Ever wonder why the UN Human Rights Commission doesn’t do much about violence against women? This video of the commission’s meeting with a concerned NGO will explain it is painful detail: Simple explanation; Islam may not be linked with ANY bad “traditions”, period, end of statement.
Once again I am posting a blog that the hard-core Rightists will just not be able to swallow without gagging. But then again, the true Leftists will reject what I say as well, so I guess that I am still fulfilling my mission; pissing off those who need to be pissed off; example: that thing in the Bible about the motes and beams is especially true in politics and organised religion.
The unreconstructed Leftist will be puzzled at why a “rabid Islamophobic” like The Heretic Crusader should DEFEND a practice of Islam. The answer is really quite simple, I don’t. The Islamic practice is to treat women as chattel property. To be Muslimah is to be bought, and sold, and hoarded. To orthodox Islam a woman is only fulfilled if she daily, unfailingly and willingly makes a classic 1950’s housewife look like a libertine whore; her “desire” is to be a domestic animal fully trained to care for a husband’s sex, food and house; incidentally caring for children and lastly, herself; this mindset in an orthodox Imam’s eye makes her “holy“!
When the customs of veiling, and purdah, and child marriage, and the absolute authority of the husband are considered the issue of polygamy becomes incidental.
In traditional Christian marriages there are certainly many opportunities for abuse. This is no reason to ban marriage, or parenting for that matter, though it is clearly in the children’s interest not to be subject to the possibility of abusive parents using religious authority to do evil to their kids; or yours for that matter.
On top of all of that, traditional Islamic reasoning also says that humans attempting to judge the morality of Islamic rules is not valid; it is to be obeyed, not interpreted; which is the very reason that system is so susceptible abuse.
Why should polygamy be a crime? KEYSAR TRAD
October 2, 2009
In a liberal society such as Australia, it should not be a crime to have more than one wife, argues Keysar Trad.
IN JUNE last year, Triple J’s current affairs program Hack ran an item on plural relationships. The ABC’s youth broadcaster interviewed me about polygyny, a form of polygamous marriage in which a man has more than one wife at the same time. A bisexual couple were also interviewed.
To my surprise, I was reported on the ABC’s respected current affairs program AM the next morning. Without speaking to me again and after seeking comments from the Attorney-General’s office, AM ran the line: “Undeterred Keysar Trad says he’s hoping to find another wife to join his family. To do so, he says, would be to honour his first wife.”
No such comment had aired on Hack. The media then spent more than a week mocking the practice of a husband having two or more wives simultaneously. No one took issue with the bisexual relationship, which involved one man and his female partner, who also had a relationship with another woman.
Did he say it? Did he not? Who knows, but note that he said that the comment never “aired“, not that he never said it off the air; who knows?
It is central to my points though, that Mr. Trad has conflated a heterosexual man having two women )told by their religion that they are his servants, sex slaves and less than him, in brains and judgment, in the eyes of God) and a relationship say, between a man and 2 bisexual woman; to have a second woman in that situation is truly being fair to the woman. That kind of marriage would be completely different from the traditional Islamic ideal of “honoring” a wife by marrying a younger woman to relieve her of chores, and some of the “burden” of sex.
At the end of an interview on 2UE, Mike Carlton declared that, as a Judeo-Christian nation, we marry one person for life. After a pause, he added that we just have lots of affairs on the side.
In Western society, the “other woman” in an affair is stigmatised. She faces significant pressure to keep the relationship secret to protect her man because modern society frowns on plural heterosexual relations. If she fell pregnant, society – including her partner – could place great pressure on her to have an abortion.
The mistress in an affair should have rights. She needs to be protected if she decides to end the relationship because the man refuses to live up to her expectations and leave his wife.
I am not sure just where Mr. Trad (good name that for a traditionalist) got his impressions. Films from the 60’s maybe? In my experience that while he is right that Western society is monogamous mainly as an offshoot of Church influence his analysis of our sex lives is far from accurate.
First off, he seems to completely miss out on the idea that the woman’s goal may not be the man’s divorce and marriage to her. As to the pressure for an abortion, that is unlikely to be decided mainly on that basis. The woman’s desire to have or not have that man’s baby is far more likely to control her final decision; he has no legal say in it, a concept that Mr. Trad surely finds incomprehensible. On top of that, the power a woman has to cause trouble in the man’s life, both social and legal, give her the upper hand against all but true bounders.
The problems are not what Mr. Trad imagines, they are more involved with the fact that affairs are NOT committed relationships but flings. I am not going to condemn a responsible fling by a persistently deprived spouse but, the subject is marriage not sex as I recall. Let us move on.
The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, must have been paying attention. A few months later, he introduced legislation granting rights to the second woman so that she could also share the assets of her married lover.
The problem of deception, however, does not go away. Why in the liberal 21st century must we live a lie in relationships? And why do we continue to maintain a facade that monogamy is a perfect institution, when studies consistently reveal that most men admit to having affairs? Monogamy is great, but it is clearly not for everybody.
More cultural misunderstanding here. The legislation merely recognizes a fact; a long term lover has a share in one’s interests. In the U.S. we call it palimony and it is applied when a relationship is long term and stable. It especially applies where a financial burden has been assumed by one or both of the parties in either direction. The issue is Interdependence. Children are always the legal responsibility of both genetic parents.
Islam openly acknowledges this fact of human nature and stipulates a regulatory framework for plural relations. But modern Western society, suspicious of all things Islamic, fails to recognise the qualities of Muslim marriage and family.
Whoops, I have to step in on that little gem. “Islam acknowledges” which “fact of human nature“? That men are horny dogs and are happiest with a cooking, cleaning sex slave at home who thinks she will go to hell if she does not lick the pus from his nose? (That last was a quote from Mohammed about a wife’s duties by the way in one semi-reliable collection of the acts of Mohammed)
The regulatory framework that us Westerners are so suspicious of is known as Sharia. It commands that woman are worth half what a man is and, that she must cover herself except for face and hands lest she “Tempt” some pious man into raping her. It legalizes the rape of an unwilling wife, and sets down in no uncertain terms the rules for having sexual relations with a prepubescent WIFE.
No thanks Mr. Trad, the concept of multiple marriage is not the problem here, the problem is the systematic subjugation of the female by the Islamic, now how did you put it, Regulatory Framework Acknowledging Certain Facts of Life.
Seeing how well it has worked in Islamic lands I hope Mr. Trad forgives us if we give it a pass for now.
Legally enforceable monogamy was introduced by Emperor Justinian in the year 534. Justinian himself kept a courtesan as a mistress. He married her after the death of his wife, Euphemia, and only after he convinced Justin, his predecessor, to change the law so that senators could marry actresses and courtesans.
Ahh, good old Justinian. A superstitious fool who took credit for every victory because of his prayers but, almost lost the empire from ignoring military readiness in favor of those same prayers. If not for a man named Belisarius there would have been no Constantinople left for the Muslims to invade and occupy.
Yet another tribute to the “One Truth” idiots, and their ability to deny any reality while clinging to their possession of “rightness“.
