knowledge of the OT nor the NT in its content, except for basic things like monotheism and some of the 10 commandments, that there will be a judgment day at the end of time, and that one quote from a phrase of the same concept from Exodus 21:24. (“eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”) known as the lex talionis. (in Surah 5:45); and also it does have that God created everything in 6 days 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59), but as I recall, at least one verse says 8 days. (Surah 41:9-12)


    • ?

      “after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires”

      how is that pathetic?

      Ashley Madison has proven these slogans more than you can imagine, Ken.

      what do you mean? are you approving of Ashley Madison and adultery ?

      After thinking about what you are trying to say, I think you mean this:
      Ashley Madison has proven THAT these ARE JUST slogans more than you can imagine, Ken.

      You are saying that what I wrote is just a slogan that western culture does not live by, because of all the hypocrisy of secret adulteries.

      Even so, that is the world and hypocrites.

      How is that pathetic though?


    • Sorry! I know my English is not that good, yet you got it. I’ll improve my English by time insha’ Allah.

      It’s pathatic since you try to judge those righteous people by the eye of your culture. Those were the most righteous people after the prophets of God.


  12. “after you are married, that’s it; you are not supposed to complain to find a way out – you are supposed to stay committed and make a decision of commitment over your emotions and selfish desires”

    It is still true no matter how much the west has abandoned the Bible and left the faith and gone after their own idols made in their own hearts – selfish desires.


  13. Sorry! I know my English is not that good, yet you got it. I’ll improve my English by time insha’ Allah.

    That’s ok, no problem; you are doing good; it just took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say; and believe me, when you look at western culture, I completely understand why many in your countries and cultures would see that as “empty slogans”, except that our culture does not show the small believing Christian community. the movies and TV shows make fun of us; and most people from your area of the world don’t even know we exist. They only know about the Pope or Benny Hinn, 2 very bad examples of Christianity.

    It’s pathatic since you try to judge those righteous people by the eye of your culture. Those were the most righteous people after the prophets of God.

    They honestly do not seem very righteous, especially Muhammad getting special revelation and justifying things and putting words into Allah’s mouth.

    and what was that other Hadith when Aisha said, “wow, it seems Allah comes fast to give you your heart’s desire!” ?

    It does not pass the smell test.


  14. Narrated Aisha: I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Apostle and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (Surah 33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.”
    Sahih Bukhari 6:60:311

    the context of Surah 33:15 is just a few verse later after the Jaynab Bint Jahsh story . . . hum . . . Surah 33:50 shows the immediate context where Muhammad gets special revelation to have more than 4 wives, etc.

    Interesting . . .

    ” . . . a believing woman if she gives herself to the Prophet [and] if the Prophet wishes to marry her, [this is] only for you, excluding the [other] believers. We certainly know what We have made obligatory upon them concerning their wives and those their right hands possess, [but this is for you] in order that there will be upon you no discomfort.” part of Surah 33:50

    “only for you, not for the other believers”

    This is put into the mouth of Allah; the true God would not say that.


    • The Prophet also got special revelation where it was obligatory for him to pray certain prayers at night whereas this was NOT for the Muslims. What is your point?

      There are certain things a Prophet is allowed and is permissible whereas the normal people it would not be permitted too. Are you now trying to equate because a Prophet got a certain right, that right MUST be extended to other believers?

      I think you have a bigger issue at hand, Jesus who is god in flesh was touched by a woman sexually but didn’t rebuke her, but instead told her she could do it another time:


      Liked by 2 people

  15. “So when Zayd had no longer any need for her” (from Surah 33:37) – that is especially ugly.

    the True and living God would never say that.


    • Really? Why do you think he had no longer need of her? The Hadith explains because they “QUARRELLED” and complaining of her behaviour:

      Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya:

      “She (Zaynab) remained with him (Zayd) close to a year, or longer but then THEY QUARRELLED. Her husband COMPLAINED ABOUT HER to the Messenger of God (SAAS), and he would say to him, ‘Keep your wife for yourself and fear God.’” (The Life of the Prophet Muhammed (‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya’) [Translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, Garnet Publishing – Copyright 2000, The Center for Muslim Contribution To civilization], by Ibn Kathir, volume 3, 198)

      Jami` at-Tirmidhi:

      “Narrated Anas: “When this Ayah was revealed: ‘But you did hide in yourself that which Allah will make manifest… (33:37)’ about Zainab bint Jahsh, ZAID HAD COME TO THE PROPHET COMPLAINING, and he wanted to divorce her, so he consulted with the Prophet. The Prophet said: ‘KEEP YOUR WIFE TO YOURSELF, AND HAVE TAQWA OF ALLAH (Fear God) (33:37).’” (Jami` at-Tirmidhi volume 5, Book 44, Hadith 3212 (Sahih Darussalam))



  16. seems to be treating her like an object rather than a human being.


  17. either way, both versions of the story are embarrassing.


  18. I have a friend who is a former Muslim and it was when he first read this section in the Qu’ran (Surah 33:36-37 and the surrounding verses, as in verses 50 and 51 – he started crying, because he could not believe what he was reading. it was the beginning of him questioning Islam; later he became a Christian.


  19. I think you have a bigger issue at hand, Jesus who is god in flesh was touched by a woman sexually but didn’t rebuke her, but instead told her she could do it another time:

    Gnostic gospels are false writings – they are not revelation.

    But your stuff is both Qur’an, that you believe is Allah’s eternal speech, and Hadiths that are mostly true if Sahih and Hasan and you honor those.

    No Christians ever honored the Gnostic gospels. They are flat out lies by heretics, written much later than the first century.


  20. Gospel according to Philip is a Gnostic and false gospel, not written by Philip, and full of lies and fabrication and heresy.

    the other stuff in your article – you are taking a Greek word and applying a possible meaning to other contexts that do not have that meaning.

    In 1 Corinthians 7:1 – it has that sexual connotation because of the context of everything around it and the subject matter at end of chapter 6 and 7:2- end of chapter.

    But the other contexts it does not mean that, “touch” has no sexual connotation in those other contexts.

    It is a very ugly accusation you made on the Gospel of John and other passages.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Rape and Slavery that no Campus will condemn, a post by Daniel Greenfield, with comments from everyman. Of course Muslims wouldn’t like it if they were on the receiving end of slavery. That doesn’t stop them condemning the practice as their whole morality is not based on inherent wickedness or evil but on who is doing what to whom

Slavery and rape aren’t wrong when Muslims do it.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody.”

“A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her.”

These views don’t come from an ISIS underground bunker, but out of the brilliantly lit halls of Georgetown University where rape and slavery are defended by an Islamic studies professor.

Georgetown had changed the names of Mulledy Hall and McSherry Hall because Mulledy and McSherry had once been involved in selling some slaves back in the early 19th century. When Christina Hoff Sommers spoke at Georgetown, feminists demanded trigger warnings and a university official threatened College Republicans. But defending actual slavery and rape is still okay at Georgetown.

So long as it’s committed by Muslims under the license of the Koran.

“I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody,” Jonathan Brown explained to attendees at his lecture. “Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.”

The Georgetown Islamic Studies professor had expelled a critic before the lecture even began. He thought that he was among “brothers” at the International Institute of Islamic Thought. But sitting in the audience was Umar Lee, another convert, but one who unlike Brown had struggled with the morality of his new religion. Some in the audience had questions and Brown had horrifying Islamist answers.

To a man who argued that slavery was wrong, Brown retorted, “How can you say, if you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God? No you’re not.”

Slavery can’t be wrong. Not if Mohammed, the prophet of Allah and founder of Islam, had slaves. The Koran is the touchstone of Brown’s personal morality, as it is of every Muslim.

Mohammed was the perfect man and a role model for all Muslims. Therefore rape and child abuse can’t be wrong either. Not when the founder of Islam was both a rapist and a pedophile.

When Brown had been asked in the past about the women and girls sold and raped by ISIS based on Islamic law, he defended the Islamic practice of sex slavery, “There is no doubt that the Quran and Sunna permit this.”

So too when defending Mohammed’s sexual abuse of a 9-year-old girl, Brown insisted, “You cannot say from a Sharia perspective that what the prophet did was wrong because the prophet can’t commit sins.”

How can Mohammed’s slavery and rape be whitewashed? All you have to do is deny the existence of freedom and the right of human beings not to be enslaved and raped.

“It’s very hard to have this discussion because we think of, let’s say in the modern United States, the sine qua non of morally correct sex is consent,” Brown lectured wearily.

“If you take away the consent element, then everyone starts flipping out. Right? At that but you get, rape you get sexual acts done by people who are too young we perceive to consent. And these are sort of the great moral wrongs of our society.”

We focus on consent, Brown explained, because we “fetishize the idea of autonomy”, but “most of human history human beings have not thought of consent as the essential feature of morally correct sexual activity”.