Justinian is said to have criminalized plural unions under the influence of St Augustine, though Augustine clearly stated in his treatise on marriage that having several wives is not “contrary to the nature of marriage”. Yet like other church fathers, Augustine preferred celibacy, or monogamous marriage if one could not be celibate.
Well it seems that Mr. Trad is well versed in Church history, but it is unclear that this information either supports or denies polygamy. Mr. Trad seems to be making that case that it was solely the Church Fathers that came up with the idea. This is simply untrue as the Romans had abandoned multiple wives centuries before this time. Indeed it was likely the influx of Eastern culture that flooded the Empire that caused the subject even to come up by Justinian’s time.
And to me this all is beside the point. Marriage is for the economic and emotional stability of parents and children, anything more than that is a fringe benefit. Every other aspect of a marriage can be had without the relationship being one. We marry to have a partner, a friend, someone to have our back and someone to give ours to. A person to dedicate our energies to making happy even when we find it hard to want to make ourselves happy. This is the job of a spouse, to live every moment knowing you are not alone, knowing that what you do is important to one you love. It is also putting more than one person to the task of building a home and prosperity no matter how the labor is divided.
Over the years, I have counseled adulterers from different faith backgrounds. I never tried to punish, hurt or expose them. I tried to guide them to mend their ways. I tried to help them understand that sex outside marriage was neither in their best interests nor in the best interests of society. If they were married, I did my best to ensure that their marriage remained safe and stable. Had they been in plural unions that conformed to the Islamic regulatory framework, such relationships would not have been adulterous, but divinely sanctioned unions.
Now all of that except the building of a home can be had, with a little more effort and trouble, by a “couple” that is not married or living together. But when we start talking about children that stability and those shared resources become much more important. It is possible for a single parent to raise a fine child. But it is horribly hard on that parent.
We marry to build in the material world and to never be alone in the adventure of life and to give the best environment for our children. It is not because God told us to, it is because we are at our best when we are not alone.
Wow, I love it when an Islamist hangs himself with his own words; it makes my job easier. From his words I get the impression that he includes non-married, but sexually active, people as “adulterers“.
Not a word about the effect on the spouse, merely an admonition to be “safe” and “stable“. What does he tell them? Always use a condom and do not get caught? Given that both the Koran and ahadith say that a lie told to keep the peace is condoned; does he advise against coming clean if caught?
But the part that is the real zinger is how he tells them all that if they only were Muslim they could have their cake and eat it too. Given that there is no stigma to casual divorce (wheninitiated by the man at any rate) in Islam, it is quite possible for a man who can afford it to marry the regulation four wives, and simply divorce any that become unattractive or stop “pleasing” him in any way. (Heff, have you ever thought about just converting?) He can then find another to marry (buy) and refill his quota.
Is it just me, or do any of my readers out there see the problem for the woman in this “Regulatory Framework” that is so praised as a solution to the perversions of our Western sexual practices?
Australian law has maintained the Justinian facade that a marriage is one man and one woman, and that every other relationship must be kept secret. Under Australian law, bigamy attracts penalties of up to seven years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, polygamous marriages conducted overseas are recognized under family law for the purpose of property settlements.
Here is where Mr. Trad and I very slightly cross paths. I see no reason that a man and two women, or two women, or two men, or three women and two men, should not contract a “marriage” with all the legal rights and duties implied by Western customs. My diversion with Mr. Trad’s Islamic model is that I feel all parties in such marriages should be equal under the law and that no party under 18 may be entered into such contracts.
There is also a new factor that the West needs to confront. I feel it is unconstitutional for us to use the law to say someone cannot marry because of religious “law“.
What then do we do to prevent either Christians, Jews, Mormons or Muslims from marrying wives kept ignorant and then imprisoned in the home (and burka) away from eyes that can see signs of abuse and neglect?
When a couple marry in a Christian church, it indicates they want their marriage to be governed by the rules of that church. The same applies for unions conducted under Muslim rules. For a marriage to be valid under Islam, it requires the consent of both parties, at least two witnesses and a dowry paid by the groom to the bride as a gift for her to use as she pleases.
As I see it, to preserve our traditions and especially the Constitution we must allow the marriages (subject to the above limits on age and coercion) and do what we do already about radical Mormons and Christians (and I believe a few Jews), we keep an eye open for abuses and act if there is cause. This is all that is done for any spouse or child in any abusing family. Society can only apply fair rules and hope the facade of the evil cracks before they harm the innocent. But is that not what we have ALWAYS been limited to in a civil society?
If a woman in a traditional marriage shows signs of abuse someone hopefully sees it and does something. It is not just to try to apply a tighter control on ANY social group than that. But it is certainly in our rights as a society, in my opinion, to see to it that NO legal relationship shows the stigma of abuse. It is NOT in our right to say how many people are involved in that family absent those stigma.
Yeah? So? I have read the Sharia marriage rules; the payment is seen to “purchase” the man’s right to “enjoy” the woman’s vagina. No, I am not being crude, it really is THAT blatantly put.
Further, until the man has had a chance to “enjoy” the woman’s vagina, he is not required to pay her. However if he has the opportunity, but fails to “enjoy” his possession, he must pay her, and get his jollies later.
Any children of this marriage are seen as the property of the man; at best the divorced mother might get to keep them ‘til they hit puberty.
Further the divorced woman is supposed to get all her property returned to her but, this rarely happens unless her family is strong enough to force the issue. Many times a husband simply coerces his wife into signing her assets “freely” over to him sometime before he casts her off.
Islamic marriage is no solution for the issues of sex outside of marriage either. The Koran, ahadith and all Sharia are clear that having sex with non-Muslim “possessions of the right hand” is a perfectly acceptable method of dealing with what Mr. Trad calls Human Nature. Islam treats these women, and the children that might result, as non-entities; useful to legally slake the lust of a “moral” Muslim man. This is new “morality” that will save the ‘decadent’ West?
There is no requirement for such a union to be “legally” registered with a secular body that does not recognize the clauses in a Muslim union. Plural relations of this nature that take place in Australia are treated like de facto relationships and are not registered. This keeps them outside the ambit of the nation’s criminal and marriage laws. Such unions are not considered adulterous because they follow the rules of an Islamic union. They are not secret and they carry no stigma under God.
Not secret, except from the law and anyone who might report abuses you mean. This article is starting to read like a Dah’wah (Religious recruiting) aimed at adulterous, wife beating pedophiles wishing to sanctify their illegalities in the name of God by becoming Muslims.
According to this a Muslim marriage is ONLY concerned with obeying Sharia rules, and is outside the jurisdiction of mere human laws. If I take him at face value, and I have no reason not to, and look at what Sharia says about marriage, then he is promoting the idea that a man can come home from work and take his wife from her cooking to have sex with her in any fashion he likes. He can then beat her (lightly) if she has refused to obey his whims after verbal admonitions (telling her that God will only love her if she does what her husband desires) and an short period “making” her sleep apart from his no-doubt desirable bod.
Sharia tells the devout Muslim man that he is not allowed to cause physical (what about emotional) harm to his “wife” if she is “not yet able to bear intercourse” from being too young in body. It does allow him to do ANYTHING else with her, or make her do things for him, to the same effect as “enjoying” her vagina “properly” so long as his “play” does not result in this physical harm.
Had enough yet? This is all as mainstream in Islam as “For Richer and for Poorer, in sickness and in health, etc.” is in the West.
Yes, marriage needs to be reformed but, allowing traditional Islamic forms to spread in the West would be a very bad thing to this Moderate Jeffersonian.
This is not to say that people are actively encouraged to enter such unions. Islam stipulates very strict equality in the treatment of wives. If a man cannot treat his wives equally, the Koran says he should have only one. Monogamy is the norm in Muslim communities. However, men who are capable of supporting more than one partner equally are advised to be open, honest and accountable in their relationships and to treat their wives fairly.
Mr. Trad, Oh! Mr. Trad! You left a part out!!! The Koran says that if he can’t treat more than one WIFE fairly he should only have one WIFE and whatever other sex partners he likes that are “possessions of the right hand.” This has been interpreted by various scholars as meaning anything from sex slaves to any non-Islamic prostitute. The exact limit depends on your school of Islam, and the opinion of your Imam.
Islamic sex in and of itself (as in old school Christianity and Judaism) is seen as a defilement in and of itself. The only question a Muslim man need concern himself with is whether it is ALLOWED for him to have sex with this woman or that.
Since he is forbidden to marry a non-Muslim then by Islamic law the woman has no rights and is no threat to his marriage bed. Any children are either abandoned as bastards to her or, adopted and raised Muslim; the choice is the whim of the man.
There is nothing in Islam to prevent a “devout” man from being highly adulterous by Western standards; it all depends on how and who he has sex with as to whether it is a sin or not.
I fail to see, Mr. Trad, how this would HELP any of the issues that we face here in the West.
Yes, polygyny may lead to jealousy. We are all human. But in a caring and sharing world where we become euphoric when we give to those in need, sponsor orphans and provide foster care, the ultimate in giving is for a woman to give a fraction of her husband’s time and affection to another woman who is willing to share with her. It is a spiritually rewarding experience that allows women to grow while the husband toils to provide for more than one partner.
Well, I can see this argument having some validity, but only as much as it has when applied to men. I want to see anyone, Christian or Muslim or whoever explain how it is o.k. for a man to have two wives who share him but not o.k. for one woman to be shared by two men. Explain without resorting to “God told me so” arguments that is. Personally I see no problem with either one if all agree and especially if the two same sex partners are highly bisexual. In that case in fact it almost becomes required to have the third for a stable relationship without huge tension, or sex outside the marriage occurring regularly.
In most cases, the husband ends up providing separate accommodation. The women can agree to share dwellings – it’s entirely up to them. Many men in Western society complain about their mother-in-law or a “nagging” wife. If his wife and in-laws were difficult, would he seek more of the same? The willingness of a man to take on another wife is in fact a form of praise to his first wife.
Oh really? “You know dear, you are so un-troubling, and your parents are so nice to me; I know it is only for your sake that they are not nasty slobs when they visit.
In tribute to your skills at wifely things I shall marry 15 year old Tasha. I am quite willing to chance that she will not live up to your example but, I am sure that you are so good that I must be blessed by God in my marriages.”
Is this the logic Mr. Trad? Just who allowed you to pull THAT one from their emotionally constipated rectum?
And have you addressed how the issue of wealthy old men who can afford to A) bribe parents into agreeing to the marriage, and B) keep separate households for 4 wives, affects the chances of Salim on the Street to get married before he is past 50; assuming he is wealthy by then?
Oh, Mr. Trad, do you think about how limiting multi-partner marriages to multiple women for one men will affect the ratio of single young men to single young women? Are you in fact thinking about anything, but how cool it would be to have God tell you that if you can afford it you can be Hugh Hefner, as long as you follow a few simple, and morally undemanding, rules?
While Islam sanctions polygyny, it does not condone threesomes. Islam also does not permit polyandry, a form of relationship in which a wife takes more than one husband. There are many reasons for this. Some are medical, some relate to paternity. Others pertain to the sexual proclivities of the different genders. The sex therapist Bettina Arndt, promoting her book Sex Diaries, outlined the merits of women saying “yes” more often to sex with their husbands. If Arndt’s research is reflective of a greater portion of the population, a monogamous relationship leads to reduced interest in sex among women and a perpetual state of conjugal frustration among men.
What planet is this man from again? As far as I can tell Islam regards a married threesome (or one with sex slaves) as not forbidden (haram) but simply not recommended. So, do it if you really like, but pray extra afterward when you are making yourself clean again before God.
As far as the rest of it goes, I would imagine that worldwide there are as many frustrated and unfulfilled wives as there are similar husbands; I would like to see how Mr. Trad would view sex if he got a chance to make love with a woman who had not had her clitoris cut off, and been, at the least, programmed from birth to regard sex as for his enjoyment only.
What a lack of joy to be in bed with any woman who believes her own desires are a sign of evil and only by performing like a shameless whore her husbands every desire can she be sexually “healthy.”
If men in monogamous relations are not satiated, by its very nature polyandry creates an overwhelming burden for a woman in long-term relationships.
Again, I think Mr. Trad is still living in the Middle East. In the West we realize that it is the men more often cannot keep up after a certain age. But then again, if Western men were sleeping with women who are “circumcised“, and treated like dogs that can cook and clean and screw, Western women also might be a tad less than horny from time to time.
Who someone marries first is an accident of history. If a man who has an affair had met his mistress before his wife, he may have married her. Why maintain the facade that is the Justinian doctrine of monogamy knowing it has failed as a social experiment?
Mr. Trad here forgets his own emphasis on the idea that a man should not marry more wives than he can be “fair” to. Is it at all fair to marry a woman, then marry another that is a “real” love?
Can you imagine being that first woman so “honored“? But this fits in with the Modern Muslim, and old-school Judeo-Christian, view that a woman is a burden instead of a prize and partner.
And let us not forget that even if the man admits that he cannot be fair to the first wife when he meets his “true love” he can simply do what a Western man would do; get a divorce and remarry; the difference is that in the West a man, or a woman, will think twice and thrice before taking this step because of the legal and social ramifications; ramifications that are absent for the most part in Islam with its easy marriage and divorce for men only.
A man can have multiple girlfriends. Why not formalize that into a commitment for life? Why should “bigamy” be a crime?
Well, generally any man with “multiple girlfriends” does not really have a true emotional attachment to any of them. For the girls to marry him would be to chain themselves to a “master” who’s heart is not engaged.
Is the total focus in Islam on only the man coming clear yet? Can we “reform marriage” in the West by taking two steps backward, or is Mr. Trad just rationalizing in the dark?
Keysar Trad is president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia. He will deliver a speech on why polygamy and other Islamic values are good for Australia at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas at the Opera House today.
Wow, if that is the best he can do in making Islamic polygamy attractive to Western minds, I would love to hear about the other “values” he commends.
(HH here: The Arab Atheists Network has released a film entitled The Story of Women in Islam that is available on YouTube. It it in six parts. I am here embedding them interspersed with a transcript and my commentary.)