Islam certainly does not. In Islamic morality, consent has as much to do with moral sexual activity as ice cream cones have to do with airplanes. Islam does not offer universal rights, but hierarchies of privilege in return for allegiance to Muslim leaders. It eliminates individual autonomy: whether it’s that of non-Muslim women being raped by Muslim conquerors or non-Muslim slaves reduced to property.

“A male owner of a female slave has the right to sexual access to her… her ‘consent’ would be meaningless since she is his slave,” Brown had also explained in the past.

“Slave women do not have agency over their sexual access, so their owner can have sex with them,” he appears to have written on Facebook.

America is based on equality of rights. Islam is a supremacist system based on inequality.

“We fetishize the idea of autonomy to the extent that we forget, again who’s really free? Are we really autonomous people?” Brown wonders.

This deconstruction of a crime against a woman into philosophizing about the nature of free will isn’t just academic wordplay; it’s the essence of Islam. Islam denies that human beings can be free. Muslims are slaves of Allah. They serve the Caliph. In return, they may force everyone else to serve them.

Is anyone really free? We’re all slaves.

That is the essential idea of Islam. It’s the radical notion of every totalitarian revolutionary movement. If everyone is already enslaved, then enslaving them under the correct way of thinking is really liberation.

No one is free. Therefore those who are more free, because they worship Allah or recognize the evils of capitalism, are doing them a favor by enslaving them.

And the rest is word games.

Jonathan Brown is a Georgetown boy. He got his degree there and these days he holds the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization and directs the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. The $20 million gift from the Saudi prince brought real rape culture to Georgetown.

Don’t look for Georgetown’s Working Group on Slavery or President DeGioia, who decided to rename two buildings because their namesakes had once sold slaves, to get involved. The Saudis still practice their own form of slavery. They only abolished slavery, on an official basis, under pressure from JFK.

In 1962.

These days, the Saudis actually fund people like Brown who defend slavery in the United States.

Brown is valued by his masters for his word games. He deconstructs slavery and rape until they become meaningless. No one is ever free. And as the holder of a chair funded by a slave kingdom, he ought to know.

After the scandal broke, Brown declared on Twitter, “Islam as a faith and I as a person condemn slavery, rape and concubinage.”

In the past, Brown had written, “As for concubinage, there is no doubt that the Quran and Sunna permit this.” At the lecture, he had declared, “If you’re Muslim, the Prophet of God had slaves. He had slaves. There’s no denying that. Was he—are you more morally mature than the Prophet of God?”

But it’s all in how you define slavery, rape or terrorism.

Behind all the words games is a fundamental clash of values and civilizations. American values and Islamic values are not compatible. Islam does not believe in consent, freedom and autonomy. It also doesn’t believe in truth. A dialogue with a totalitarian ideology is meaningless. It consists of deceitful word games used to justify its abuses. Those word games are all that Jonathan Brown has to offer.

It’s all that the left has to offer. That’s why it will protect and defend Brown and his horrifying views.

The modern campus and its obsession with punishing slavery and eradicating rape culture are a sham. Georgetown will lash out at a dead 19th century Jesuit priest, but it will never stand up to the Saudi royals or Jonathan Brown. It will investigate rape culture everywhere except in the speeches and writings of one of its professors who is merely quoting the horrifying body of Islamic jurisprudence.

ISIS atrocities shocked the world. But it’s a shorter distance from ISIS to the modern world than we like to think. You don’t need to travel to Iraq or Syria to listen to it being defended as a way of life.

Just stop by Georgetown instead.



Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Denials of Islamic Slavery

To most Muslims, the only slave-trade that existed in the world was the trans-Atlantic one, which they are very forthcoming to condemn. To them, the more extensive and barbarous practice of slavery of the Muslim world that continued well into the late twentieth century (indeed, continues today) never existed. This perception amongst them is undoubtedly the result of their ignorance about the history of Islam. Some Muslims—knowledgeable about it, or when presented with undeniable evidence—take recourse of the much familiar denials. They offer two common arguments to counter the undeniable facts about the widespread practice of slavery in the Muslim world. Firstly, slavery is not at all approved in Islam; its practice in the Muslim world resulted from the abuse or disregard of Islam. The second type of response comes from the more knowledgeable Muslims, who—failing to deny the approval of slavery in Islam and its widespread practice in the Muslim world—would agree that slavery was accepted in Islam, albeit reluctantly and on a limited scale, because of its overwhelming practice in Arabia at the time. They then come with a set of Quranic verses and prophetic traditions to claim that ‘Islam actually set the first example for the abolition of slavery.

The first type of response definitely comes from the group of Muslims, the overwhelming majority, who are thoroughly ignorant of the theological content of Islam regarding the sanction of slavery and Prophet Muhammad’s engagement in enslavement, slave-trade and concubinage. The second group, deliberately using deceptive ploys, comes up with a set of arguments from the Quran and the Sunnah, which need addressing here. The commonly cited set of Quranic references are:

  1. Quran 4:36 urges Muslims to show kindness to orphans, parents, travelers and slaves.
  2. Quran 9:60 directs part of obligatory charity toward freeing of slaves.
  3. Quran 24:33 advises owners of well-behaved slaves to set terms for their release in writing.
  4. Quran 5:92 and 18:3 propose freeing of slaves as a means of expiation for sins.
  5. Quran 4:92 states that a Muslim should free a believing slave as expiation for involuntary manslaughter.

Based on such references, Ahmad Alawad Sikainga, Professor of History at the Ohio State University, explains away the Quranic recognition of slavery as ‘broad and general propositions of an ethical nature rather than specific legal formulations.’887 In a similar vein, famous Pakistani scholar and poet Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) held slavery in Islam as a benign institution, completely devoid of true servitude. According to him,888

[Prophet Muhammad] declared the principle of equality and though, like every wise reformer, he slightly conceded to the social conditions around him in retaining the name of slavery, he quietly took away the whole institution of slavery. The truth is that the institution of slavery is a mere name in Islam.

Other more emphatic apologists come up with such lofty claims that Islam has clearly and categorically forbidden the primitive practice of capturing a free man, to make him a slave, or to sell him into slavery. They affirm their position by quoting Prophet Muhammad: ‘‘There are three categories of people against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three: he, who enslaves a free man, then sells him, and eats this money.’’889 Muslim scholar Syed Ameer Ali (d. 1928), widely read in the West, argued that Muslims should efface the dark page of slavery from the world ‘to show the falseness of the aspersions cast on the memory of the noble Prophet, by proclaiming in explicit terms that slavery is reprobated by their faith and discountenanced by their code.’890 Joining the tune of these Muslim apologists, Lewis argues: ‘The Islamic law and practice, from an early stage, severely restricted the enslavement of free persons… limiting it in effect to the non-Muslims captured or conquered in a war.’891

Those scholars, who claim that Islam categorically forbid the primitive practice of slavery, should pay attention to the words of Allah in Quranic verses 16:71, 16:76 and 30:28, which unequivocally and categorically state the division of human race into masters and slaves as natural, as His grace, and as part of His design. Iqbal and Ali should take note of the fact that Prophet Muhammad had owned no slaves prior to taking up the Islamic mission; and at the time of his death, he owned dozens of slaves and a few concubines, the majority of whom were obtained through brutal raids and attacks on innocent communities. Sikainga should not forget that, in Islamic thought, the Quran is the final words of the Creator of the Universe in all matters; and therefore, whatever the Quran sanctions becomes the eternal law for the Islamic society. This fundamental position of Islam contradicts Sikainga’s assertion that slavery is no “specific legal formulations” in Islam. In reality, slavery in Islam is a fundamental institution, repeatedly reiterated by Allah and widely practiced by Prophet Muhammad, which would stand unaltered until the end of the world. Furthermore, it is equally nonsensical and inexcusable to term the division of fundamentally equal human beings into masters and slaves as a formulation of “ethical nature” as Sikainga puts it. More so is the repeated Quranic sanction of violent enslavement of women for reducing them into sex-slaves.

Gulam Ahmad Parwez (d. 1983), another Muslim scholar and activist of the subcontinent, uses a deceptive ploy of different kind. He argues that ‘those whom your right hand possesses’ in Quran 47:4, referring to slaves, should be read in the past tense; that is, as ‘those whom your right hand possessed.’ This way, he argues, slavery belonged to the past and the Quran closed ‘the door to future slavery.’892 Muslims should probably follow this crooked ploy and read the instructions of the Quran regarding prayers, fasting, pilgrimage and everything else in the past tense and relegate Islam to the dustbin of history.


Prophet Muhammad relocated from Mecca to Medina in 622, when he had only about 200–250 converts: from Mecca and Medina combined. With this small group of followers, he formed a raiding brigand expressly for the purpose of attacking caravans from Mecca to plunder them for booty. As his power grew, he scaled up his adventures by attacking the Pagan, Jewish and Christian communities that came within his reach and power for the purpose of plundering and capture of slaves. After Muhammad’s death in 632, this unconditional war on the infidels continued with greater vigor as Muslim power grew in leaps and bounds. They started undertaking campaigns of massive scales eventually bringing down world’s great powers: Persia, Byzantium and India. They often enslaved in tens to hundreds of thousands in a single campaign, besides putting large numbers of the vanquished non-Muslims to the sword.

At the advent of Islam, Prophet Muhammad’s raiding and warring brigand, consisting of just a few hundred neo-Muslim Bedouins of Arabia, declared an aggressive, unconditional and relentless holy war on the rest of humanity with the intention to subjugate and enslave them. Those like Lewis, who think that Islam “categorically forbade” or “severely restricted” the enslavement of a free man, should realize that Islam called for the unrestrained subjugation and enslavement of all free men and women of the globe at the hands of a few hundred Bedouin Arab raiders and plunderers. The Islamic legislation of enslavement is not of “severely restricted” nature, but of the highest scale imaginable, unprecedented in the history of mankind. The soldiers of Islam have executed this divine command with aplomb; the history of Islam has been the witness to that. By any standard, the sanction of slavery in Islam was the most devastating blow to the spirit and dignity of the free human being.

Humane treatment of slaves in Islam

It is true that Islam urges Muslims to treat slaves humanely. Verses of the Quran listed above encourage Muslims to set slaves free (manumission) for various reasons, including for the redemption of involuntarily killing a Muslim (not an infidel). In Islam, manumission is seen as an act of benevolence or expiation of sins. On the basis of these arguments, apologists of Islam would claim that ‘It is not true to say that Islam instituted, or was responsible for the institution of slavery; it is more correct to say that it was the first religion, which put the first steps necessary for its extinction’ (personal communication). Joining this camp of Muslims, Prof. Jonathan Brockopp of Pensylvania State Univerity writes:

Other cultures limit a master’s right to harm a slave but few exhort masters to treat their slaves kindly, and the placement of slaves in the same category as other weak members of society who deserve protection is unknown outside the Quran. The unique contribution of the Quran, then, is to be found in its emphasis on the place of slaves in society and society’s responsibility toward the slave, perhaps the most progressive legislation on slavery in its time.893

Concerning Islamic injunctions for good treatment of slaves and their manumission, there was nothing new in it. We have noted that, nearly a thousand years before the advent of Islam, Buddha had urged his followers to treat slaves well and not to overwork them. In Athens, the Greek statesman and political reformer Solon (c. 638–558 BCE) had enacted a decree abolishing enslavement for debts, a major cause of enslavement at the time.

The tradition of manumission of slaves existed in Greece about a millennium before the advent of Islam. Inscriptions in stones, belonging to the fourth century BCE and later, document emancipation of slaves in Greece, likely as voluntary acts of masters (predominantly male and also female from the Hellenistic period). To buy their freedom, slaves could either use their savings or take loan from friends or masters.894

The sense justice toward slaves in Greek Society can be guaged from Socrates’ encounter with Euthyphro outside a law-court. Euthyphro’s father had killed one of his slaves (accidentally, probably while discipling him), who had killed another slave. And Euthyphro took his father to court for his crime of killing the slave. On Euthyphro’s way to the court, Socrates stopped him so as to inquire about his motivation or the righteousness that inspired him to prosecute his own father. Euthyphro told Socrates that ‘although his family think it impious for a son to prosecute his father as a murderer, he knows what he is about. His family is ignorant about what is holy, whereas he has ‘an accurate knowledge of all that.’ He therefore had no doubt about the rightness of his action.‘895 While this case, undoubtedly, was an exception to norm, it nonetheless informs us of the sense of justice toward slaves that had penetraded into the then Greek Society (a housands years before Muhammad)—something impossible even today in any Muslim soceity.

The Islamic exhortation for treating slaves well and for freeing them was thus nothing new. Such benevolent practice existed in Greece nearly a millennium earlier. Solon had even enacted a ban on the major form of enslavement in Athens nearly twelve centuries before the birth of Islam. Neither the practice of emancipation of slaves was absent in Arabia during Muhammad’s life or prior to that; evidence for it comes from the following Islamic text [Bukhari 3:46:715]:

Narrated Hisham: My father told me that Hakim bin Hizam manumitted one-hundred slaves in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance and slaughtered one-hundred camels (and distributed them in charity). When he embraced Islam he again slaughtered one-hundred camels and manumitted one-hundred slaves. Hakim said, ‘I asked Allah’s Apostle, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! What do you think about some good deeds I used to practice in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance (jahiliyah) regarding them as deeds of righteousness?’ Allah’s Apostle said, ‘You have embraced Islam along with all those good deeds you did.’

Good treatment and freeing of slaves definitely existed in the seventh-century Arab society, prior to the founding of Islam. Muhammad himself had freed his only slave Zayd when he was a Pagan, some fifteen years before undertaking the Islamic mission. He even adopted Zayd as his son. These generous and humane gestures of Pagan Muhammad clearly reflected the existing benevolent pre-Islamic tradition and culture of the Arab society. Hence, Islam and Prophet Muhammad added nothing new to the humane aspect of slavery.

Islam aggravated slavery

Islam did not institute slavery, but embraced the age-old practice with open arms and gave it a divine validation to last for the eternity and promoted it to a hitherto unprecedented scale. It is groundless to claim that Islam closed the door to slavery or took the first step toward its abolition. In the Quran, Allah repeatedly gave approval of slavery as part of His divine plan, which must stand until the end of the world. Not only that, Islam aggravated the practice of slavery at its very inception, which worsened further over the centuries. Prophet Muhammad enslaved the children and women of Banu Qurayza, Khaybar and Banu Mustaliq [Bukhari 3:46:717], after slaughtering the men. This ideal protocol of the Prophet became the modus operandi for Muslim warriors through the ages until the West abolished its own engagement in slavery and enforced its ban in the Muslim world—much to the anger, disappointment and even violent opposition of Muslims.

One must take note of the way the Banu Qurayza, Banu Mustaliq and Khaybar Jews were slaughtered and enslaved by the Prophet. Nothing as barbaric and cruel, and on such large-scales, as these took place in the Arabian Peninsula during Muhammad’s life. Islamic history tells us that Muhammad’s father had only one Abyssinian slave-girl, named Barakat. The leading men of Mecca are not recorded to have possessed slaves in their dozens. The Prophet’s first wife Khadijah, despite owning a big business, possessed only one slave, Zayd, whom she presented to Muhammad after their marriage. Muhammad, a Pagan at the time, freed Zayd and adopted him as his son.

During the next fifteen years of his life as a Pagan, Muhammad owned no slave. Over the next twenty-three years of his life as a Muslim and the Prophet of Islam, he accumulated fifty-nine slaves and thirty-eight servants as listed by Ghayasuddin Muhammad Khondmir in Rauzat-us-Safa. Zubair, Muhammad’s close companion, had a massive 1,000 slaves at the time of his death.896

As a Pagan, Muhammad, and also possibly Zubair, owned no slaves. But after embracing the Islamic faith, they amassed slaves in dozens to a thousand. These examples make it clear that, instead of taking any step toward its abolition, the Prophet of Islam and his closest companions themselves had elevated the institution of slavery to a much higher scale, compared to what pre-existed in Arabia. Islam also introduced a most barbaric and cruel means, albeit with divine sanctions, for capturing slaves on a scale not seen in the then Arabia.


Slavery, theologically & historically, an integral part of Islam

Despite widespread denials about the existence of slavery in Islam and the claim that Islam took the first step toward its abolition, slavery is indisputably a divinely sanctioned institution in Islam, which will stand valid until the end of the human race. In Islamic doctrine, slavery is integral in Allah’s eternal plan; it’s a part of His divine grace to humankind. All Schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Sharia, and the religious doctors of Islam throughout history have unequivocally and proudly accepted and preached slavery as an integral part of Islam. The great Islamic thinker Ibn Khaldun recognized mass enslavement of non-Muslims in gloating religious pride when Muslims had transformed Africa into a slave-hunting and -breeding ground. In practicing slavery, writes Lewis, ‘‘(Muslims) were upholding an institution sanctioned by scripture, law (Sharia), and tradition (Sunnah) and one which in their eyes was necessary to the maintenance of the social structure of Muslim life.’’897 Hughes correctly asserts that in Islam, ‘slavery is interwoven with the Law of marriage, the Law of sale, and the Law of inheritance… And its abolition would strike at the very foundation of the code of Mohammedanism.’898

Ibn Khaldun thought the extensive enslavement of Blacks in Africa by Muslims was justified, ‘because they have attributes that are quite similar to dumb animals.’899 In the annals of Muslim historians, enslavement in general, especially of the allegedly barbarian Blacks, became a matter of pride. It was also deemed as an act of generosity toward curing them of their barbaric nature and sinful religions by bringing them into the true faith and civilized world of Islam. About this line of thinking of the devout Islamic thinkers, writes Arnold, ‘devout minds have even recognized in enslavement God’s guidance to the true faith…’900