A female experiences disparagement in Islam from the moment of her birth. While a newborn male gets to have two sheep offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving on his behalf, they offer only one on behalf of the female. Muhammad (570-632), the prophet of Islam, said, “Two sheep for the boy and one for the female” (see: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, Hadith no. 1516). Islam also permits the father to marry off his daughter before she reaches adolescence. On the legally prescribed period of waiting (termed as `Iddah’) during which a woman may not remarry after being widowed or divorced in order to ensure no pregnancy occurred, the Quran says, “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if you have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same).” (65:4).
“Those who have no courses” that is, those who have not reached adolescence yet. Ubay Bin Kab, a close companion of Mohammad, said: “When the verse in Surat Al-Baqarah was revealed prescribing the `Iddah’ of divorce, some people in Al-Madinah said, `There are still some women whose Iddah has not been mentioned in the Qur’an. There are the little girls, the old whose menstruation is discontinued, and the pregnant’. In response, this verse was revealed: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses…” (See: Al-Mustadrak, by Al-Hakim. pp. 492-493. This narration is authentic according to Al-Hakim and Al-dhahabi.).
(HH here: let us not too lightly skip over the concept of ‘Iddah’. As the children of a marriage are considered the property of the husband it is important for the Muslim man to have a clear claim on any children his divorced former wife may carry. Make no bones about it, the sole purpose of that is to ensure his ability to come and take them from her after birth if he wishes. To be sure certain traditions allow the mother to keep her bebies until they reach some pre-determined “Age of reason” where the male is needed to ensure they get a “proper” upbringing.”
Throughout the ages, the Muslim commentators of the Quran confirmed this explanation of the verse. Here are quotations from the most notable of them. Al- Tabari (839-923) said, “This also includes the ‘Iddah’ of girls who have not menstruated yet as they are such little.. if divorced after being sexually consummated in marriage”.
Al-Baghawi (1045-1117) said, “Those little girls who have not reached menstruation age yet”.
Az-Zammakhshari (1074-1143) said, “They are those little girls”.
Al-Qurtubi (1204-1273) said, “She is the little girl”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) said, “The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying: “and for those who have no courses”.
Al-Mahali and As-Syyouti (1445-1505) both said, “for how such young they are”.
Al-Alousi (1802-1854) said, “Those little girls who have not got their menstruation period yet”.
As Mohammad reached 52, Abu Bakr got his daughter, Aisha, married off to him when she was only 6 years old. Mohammad began having sexual relations with her when she was just 9. This is what Aisha says as recoded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic”, the second authoritative book in Islam next to the Quran, “The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. My mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became Allright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” (See: Al-Bukhari’s authentic vol.3 p.66). Muslim jurisprudents unanimously agreed on having the little girl being married off. Ibn Abdul Bur (978-1071) says, ” Jurisprudents have unanimously agreed that a father is entitled to marry off his little girl without consulting her as Aisha herself was married off to the Messenger of Allah when she was six years old.” (See: Al Tamhid vol. 19 p. 98).
Ibn Battal (died 1057) said, “A little girl is unanimously permitted to marry an adult even if she is in the crib” (See: Fat`h Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, vol. 9 p. 124).
Ibn Al-Monther (856-931) said, “All known jurisprudents have unanimously agreed that a father’s marrying off his firstborn daughter is permissible as long as he gets her to be married off to an acceptable man. In fact, as a father he is allowed that in spite of her reluctance and refusal”. (See: Al-Moghni by Ibn Qudama, vol. 9 p. 398).
Ibn Qudama (1146-1223) said, “A father is entitled to marry off his little girl undisputedly since Abu Bakr Al Sidiq married Aisha off to the prophet while she was 6 years old without asking her permission” (See: Al Kafi by Ibn Qudama, vol. 4 p. 243).
A husband is entitled to have sexual intercourse with his wife, a little girl though she may be, as long as her body is capable of enduring sexual intercourse, even if she has not reached adolescence yet. If she, however, is not capable of enduring this intercourse, he is allowed to sexually enjoy her without having intercourse. Al-Kharshi (died 1101) said, “His saying ‘and it is possible to have sex with her’ has a reference to the fact that there is no specific age, which will vary from one person to another, and this does not necessitate been adult as it is the case with man, for if she endured intercourse, then she is enabling the man to receive full sexual pleasure”. (See: Sharh Mukhtassar Khalil, Al-Kharsahi, section on “marriage”, chapter on dowry).
Al Zali`yye (died 1343) says, “They varied on specifying the age, some said, she could be nine years of age. What is true is it has nothing to do with age but it has everything to do with the ability to endure sexual intercourse, as a fat, large woman would endure sexual intercourse, though she may be young of age” (See: Tabyeen Al-Haqa’eq, book of divorce, chapter on divorce alimony).
And this is what happened with Aisha. Her family fattened her up before sending her off to her wedding with Mohammed. Aisha said, “My mother was giving me fattening recipes in order to prepare me for the Messenger of Allah, and she got nowhere until I began eating cucumber until I got fattened very well” (See: The authentic of Ibn Maja’s collection, Al-Albani. vol. 3 p. 131). This would lead Al-Sarakhsi (died 1090) to comment on this story related by Aisha stating, “This in itself is a proof that a little girl is permitted to be wedded with her husband if she is fit for men, for she was in her wedded with him while she was 9 years old. so she was young as it appears. In a Hadith it is mentioned that they fattened her and when she got fat she was sent off to her wedding with the Messenger of Allah”. (See: Al-Mabsoott by Al Sarakhsi, vol. 4 p. 213).
(A video clip of Dream Channel by Sheikh Farahat Al Sayyed Al Manji of Al-Azhar).
Sheikh Al Manji says: “There is no evidence in Islam for specifying marriage age. Just upfront, in Islam there is no set specific age for marriage.
Interviewer: From this I gather you agree.
Al Manji: Yes.
Interviewer: You are confirming that Fatwa (previously mentioned in the show).
Al Manji: I am not confirming that Fatwa, I am simply telling you that she can bear marriage, that is, bear sexual intercourse.
Interviewer: At what age can a girl endure “marriage”?
Al Manji: I actually don’t know, but let me tell you, there is a girl who could be 15 years old, bubbly though she may be, yet she is not good for anything and knows nothing. Also there might be a girl who is just 10 years of age and look at her! She is so big and tall, to give you an example. What does it all depend on? Well, it all depends on where she is raised.
Interviewer: So it has nothing to do with age?
Al Manji: No, Islamic Law didn’t specify age.
Interviewer: There is a girl who is 9 years old and she is so big and tall, could she get married?
Al Manji: Of course yes. Why not?
Interviewer: Call us at this number… as I am not really in the mood. Your honor the Sheikh this is so hard to accept. 9 years of age and gets married? This is…….
Al Manji: yes, 9 years old and getting married. And I said, as long as she can bear a man. I am speaking to you in light of the Islamic Law. This Law “Sharia” is what really matters.
In one of the largest Islamic sites on the Internet specialized in giving fatwas (religious authoritative verdicts) www.islamweb.net , a fatwa entitled “Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife- Legally Islamic View” said, “There is no problem or issue in kissing the little girl of a wife lustfully and thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs) and so on, even if she cannot bear sexual intercourse. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the foundation lies in man’s being able to sexually enjoy his wife if he wants to as long as there is no harm. This included his masturbating with her hands, fondling her and kissing her and so forth”. http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=A&Id=78529&Option=FatwaId
In another fatwa entitled “Sexually Enjoying the Little Girl of a Wife”, it stated, “There is no harm in ejaculating between the thighs of this little girl who cannot afford to bear intercourse and it might harm her, as long as such ejaculation is without sexual penetration. Muslim jurisprudents have shown that the starting point in all of this and what really matters the most is that the man is permitted to sexually enjoy his wife in any manner he wants as long as there is no harm.” http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?Option=FatwaId&lang=A&Id=56312
Shiite Muslims are not any different. Imam Khomeini (1902-1989), leader of Islamic revolution in Iran, said in his book “Tahrir Al Wasilah” (vol. 2 p. 221) the following: “A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch, embrace or thighing (rubbing the penis against her thighs), there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby”.
Shiite scholar, Al-Ayrawani, says that to receive sexual pleasure from the suckling baby is unanimously agreed upon by Muslim jurisprudents, be they Sunnis or Shiites.”
(HH here: Take note that all of the verses and ahadith quoted are from authoritative sources. As we will see futher on in the video the major Islamic sources are NOT in disagreement on this subject at all.)
Enquiring person: “Mr Imam Khomeini has mentioned in his book Tahrir Al-Wasilah a matter: ‘A wife should not receive sexual intercourse before she is fully nine years old, be this marriage permanent or temporary. But for all other forms of pleasure, as in lustful touch or embrace, there is no problem in them, even if she is a little suckling baby’. We hope that the Sheikh would expound on the last paragraph. Please go ahead our mullah”.
Sheikh Ayrawani: In fact, this issue is one of the things that our Shiite jurisprudents, have all unanimously agreed upon. They (Sunnis) also have it in their books, it’s not belonging to us (Shiites) only. Now, suppose a man wants to get married to a little girl, to marry her permanently. What do you think? Let us now leave aside temporal marriage. I am here talking about the permanent kind of marriage. It is permitted for a man to marry off his daughter of 5 years of age to a man. Question: is that permitted or not permitted?. All Muslim jurisprudents agree and see no problem with that whatsoever. The father has every right to marry her off to a man. He is her custodian. Within the bounds of interest that is perfectly normal. The father is entitled to marry her off without any prohibition. Let us suppose that she is just two years of age. Or let us even say she is just one year old. There is not the least problem in that. By marrying her, she becomes lawful ‘halal’ for the husband (to do whatever he wants to her). Now, you tell me, can the husband kiss her or no?. Well, there is not the least problem in that since this little one is his own wife and therefore no problem at all.”
An adolescent woman experiences disparagement at the first sign of her becoming an adult woman, which is the beginning of menses. Scientifically speaking, menstruation is normal blood that passes due to the fall of the arterioles that multiplied to from a layer in the uterine wall so that the expected fertilized egg be attached to and fed by. Due largely to the ignorance of the people of the old days, there is wide misunderstanding on the nature of menses, a number of cultures and religions dealt with the menses as unclean and imposed demeaning rituals for the woman in her menstrual period. Islam is one of these religions. The Quran says (2: 222), “And they ask you about menstruation. Say: it is a hurt and a pollution: So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean.” In Islam, a woman in her time of menstruation is not permitted to pray or fast. Muhammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 2 p.45), “Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?..This is the deficiency in her religion.”
Now that she is an adult woman, she is put on equal footing with the donkey and the dog insofar as abolishing the prayer of a Muslim male if she would just pass in front of him. Mohammad said as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 2 p.60), the third authoritative book in Islam next to the Quran and “Al-Bukhari’s authentic”, “A woman, a donkey and a dog disrupt the prayer”.
In Islam, a woman is of a lesser mind than the man, and so her testimony in financial dealings is only worth half his, according to the Quran (2:282), “and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men (available), then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them (two women) errs (by forgetting), the other can remind her”.
Muhammad said about women as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1, p. 115), “I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you (women). A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the witness of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “That is from the deficiency in her intelligence.”
Women cannot provide witness in the case of felonies and penalties. They cannot give witness without a man except in matters which men should not be exposed to. Ali Bin Abi Talib (Muhammad’s cousin) said, “Women’s witness is not permitted in the case of divorce, marriage, felonies and blood”. (See: Abdul Razzaiq’s collection, vol. 8, pp. 329-330).
Ibn Al Munther (856-931) said: “Muslim jurists have unanimously agreed on the literal reading of this verse in that they permitted women’s testimony alongside that of men. They limited this to finances and debts. But they said that her witness is not allowed in the case of felonies and penalties. They didn’t reach agreement on the position of her testimony in marriage, divorce, genealogy and loyalties. While the majority prohibited it, the Kufis permitted it. Muslim jurists have also agreed on accepting their testimonies without a man in matters which men should not be exposed to such as menstruation and the giving of birth”. (See: Fat`h Al-Bari by Ibn Hajar, vol. 5 p. 266).
(Quran 4:5) “To those fools do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373), the most notable Quran commentator, says: “`The ‘fool’ is the ignorant, simple-minded person who has little knowledge in areas of benefit and harm. This is why, according to the majority of the scholars, Allah used the term foolish to include women and children, when He said (4:5) “To those fools do not give away your property which Allah has made for you a (means of) support”. (See: Ibn Kathir’s Tafsir vol. 1 p. 290, Sura 2 verse no. 13).
(Quran 2:228) “men have a degree (of advantage) over them (women)” Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) commentated: “men are in a more advantageous position than women physically as well as in their mannerism, status, obedience (of women to them), spending, taking care of the affairs and in general, in this life and in the Hereafter”.
(Quran 4:34) “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property”.
Ibn Kathir commentated: “meaning, the man is responsible for the woman, and he is her maintainer, caretaker and leader who disciplines her if she deviates. ‘because Allah has made one of them to excel the other’, meaning, because men excel over women and are better than them. This is why prophethood was exclusive of men, as well as other important positions of leadership. The Prophet said, ‘People who appoint a woman to be their leader, will never achieve success.’ Al-Bukhari recorded this Hadith. Such is the case with appointing women as judges or on other positions of leadership. A man in himself is superior to the woman and he bestows favour upon her always. For these reasons it is suitable that he is appointed her maintainer”.
A female in Islam is allotted half of what a male gets in inheritance. (Quran 4:11) “Allah directs you regarding your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females”.
A woman is also an image of devil as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 4, p. 129), that the prophet “saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her.He then went to his Companions and told them: a woman advances and retires in the image of a devil, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife (for sex), for that will repel what he feels in his heart.”
After adolescence, it is an obligation for the woman to cover her body in front of men who might not be “Maharem” (ie. Father, siblings, sons, uncles and nephews), or a spouse. In our age, Muslims claim that the veil was sanctioned out of guarding modesty and morality and also so that a woman will not entice a man. But historical facts from Islamic sources reveal that the veil was originally sanctioned as a classifying law to separate slave girls, who would be captives of war, from free women. The veil verse says, (33:59) “O Prophet! say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper that they should be recognized and not annoyed”. “more proper that they should be recognized” which means their being recognized as free women and not slave girls. Throughout the ages, the Muslim commentators of the Quran have backed up this interpretation.