The Negroes from the Upper Nile countries were violently enslaved in massive numbers and converted to Islam. They were summarily castrated and transported across great distances; in the course of this, the majority of them (80–90 percent) perished. Of those, transported across the Atlantic to the new world, some 30–50 percent perished ‘in transit to the coast, in confinement awaiting shipment and at sea on the way to Americas.’ The mortality of slaves on board ships in their passage to the New World is estimated at 10 percent.901

This tragic doom of captives of mammoth proportion was also seen as a generosity and ‘God’s grace’ in Islamic mindset of which, writes Arnold, ‘God has visited them in their mishap; they can say ‘it was His grace’, since they are thereby entered into the saving religion.’902 Even many religious-minded Western historians, echoed this tune of Muslim thinkers about the massive enterprise of enslavement of Blacks in Africa. Bernard Lewis summarizes the general sentiment in this regard as thus: ‘…slavery is a divine boon to mankind, by means of which pagan and barbarous people are brought to Islam and civilization… Slavery in the East has an elevating influence over thousands of human beings, and but for it hundreds of thousands of souls must pass their existence in this world as wild savages, little better than animals; it, at least, makes men of them, useful men too…’903

This divine justification, indeed inspiration, for the enslavement of Blacks was so strong amongst Muslims in Africa that they had ‘given up wholly to the pursuit of commerce or to slave hunting’; and as a result, they were hated and feared by the people as slave-dealers, notes Arnold.904 Sultan Moulay Ismail (d. 1727), as noted already, had slave-breeding nurseries in Morocco. In the Sudan region of Africa, there were firms that specialized in the breeding of Black slaves for sale like cattle and sheep even in the nineteenth century. Hudud al-Alam—a Persian geographical manuscript written in 982 for the Ghaurivid ruler Abu al- Harith Muhammad ibn Ahmad, records of the Sudan that, ‘no region is more populated than this. The merchants steal the children there and take them away. They castrate them and take them to Egypt, where they sell them.’ Slavery reached such a level that ‘Among them there are people who steal each others children to sell them to the merchants when they come,’ adds the document.905

Muslims had integrated the institution of slavery into the African society so thoroughly that when the Europeans, particularly their missionaries, tried to liberate them, the slaves felt it preferable to remain under their masters than embrace the challenging free life of taking their destiny into their own hands. A report on the first three years of British administration in Central Africa noted that slave-trade stood as ‘‘a rival kind of civilization to that of white man which it is of a much easier notion for the Negro mind to accept.’’906 Enslavement became so widespread in Africa that as ‘Africa became almost synonymous with slavery, the world forgot the eagerness with which the Tartars and other Black Sea peoples had sold millions of Ukrainians, Georgians, Circassians, Armenians, Bulgarians, Slavs, and Turks,’ laments BD Davis.907 The most precious commodity that Muslim traders brought from the trading centre of Volga in the tenth century was white slaves, normally sold by the Vikings.


Possibly the most devastating aspect of Islamic slavery was the castration of male captives. The majority of the enslaved African males were emasculated before selling them in the Muslim world. In India, we have noted of large-scale castration of male captives from the beginning to the end of the Islamic rule. Even top generals, namely Malik Kafur and Khusrau Khan, were castrated, which suggest that the castration of male captives was widespread in India, too. There was also widespread castration of European slaves.

The worst casualty of castration was obviously the robbing of man’s most fundamental identity and treasure—his manhood, which he is born with. The greatest tragedy of castration was, however, the massive mortality in the operation. According to Koenraad Elst, ‘Islamic civilization did indeed practice castration of slaves on an unprecedented scale. Several cities in Africa were real factories of eunuchs; they were an expensive commodity as only 25 percent of the victims survived the operation.’908 Furthermore, a large number of captives perished during their passages to markets of the Muslim world, often thousands of miles away; this constituted another huge tragedy of Islamic slavery. The casualties in the raids for harvesting slaves could also be enormous. In Central Africa, recorded Commander VL Cameron, Islamic slave-raiders left the trails of

burnt villages, of slaughter and the devastation of crops. The loss of life caused by these raids must have been enormous, though it is of course impossible to give any exact figures. Burton, a British explorer, estimated that in order to capture fifty-five women, the merchandise of one of the caravan he observed, at least ten villages had been destroyed, each having a population between one and two hundred souls. The greater part of these were exterminated or died of starvation.909

On the magnitude of the mortality of slaves, writes Segal,

‘The arithmetic of the Islamic black slave trade must also not ignore the lives of those men, women and children taken or lost during the procurement, storage and transport. One late nineteenth century writer held that the sale of a single captive for slavery might represent a loss of ten in the population—from defenders killed in attacks on villages, the deaths of women and children from related famine and the loss of children, the old and the sick, unable to keep up with their captors or killed along the way in hostile encounters, or dying of sheer misery.’910

Segal collates a number of incidents of slaves being perished in their transportation.911 Screen Shot 2013-08-10 at 1.17.42 AMExplorer Heinrich Barth recorded that a slave caravan of his friend Bashir, wazir of Bornu, on the way to Mecca during pilgrimage season lost forty slaves in the course of a single night, killed by severe cold in the mountain. One British explorer came across over 100 human skeletons from a slave caravan en route to Tripoli. The British explorer Richard Lander came across a group of thirty slaves in West Africa, all of them stricken with smallpox, all bound neck to neck with twisted strips of bullock hide. One caravan from the East African coast with 3,000 slaves lost two-thirds of its number from starvation, disease and murder. In the Nubian Desert, one slave caravan of 2,000 slaves literally vanished as every slave had died.

Various estimates put the number of black Africans reduced to slavery in the Islamic world from eleven to thirty-two million. Since 80–90 percent of the captives had perished before reaching their destination, it is not difficult to imagine the quantum of human lives lost as a result of the cruel and barbaric institution of Islamic slavery. Ronald Segal, despite being sympathetic to Islam, puts the number of enslaved black Africans at eleven million and admits that well over thirty million of people might have died at the hands of Muslim slave hunters and traders or ended up as slaves in the Muslim world. From the data presented so far, the institution of Islamic slavery, undoubtedly, has been one of the greatest tragedies to befall humankind.

For the complete references to the above excerpt, please refer to M. A. Khan’s book: Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Imperialism, Forced Conversion and Slavery. A free copy is available online.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

What does Islam teach about slavery? A post from TheReligionOfPeace.com

Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves?

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero).


Quran (33:50)“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee” This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad – in this case allowing a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restricted to four wives, but they may also have sex with any number of slaves, following the example of their prophet.Quran (23:5-6)“..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Quran (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, sex slavery must be very important to him. He was relatively reticent on matters of human compassion and love.

Quran (4:24)“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Quran (8:69)“But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.”

Quran (24:32)“And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Quran (2:178)“O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man).

Quran (16:75)“Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means;) praise be to Allah.’ Yet another confirmation that the slave is is not equal to the master. In this case, it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves – those whom the god of Islam has not favored).

Hadith and Sira

Sahih Bukhari (80:753)“The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'”

Sahih Bukhari (52:255) – The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Sahih Bukhari (41.598) – Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but they can be used to pay off the debt.

Sahih Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.

Sahih Bukhari (34:432) – Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them. Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

Sahih Bukhari (47.765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Sahih Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

Sahih Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West (where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime) are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.

Sahih Muslim 3901 – Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.

Sahih Muslim 4345 – Narration of a military raid against a hapless tribe trying to reach their water hole. During the slaughter, the women and children attempt to flee, but are cut off and captured by the Muslims. This story refutes any misconception that Muhammad’s sex slaves were taken by their own volition.

Sahih Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.

Sahih Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command.

Sahih Bukhari (59:637)“The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves. This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives.” This is because Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.

Abu Dawud (2150)“The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Quran 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Quran. Not only does Allah give permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)

Abu Dawud (1814)“…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement.

Ibn Ishaq (734) – A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.

Abu Dawud 38:4458Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”).

Abu Dawud 1:142 – “Do not beat your wife as you beat your slave-girl

Ibn Ishaq (693)“Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight).

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13) – According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled. This would not be necessary if she were widowed by battle, which is an imaginary stipulation that modern apologists sometimes pose.


Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine.

Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Quran, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin. They limit the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through taking and ransoming hostages, which began under Muhammad.

A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was “revealed” at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is no record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Quran changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world.

The taking of women and children as slaves, particularly during the conquests outside Arabia, belies the notion that Jihad was being waged in self-defense, since the enemy’s families reside neither with the Muslims nor (generally) on the battlefield. These were innocent people captured from their homes and pressed into slavery by Muhammad’s companions and successors.

Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although freeing a believing slave is said to increase the master’s heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Quran (4:92)). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment.

By contrast, Christianity was a major impetus in the abolishment of slavery. Abolition had to be imposed on the Islamic world by the European West.

Given that there have never been abolitionary movement within the Islamic world, it is astonishing to see contemporary Muslims write their religion into the history of abolition. It is a lie.

There was no William Wilberforce or Bartoleme de las Casas in Islam. As mentioned, Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam’s religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion.

One of Muhammad’s closest companions was Umar, who became the 2nd caliph only two years after the prophet of Islam died. It is fair to say that he would have known Islam better than any contemporary apologist – those who say that slaves can only be captured in war and wars can only be waged in self-defense. He obviously did not agree with this.

Under Umar’s authority, Arab armies in Egypt invaded Black Africa to the south and attempted to conquer the Christian Makurians who were living there peacefully. Although the Muslims were held off, the Makurians had to sign a treaty to prevent recurring invasions. The terms of the Baqt included an annual payment of 360 “high quality” African slaves. The treaty stood for 700 years with no mention of the slightest opposition from generations of Muslim clerics and scholars.

Umar himself was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. In this case, the slave was captured during the campaign against a Persia, one of many offensive wars waged by the Muslims against people who were not attacking them.

Modern day apologists trying to defend slavery under Islam generally ignore the basic fact that reducing people to property is dehumanizing. They distract from this by comparing the theoretical treatment of slaves under Sharia with the worst examples of abuse from the era of European slavery.  (“Fatwa 64 from ISIS instructs slave owners to “show compassion” and “kindness” to the women they rape.)

The first problem with this is that the actual practice of Muslim slavery was often remarkably at odds with the relatively humane treatment prescribed by Sharia. For example, according to the Ghanan scholar John Azumah, nearly three times as many captured Africans died in harsh circumstances related to their transport to Muslim lands than were ever even enslaved by Europeans.

A more insurmountable problem for the Muslim apologist who insists that slavery is “different” under Islam are the many examples in which Muhammad and his companions sold captured slaves to non-Muslim traders for material goods. The welfare of the slave was obviously of no consequence.

Some contemporary apologists interpret sex slavery as a favor done to the subject – a way in which women and children are taken care of in exchange for their sexual availability to the pious Muslim male.  Although morally repugnant in its own right, this is easily belied by the fact that slavery would be unnecessary if the arrangement were of benefit to the slave.

Another myth about Islamic slavery is that it was not race-based. It was. Muhammad’s father-in-law, Umar, in his aforementioned role as caliph, declared that Arabs could not be taken as slaves and even had all Arab slaves freed on his deathbed. This helped propel the vast Islamic campaign to capture slaves in Africa, Europe and Asia for import into the Middle East.

The greatest slave rebellion in human history took place in Basra, Iraq beginning in 869. A half-million African slaves staged a courageous uprising against their Arab-Islamic masters that lasted fifteen years before being brutally suppressed. (See Zanj Rebellion)

Literally millions of Christians were captured into slavery during the many centuries of Jihad. So pervasive were the incursions by the Turks into Eastern Europe, that the English word for slave is based on Slav.

Muslim slave raiders operated as far north as England. In 1631, a French cleric in Algiers observed the sale of nearly 300 men, women and children, taken from a peaceful English fishing village:

“It was a pitiful sight to see them exposed in the market…Women were separated from their husbands and the children from their fathers…on one side a husband was sold; on the other his wife; and her daughter was torn from her arms without the hope that they’d ever see each other again.” (from the book, White Gold, which also details the story of English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was beaten, starved and tortured into embracing Islam).

The Indian and Persian people suffered greatly as well – as did Africans. At least 17 million slaves (mostly black women and children) were brought out of Africa by Islamic traders – far more than the 11 million that were taken by the Europeans. However, these were only the survivors. As many as 85 million other Africans are thought to have died en route.

Most telling, perhaps, is that slavery is still practiced in the Sudan, Niger, Mauritania and a few other corners of the Muslim world – and you won’t see any of those Muslim apologists (who shamelessly repeat the lie that Islam abolished slavery) doing or saying anything about it!

In fact, a fatwa (Islam Q&A 33597 originally at http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/33597) was recently issued by a mainstream Islamic source reminding Muslim males of their divine right to rape female slaves and “discipline” resisters in “whatever manner he thinks is appropriate”.  Not one peep of protest from Islamic apologists was recorded.  In 2013, the same site prominently proclaimed (Islam Q&A 10382 originally at http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/10382) that “there is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one’s slave woman, because Allah says so.”

In 2011, what passes for a women’s rights activist in Kuwait suggested that Russian women be taken captive in battle and turned into sex slaves in order to keep Muslim husbands from committing adultery.

in 2016, a British imam who claims to be anti-extremist, affirmed the legitimacy of sex slavery to his followers. There have also been several modern-day fatwas endorsing the sexual abuse of non-Muslim women following capture.

After the Islamic State kidnapped and pressed into slavery thousands of Yazidi women and children in 2014, the caliphate issued an FAQ of sorts on slavery, which included rules on sexually molesting children: “It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty if she is fit for intercourse; however, if she is not fit for intercourse, then it is enough to enjoy her without intercourse.” The best that “mainstream” apologists could muster in response was a letter appealing to “the reality of contemporary times”, meaning that Islam has no fixed moral position on the rape of woman and children.

In 2016, a scholar at Egypt’s al-Azhar, the most prestigious Islamic school in the Sunni world, stated that non-Muslim women could be captured in a time of war become “property” and can be raped “in order to humiliate them.

A 12-year-old girl taken captive by the Islamic State explained that her ‘master’ would pray before he raped her: “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to Allah.” Other sex slaves have been forced to pray before the rape or recite passages from the Quran during. When a Yazidi woman begged a caliphate member not to rape a little girl, he responded, “She’s a slave… and having sex with her pleases God.”

A Quran memorization competition in 2015 offered slave girls as the top three prizes. Again, there were no voices of Muslim protest from elsewhere. As Uzy Bulut keenly observed, “A religion that encourages destructive rioting and killing over cartoons, but shows no sign of sorrow as little girls are sold and raped, does not have much to contribute to advancing civilization.”

Since Muhammad was a slave owner and slavery is permitted by the Quran, the Muslim world has never apologized for this dehumanizing practice. Even Muslims in the West will often try to justify slavery under Islam, since it is a part of the Quran.

See also:
Islamic Slavery and Denial
Answering-Islam: Slavery
Myth: Muhammad was an Abolitionist

Video of Islamic State members at one of the caliphate’s sex slave markets in November, 2014. A price list was released setting the rate Yazidi and Christian girls between ages 10 and 20 at $130. Women between the ages of 20 and 30 were being sold for $86; a 30 to 40 year was being sold for $75 and 40 to 50 year old women were listed for sale at a price of $43.
The price list began with these words: “In the name of Allah, most gracious and merciful. We have received news that the demand in women and cattle markets has sharply decreased and that will affected Islamic State revenues as well as the funding of the Mujaheddin in the battlefield. We have made some changes. Below are the prices of Yazidi and Christian women.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Qur’an, Hadith and Scholars:Wife Beating, from WikiIslam

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Islamic Theology
Qur’an, Hadith and Sunnah
Corruption of the Qur’an
Satanic VersesPrevious Scriptures
PrivilegeViolenceMass Murder
WivesWhite ComplexionDeath
Al-‘AzlBeautyFGMHijabHonor Killing
MahrRapeViolenceWife Beating
Pacifism Promoted
Defensive Fighting Permitted then Mandated
Offensive Fighting Mandated
Fighting KuffarMiscellaneous Verses
Peaceful MuslimsJihadists
Forced ConversionScholars on Jihad
ApostatesAtheistsChristians & Jews
CharacteristicsFriendshipDamned to Hell
Banu QurayzaCosmologyCreation
DhimmitudeForbidden ThingsHomosexuality
SlaveryStoningToilet EtiquetteUrine
Witchcraft‎ZakatIslamic Silliness


If you suspect disloyalty and ill-conduct, then beat them[edit]

Yusuf Ali: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).Pickthall: Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

Shakir: Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

Prophet Ayyub (Job) was permitted to beat his wife[edit]

And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he called upon his Lord: The Shaitan has afflicted me with toil and torment. Urge with your foot; here is a cool washing-place and a drink. And We gave him his family and the like of them with them, as a mercy from Us, and as a reminder to those possessed of understanding. And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with It and do not break your oath; surely We found him patient; most excellent the servant! Surely he was frequent m returning (to Allah).