Al-Tabari (839-923) says, “To draw their cloaks close round them helps them in not being identified by anybody passing by so that they might know that these are not slave girls, thus harassing them”.
Al-Baghawi (1045-1117) says, “This verse was revealed in the case of those adulterers who would chase in Al-Madinah after women who might have to go outside to use the bathroom. At first they would wink at the woman, and if she keeps silent they keep following her, but if she rebukes them, they would leave her alone. They were only seeking after slave girls, and yet it was hard for them to identify a free woman from a slave girl since they all dressed alike, dressed in some kind of cover. They complained to their husbands and it got mentioned to the messenger of Allah and thus the verse was revealed”.
Az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) says, “In the beginning of Islam, women who were following their customs dressed immodestly. Young men would go out in the fields and palm lots at night in order to chase after slave girls going to bathroom. They would try to sexually harass a free woman under the pretext that she might be a slave girl, and so they were ordered to change their attire from that of the slave girls by wearing cloaks, quilts, and covering both heads and faces”.
Ibn Al-Jawzi (1114-1201) said, “’should be recognized’ means their being recognized as free women”. Al-Qurtubi (1204-1273) said, “Before this verse was revealed, a woman of the household of believers would go outside to use the bathroom and some perverts would try to harass her thinking that she is a slave girl. She would scream and he goes away. They complained to the prophet and this verse was revealed for that reason”.
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) said, “means, if they do that, it will be known that they are free, and that they are not slaves or whores.”
Al-Mahali and As-Syyoutti (1445-1505) both said, “ ‘more proper’ that is they are closer to be ‘to be recognized’ i.e. that they are free women ‘and not annoye’ that is, by sexually harassing them unlike the slave girls, as they are not covered in their faces and getting harassed by hypocrites”.
Al Alousi (1802-1854) said, “ ‘Adna’ means closer to ‘to be recognized’ that is being set apart from the slave girls who were vulnerable to being sexually harassed”.
Ummar Bin Al-Khattab, a prominent companion of Mohammad and second successor (caliph) to him, used to beat a slave girl if she wore the veil. Anas Bin Malik, a companion of Muhammad, said, “Omar saw a slave girl of ours wearing the veil, he struck her and said to her: “Don’t be dressed like free women” (See: Ibn Abi Shaiba’s collection, vol. 3, p. 127). Anas Bin Malik also said: “A slave girl went on into where Omar Bin Al-Khattab was sitting. She had a dressed that she used for a veil. Omar asked her, “Have you been freed?”. She said, “No”. He said, “What then is the veil for? Move it away from your head, for the veil is to be on the heads of free women”. She tarried and Omar got up to her and struck her on her head with a rod until she moved it away from her head”. (See: Ibn Abi Shaiba’s collection, vol. 3 p. 128).
Anas Ibn Malik also said, “slave girls of Omar were waiting on us with their hair being uncovered and their breasts shaking”. (See: As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 2 p. 321). This narration is authentic according to Al-Albani. (See: Hijab Al-mar;a Walibasuha Fe Al-Sala, Ibn Taymyyah p. 43 , checked by Al-Albani). Al Bayhaqi said, “These narrations about Omar Bin Al-Khattab are authentic”. (See: As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al Bayhaqi, vol. 2 p. 321).
For a slave girl what parts in view of another male is the same thing that a male should not show in front of another male, and that stretches from the navel to the knees. Mohammad said, “When one of you marries off his female servant to his slave or to his employee, he should not look at her private part below the navel and above the knees.” (See: The authentic of Abu Dawood’ collection, by Al-Albani, vol. 2, p. 523). That means if a slave girl gets married, she changes status as far as her owner is concerned in that he is no longer allowed to see more than what is between the navel and the knees, and this is what has been established by most Muslim jurisprudents. Al-Nawawi (1233-1277) said: “Man’s private parts would be what is between his navel and knees, and the same goes for the slave girl. But a free woman can show only her face and hands”. (See: Minhaj Al-Talibeen by Al-Nawawi, p. 105).
Al-Maqdisi (1160-1227) says, “A slave girl’s privates are the same like man”. (See: Sharh Al-Umdah, p. 65).
Al-Dardeer (1715-1786) says, “private parts for a man is his male organ and buttocks, and for the slave girl it is the same”. (See: Al-sharh Al- Sagheer, vol. 1 p. 285).
In the history of Islam, slave girls were being sold in the markets, stripped naked and men would check them out in any form they wanted to. If Ubdallah Bin Omar Bin Al-Khattab, a companion of Mohammad, wanted to buy a slave girl, he would place his hand on her buttocks, take a look at her legs, belly, put his hand between her breasts and then shake her. (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol. 7 p. 286. and see also As-Sunnan Al-Kubra by Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 5 p. 537).
Ali Bin Abi Talib, Mohammad’s cousin and the fourth caliph, was asked about the slave girl being sold. “Is it permissible to look at her legs, buttocks, and her belly?”. He replied, “No problem with that. No prohibition. She was not made to stand except to be checked out as a bargain” (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol. 7 p. 287).
Abdullah Bin Masood, a prominent Quran scholar and a close companion of Mohammad, said in relation to the slave girl being sold, “If I touch her or a wall, I don’t care; it is all the same to me”. (See Abdul Razzaq’s collection, vol.7 p.287).
In Islam, a man is entitled to marry up to 4 wives. Yet he has an unlimited number of slave girls that he is entitled to have sex with. A woman, however, has nobody but her own husband.
(Quran 4:3) “marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess”.
(Quran 23:5-6) “And who guard their private parts, Except with their wives or what their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame”.
(comments on the last verse) Al-Tabari (839-923) says, “ ‘what their right hands possess’ refers to the slave girls.”
Al Baghawi (1045-1117) says, “This verse is specific of men as evidenced in his saying ‘or whom their right hands possess‘, since that a woman isn’t allowed to sexually enjoy her own slave.”
Az-Zamakhshari (1074-1143) says, “what is meant is that they guard their private parts at all times except in the case of their marrying or having slave girls”.
Ibn Al Jawzi (1114-1201) expounds, “ ‘But who ever seeks’, that is, he actually sought after, ‘beyond that’ referring to wives and slave girls.”
Ibn Kathir (1302-1373) says, “and do not approach anyone except the wives whom Allah has made permissible for them or their right hand possessions from the captives”.
Al Mahali and As-Soyyoutti (1445-1505) both said: ” ‘what their right hands possess’ ” referring to slave girls.”
Al-Aloussi (1802-1854) says, “what is meant is whatever slave girl their right hand has owned. Note that Allah used the word ‘what’ in describing who they are instead of the word ‘whom’. This signifies that they are objects, articles of merchandise for sale. Or signifies that they are considered non-sentient beings because of their femininity which points to their lacking brains in reasoning. Women’s being non-sentient is quite obvious whether they be Circassian, Roman or anything like that. But how obvious would it be if they be Negro or from any black ethnicity?, I swear that if they supposedly aren’t belonging to the animals class, then they aren’t far from belonging to it. The verse is specific to men, since that women unanimously aren’t permitted to have sex with their slaves”.