Prophet Muhammad[edit]

Muhammad struck his child-bride on the chest which caused her pain[edit]

… He (Muhammad b. Qais) then reported that it was ‘A’isha who had narrated this: Should I not narrate to you about myself and about the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him)? We said: Yes. She said: When it was my turn for Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) to spend the night with me, he turned his side, put on his mantle and took off his shoes and placed them near his feet, and spread the corner of his shawl on his bed and then lay down till he thought that I had gone to sleep. He took hold of his mantle slowly and put on the shoes slowly, and opened the door and went out and then closed it lightly. I covered my head, put on my veil and tightened my waist wrapper, and then went out following his steps till he reached Baqi’. He stood there and he stood for a long time. He then lifted his hands three times, and then returned and I also returned. He hastened his steps and I also hastened my steps. He ran and I too ran. He came (to the house) and I also came (to the house). I, however, preceded him and I entered (the house), and as I lay down in the bed, he (the Holy Prophet) entered the (house), and said: Why is it, O ‘A’isha, that you are out of breath? I said: There is nothing. He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…”

Muhammad permitted Muslims to beat their wives[edit]

Sulayman Ibn `Amr Ibn al-`Ahwas narrated: “Ubai told me that he witnessed the address of departure of the prophet. He thanked God and praised him, and started preaching, saying, “I command you good-will for your wives, for they are captives to you that do not own anything, unless they commit a manifest obscenity [or adultery]. If they do [commit it], then God has given you permission to leave them alone in their beds and give them a bearable beating.”[1]
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.

But prohibited men from having sex with their wives after flogging them[edit]

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a: The Prophet said, “None of you should flog his wife as he flogs a slave and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.”

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Zam’a: The Prophet forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” And Hisham said, “As he beats his slave”

Muhammad provided tacit approval of severe beatings, ignored the abuse of women[edit]

Note that Muhammad is not concerned with the suffering of the believing women. Instead, he rebukes her for her words against her husband, thereby providing tacit approval of wife beating.

Narrated ‘Ikrima: Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” When ‘AbdurRahman heard that his wife had gone to the Prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment, ‘Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s Apostle! She has told a lie! I am very strong and can satisfy her but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifa’a.” Allah’s Apostle said, to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifa’a unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” Then the Prophet saw two boys with ‘Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that ‘AbdurRahman said, “Yes.” The Prophet said, “You claim what you claim (i.e.. that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow,”

Muhammad said women who complain of spousal abuse are not the best[edit]

Iyas b. Abdullah reported God’s messenger as saying, “Do not beat God’s handmaidens;” but when `Umar came to God’s messenger and said, “The women have become emboldened towards their husbands,” he gave licence to beat them. Then many women went round God’s messenger’s family complaining of their husbands, and he said, “Many women have gone around complaining of their husbands. Those are not the best among you.” Abu Dawud, Ibn Majah, and Darimi transmitted it.

Mishkat Al-Masabih: Volume 2, page 692
Narrated Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab: Iyas ibn Abdullah ibn AbuDhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them. Then many women came round the family of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) complaining against their husbands. So the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you.

It was narrated that Iyas bin ‘Abdullah bin Abu Dhubab said: “The Prophet said: ‘Do not beat the female slaves of Allah.’ Then ‘Umar came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, the woman have become bold towards their husbands? So order the beating of them,’ and they were beaten. Then many women went around to the family of Muhammad,. The next day he said: ‘Last night seventy women came to the family of Muhammad, each woman complaining about her husband. You will not find that those are the best of you.’ ” (Sahih)

Muhammad said men should not be questioned concerning the abuse of their wives[edit]

Narrated Umar ibn al-Khattab: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.

It was narrated that Ash’ath bin Qais said: “I was a guest (at the home) of ‘Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed he said to me: ‘O Ash’ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah” A man should not be asked why he beats his wife, and do not go to sleep until you have prayed the Witr.”‘ And I forgot the third thing.” (Hasan)

Rightly-Guided Caliphs[edit]

Abu Bakr and Umar slapped Aisha and Hafsa in front of Muhammad[edit]

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported: Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) came and sought permission to see Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him). He found people sitting at his door and none amongst them had been granted permission, but it was granted to Abu Bakr and he went in. Then came ‘Umar and he sought permission and it was granted to him, and he found Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) sitting sad and silent with his wives around him. He (Hadrat ‘Umar) said: I would say something which would make the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) laugh, so he said: Messenger of Allah, I wish you had seen (the treatment meted out to) the daughter of Khadija when you asked me some money, and I got up and slapped her on her neck. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) laughed and said: They are around me as you see, asking for extra money. Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him) then got up went to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and slapped her on the neck, and ‘Umar stood up before Hafsa and slapped her saying: You ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) which he does not possess. They said: By Allah, we do not ask Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) for anything he does not possess. Then he withdrew from them for a month or for twenty-nine days. Then this verse was revealed to him:” Prophet: Say to thy wives… for a mighty reward” (xxxiii. 28). He then went first to ‘A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) and said: I want to propound something to you, ‘A’isha, but wish no hasty reply before you consult your parents. She said: Messenger of Allah, what is that? He (the Holy Prophet) recited to her the verse, whereupon she said: Is it about you that I should consult my parents, Messenger of Allah? Nay, I choose Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Abode; but I ask you not to tell any of your wives what I have said He replied: Not one of them will ask me without my informing her. God did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He has sent me to teach and make things easy.

Abu Bakr struck Aisha violently on the chest with his fist[edit]

Narrated Aisha:Abu Bakr came to towards me and struck me violently with his fist and said, “You have detained the people because of your necklace.” But I remained motionless as if I was dead lest I should awake Allah’s Apostle although that hit was very painful.

Narrated Aisha: A necklace of mine was lost at Al-Baida’ and we were on our way to Medina. The Prophet made his camel kneel down and dismounted and laid his head on my lap and slept. Abu Bakr came to me and hit me violently on the chest and said, “You have detained the people because of a necklace.” I kept as motionless as a dead person because of the position of Allah’s Apostle ; (on my lap) although Abu Bakr had hurt me (with the slap). Then the Prophet woke up and it was the time for the morning (prayer). Water was sought, but in vain; so the following Verse was revealed:– “O you who believe! When you intend to offer prayer..” (5.6) Usaid bin Hudair said, “Allah has blessed the people for your sake, O the family of Abu Bakr. You are but a blessing for them.”

Narrated ‘Aisha: (the wife of the Prophet) We set out with Allahs Apostle on one of his journeys till we reached Al-Baida’ or Dhatul-Jaish, a necklace of mine was broken (and lost). Allah’s Apostle stayed there to search for it, and so did the people along with him. There was no water at that place, so the people went to Abu- Bakr As-Siddiq and said, “Don’t you see what ‘Aisha has done? She has made Allah’s Apostle and the people stay where there is no water and they have no water with them.” Abu Bakr came while Allah’s Apostle was sleeping with his head on my thigh, He said, to me: “You have detained Allah’s Apostle and the people where there is no water and they have no water with them.

So he admonished me and said what Allah wished him to say and hit me on my flank with his hand. Nothing prevented me from moving (because of pain) but the position of Allah’s Apostle on my thigh. Allah’s Apostle got up when dawn broke and there was no water. So Allah revealed the Divine Verses of Tayammum. So they all performed Tayammum. Usaid bin Hudair said, “O the family of Abu Bakr! This is not the first blessing of yours.” Then the camel on which I was riding was caused to move from its place and the necklace was found beneath it.

Umar beat his wife in the middle of the night[edit]

It was narrated that Ash’ath bin Qais said: “I was a guest (at the home) of ‘Umar one night, and in the middle of the night he went and hit his wife, and I separated them. When he went to bed he said to me: ‘O Ash’ath, learn from me something that I heard from the Messenger of Allah” A man should not be asked why he beats his wife, and do not go to sleep until you have prayed the Witr.”‘ And I forgot the third thing.” (Hasan)

Umar advised others to beat their wives[edit]

Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, “A man came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I waswith him at the place where judgments were given and asked him about the suckling of an older person. Abdullah ibn Umar replied, ‘A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, ‘I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her. My wife went to her and suckled her. When I went to the girl, my wife told me to watch out, because she had suckled her!’ Umar told him to beat his wife and to go to his slave-girl because kinship by suckling was only by the suckling of the young.’ ”

Ali gave a slave-girl a violent beating in front of Muhammad[edit]

As for Ali he said “Women are plentiful, and you can easily change one for another. Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.” So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying, ‘Tell the Apostle the truth.’”

Ibn Ishaq, p. 496


Classical Views[edit]

m10.12 When a husband notices signs of rebelliousness in his wife (nushuz), whether in words, as when she answers him coldly when she used to do so politely, or he asks her to come to bed and she refuses, contrary to her usual habit; or whether in acts, as when he finds her averse to him when she was previously kind and cheerful), he warns her in words (without keeping from her or hitting her, for it may be that she has an excuse. The warning could be to tell her, “fear Allah concerning the rights you owe to me,” or it could be to explain that rebelliousness nullifies his obligation to support her and give her a turn amongst other wives, or it could be to inform her, “Your obeying me is religiously obligatory”). If she commits rebelliousness, he keeps from sleeping (and having sex) with her without words, and may hit her, but not in a way that injures her, meaning he may not (bruise her), break bones, wound her, or cause blood to flow. (It is unlawful to strike another’s face.) He may hit her whether she is rebellious only once or whether more than once, though a weaker opinion holds that he may hot hit her unless there is repeated rebelliousness.”If the wife does not fulfill one of the above-mentioned obligations, she is termed “rebellious” (nashiz), and the husband takes the following steps to correct matters:

(a) admonition and advice, by explaining the unlawfulness of rebellion, its harmful effect on married life, and by listening to her viewpoint on the matter;

(b) if admonition is ineffectual, he keeps from her by not sleeping in bed with her, by which both learn the degree to which they need each other;

(c) if keeping from her is ineffectual, it is permissible for him to hit her if he believes that hitting her will bring her back to the right path, though if he does not think so, it is not permissible. His hitting her may not be in a way that injures her, and is his last recourse to save the family.

(d) if the disagreement does not end after all this, each partner chooses an arbitrator to solve the dispute by settlement, or divorce.

Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law (p. 540)
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Edited and Translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller
And remember Our servant Ayyub, when he invoked his Lord (saying): “Verily, Shaytan has afflicted me with distress and torment!” (Allah said to him): “Strike the ground with your foot. This is (a spring of) water to wash in, cool and a drink.” And We gave him (back) his family, and along with them the like thereof, as a mercy from Us, and a reminder for those who understand. “And take in your hand a bundle of thin grass and strike therewith (your wife), and break not your oath.” Truly, We found him patient. How excellent a servant! Verily, he was ever oft-returning in repentance (to Us)!

Ayyub, peace be upon him, got angry with his wife and was upset about something she had done, so he swore an oath that if Allah healed him, he would strike her with one hundred blows. When Allah healed him, how could her service, mercy, compassion and kindness be repaid with a beating So Allah showed him a way out, which was to take a bundle of thin grass, with one hundred stems, and hit her with it once. Thus he fulfilled his oath and avoided breaking his vow.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Modern Views[edit]

Allaah has enjoined woman to be obedient to her husband, and has made men qawwaamoon (protectors and maintainers) of women. They are supposed to direct and look after women as a leader directs and looks after his people, because of the physical and mental characteristics with which Allaah has distinguished them, as well as the financial duties that He has enjoined upon them…

If the wife goes against his wishes and refuses to obey him, the husband has to take a gradual approach in handling the matter. First he should admonish her and remind her of the punishment for disobeying his command. If that does not succeed, then he moves on to forsaking her in bed. If that does not work, then he may hit her, but in a manner that is not severe, and there is nothing wrong with also threatening her with divorce…

Discipline. The husband has the right to discipline his wife if she disobeys him in something good, not if she disobeys him in something sinful, because Allaah has enjoined disciplining women by forsaking them in bed and by hitting them, when they do not obey. The Hanafis mentioned four situations in which a husband is permitted to discipline his wife by hitting her. These are: not adorning herself when he wants her to; not responding when he calls her to bed and she is taahirah (pure, i.e., not menstruating); not praying; and going out of the house without his permission.

What are the rights of the husband and what are the rights of the wife?
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10680
One of the husband’s rights is to discipline his wife if she is disobedient. What does the word ‘disobedience’ mean? Disobedience is to leave the house without the husband’s permission, to refuse to obey the husband in bed, to speak to the husband impolitely, or to do the opposite of what he likes. All these are forms of disobedience…
Okay, he’s tried admonishing, he’s tried banishment – but nothing. Her emotions are numb, and she says: Good riddance. So what is the next measure? “…and beat them.” Beating. The Prophet Muhammad said that the beatings should be light, and that one should avoid the face, or the sensitive areas, which might lead to broken bones, or might leave a mark that would spoil her beauty, whether on her face or anywhere on her body. Beatings that draw blood, or break bones, or leave a scar, a black mark on the skin, or any obvious mark, which would make people know that she was harshly beaten – this is forbidden.

How should the beatings go? Maybe a light slap on her shoulder, or maybe a not-so-light pinch, or a kind of gentle shove. He should make her feel that he wants to reform her, and let her know that he is displeased with her. It is like saying: None of the measures that work with sensitive people work with you. A word would be enough for any wife with lofty morals, but with you, words do not help.

Then he attempts a new direction, appealing to her femininity and emotions, by making her feel that he doesn’t want her or love her. When this doesn’t work, he says to her: With you, I have reached a stage which is only appropriate for inhumane people – the stage of beating.

Beating is one of the punishments of religious law. What kind of people are beaten? Virgin adulterers, both men and women, are beaten as a means of discipline. Who else is beaten? A person who committed an offense and was sentenced by the judge to beatings. Who else is beaten? Someone who committed a crime. By beating his wife, the husband is saying: You’ve committed a grave sin that merits beatings.”[2]

Galal Al-Khatib, Egyptian cleric
If a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment.[3]

Saudi Judge Hamad Al-Razine
We must know that [wife] beating is a punishment in Islamic religious law,….No one should deny this because this was permitted by the Creator of Man, and because when you purchase an electric appliance or a car you get instructions – a catalogue, explaining how to use it. The Creator of Man has sent down this book [the Quran] in order to show man which ways he must choose…We shouldn’t be ashamed before the nations of the world who are still in their days of ignorance, to admit that these [beatings] are part of our religious law,….We must remind the ignorant from among the Islamic Nation who followed the [West] that those [Westerners] acknowledge the wondrous nature of this verse…Allah has created woman, whether Muslim or infidel, so she is happy under a strong man who will protect her and lives with her…[The Koran says:] ‘and beat them.’ This verse is of a wondrous nature. There are three types of women with whom a man cannot live unless he carries a rod on his shoulder. The first type is a girl who was brought up this way. Her parents ask her to go to school and she doesn’t – they beat her. ‘Eat’ – ‘I don’t want to’ – they beat her. So she became accustomed to beatings; she was brought up that way. We pray Allah will help her husband later. He will only get along with her if he practices wife beating. The second type is a woman who is condescending toward her husband and ignores him. With her, too, only a rod will help. The third type is a twisted woman who will not obey her husband unless he oppresses her, beats her, uses force against her, and overpowers her with his voice.[4]

Sermon by Muslim cleric on Qatar TV, August 27, 2004
With regard to wife beating… In a nutshell, it appeared as part of a program to reform the wife. [According to the Koran], first ‘admonish them,’ [then] ‘sleep in separate beds, and beat them.’…This method appeared as part of the treatment of a rebellious wife. I am faced with two options – either the family will be destroyed by divorce, or I can use means that may bring my wife, the mother of my children, back to her senses. The first means is admonishment…The second means of treatment is ‘sleeping in separate beds.’ Why? Because this targets the honor… A lot could be said about this. The strength of a woman lies in her ability to seduce the man. The man is strong and can do whatever he wants, but the woman has a weapon of her own. This weapon can be targeted. Many women will come back to their senses, when they realize that this is what’s involved…By Allah, even if only one woman out of a million can be reformed by light beatings… It’s not really beating, it’s more like punching… It’s like shoving or poking her. That’s what it is.[5]

Dr. Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, President of Al-Azhar University and former Mufti of Egypt
Sa’d Arafat: Allah honored wives by instating the punishment of beatings.Interviewer: Honored them with beatings? How is this possible?!

Sa’d Arafat: The prophet Muhammad said: “Don’t beat her in the face, and do not make her ugly.” See how she is honored. If the husband beats his wife, he must not beat her in the face. Even when he beats her, he must not curse her. This is incredible! He beats her in order to discipline her.

In addition, there must not be more than ten beatings, and he must not break her bones, injure her, break her teeth, or poke her in the eye. There is a beating etiquette. If he beats to discipline her, he must not raise his hand high. He must beat her from chest level. All these things honor the woman.

She is in need of discipline. How should the husband discipline her? Through admonishment. If she is not deterred, he should refuse to share the bed with her. If she is not repentant, he should beat her, but there are rules to the beating. It is forbidden to beat her in the face or make her ugly. When you beat her, you must not curse her. Islam forbids this.

Interviewer: With what should be beat her? With his bare hand? With a rod?

Sa’d Arafat: If he beats her, the beatings should not be hard, so that they do not leave a mark. He can beat her with a short rod. He must avoid beating her in the face or in places in the head where it hurts. The beatings should be on the body and should not come one right after the other. These are all choices made during the process, but beatings are allowed only as a last resort.

The honoring of the wife in Islam is also evident in the fact that the punishment of beating is permissible in one case only: when she refuses to sleep with him.

Interviewer: When she refuses to sleep with him?