(Quran 4:24) “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those which your right hands possess”.
It’s recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 4 p.170) that “at the Battle of Hanain Allah’s Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger seemed to refrain from having sex with married captive women. Then Allah sent down regarding that: ” Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those which your right hands possess ” (i.e. it’s lawful to have sex with them when their ‘Idda’ period came to an end).”
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary: “you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, ‘except those which your right hands possess’, meaning, except those whom you acquire through war, it’s allowed for you to have sex with such women after making sure they are not pregnant. The verse was revealed for this case.”
What Muslims claim to be the privileges of Mohammad is the fact that he could marry more than 4 wives. Anas Bin Malik, a close companion of Mohammad, said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1 p.110), “The Prophet used to visit (for sex) all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.”
As for the slave-girls of Mohammad, the Quran says, (33:50) “O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and what your right hand possesses out of what Allah has given to you as prisoners of war”.
Ibn Kathir says in his commentary, “means, the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you. He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim; they were both among the slave-girls”.
Muslims’ many raids resulted in capturing many women, which multiplied the number of slave-girls in Muslim lands. Ali Bin Abi Talib, Mohammad’s cousin and the fourth caliph, passed away while he had 19 slave girls in his property. (See: Abdul Razzaq’ collection, vol. 7 p. 288).
At the end of the first century of Islamic era, Musa Bin Nusair conquered Morocco. Ibn Kathir says in his history on this regard:
“Plenty of pretty boys and pretty women were taken as captives. And sent off to the caliph, 40, 000 heads, which is fifth of what he captured. . . when he went entered upon the caliph in Damascus he came along with 30,000 of captives, not to mention what we already listed. This was fifth of what he captured in the last raid which he launched into the lands of Morocco.” (See: Al Bidaya wa Al-Nihayyah, vol. 12 p. 629).
The caliph of Abbasid period, Harun Al Rashid, a very well-renowned caliph for the Abbassaid State which ruled the Muslims for 5 centuries, had in his house 4,000 slave-girls. (See: Al Bidaya wa Al-Nihaya, Ibn Kathir, vol. 14 p. 49).
(A video clip from Iqra Channel in a show entitled “Before You are Judged” by Basma Wahba)
Basma: Well, now, folks, I have now 2 of the giants of Al-Azhar Islamist scholars. They are required to refute this allegation, that Islam encourages slavery and the companions of the Prophet were sexually enjoying whatever their right hands possessed. How shall we respond to that?
Jamal Qutub: whoever doesn’t like it can bang his head against the wall.
Mabrook: I have a very small question. Do you believe that the Quran is the Word of God?. Or it is the same like Hadith which some are authentic and some are questionable?
Basma: I am Basma Wahbah a believer.
Mabrook: I am asking Ms. Basma in the same way I am asking any of the people watching the TV show now.
Basma: We are indeed believers.
Mabrook: This is not the point. We are trying to objectively discuss an issue now. What does objectivity here mean? It means, I ask people if they believe that the Quran is the Word of God? A person might say, yes and there is no corruption in the Quran. He might quote for me the verse in the Quran “We have revealed the Book and we are guarding it. Great! Is everybody fully at peace that it is the Word of God? Yes! Then read from surat Al-Nissa (“women” chapter). I read “marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess”. Do I have any right to abolish such a verse? What do I do about it now? Erase it with an eraser? In order to make it a beautiful religion and I defend it, I do this to the Quran?. And this was the first question.
Basma: I am a believer. How do I answer (the allegation)? How do I answer?.
Mabrook: (islam) is not accused so no need to answer. My religion is God’s Word. It says “Or what your right hands possess”. In surat Al-Muminin, (sura 23), it begins with saying, “Successful indeed are the believers. Who are humble in their prayers,…..” until he said” “And who guard their private parts, Except with their wives or what their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame. But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they that exceed the limits.”. Having read this, how shall I answer? I simply say, “This is my religion”.
Basma: So, in brief, you have no answer.
Mabrook: No! We have a world!.
Basma: This is how our religion works and if anyone doesn’t like it he can bang his head against the wall.
Basma: what if somebody we meet at the street is asking, we can’t reply? I just want to know. I really want to know.
Jamal Qutb: What do you want to know?
Basma: I want to know.
Jamal: We are telling you that the Quran is there and this verse is not abrogated.
Basma: Sheikh Jamal, May I frankly say something to you? I want to frankly tell you that 90% of Muslims including me don’t know what the point is in this verse saying “or what your right hands possess”.
Jamal: you don’t need to know.
Basma: And we frankly can’t stomach this verse.
Jamal: you don’t need to know.
Basma: what do you mean “I don’t need to”? Is that a reasonable answer sheikh Jamal?.
Jamal: Of course, all Muslims don’t need to…..
Basma: I come to ask you a question and you tell me that I don’t need to know?
Jamal: is there a wise person in the world who would claim to express the divine wisdom that god knows?. Is there anybody in the world Dr Mabrook who would know how to express divine wisdom in these verses? .
Mabrook: only god would.
Basma: This is not about divine wisdom, this is about human liberty.
Jamal: No everybody is free with himself.
In Islam, a woman cannot marry without the approval of her ‘Walee’, that is, the man in charge of her as a father or a brother. Mohammed said, “whichever woman gets married without the approval of her ‘Walee’, her marriage is abolished” (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’s collection, Al-Albany, vol. 1 p. 584).
Regarding the wife’s status in marriage in Islam, Mohammad says, “If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: ‘O Allah, I ask you for the good in her, and in the disposition you have given her; I take refuge in you from the evil in her, and in the disposition you have given her.’ When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing.” (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol. 1 p. 601).
And also Mohammad says: “If I were to justify a person to prostrate after anybody other than God, I would have commanded the woman to prostrate after her husband. I swear to my lord, a woman cannot fulfill the obligation of her Lord until she has fulfilled the obligation of her husband, and even if he calls her for sex while she is on the back of a camel, she would never refuse him”. (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p.121).
Mohammad said, “Three are there whose prayers do not get any further than their ears. A rebellious slave until he comes back to his owner, a woman who would go to bed and her husband is indignant at her, and the leader of a people that they are loathing to have for a leader.” (See: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, vol. 1 p. 209).
Muhammad said, “If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odor of Paradise will be forbidden to her”. (See: The authentic of Ibn Dawood’ collection, Al-Albani, vol.2 p.17).
(A video clip from Iqra Channel by Dr. Ghazi Al-Shimari, Saudi expert of family affairs. Translated by Memri TV)
Ghazi: The prophet said: “If I were to order anybody to bow before anyone, I would order the wife to bow before her husband”. The husband’s rights are very great. Therefore, according to a reliable Hadith, a woman said: “Oh Prophet of Allah, I will not marry before you tell me what my husband’s rights from me are.” The prophet said: “Do you really want to know?” she said: “yes”. He said: “if pus or blood comes out of your husband’s nose and you lick it up, you still will not have observed all his rights”. The rights of the husband are great, and a wife must observe them.
(A video clip from Iqra Channel by Sheikh Muhammad Al-Munajid. Translated by Memri TV)
According to Islam, a wife needs to comply with her husband’s desires in bed. The prophet Muhammad said: “If a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs. She must come, even if she is by the stove.” According to the Al-Tarmizi tradition. The prophet issued a severe warning to any wife who rebels against her husband in bed. The prophet said: “If a man invites his wife to bed and she refuses, and he is angry at her, the angels curse her until she wakes up in the morning.” This tradition was mentioned in the collections of Al-Bukhari and Muslim. God is aware of men’s needs. He knows that a man my have just come home, and maybe he desires something or maybe he saw something. He knows what this need is, and this is why he ordered the wife to consent to her husband even if she is by the stove, even if she is baking she must consent to him. Moreover, the prophet Muhammad said to the woman: “Compare yourself to him, he’s your paradise and your hell.” Imam Ahmad passed this on in his true Hadith. The wife must consent to her husband’s wishes and obey him. The wife in the west is not obliged to do so. Moreover, a wife can be raped by her husband there. They claim that if he has sex with her against her will – this is rape!, they consider this rape. They claim she must be willing. They claim that she must want it.”
(A video clip from Al-Majd Channel by Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Fuzan. Translated by Memri TV)
This is why the prophet said: “When a man calls his wife to fulfill his needs, she must go to him, even if she is busy with the oven”. Imagine this: There is fire in the oven, and she wants to bake bread. But even if she’s busy with this work that cannot be neglected, when he calls her, she must leave the oven and go to her husband. Another Hadith says: “She must go to him even if she is on the back of a camel”. She must go to him even if she is riding.
The Quran permits a man to beat his wife if she did not obey him, or even if he feels that she might not obey him, that is before the disobedience might occur. (Quran 4:34) ““As to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them”. Ibn Kathir says in his commentary, “meaning, the woman from whom you fear ill conduct with her husband, such as when she acts as if she is above her husband, disobeys him, ignores him, dislikes him, and so forth.”
(A video clip from Mercy Channel by Sheikh Al Khatib. Translated by Memri TV)
One of the husband’s rights is to discipline his wife if she is disobedient. What does the “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.
Mohammad said, “Hang the whip up somewhere so that the people of the household might see it; it is discipline to them” (See: The authentic of Al-Jami Al-Sagheer Wa Ziyadatuh, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p. 744).
(A video clip from Qatar TV. Friday sermon. Translated by Memri TV)
(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 woman who was brought up this way. Her parents ask her to go to school and she doesn’t – the 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 towards 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.
In Jordan, one of the Arab open countries where they achieved the highest Arab percentage in eliminating illiteracy, a survey conducted by the National Council for Family Affairs in 2002, has revealed that 83% of women have supported man’s right to beat his wife if she is found to have done anything that shows her being unfaithful to the husband. 60% of women have voted for the husband’s right to beat the wife if she burnt the food in cooking, and 52% have voted for a man’s beating his wife if she did not obey his commands. This is what Islam does to women in society.
Death and the Afterlife
In Islam, whoever kills a soul willfully is to be also murdered. The family of the murdered one have the right to give up punishment and ask for the blood money. This compensation could be the judgment in cases of unintentional killing as road accidents. In Islam, the blood money paid for the killing of a woman is half the sum paid for the killing of a man. Imam Shafe`ee (767-820) said, “Be it in old or recent times, I do not know of a verdict except that woman’s blood money is half the one of the man” (See his book Al-Om, vol. 7 p. 261).
Ibn Abdul Bar (978-1071) said, “Jurisprudents of Islam have agreed that woman’s blood money is half that of a man” (See: Al-Tamhid by Ibn Abd al Bar, vol. 17, p. 358). Al Kasani (died 1191) said, “Woman’s blood money is worth half the one of the man, as the companions of the prophet unanimously have established, in that it is related by Omar, Ali and Ibn Masood and Zayd Bin Thabit (companions) that they said in relation to woman’s blood money that it is indeed half that of the male. No one among companions objected to them, so it’s unanimously agreed. And since a woman in inheritance and testimony is on half merit of the male, so her blood money is on the same status” (See: Bada`ee Al Sana`ee vol. 7 p. 254).
In the Shiite sect, if a woman is murdered and her family asked for the penalty (killing the murderer), they have to pay to the family of the man who committed the murder half of his blood money. Al-Kulainy recorded in Al-Kafi (the first authoritative Hdith collection according to Shiites) (vol. 7 p.299) that Jaafar Al-Sadiq (699-765), one of the 12 Infallible Imams of Shiites, said in relation to a man who murdered his wife on purpose, “If her family wishes to kill him then they have to pay his family half of his blood money. But if they wish, they can take half of the blood money.”
After a woman dies, the greater likelihood is that she is going to Hell. Muhammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 1 p. 1), “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the inmates of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Apostle ?”. He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands.”
Muhammed also said as recorded in “Muslim’s authentic” (vol. 8 p. 88), “Amongst the inmates of Paradise the women would form a minority”.
But if she is fortunate and she gets into Paradise she is facing the fact that a man will have in addition to his wives from this world his other wives from paradise, the wide-eyed virgins (Houris). The Quran says (44:54), “and We will wed them with Houris pure, beautiful ones.”
Regarding the men of paradise, Mohammad said as recorded in “Al-Bukhari’s authentic” (vol. 2 p. 434), “Everyone of them will have two wives”.
Moreover, The ‘Shaheed’ (martyr) is married to 72 virgins of the wide-eyed Houris. Thus says Mohammad. (See: The authentic of Al-Tirmidhi’s collection, Al-Albani, vol. 2 p. 240).
But as for a woman, in Paradise, she has none but her husband of the world where she lived previously. The Quran says regarding the wives of these men in paradise, “And with them shall be those who restrain the eyes, having beautiful eyes” (37:48). Ibn Kathir said in his commentary, “means, chaste females, who will not look at anyone other than their husbands”.
And Mohammad also said, “A woman (in paradise) is to the last of her husbands.” (See: The collection of authentic Hadith, Al Albany, vol. 3 p. 275). Hudhayfah Bin Al-Yaman, a companion of the Prophet, said to his wife, “If you wish to be my wife in Paradise, don’t re-marry after I die, for a woman in paradise is for the last of her husbands, and so Allah has prohibited the wives of the prophet to re-marry after him because they are his wives in paradise too” (See: As-Sunan Al-Kubra, Al-Bayhaqi, vol. 7 p. 111).
This is the story of woman in Islam: injustice and disparagement from the moment of her birth and to no end, even in the alleged Paradise.
(HH here: Frankly I didn’t have the stomach to go and comment on all the things that I would have liked to address. This film makes me very tired. Please do note however how the chanted verses relate supposedly God Given FACT OF REALITY that the rest of us see as child abuse and obscenity. By hallowing the Quran as the actual, factual and only word of God they sidestep all moral restraints and logic. The religion that supposedly takes the ban on Idolatry the most seriously has completely idolized and declared sacrosanct the words of a disturbed warlord. Now take a deep breath and go hug your wife, girlfriend, husband, son or daughter.)