Sa’d Arafat: Yes, because where else could the husband go? He wants her, but she refuses. He should begin with admonishment and threats…

Interviewer: Allow me to repeat this. A man cannot beat his wife…over food or drink. Beatings are permitted only in this case, which the husband cannot do without.[6]

Egyptian Cleric Sa’d Arafat
A woman has the right to protest if her husband looks at her in a grim way. Allah says if a woman disobeys her husband he has the right to beat her, but the lashes should be according to the Sharia. It has conditions. (With the bill against domestic violence) the Kurdish Parliament has rejected Quranic law. (…) The parliament has also decreed that children should never be beaten for any reason. Even if the father comes home and the girl has a mobile phone in her hand that is not an excuse for beating her.Of course she is a girl and will be encouraged in this bad world of today, she will have her mobile in front of her father flirting with boys and exchanging love phrases.. The father must sit cross handed in front of her, he must either kill himself if he has the least bit of honour left – saying that if he doesn’t do that he will lose his afterlife (…)- or he must assault his daughter who already has the numbers of the police stored on her mobile, calls this organization or that and complains that her father abuses her. The man will be put in jail for 6 months, and if the girl is not satisfied she can let him stay for 3 years and rot in jail. They will fine him 5 million ID. Is this the struggle for Kurdistan we are doing here? Is this the religion we have left? The situation is very dangerous but no one will follow you to the battlefield. The people don’t have guts. If the people do have courage I will be the first to block Barzani’s path. (….)

Three hundred members of my tribe were killed in the village of Susse. Is this what we got killed for? So that you sign these papers that deprive our families and women of honour inside our houses? If you don’t agree and say that you can’t stop the legal process, then let us confront and lead us to oppose (the parliament). We will go to the parliament and confront its president. You are the KRG, you should tell the parliament not to do this. That this is unacceptable, this is the red line. How would I allow the honour of my people to be taken away? How should I allow that girls shouldn’t be beaten at home? That a boy shouldn’t be beaten? Is it not true that the prophet – peace be upon – him says “if a child doesn’t pray when reaching 10 years, you should beat him/her.” You have thus cancelled the sayings of the prophet![7]

Sermon by Iraqi-Kurd cleric Ismael Sosaae, protesting a 2011 Kurdish bill against domestic violence

See Also[edit]


  1. Jump up Muslim, Hajj 137; al-Tirmidsi, Radha` 11, Tafsir Sura al-Tawba 9:2; Abu Dawud, Manasik 56; Ibn Maja, Nikah 3, Manasik 84; al-Darimi, Manasik 34; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, 5:73.
  2. Jump up Egyptian Cleric Galal Al-Khatib Explains Wife-Beating in Islam – MEMRI: Special Dispatch, No. 2229, February 5, 2009
  3. Jump up Mohammed Jamjoom – Saudi judge: It’s OK to slap spendthrift wives – CNN, May 10, 2009
  4. Jump up Muslim cleric: Some wives need to be beaten – WorldNetDaily, September 03, 2004
  5. Jump up Ahmad Al-Tayyeb Explains Wife Beating in Islam – MEMRI: Special Dispatch No.2868, March 19, 2010
  6. Jump up Egyptian Cleric Sa’d Arafat: Islam Permits Wife Beating Only When She Refuses to Have Sex with Her Husband – MEMRI TV, Video Clip No. 2600, Al-Nas TV (Egypt) – February 4, 2010 – 03:32
  7. Jump up Thomas v. der Osten-Sacken – Female Genital Mutilation “is an obligation” says Mullah in Iraqi Kurdistan – EKurd.net, August 16, 2011
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The Law of Moses forbids the beating of any human being, including children, women and servants, upon pain of punishment of like with like

Exodus 21 v

18 And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: 19 If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. 27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Islamic State jihadi says mass rapes of non-Muslim women were “normal”, from JihadWatch.org with comments

In Islamic law, it is normal: the seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess, for they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:

Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”

The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.

“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Haeri said in April 7, 2016 that a man could offer slave girls to a friend for sex.

The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction.

“Captive Islamic State militant says mass rapes were ‘normal,’” by Michael Georgy, Reuters, February 17, 2017:

Islamic State militant Amar Hussein says he reads the Koran all day in his tiny jail cell to become a better person. He also says he raped more than 200 women from Iraqi minorities, and shows few regrets.

Kurdish intelligence authorities gave Reuters rare access to Hussein and another Islamic State militant who were both captured during an assault on the city of Kirkuk in October that killed 99 civilians and members of the security forces. Sixty-three Islamic State militants died.

Hussein said his emirs, or local Islamic State commanders, gave him and others a green light to rape as many Yazidi and other women as they wanted.

“Young men need this,” Hussein told Reuters in an interview after a Kurdish counter-terrorism agent removed a black hood from his head. “This is normal.”

Hussein said he moved from house to house in several Iraqi cities raping women from the Yazidi sect and other minorities at a time when Islamic State was grabbing more and more territory from Iraqi security forces.

Kurdish security officials say they have evidence of Hussein raping and killing but they don’t know what the scale is.

Reuters could not independently verify Hussein’s account.

Witnesses and Iraqi officials say Islamic State fighters raped many Yazidi women after the group rampaged through northern Iraq in 2014. It also abducted many Yazidi women as sex slaves and killed some of their male relatives, they said.

Human rights groups have chronicled widespread abuses by Islamic State against the Yazidis.

Hussein said he also killed about 500 people since joining Islamic State in 2013.

“We shot whoever we needed to shoot and beheaded whoever we needed to beheaded,” said Hussein.

He recalled how emirs trained him to kill, which was difficult at first when one person was brought for a practice kill. It became easier day by day.

“Seven, eight, ten at a time. Thirty or 40 people. We would take them in desert and kill them,” said Hussein, an imposing, well-built figure, who was wearing metal handcuffs.

Eventually, he became highly efficient, never hesitating to kill.

“I would sit them down, put a blindfold on them and fire a bullet into their heads,” he said. “It was normal.”…

“Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of 1993 World Trade Center jihad bombing, dies
Hugh Fitzgerald: Salat and Zakat in Summerville, South Carolina


  1. john spielman says

    February 18, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    of course rape is normal for ISIS, as ISIS is islam, and muhammed their perfect man was a demon possessed mass murderer thief liar and pedophile pervert!

    ps:and allah is Satan of the Bible

  2. no_one says

    February 18, 2017 at 3:00 pm

    I find it perverted that some people call themselves “scholars”. They are some barbarians that don’t know what scholar means.

  3. warren raymond says

    February 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm

    Whenever you switch on the TV, you get some BS story about the “Rohingya”, the “most persecuted people in the world”. There are constant claims that the Buddhists are raping their women, and that Bangladesh, where they originated, doesn’t want to take them back. But it is not a Buddhist thing to rape and to plunder; knowing what we know we should suspect nothing short of projection.

    Remember when we were inundated with similar stories from Bosnia, where Muslims claimed they were raped by the Christian Serbs? Could it be that we were similarly duped then?

  4. Walter Sieruk says

    February 18, 2017 at 3:09 pm

    First, the brutal vicious receiver of Islamic rapes of girls and women by the ISIS Muslims further exposes the actual malicious strong and demonic anti-female essence of Islam. As for those brutal, cruel and vile ISIS jihadist /Muslims kidnap and rape girls and women using them as sex slaves. This actually started with the founder and prophet of Islam, Muhammad . Who all Muslims look to as an example of how to behave. It’s revealed in the book JESUS AND THE JIHADIS: CONFRONTING THE RAGE OF ISIS by the Christian authors Graig A. Evans and Jeremiah J. Johnson For on page 124 it informs the reader about Muhammad that “he endorsed sex-slavery as a gift from Allah, and enjoyed offering sex-slaves as gifts…” Further on the very next page it also exposes that “Islam has enslaved more people than any other culture.”
    Second , those ISIS jihadist rapes with jihad malice –filled heinously cruel misogyny because their religion is not only anti-female and anti-Christian but it also teaches extreme harshness to all non-Muslims .The Koran as in 9:123. Third, the vicious and murderous jihadists thugs who compose the brutal and deadly jihad entity ISIS are actually putting in to the practice, with all their ruthless actions, the violence and killing that is part of the teaching of the “holy book” of Islam, the Koran. Which contain the doctrine of extreme violent force for the advancement of Islam. As seen in the Koran, for example, 2:191. 4:89. 5:33. 9:5,111,123. 47:4. So in spite of the strong denials by many, ISIS is an actual Islamic organization. Likewise the malicious, bloodthirsty violence jihadists who make up ISIS are real Muslims. Nevertheless, there are some who might , understandably, wonder and then ask “Just how can those jihadists of ISIS ,being so very religious , also at the time also be so very malice-filled ,unfeeling and deadly ? “ The answer to that question is found in the Bible. For the Bible teaches that there are some people who are extremely heartless, cold, callous and dangerous because they have had “their conscience seared with a hot iron.” First Timothy 4:2. [ K.J.V.] In this case of the members of ISIS this “hot iron” is Islam.

  5. somehistory says

    February 18, 2017 at 4:04 pm

    hussein….someone else has that name too. No good comes from people with that name, and no admitting to wrongdoing except to brag about it.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments