Women Before and After Islam

Pre Islam Arab women, fourth to sixth century.

Contrary to what Muslims claim, Islam did not improve the status of women in Arabia. It actually denigrated them instead of elevating them.

Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 648:
Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:
I had been eager to ask ‘Umar about the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said (in the Qur’an saying): If you two (wives of the Prophet namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes) (66.4), till performed the Hajj along with ‘Umar (and on our way back from Hajj) he went aside (to answer the call of nature) and I also went aside along with him carrying a tumbler of water. When he had answered the call of nature and returned. I poured water on his hands from the tumbler and he performed ablution. I said, “O Chief of the believers! ‘ Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet to whom Allah said:

‘If you two return in repentance (66.4)? He said, “I am astonished at your question, O Ibn ‘Abbas. They were Aisha and Hafsa.”

Then ‘Umar went on relating the narration and said. “I and an Ansari neighbor of mine from Bani Umaiya bin Zaid who used to live in ‘Awali Al-Medina, used to visit the Prophet in turns. He used to go one day, and I another day. When I went I would bring him the news of what had happened that day regarding the instructions and orders and when he went, he used to do the same for me. We, the people of quraish, used to have authority over women, but when we came to live with the ansar, we noticed that the ansari women had the upper hand over their men, so our women started acquiring the habits of the ansari women. Once i shouted at my wife and she paid me back in my coin and i disliked that she should answer me back.She said, ‘Why do you take it ill that I retort upon you? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet retort upon him, and some of them may not speak with him for the whole day till night.’ What she said scared me and I said to her, ‘Whoever amongst them does so, will be a great loser.’ 

(This is a long Hadith; please read all of it in my article Maryiah the Coptic Maid.)

Umar is complaining that while the people of Quraish used to have “authority” over their women, since they came to Medina they were influenced by the Ansari women who had the upper hand over their men.

Mecca was a religious hub. In all religious centers, often fanaticism overrides commonsense and wherever a patriarchal religion has a stronger grip, women are discriminated. Mecca was no exception. It was natural that women in Mecca had a lower status than their Jews and Ansari (Arabs of Medina who supported Muhammad) counterparts and when they saw the freedom of the women of Medina, they wanted it too. This did not sit well with Umar and Muhammad, the two misogynist men of Mecca. The above conversation between these two central figures of Islam clearly shows that they were not pleased to see their wives getting used and enjoying the taste of freedom.

Arabs were not used to write their history. Very little is left of their pre Islamic culture and way of life. Whatever was written, Muslims destroyed.  What Muslim historian wrote of that time is all derogatory. Muhammad called anything pre Islamic “jahiliya” (days of ignorance) and claimed that until the advent of Islam all Arabs were barbarians. Muslims think the Arabs buried their daughters alive and were constantly in war. They say that women prior to Islam were worth less than camels and it was the Prophet who gave them the status of human being. The above hadith depicts a different story. We can see that Arab women had more rights prior to Islam.  Islam took those rights away.

Muhammad, being from the Quraish was used to women abuse and to him that was the right way. Furthermore since he suffered from impotence, he was strict with his wives, constantly fearing that a young virile man cast an eye on them.  The verses that he revealed to frighten his wives lest they go astray became norm for all the women.  Islam is a misogynistic religion because Muhammad was a misogynist.

Anytime that the Prophet needed to say the ultimate word and make others shut up, he would make his Allah reveal a verse. He was an old man, having a harem of a score of wives and concubines. All his wives were young and beautiful. In his old age he became the chieftain and very powerful. So he could afford to marry anyone and some even came and offered themselves to him. He would choose only the pretty ones. But political power is not a substitute to physical stamina. The Prophet was fully aware of the age gap between his young wives and himself. He was jealous and would warn his wives to not betray him.

33.30
O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.

31.  But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

He would often remind his wives to behave in a way as not to attract the attention of other men and cover themselves so they don’t become desired by strangers.

32.  O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

33.  And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

Are these verses from God or are the worries of an impotent aging man with a bevy of young and attractive wives?

Muhammad needed to control his wives and that is the reason behind the Islamic veil.  What was originally meant for the wives of the Prophet became part of the Sharia and is imposed in all Islamic countries.

Muhammad repeatedly emphasized the importance that of women obeying their husbands. Did this have something to do with the fact that most of his wives were teenagers that he needed to control?  His wives were uppity, as all teenagers are.  To frighten them into submission he made his own wishes expressed by his imaginary friends in the heavens.  Any time he had some domestic problems his Allah would rush to his rescue and reveal a verse or two to help him out. The following is to put all his wives in their places.

“It may be if he divorced you (all) that his Lord will give him instead of you, wives better than you, Muslims (who submit to Allâh), believers, obedient to Allâh, turning to Allâh in repentance, worshipping Allâh sincerely, fasting or emigrants (for Allâh’s sake), previously married and virgins.” Q. 66: 5

The truth that women in Arabia had more liberty and authority before Islam than after it can also be evinced from the fact that Khadijah, Muhammad’s first wife, had a business of her own and had many men at her service. Muhammad, was but one of her employees. Do we have any tale of women after Islam, running their own business and hiring men to work for them?

For Muhammad women were nothing more than sex objects. It is reported that he refused to shake hands with them. And when they came to give their allegiance he delegated Umar for that task. What is so sexual about a simple handshake? Was torn between his sexual impulses and his religious ideals? Something must have happened in his mind that made him feel guilty when he touched women.

He also thought that women are deficient in intelligence and the majority of them will go to hell because they are ungrateful but to their husbands.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri
On ‘Id ul Fitr or ‘Id ul Adha Allah’s Apostle (p.b.u.h) went out to the Musalla. After finishing the prayer, he delivered the sermon and ordered the people to give alms. He said, “O people! Give alms.” Then he went towards the women and said. “O women! Give alms, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were you (women).” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He replied, “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious wise man astray.” [Bukhari Volume 2, Book 24, Number 541]

Can a man who thinks women are responsible for leading men astray, that the majority of them go to hell because they are ungrateful to their husbands and that they are deficient in intelligence, respect women. Various versions of this Hadith are repeated in several places. In another version the he explained the reason for which he believed women are deficient in intelligence.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah’s Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o ‘Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers 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. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. 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 evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” [Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301]

So according to Muhammad, women are deficient in intelligence because the witness of two of them equal to the witness of one man. And they are deficient in religion because during their menses they cannot pray or fast.

What did he mean by “deficient in religion?” Perhaps he meant that women are spiritually less evolved than men.

An Achaemenid Unit of Persian Female Warriors 1000 Years Before the Invasion of Islam

The question that begs an answer is that who made these unjust laws?  Wasn’t he the one who said that women cannot pray during their menses and that their testimony is worthless?

With this in mind his reasoning can be summarized as women are deficient in intelligence and religion because I say so.

His logical fallacy consists in trying to prove one absurdity by the authority of another.

Muhammad used fear as a mean to drive home his point. His Allah would send women to hell for the most trivial things like displeasing their husbands.

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Abbas:
I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?” The Prophet replied, “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet said, “They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds. If you are benevolent to one of them throughout the life and if she sees anything (undesirable) in you, she will say, ‘I have never had any good from you.’ “[Bukhari Volume 2, Book 18, Number 161]

I am sure he said this tale to intimidate his own wives who most likely were reluctant to have sex with an old infirm man, who sweated and smelled foul, as I have shown in my book Understanding Muhammad. Ironically, there is no mention of men going to suffer any consequence for mistreating their wives. As a matter of fact, men are instructed to abuse their wives verbally, emotionally and physically.

Q.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; 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.

If anyone has any doubt about the position of women in Islam, the above verse should dissipate it. It takes away women’s independence, making them subservient to men. It suggests that men are the masters and the owners of the house because they are the breadwinners. It implies that women are incapable of and should not be allowed to work and become providers. It assumes women’s work at home and taking care of children and house is worth nothing and she must be grateful for the piece of bread that her husband gives her.

First he relegates women to the rank of a slave. But Muhammad goes even further. He instructs men to punish their wives, verbally, sexually and physically, downgrading them to the level of animals. In a world that you could pay a fine for cruelty to animals, the teachings are the Quran are difficult to swallow. It is unthinkable that a just God would say such horrendous things about women. The superiority of men over women is also ratified in verse 2:228 where it says: and men are a degree above them (women)”

There are also other versions of the above hadith in Sahih Muslim.

Jabir b. ‘Abdullah reported: I observed prayer with the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) on the ‘Id day. He commenced with prayer before the sermon without Adhan and Iqama. He then stood up leaning on Bilal, and he commanded (them) to be on guard (against evil for the sake of) Allah, and he exhorted (them) on obedience to Him, and he preached to the people and admonished them. He then walked on till he came to the women and preached to them and admonished them, and asked them to give alms, for most of them are the fuel for Hell. A woman having a dark spot on the cheek stood up and said: Why is it so, Messenger of Allah? He said: For you grumble often and show ingratitude to your spouse. And then they began to give alms out of their ornaments such as their earrings and rings which they threw on to the cloth of Bilal. [Sahih Muslim Book 004, Number 1926]

Muhammad used these scare mongering tactics to collect money from his foolhardy women who gathered around him and listened to his nonsense stories.

In another place the Prophet of Allah compares women to devil.

Jabir reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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: THE WOMAN ADVANCES AND RETIRES IN THE SHAPE OF A DEVIL, so when one of you sees a woman, he should come to his wife, for that will repel what he feels in his heart.[ Bukhari Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301]

I wonder how a wife would feel knowing her husband is fancying another woman and is using her to relieve himself?  This is the morality of the prophet of 1.2 billion people!

There are numerous verses in the Quran and hadith that are outrageous. The following Hadith, in my opinion, takes the cake.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.” [Bukhari Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460]

One wonders whether Allah has nothing better to do than worrying about the sexual pleasures of his male servants. It seems quiet absurd that God would employ so many angels to sit around and curse the women who do not please their husbands sexually. Hadiths like this are repeated so many times that one start to suspect whether Allah is a dirty old pervert voyeur who gets pleasure, watching people having sex.

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: By Him in Whose Hand is my life, when a man calls his wife to his bed, and she does not respond, the One Who is in the heaven is displeased with her until he (her husband) is pleased with her. [Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3367]

And

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “If a woman spends the night deserting her husband’s bed (does not sleep with him), then the angels send their curses on her till she comes back (to her husband).” [Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 122]

It is hard to determine why the prophet of Islam was so concerned about sex. But again we should remember that he was an old man. His teeth were decaying and his mouth had a foul smell, but his wives were attractive courtesans. They must have enjoyed their status as the wives of the Prophet and the first ladies of Arabia, but it’s doubtful that they were too desirous to share a bed with an old man. Could it be that the warnings about the angels’ curses and Allah’s wraths were to coerce his wives to sleep with him?

How can Muslim women endure so much insult and still believe in Muhammad? The following is the most obscene and offensive statement of a “holy Prophet.” I find it extremely derogatory to women.

Narrated Usama bin Zaid:
The Prophet said, “After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women.” [ Bukhari Volume 7, Book 62, Number 33]

He did not stop there. In every occasion he found an excuse to show his disdain of women and poison the minds of his followers with ridiculous talks like the following.

AbuHuraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Woman is like a rib. When you attempt to straighten it, you would break it. And if you leave her alone you would benefit by her, and crookedness will remain in her. A hadith like this is reported by another chain of narrators. [Sahih Muslim Book 008, Number 3466]

How can Muslims respect their women when their prophet was so scornful of them, so contemptuous of their faith, so derisive of their intelligence, so disrespectful of their rights and so disdainful of their status?

Narrated Abu Musa:
Allah’s Apostle said, “Many amongst men reached (the level of) perfection but none amongst the women reached this level except Asia, Pharaoh’s wife, and Mary, the daughter of ‘Imran. And no doubt, the superiority of ‘Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. a meat and bread dish) to other meals.” [Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 623]

Here Mohammad is confusing the Miriam, (in Arabic Maryam) daughter of Imran and sister of Moses and Aaron with Mary (also Maryam in Arabic) mother of Jesus. He made the same mistake in the Quran. Miriam is not an important religious figure. She even disobeyed God once. We also don’t know who is this Asia the Pharaoh’s wife. It must have part of a fable known at tht time of Muhammad, which is now forgotten.

A Persian Sassanid Female Warrior

The moral standard and ethical values of the Muhammad can be revealed by stories like the following.

Narrated Abu Usaid
We went out with the Prophet to a garden called Ash-Shaut till we reache d two walls between which we sat down. The Prophet said, “Sit here,” and went in (the garden). The Jauniyya (a young girl from Bani Jaun) had been brought and lodged in a house in a date-palm garden in the home of Umaima bint An-Nu’man bin Sharahil, and her wet nurse was with her. When the Prophet entered upon her, he said to her, “Give me yourself (for sex) as a gift.” She said, “Can a princess give herself to an ordinary man?” The Prophet raised his hand to pat her so that she might become tranquil. She said, “I seek refuge with Allah from you.” He said, “You have sought refuge with One Who gives refuge. Then the Prophet came out to us and said, “O Abu Usaid! Give her two white linen dresses to wear and let her go back to her family. [Bukhari Volume 7, Book 63, Number 182]

Didn’t Muhammad have enough women already? Did he have to mount every beautiful woman whom he met? Look at his temper. In one moment he is overtaken by lust asking the little Jauniyyah to “give herself to him as a gift”, when he is rejected he becomes violent and raises his hand to beat her, then when she screams and seeks refuge with Allah that brute comes to his senses and feels guilty for his despicable behavior. To alleviate his conscience he decides to compensate the girl by bribing her with some cloths. Is this the profile of a mentally stable man?

Women in Islamic Republic of Iran Have Lost Their Human Rights and Beaten for Complaining

Since Jauniyyah was accompanied by a wet nurse she could not have been more than a little girl. The way she retorts a man who could kill her, also shows she was just a little girl.  The cloths that Muhammad gives her are most likely the ones he had stolen from her. It is highly unlikely that he had brought some cloths from Medina to distribute among his victims.

Muhammad had no regard for women. To him women represented evil. Even in his dream he saw women as the mark of disease and affliction. When he dreamt a black woman he interpreted it as the sign of epidemic.

Narrated Salim’s father
The Prophet said, “I saw (in a dream) a black woman with unkempt hair going out of Medina and settling in Mahai’a. I interpreted that as (a symbol of) epidemic of Medina being transferred to Mahai’a, namely, Al-Juhfa.”[ Bukhari Volume 9, Book 87, Number 163]

Even in religious matters he asserted the symbolical inferiority of women.

Narrated Sahl bin Sa’d:
The people used to pray with the Prophet tying their Izars around their necks because of their small sizes and the women were directed that they should not raise their heads from the prostrations till the men had sat straight. [Sahih Bukhari 1.778]

And as recorded in the following hadith he sealed the eternal enslavement of them.

Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to travel for one day and night except with a Mahram.” [Sahih Bukhari 2.194]

Let us end our review of the status of woman in Islam with these inspiring words of wisdom uttered by the messenger of Allah (peace be upon his immaculate soul) found in hadiths:

·        “To find a good woman among women is similar to finding a white crow among a hundred crows.”

·        “The marriage commitment is a kind of slavery for women.”

·        “If anybody has been required to prostrate before others beside God, the woman should prostrate before her husband.”

·        “If the body of the husband is covered with pus and his wife licks it with her tongue, she still will not be able to pay her debt to him.”

Spread The Word! Share it:

You may also like...

120 Responses

  1. Anonymous says:

    This website is disgusting and should be deleted. There are so many ignorant people commenting on Islam and how it treats women. You all need to do some serious research on credible sources before writing your untrue bullshit on here. Absolutely disgusting author. 

    • Phoenix says:

      Yet another drive-by muslim with nothing valuable to add except rants.So the Quran and Hadith are not credible sources?Then please correct us and show us the original Islamic texts which muslims have been hiding from us.You know…the ones that have been ridiculously redefined to mean the exact opposite of its intended meaning.Such as, "spread out" really means egg-shaped , "chop off their heads" really mean massage their necks and "chop off their fingers" actually mean hold their hands.

      As usual,muslims can't produce anything verifiable so they run away like cowards.Exactly what Muhammad did.

  2. rubayasiraj says:

    To those people who say women are less intelligent than men, consider this. My mum does all the accounting work of the family because dad makes silly mistakes, even with a calculator. I have seen this from the day I started to understand what they were doing and is still continuing. Even my brother who is a chartered accountant gave the credit of his position to my mum. And throughout my whole school life, only once did a boy came out first in the whole class, in the ninth standard. Even then the top five positions were mostly occupied by girls (always three girls and two boys). And now I am in the second year of university and I still find girls topping my core subject. Are you suggesting that the witness of two women, experts in the field of Economics or Accounting, is equal to one man who haven't even passed his O' Levels? If that is the case then I give up. I know my limits.

  3. aminthemystic says:

    "the majority of them are normal decent people."

    Your tunes tend to change . . . new wind?

    Where are those marauding comments about calling us scum? And the lot of us being "guilty"?

    Guilty enough to be er. . . put down?

  4. Jessica says:

    Where is any information on how women were treated before Islam came into Arabia? That's what I came here looking for and all I found was a rant except for the first two sentences. I read through the rant and there were a few good points for the most part it was just that-a rant. My friend Zara is Muslim and moved to the US from Tajikstan two months ago and her father treats her and her mother very well, nothing like what you're describing here.

    • Ali Sina says:

      I am talking about Islam not how Muslims don't live by it. Muslims who don't follow Islam, and that constitutes the majority of them are normal decent people. But this does not mean that Islam is a good religion. At any time, a Muslims decides to seek refuge in his or her religion he is at risk of becoming a terrorist, because then they learn that this is what their god wants from them.

    • Guest says:

      Dear Jessica:

      Muslims are people who embrace Islam as their religion. There are teachings of Islam which promote love and peace, and these inspire Muslims to be excellent fathers, mothers, children, and members of the society. However, many people in this website do not believe that people can live by Islam and be good and productive citizens of humanity. It is rather unfortunate … these people are denying the reality of life.

    • Ali Sina says:

      "There are teachings of Islam which promote love and peace, and these inspire Muslims to be excellent fathers, mothers, children, and members of the society. "

      Can you please give some examples of those "excellent teachings" of Islam?

    • Sakat says:

      /There are teachings of Islam which promote love and peace,/
      "There are " means bad too………………..
      God should not speak 'bad' especially a holly book .Only books of Islam contain bad and not any other …………….

  5. KL3 says:

    MUSLIM WOMEN ARE STUPID. THEY ARE TREATED LIKE PIGS!

    • Slave of Prophet says:

      @KL3
      Muslim are most scientific people of the world. Their approach is scientific because they are follower of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and holy Quran.

    • vijay says:

      Very "logical and Scientific" answer. This answer proves the extent of "science" you follow.

    • I-HATE-ISLAM says:

      Slave mentality, "-THEIR APPROACH IS SCIENTIFIC BECAUSE THEY ARE FOLLOWER OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD(PBUH) AND HOLY QURAN". Both of them are examples of scientific worthlessness.

    • chuck says:

      @Slave of Prophet,
      Define science. Prove how Muhammad(Sunnah) and the Quran is/was scientific.

    • DivineLightJohrei says:

      One statement of Its science is " the sun sets in muddy water ". By this statement it means the sun rotates the earth and the earth is one mega, huge flat land and sea for the sun to set in its muddy water. Slave, you believe that statement from your holy book? Explain.

    • shabeer says:

      PLZ READ AT LEAST ONE PAGES FROM NAIK BOOK
      sunnahonline.com/ilm/quran/qms.pdf http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

      [youtube r5h6CNhtVls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5h6CNhtVls youtube]

    • shabeer says:

      @ONE EXAMPLE FOR CHUCK:
      EMBRYOLOGY
      MAN IS CREATED FROM ALAQ—A LEECH-LIKE SUBSTANCE
      A few years ago a group of Arabs collected all information concerning embryology from the QUR'AN, and followed the instruction of the QUR'AN:
      "If ye realise this not, ask Of those who possess the Message."

      [AL-QUR'AN 16:43 & 21:7]
      All the information from the QUR'AN so gathered, was translated into English and presented to Prof. (Dr.) Keith Moore, who was the Professor of Embryology and Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto, in Canada. At present he is one of the highest authorities in the field of Embryology. He was asked to give his opinion regarding the information present in the QUR'AN concerning the field of embryology. After carefully examining the translation of the Qur'anic verses presented to him, Dr. Moore said that most of the information concerning embryology mentioned in the QUR'AN is in perfect conformity with modern discoveries in the field of embryology and does not conflict with them in any way. He added that there were however a few verses, on whose scientific accuracy he could not comment. He could not say whether the statements were true or false, since he himself was not aware of the information contained therein. There was also mention of this information in modern writings and studies on embryology. One such verse is:

      "Proclaim! (or Read!) In the name Of thy Lord and Cherisher, WHO created—Created man, out of A (mere) clot Of congealed blood."

      [AL-QUR'AN 96:1-2]
      The word 'alaq' besides meaning a congealed clot of blood also means something that clings, a leech-like substance. Dr. Keith Moore had no knowledge whether an embryo in the initial stages appears like a leech. To check this out he studied the initial stage of the embryo under a very powerful microscope in his laboratory and compared what he observed with a diagram of a leech and he was astonished at the striking resemblance between the two! In the same manner, he acquired more information on embryology, that was hitherto not known to him, from the QUR'AN.

      Dr. Keith Moore answered about eighty questions dealing with embryological data mentioned in the QUR'AN and HADITH. Noting that the information contained in the QUR'AN and HADITH was in full agreement with the latest discoveries in the field of embryology, Prof. Moore said, "If I was asked these questions thirty years ago, I would not have been able to answer half of them for lack of scientific information."

      Dr. Keith Moore had earlier authored the book, 'The Developing Human'.After acquiring new knowledge from the QUR'AN, he wrote, in 1982, the 3rd edition of the same book, 'The Developing Human'. The book was the recipient of an award for the best medical book written by a single author. This book has been translated into several major languages of the world and is used as a textbook of embryology in the first year of medical studies. In 1981, during the Seventh Medical Conference in Dammam, Saudi Arabia, Dr. Moore said, "It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the QUR'AN about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to MUHAMMAD—sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam— from GOD or ALLAH, because almost all of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that MUHAMMAD—sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam— must have been a messenger of GOD or ALLAH{The reference for this statement is the video tape titled 'This is the Truth'.For a copy of this video tape contact the Islamic Research Foundation}.

      Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, U.S.A., proclaims: "… these HADITHS, sayings of MUHAMMAD—sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam— could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available at the time of the writer (7th century). It follows that not only is there no conflict between genetics and religion (ISLAM) but in fact religion (ISLAM) may guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scientific approaches… there exist statements in the QUR'AN shown centuries later to be valid which support knowledge in the QUR'AN having been derived from GOD."

      MAN CREATED FROM A DROP EMITTED FROM BETWEEN THE BACKBONE AND THE RIBS
      "Now let man but think From what he is created! He is created from A drop emitted — Proceeding from between The back bone and the ribs."

      [AL-QUR'AN 86:5-7]

    • shabeer says:

      In embryonic stages, the reproductive organs of the male and female, i.e. the testicles and the ovaries, begin their development near the kidney between the spinal column and the eleventh and twelfth ribs. Later they descend; the female gonads(ovaries) stop in the pelvis while the male gonads(testicles) continue their descent before birth to reach the scrotum through the inguinal canal. Even in the adult after the descent of the reproductive organ, these organs receive their nerve supply and blood supply from the Abdominal Aorta, which is in the area between the back bone(spinal column) and the ribs. Even the lymphatic drainage and the venous return goes to the same area.

      HUMAN BEINGS CREATED FROM NUTFAH (Minute Quantity of Liquid)

      The Glorious QUR'AN mentions no less than eleven times that the human being is created from 'nutfah', which means a minute quantity of liquid or a trickle of liquid which remains after emptying a cup. This is mentioned in several verses of the QUR'AN including 22:5 and 23:13. {The same is also mentioned in the QUR'AN in 16:4, 18:37, 35:11, 36:77, 40:67, 53:46, 75:37, 76:2 and 80:19} Science has confirmed in recent times that only one out of an average of three million sperms is required for fertilising the ovum. This means that only a 1/three millionth part or 0.00003% of the quantity of sperms that are emitted is required for fertilisation.

      HUMAN BEINGS CREATED FROM SULALAH (quintessence of liquid)

      "And made his progeny From a quintessence Of the nature of A fluid despised."

      [AL-QUR'AN 32:8]
      The Arabic word 'sulalah' means quintessence or the best part of a whole. We have come to know now that only one single spermatozoan that penetrates the ovum is required for fertilization, out of the several millions produced by man. That one spermatozoan out of several millions, is referred to in the QUR'AN as 'sulalah'. 'Sulalah' also means gentle extraction from a fluid.The fluid refers to both male and female germinal fluids containing gametes. Both ovum and sperm are gently extracted from their environments in the process of fertilization.

      MAN CREATED FROM NUTFATUN AMSHAAJ (Mingled liquids)

      Consider the following Qur'anic verse:

      "Verily WE created Man from a drop Of mingled sperm."

      [AL-QUR'AN 76:2]
      The Arabic word 'nutfatun amshaajin' means mingled liquids. According to some commentators of the QUR'AN, mingled liquids refers to the male or female agents or liquids. After mixture of male and female gamete, the zygote still remains 'nutfah'. Mingled liquids can also refer to spermatic fluid that is formed of various secretions that come from various glands. Therefore 'nutfatun amshaaj', i.e. a minute quantity of mingled fluids refers to the male and female gametes (germinal fluids or cells) and part of the surrounding fluids.

      SEX DETERMINATION

      The sex of a foetus is determined by the nature of the sperm and not the ovum. The sex of the chil, whether female or male, depends on whether the 23rd pair of chromosomes is XX or XY respectively. Primarily sex determination occurs at fertilization and depends upon the type of sex chromosome in the sperm that fertilizes an ovum. If it is an 'X' bearing sperm that fertilizes the ovum, the foetus is a female and if it is a 'Y' bearing sperm then the foetus is a male.

      "That HE did create In pairs—male and female, From a seed when lodged (In its place)."

      [AL-QUR'AN 53:45-46]

    • shabeer says:

      The Arabic word 'nutfah' means a minute quantity of liquid and 'tumna' means ejaculated or planted. Therefore 'nutfah' specifically refers to sperm because it is ejaculated.
      The QUR'AN says:"Was he not a drop Of sperm emitted (In lowly form)? Then did he become A clinging clot; Then did (ALLAH) make And fashion (him) In due proportion. And of him HE made Two sexes, male And female." [AL-QUR'AN 75:37-39]
      Here again it is mentioned that a small quantity (drop) of sperm (indicated by the word 'nutfatan min maniyyin) which comes from the man is responsible for the sex of the foetus. Mothers-in-law in the Indian subcontinent, by and large prefer having male grandchildren and often blame their daughters-in-law if the child is not of the desired sex. If only they knew that the determining factor is the nature of the male sperm and not the female ovum! If they were to blame anybody, they should blame their sons and not their daughters-in-law since both the QUR'AN and Science hold that it is the male fluid that is responsible for the sex of the child!

      FOETUS PROTECTED BY THREE VEILS OF DARKNESS

      "HE makes you, In the wombs of your mothers, In stages, one after another, In three veils of darkness." [AL-QUR'AN 39:6]
      According to Prof. Keith Moore these three veils of darkness in the QUR'AN refer to"
      (a) anterior abdominal wall of the mother
      (b)the uterine wall (c)the amnio-chorionoic membrane.
      EMBRYONIC STAGES
      "Man WE did create From a quintessence (of clay); Then WE placed him As ( a drop of) sperm In a place of rest, firmly fixed; Then WE made the sperm Into a clot of congealed blood; Then of that clot WE made A (foetus) lump; then WE Made out of that lump Bones and clothed the bones With flesh; then WE developed Out of it another creature. So blessed be ALLAH, The Best to create!"

      [AL-QUR'AN 23:12-14]

      MORE: http://www.answering-christianity.com/embryology…. http://www.answering-christianity.com/nadeem_embrhttp://www.answering-christianity.com/alaq.wmv http://www.answering-christianity.com/formation_ohttp://www.answering-christianity.com/dr_yusuf_eshttp://www.answering-christianity.com/three_stagehttp://www.answering-christianity.com/embryology_http://www.answering-christianity.com/embryology_http://www.answering-christianity.com/western_scihttp://www.answering-christianity.com/western_scihttp://www.answering-christianity.com/islams_cont

    • chuck says:

      @Shabeer,
      Thats a hell lot of copy pasting… Most of this has been already debunked numerous times over. So much so that Dr Moore has stopped giving interviews:-). Just think from the point of embryology, all these talks about nuftah being sperm makes one doubt that the Quranic Allah knew only 50% of the birth process. What about the ova? How can there be any 'germination' without an ovum? And where exactly does Quran mention it explicitly? It doesn't, it is just wishful thinking to suggest that ‘nutfatun amshaajin’ means anything related with ovum. In fact Q 2:223 says wives are tilth and tilths can't contribute genetic material!!

    • shabeer says:

      #Most of this has been already debunked numerous times over……………WHERE IS IT? LOT OF PEOPLE SAYS SHAHADH DURING THE DEBATE & SOME DEBATER TOO COME TO ISLAM IS THE "debunked numerous times"………????????????/HUEEEE?

      #Quranic Allah knew only 50% of the birth process………….PLZ READ THE POST /LINK U WILL KNOW THE TRUTH OF QURAN ………………..

    • chuck says:

      //#Quranic Allah knew only 50% of the birth process//
      I have read the post in full. There is no explicit mention of Ovum which is a must for the reproduction process what you have are wild assumption for the word nuftah and at a stretch it is only a rehashing of the famous 2 sperm hypothesis of Hippocrates and Galen which was already known at the time of Quran. If you want me to debunk I can but it is already done several times over i.e. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/denis_giro
      And irrespective of how you interprete you can never see the 'ovum' there.

    • DivineLightJohrei says:

      Hello Slave! But all the Arab countries a long way behind the Jews, the Chinese, the Korean and the European in science, technology,and weaponry. You talk like a frog living in an Islamic well for too long and not knowing all about the outside world.

    • Slave of none says:

      @ Slave
      Stop being slave, free yourself, clogged mind will start functioning again and the sun will stop to sets in muddy water like it never did. Once brain is dis-locked, breath some fresh air, then think about what is scientific or not. The whole mechanics of the universe will be more easier to understand without any flying donkeys etc… n best of luck if not try living your life at least for one day without being anyone slave; it's worthwhile give a try.

  6. shivam says:

    and in fact the word "Muslim" and "Musalmaan" (as we call them in india) has no arabic roots. No where in the quran it is described that why should they be referred to as one. Muslim in fact is a word originated from Hindi, "Musal" which means Pestle, Muslim too is derived from MUSal. There is a plethora of such things which prove beyond doubt that the pervert Mohammed had knowledge of hindu scriptures and he twisted them totally in an absurd and ridiculous way to suit his needs. The Kabba, in Mecca actually housed 360 idols related to Hindu gods which were demolished by the crazed Mohammedan followers. Mecca also has its root in the sanskrit word " Makkeshwar". Makkeshwar was a pre-islamic hindu worship site in arab where the current Kabba stands. It was a tradition of Muslim invaders or their nonsensical logic that something devoted to Allah should be made above the worshiping place of a non-believer. this religion is very degenerative. I request the united nations to bomb areas like Pakistan, Bangladesh and other Arab countries with nuclear warheads.. for the betterment of the whole homo sapiens race, and for a peaceful and dazzling tomorrow. muslims are good for nothing.

  7. Shivam says:

    Ali Sina is really doing a great work. I'm a Hindu from India, and let me tell you one interesting thing. Muslim converts are more dangerous than congenital Muslims. The converts possess insanity beyond perception, their behavior is highly degenerate and uncivilized. every other day in India, a communal war would take place in which innocent Hindus get butchered and perhaps they are even successful in mass genocides in India. I hope that you will agree with me that Hinduism is a very peaceful and tolerant religion. We do not want anyone to accept our religion, we are happy with the way we are, with the way we live and we respect the beliefs of other religions but except Islam. As a matter of fact I myself, am a strong critic of Islam. If you give logical reasons to Muslims then you are just wasting your time. Some Muslims who have commented here are not even able to express themselves clearly and in a grammatically correct English, the reason is simple for that – Most Muslims in India are Illiterate and as dumb as anything. More than 5 crore Bangladeshi Muslim infiltrators are living in india, who form a major portion of people that give vote to Congress, a very degenerative party in india. it compromises of thugs, shysters and pork barrel politicians. many are even convicts in rape and murder cases. what good to the indian society will they do?

  8. Humza Khan says:

    This site funny. I had a great laugh. Islam gave right to women. You want to say males are equal to women no they are NOT they are Equal, but DIFFERENT. In the free western world little girl have eating disorders, metal illeness. They are raped during the day why do women carry pepper spray in the western countries. Islam gives you the answer with is the Hijab. In islam women only have to cover their chest area and hair not their entire face.. don't show Iraian and aghani photo to prove your point.

    • Marlene Wilkins says:

      funny how the rapes are more frquent and far more brutal in the islamic nations, even with full burqas…and of course, it's always the woman's fault, unless she has male witnesses to defend her.
      Even THEN she can be found guilty of adultery.

      islam gave nothing to women aside from enslavement o a vile system called shariah which is nothing more than a brutal, misogynistic, perverse and despicable justification for treating women as less than animals.
      You statement about the hijab is patently ridiculous.
      We shouldn't have to cover ourselves because vicious and undisciplined islamist males have the diseased view that an uncovered woman is 'fair game' for sexual abuse. I've heard the Official expnation from imams and clerics about how men 'cannot control themselves' when seeing naked/exposed female flesh, be it face, ankle or cleavage.
      Get this, and get it good inside that cult-programmed brain of yours.
      More and more women are ready to geld you islamist svoluches on general pronciples, as your living disgraces to the masculine gender. If some islamist cretin tries 'exercising his rights' with me because I like to wear revealing clothing, I'll snap his neck and at 6'3 with shape I keep myself in and years of instruction and training from two VERY skilled and experienced Men, I can do it easier than cracking an egg.
      More and more women are carrying guns, now also.
      YOU will adapt to Western ways when in the West, or you can leave, or suffer the consequences of your actions for attemping sexual assault.
      Many Western Men easily control themselves through a slight effort of self-discipline when seeing low-cut blouses or short skirts, islamic males are expected to do the same–and this is NOT a request.
      Our nations. Our cultures. Our rules–abide, or leave.
      The thrid option isn't one you or any other islamist wants to experience.
      Tell the rest of your islamist fellows of this, and warn them as if it were the word of allah itself. We are sick and tired of being made to feal afraid and intimidated my muslim demnds we cover ourselves and we won't do it…but we will fight back, and cut rapists off at the hips as our Cops and such no longer seem interested in protecting us as they feel such would be 'discriminatory vs. muslims'.
      Fine, Vigilanteism it is then.
      Rape a Western woman–lose your bollocks.
      Simple enough.

    • aminriadh says:

      "funny how the rapes are more frquent and far more brutal in the islamic nations, even with full burqas…and of course, it's always the woman's fault, unless she has male witnesses to defend her. "

      And where is you evidence . . . obviously you will come out with such things. Hence evidence? Else you made it all up . . .

      – – –

      "islam gave nothing to women aside from enslavement o a vile system called shariah which is nothing more than a brutal, misogynistic, perverse and despicable justification for treating women as less than animals. "

      Nothing more than a rant. Very common and unoriginal.

      – – –

      "I've heard the Official expnation from imams and clerics about how men 'cannot control themselves' when seeing naked/exposed female flesh, be it face, ankle or cleavage. "

      Such as . . . who is this official?

      – – –

      "More and more women are ready to geld you islamist svoluches on general pronciples, as your living disgraces to the masculine gender. If some islamist cretin tries 'exercising his rights' with me because I like to wear revealing clothing, I'll snap his neck and at 6'3 with shape I keep myself in and years of instruction and training from two VERY skilled and experienced Men, I can do it easier than cracking an egg. "

      Ha ha – just a rant . . . and pretty meaningless. This is hypothetical violence . . .

      – – –

      "Many Western Men easily control themselves through a slight effort of self-discipline when seeing low-cut blouses or short skirts, islamic males are expected to do the same–and this is NOT a request. "

      A hell of lot don't . . . obviously. However . . . it is your justification that is puzzling. THis is not what feminists (Muslims or Non Muslims) claim.

      – – –

      "We are sick and tired of being made to feal afraid and intimidated my muslim demnds we cover ourselves and we won't do it"

      Where?

      – – –

      I bet you post this BS every chance you get.

    • Marlene Wilkins says:

      In many Muslim countries, rape is common but the idea that there should be four witnesses to prove the rape can be hard to produce as rape can take place when the aggressor and the victim are totally alone.
      Some women prefer not to report the rapist for fear of scandal as sex outside marriage or rape is seen as dishonouring their family.

      The Islamic law or sharia condemning the aggressor to lashes or death is practised in very few countries like Saudi Arabia. In other Muslim countries like Morocco the penalty is imprisonment and a fine or the aggressor with the consent of the victim in case of deflowering her should marry her.

      Another point is that in many Islamic countries rape within marriage isn’t recognised as the woman should be at the beck and call of her husband even in sexual matters. But in countries like Morocco, there are associations formed to help women in difficulties with their husbands, including the sexual abuse they can be exposed to.

      In view of the traditional restrictions on sexual freedom in Muslim countries and the desire for a romantic relation, many women fall victims to rape resulting in deflowering which is considered as a loss of dignity for the woman and a dishonour to her family.

      To deal with the problem of rapes and to have real statistics about it in the Muslim world, taboos on this should be lifted and open debates should be organised to sensitise women about the legal procedures they should follow as well as sensitizing societies and families to provide the victim with support instead of looking down on her as a shame to her surrounding.

      You know very well what theislamic world's views on rape and women are, nice try. But a total failure on your part.
      You're nothing more than an islamist determined to preserve his cult because it allows, encourages and justifies the misogyny you and others get off on. islam is nothing more than a 'boys club' so gamma males can feel important and mas macho.
      The problem you face is more and more people are becoming aware of islams vile, despicable treatment of women. It's all over the media, even the PolCorr Leftist media isn't covering up the Shame of islam anymore.

      The self-defnse aspects? No not hypothetical. The last islamist to lay hands on me ended up with a fully crushed testicle and the Doc weren't sure about saving the other and there was serious crush damage to his penis because my knee trapped it against his pubic bone.. I could have snapped his neck, I know how and had every right to do so as he was attempting to draw a knife to use on me.
      Next time, I won't just give an islamist my knee. He got his one warning, he pressed the attack, and he suffered the natural consequences. I doubt he'll ever be sexually-able again.
      No loss to the world if he can't breed.
      No, it's not 'hypothetical' and it isn't something I EVER wanted in my life. But islamists started this crap in our city and I will not be a passive victim of Leftist appeasement policies.

      Western Men are obviously better masters in the majority of proper self-discipline than males indoctrinated under the cult of islam. That's a Fact, and again, you know it too. ANY male can control themselves, but islam lets them act like sub-animals and get away with it.
      Feminsists…you mean Feminazis, and they are every bit as bad, and in many ways worse, than islamists. femizazis aren't Feminists, they are every bit as domination-minded as islamists, just on a different topic, and as a woman those traitors to Feminism and womanhood are a fucking disgrace to our gender and Humanity as a whole. They're disgustingly facist and utterly tyrannical.

      As for the islamist intimidation via the rape-jihad:
      Europe, UK, Canada, America and the list is growing. If our authorties and leaders have abdicated their obligation, their Giri, to protecting citizens from criminal acts irrespective of gendeer, race or religion then there's only one option and that is defending ourselves.
      In our city, as one example, our Cops are outnumbered by islamists very heavily. Council asked the local Natives for insight, and we got Native Patrols on our streets working with the Cops. They don't do the PolCorr Leftist shuffle-and-scrape. They've made it clear, in no unequivocal terms that if they catch a muslim in the act of assaulting a citizen, especially a woman, they'll kill him on the spot.
      Natives really don't like islam, muslims or any of your flakewitted ways, they see you as a much worse invasion than when the Caucasians came…and aren't going to tolerate it this time around.
      Natives have a much better tradition of treating women far better and for much longer spans of history than the silly little cult mohammed the abomination started up.

    • Paresh says:

      which GOD on earth teaches to hate ? period.

      it is only ISLAM – Koran 5:51

    • aminriadh says:

      So why did your God motivate you to hate? I mean your 3 brief replies are hardly the bastion of great thinking. Are they?

      I wouldn't be surprised if you are no other than "denial is no proof" – its the brilliant writing style . . . and the always an Indian name.

    • Sol Landet says:

      From quran I learned that you muslims see women as inferior being, pets and men as beasts ruled only by sexual instinct. I'm glad I'm not muslim.

    • Lasith says:

      So you are mentioning that HIjab is to defend against rapist? hmm an interesting point. Or else, why do women need to cover chest and hair? Do you also justify child marriage? Its not just women but children will be abused and it is allowed in the book that you follow as well as the person who established it, justified it by leading in examples. You can have multiple women as wives and it is not abusive. You can get married to children and it is not abusive. If got raped the victim becomes the offender sometimes. So define "rape" taking to account that you are living in a civilized world. And the other point. Just providing the hijab is the one cure that fits all? Very interesting. :) I assume instead of these costumes they also need to ware a female condom in order to get rid of legal rapists do not they? :D

    • infidel/kafir says:

      BURQA ed ISLAMIC woman walks in a sac or tent . Only eyes can be seen. You arew a good liar, deceiver and dishonest Moslemah.

    • die Blume says:

      In the west western women carry pepper sprays because Muslim men like you sexually attack us. I am saying this because I was a victim and I was attacked by one of your fellow Muslim brothers, who thought that my "No" answer meant "Yes". And yes, thank God that I live in the west, because I didn't have to bring four male witnesses to the court room and my family didn't have to commit an honour killing and kill their daughter because someone thought that she was "helal" and it is ok to rape her. God bless western laws and the way they protect women, because justice was served.
      Furthermore, as per your statement, men and women are equal, so if you believe in the equality of the two genders, why don't you start wearing a hijab as well since you are promoting that wome must wear it?

    • Ali Sina says:

      @ die Blume,
      If we don’t stop Islam your daughter may not have the same luck that you have, just as you don’t have the same safety that your mother had. So get active, don’t let the traitor leftists bully you into silence. You are not racist to speak against a dangerous cult. Our ultimate goal must be ban Islam, make its practice outlawed, bulldoze the mosques and kick all those who want to practice it out of the west. The sooner we do that the less bloodier it will be.

      The question to be asked is not whether you are a good person or a bad person, whether you wear hijab or you don’t, or whether you believe women are equal to men or not. These questions are irrelevant. It takes no time to change them and from a moderate Muslim turn into a terrorist Muslim. The question to ask is whether you are a Muslim or not. If you are, here is the way to the air port. Assalamo alaikum and don’t come back.

  9. intsab says:

    just a media Act to degrade Islam, hate these kinda cheep websites…

    • Boiragi says:

      well it is the "cheap".

    • Marlene Wilkins says:

      islam degrades itself, every minute of the day. If you're a Muslim, then stand with the rest of us against the islamists that are befouling and defiling your religion–otherwise, you're guilty of complicity-by-silence.
      There's no room or space for fence-sitting anymore, the islamists have seen to that.

      Muslims can either take back islam from the islamists, or islam will continue to be perverted, twisted and seen as The Cult Of Atrocity.

      Which would you prefer??

    • papa romeo says:

      If you think so how about refuting the allegations of Ali and prove what he says is wrong… idiot, displaying the same mentality of a muslim! If you cannot shut your hole!

    • Paresh says:

      True, you were taught only to hate !!!

  10. ATOZ says:

    DEAR ALI THANKS FOR PUBLISHING MY COMMENTS BUT I AM SEEING THAT A DEBATE WHICH WAS DONE BY ME FEW WEEKS EARLIER IS COMPLETELY ERASED .IT IS NOT FAIR .LET THE PEOPLE SEE THAT .HOWEVER AS IT IS YOUR SITE YOU MAY DELETE THE THING WHICH DOES NOT FIND SUITABLE TO YOU BUT IF YOU ARE TRUELY DETERMINED TOWARDS TRUTH AND RATIONAL THINKING THAN I DO NOT THINK THAT MY WRITING WAS NOT FIT UPON THAT STANDARD .

    • Ali Sina says:

      I do not delete anything,. The system authomaticallly deletes posts that contian certain vulgar words.

    • ATOZ says:

      Thanks for answering but there were no such words in my view.Secondly first the original comment which was written by someone other was deleted by him than the reply and rereply process continued for few weeks and than when I am seeing few weeks after that all 6-7 comments are totally wiped out.
      thanks

  11. smart thinking says:

    This Turkish leader is really smart with the " think-out-of-box" solution to burgua

    How to solve the Burqua problem
    ……my friend Hamed in Kuwait sent me this one.
    For those struggling to ban women from wearing Burqua in their countries, Mustafa Kamal, who has a nick name of "Attaturk" who is the founder of modern Turkey resolved the problem in a very wise way. He issued the following decree;

    " With immediate effect, All Turkish women are privileged to wear whatever they choose, however, all prostitutes must wear a Burqua!!!

    The very next day, no women in Turkey was seen with a Burqua…

  12. John K says:

    You can use the edit function to fix your comments if there has been no reply.

  13. John K says:

    Interesting proposition.

  14. puneet says:

    Correction: A Hindu Indian.

  15. ATOZ says:

    the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), allocated $1.6 billion to help prevent and investigate violence against women. VAWA was renewed in 2000 and in 2005. This includes:
    The Safe Streets for Women Act, which increases federal penalties for repeat sex offenders and also requires mandatory restitution for the medical and legal costs of sex crimes.
    The Safe Homes for Women Act increases federal grants for battered women's shelters, creates a national domestic violence hotline, and orders that the restraining orders of one state must be enforced by the other states. It also added a rape shield law to the Federal Rules of Evidence
    Part of VAWA was ruled unconstitutional by the
    THIS IS A USA ACT IS THERE SUCH ACT FOR MALES

    • everin says:

      Hey ! male chauvinist, because 99.99% of the voilence are committed by unruly men. Those are justified Laws against the terrorists n rapists.

    • ATOZ says:

      hi female chuvinist you are totally wrong women want to loot the money and take the property of males than they behave like you.They can not earn they can not work honestly .Neither they have any sense of truth justice and honesty and they deserve the beating.THEY CAN NOT TAKE TAPPLY THE LAW AMONG THEM AND THINK NONSENSE

  16. ATOZ says:

    The real question is money and assets .women in modern laws are given maintenance and assets distribution of husband without he having any rights toward wife and children.If given option with Freedom to loot the husbands and live in partners they would certainly do so but that does not become justice and fair to males .HE is sent to jail and would be thrown out of his own house declaring it to be matrimonial home.As a matter of fact given choice many male would opt outside these modern female oriented laws.

    • everin says:

      Not true at all. In countries where they practise Western Laws , divorced couple share their assets 50/50. Where did u get the stories of " being thrown out of his own house" and "sent to jail" ? From yr imans.? They also said that the 9/11 attacks were inside job. Funny ?

    • ATOZ says:

      First of all you Need to Study Domestic Violence (protection of women) Act 2005 of India .This case would run before a magistrate in India.In this Act magistrate has the power to send a male only out of the shared household.even if it is solely or jointly out of earnings of male.A shareded household so if you allow someone to reside in your home and he complaints against you that you are mentally and physically harassing you but you can not complaint even against her as she is a woman .I think only a person bereft of truth justice and completely disregarding male rights of would say this is right.Then you need to study 125 criminal procedure code of India which provides maintenance to wife only Non payment of would lead to attachment and then jail there is no provision that what the wife would do in return of course she need to specify the reasons why she is living seprately.Maintenance can continue for whole life .But not to husbands .Moreover you say 50/50 is right which is completely wrong.If everyone is equal then why not Any country straight away distributes all income from President to Peon equally and to all human Beings also.All assets of country/any firm /any company should be distributed equally.When husband is working outside he has to take responsibility and do some work as per order of his boss /client /customer.Then how your modern law s claim that
      wife should be given 50% share of it without earning it Can the husband demand the work as a matter of right as a customer /client /boss demand.You say that husbands would also be given 50% but that is not free as genrally husbands has t o do outside work .You also need to study men rights websites worldwide .You seem to be a biased person.See UN has no international men day but it has no international women day .Would you share you property and income with everyone equally.Infact there are lot and lots of modern laws favouring females and discrimanting males if you need details I would slowly provide What about Mr Assange Who was chaged with rape in sweden.

    • everin says:

      This remind me of my friend’s divorce in Malaysia.  He was driven out of his house by the powerful lawyers of his wife with the order of the ( civil not sharia ) court. He was not order to pay maintenance because he was a pensioner with a low income. He was desperate to buy another house but had no money.  So he told her to shift out so that he could sell the house n gave her half the share.  She agreed n she found a buyer through a broker n they shared the proceed 50/50.  He moved to a far-away town n make a lots of money in business without the knowledge of his divorced wife n married again. Luckily, his 2 children had grown up n working n earning. I knew of many divorced couples in Singapore n Malaysia staying in the same house in different rooms because neither side can afford to buy another house n the court never order either side to move out. I think it is fair for a divorced wife should get half the assets of her husband because she is the equal partner in the household, toiling in the kitchen, doing the laundry n taking care of the children beside giving sexual pleasure to her husband.  Why treat her unfairly, esp. she is the mother of his children ?  It is human dignity to treat women fairly. In the 1st place why the Domestic Violence Act 2005  (protection of women)  was enacted ?  Because the women were often beaten unfairly by their husbands, esp. when they are drunk.  I have no doubt u are a male supremacist ala Muslim.

    • ATOZ says:

      You are unable to answer my questions my dear friend labelling me is not the answers to my questions and arguments .If the women is giving the sexual pleasure to men then I am saying let this right be given to males legally and provide the punishment to women for not fulfilling it .You are saying that children are of males I would agree that work done by wife should be added as decided but then the husband should be given sole rights of children but your 50 /50 is legal but all you that wife would do is not legally binding upon women if women has not been doing her work than what is the remedy for husband in law.I have answered your question about jail.If you think 50/50 ratio is right than you are free to give it but why you think that it should be binding upon everyone else.From president to peon Everyone is different producing capacity then why not distribute it to equally.Why every doctor lawyer businessmen is not earning equally simply they are not equal producer .I am saying that why it is not human dignity to treat males fairly and equally .I am asking why this Domestic violence ACt 2005 is only applicable to women only why not it protects to males .And let me tell you this act is not applicable to husbands only it is applicable to fathers brothers brothers in law etc. And as like all feminists you are trying to mislead the others this act is not for drunken beating only its definitions are very wide OF COURSE IT IS A PURE FEMINIST TECHNIQUE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE AND GET A LAW FOR SOMETHING ELSE.EVERY ONE WHEN EARNS HEOR SHE WOULD HAVE TO TOLERATE THE DEMANDS OF HIS CUSTOMER CLIENTS AND BOSS BUT WOMEN START ACCUSING MALES FOR VIOLENCE BUT DOES NOT LEAVE THEIR HOUSE SIMPLY THEY TAKE THE PROTECTION HOME AND MONEY FROM THEM BUT DOES NOT WANT TO DO THEM ANYTHINGalso.If women are not doing violence then why they are afraid of this Act being applicable to them This act is not for protection for women It is for looting the males simply women want property maintenance children and throw away the males from his house property and children.This act is made for this only If women are not happy then let them earn themselves and live seprately.Where is women treated unfairly .If you think that giving all rights to women and zero to males than it could be your definition how do you think that it should be applied to others .BY throwing them in jails by beating them By looting there property.You are fundamentally against the truth ,justice, honesty and giving any rights to males.For you claiming any rights for males seems to be a crime and wrong .What you say that women do for males is not the males rights legally (make these rights legal and provide legal remedy in case of non doing)but your 50/50 is legal.IF 50 /50 IS FAIR THEN WHY NOT GIVE EVERY WORKER IN COUNTRY/WORLD EQUAL SALARY /MONEY WHY NOT SHOW FAIRNESS TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS.

    • everin says:

      I do not understand yr drunken bullshit.  

    • ATOZ says:

      Yes you are totally defeated and /or do not have mind .So clearly you can not understand the truth honesty and justice.neither you seems to be knowledebale nor rational you seem to have a belief that by abusing others you wins.YOU ALSO DELETED YOUR ORIGINAL REMARK

  17. ATOZ says:

    When SEEN FROM ANTI TRUTH ANTI JUSTICE AND ANTI MALE ANGLE ABOVE WOULD SEEM TO BE TRUE. A HUMAN BEING BROUGHT UP IN MODERN LAWS WHICH ARE COMPLETELY BIASED IN FAVOUR OF FEMALES WOULD SAY SO.SEE IN INDIA THERE IS SECTION 125 CR P C PROVISION WHICH PROVIDES MAINTENANCE TO WIVES IF MEN IS EARNING AND WIFE IS NOT AND NOT LIVING IN ADULTERY .BUT NOW IF HUSBAND DOES NOT PAY HE WOULD BE SENT TO JAIL.NOW THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR HUSBANDS AND WHAT RIGHTS HUSBANDS WOULD HAVE AGAINST WIFE. ANSWER IS ZERO.THE QUESTION IS IF WE PAY MONEY TO SOMEONE WE WOULD HAVE RIGHT OF GOODS OR SERVICE AGAINST HIM/HER BUT IT IS ASSUMED THAT HUSBAND SHOULD TOIL OUTSIDE AND WIFE WOULD DO NOTHING AND WOULD CLAIM MONEY FROM HUSBAND.IF SOMEONE PROVIDE HUSBANDS RIGHTS AGAINST WIFE IN RETURN OF THIS THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT .LET IT BE DECIDED BY FREE AGREEMENT.OF COURSE MODERN LAWS ARE NOT SO THEY ARE MADE FOR THE WOMEN ONLY.THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL MEN DAY BUT THERE IS INTERNATIONAL WOMEN DAY ,BY UN.AN EXAMPLE OF MISANDRIST AND HYPOCRACY THERE ARE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW IN INDIA AND AROUND IN MANY COUNTRIES WHICH IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE MALES RIGHTS AND JUSTICE AND TRUTH.WHY TALKING OF MALES RIGHTS BECOMES MISOGYNIST BUT NOT VICE VERSA .THEY SHOULD PAY FOR WIFE AND CHILDERN BUT SHOULD NOT CLAIM ANY RIGHTS AGAINST THEM. THESE AREJUST TIP OF ICEBERG ONLY.ALI SINA JI I THINK YOU ARE NOT RIGHT
    THANKS FOR ALOWING MY THOUGHTS ON YOUR WEBSITE

    • John K says:

      There is an entire issue of family stability in society being broken up by nanny state laws and easy divorce. No one should suffer an abusive marriage, but children, and hence society's well-being, are suffering for it. Population security is a part of national security, and dysfunctional children cannot help keep our nation in the position of a top economic and military power.

  18. Sanada_10 says:

    About majority:

    Bukhari 8.555:
    Narrated Usama: The Prophet said, "I stood at the gate of Paradise and saw that the majority of the people who had entered it were poor people, while the rich were forbidden (to enter along with the poor, because they were waiting the reckoning of their accounts), but the people of the Fire had been ordered to be driven to the Fire. And I stood at the gate of the Fire and found that the majority of the people entering it were women."

    In here, Muhammad used the word “saw” not “counted” so he just barely knew it. How could he know that they were the majority? It’s simple, it’s because their number was overwhelming their counterpart and by simply seeing it he knew it in an instance. Your 6/11 is only an assumption since 9/11 or 10/11 also constitutes as majority and I am sure he was not talking about small number like 11 which could be easily seen.

  19. Sanada_10 says:

    Livingsunnah, let me give you these:

    Here, supplementary about beating from hadiths:

    Bukhari 7.715:
    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!"…

    Take a look at “It was the habit of ladies to support each other”. This was not their habit but their own natural reaction due to their disadvantage. They felt insecure with men in patriarchal society like that. It’s natural for them to be united so that they can protect themselves. They had nothing, who would help them if not themselves?

    Bukhari 9.420:
    Narrated Al−Mughira bin Shu`ba: `Umar bin Al−Khattab asked (the people) about the Imlas of a woman, i.e., a woman who has an abortion because of having been beaten on her `Abdomen, saying, "Who among you has heard anything about it from the Prophet?" I said, "I did.'' He said, "What is that?" I said, "I heard the Prophet saying, "Its Diya (blood money) is either a male or a female slave.'…

    Here, Muhammad didn’t care nor forbid the beating. He didn’t even punish the culprit.

    Muslim 4.2127:
    …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?…

    Abu Dawood 11.2141:
    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…

    Abu Dawood 11.2142:
    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.

    Malik Muatta 30.2.13:
    Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "A man came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I was with 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.' "

    Hey, even slave girls are fair game.

    I see you’re still avoiding my post about “idriboo” in other verses. When the objects are humans it means “hitting a body”. The scholars say “beat them”, the hadith says, “beat them”, the dict says, “beat them”, comparative verses say, “beat them”, logic says, “beat them” but here you are, saying “separate from them”. Don’t edit your scripture please, you are wrong and only minority.

    About “happiness”, in Islam, individual’s happiness is not important because Islam thinks that the society is bigger thing than individual (like communism), beside “happiness” in heaven is far more important than happiness on this earth. Many muslimah will proudly say, “I am happy for following Allah’s order and enter heaven”, not “I am happy because I am happy”. Islam is submission, remember? You like what’s bad for you and dislike what’s good for you, an Islamic phrase.

    About friends and family, I don’t think this is 100% true since there are many examples of “bad family” which have high tension or stress inside it. Humans are naturally attracted to others who have the same characteristics and who want to accept them, so it is not necessarily comes from family. Also, in Islam, submission is top priority not family. If your family is kafir one you have to leave them, screw your individual happiness.

    • John K says:

      How can you be free while you are a slave of Allah?

      You are only keeping your brain free of facts that contradict your position.

      You are free to believe anything you want as long as you don't look at anything that proves you wrong.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Before doing that why don't you answer my queries here? It should be easy if you have the answer. I have many many questions that even your site can't answer. .

    • JSOP says:

      Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri:
      I went to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and asked him: "What do you say (command) about our wives?" He replied: "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." Book 11, Number 2139 – Abu Dawud

      -JSOP

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Well, well, well, what do we have here, an answer which doesn’t answer. Let’s see:

      You wrote, “Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: I went to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and asked him: "What do you say (command) about our wives?" He replied: "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." Book 11, Number 2139 – Abu Dawud”

      From this narration we can know that:

      1. Anything you do regarding women is considered as “command” or duty.
      2. You give them food just like yours, meaning that they can’t choose any food for themselves, meaning they are human pet.
      3. You give them clothes just like yours, meaning that they can’t choose their own clothes, they don’t have freedom, another human pet.
      4. An order of “do not beat them” is hardly answering the numerous beating narrations I gave in this comment section and the grand daddy of them all, the Quranic verse about beating is clear. In here we have difficulties:

      A. What is the context of this narration?
      B. Can this human narration beat the other narrations compiled by the higher authority of the hadith and in the end, beat Allah’s verse itself?
      C. Is this forbidden and contains punishment? Or is it just an advice?

      So, are you done cherrypicking my post? If you are then why don’t you read these 2 to give you a broader view?

      Book 11, Number 2138:
      Narrated Mu'awiyah ibn Haydah: I said: Apostle of Allah, how should we approach our wives and how should we leave them? He replied: Approach your tilth when or how you will, give her (your wife) food when you take food, clothe when you clothe yourself, do not revile her face, and do not beat her.

      And after that:

      Book 11, Number 2141:
      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.

  20. livingsunnah says:

    The long hadith that you quote at the beginning does not indicate that Umar was displeased that his wife was defending herself; he is at first upset because his wife shouts at him. Ultimately, though, he does not express opposition to her, and becomes upset that the prophet (pbuh)'s wives would frequently make Muhammad (pbuh) mad and be ungrateful for his protection and support of them. The hadith does not chastise women standing up for themselves, but it chastises those who are ungrateful.

    Also, you're misinformed about the ages of Muhammad (pbuh)'s wives when he married them. Only two or three were ever teenagers when he married them, and most of them were widows or divorcees (thus not virgins). For reference, here are the ages of his wives when he (pbuh) married: Khadijah (40), Muhammad (pbuh) was 25; when he (pbuh) was 40-63, he married: Aisha (9), Sawda (55), Hafsaw (24), Zayhab (teenager), Umm Salam (29), Zaynah (33), Jiwayriya (20), Ramlah (30-35), Safiyya (19), Barra (36).

    You also misquote the hadith about women in Hell. It does not say that a majority of women will go to Hell, only that a majority of those IN Hell are women; then again, demographics would suggest the same thing. Nonetheless, women are only in Hell because they are ungrateful, not for being female.

    Women are "deficient" in their religion because they are not required to do as much as men: they do not pray or fast during their menses so they are comfortable and not in pain. They are deficient in intelligence (or, information) in certain matters such as finances or other economic transactions, and therefore their witness counts for half of a man's. Women have many other obligations and duties- for which their witness counts fully- that may interfere with the ability to remember something as trivial as another person's agreement.

    Woman are not viewed as inferiors because their primary duty is to the family. A popular hadith says that "paradise can be found at the foot of the mother", and that a persons' mother is the person most worthy of reverence after God. Living in a peaceful, prosperous home is considered a great and worthy task, and that is why it is the woman's greatest "jihad". Yet, the reverence of women should not make her "arrogant", and she should always recognize her husband's contribution.

    Men are expected to take care of women not because woman are unable to take care of themselves. Men are stronger (better suited to manual work, protection) and the natural choice to go out and work and make money if the woman is nursing or raising children, etc. Besides, a woman has every right to work and make money once her obligation to family is completed. A man is obliged to work to provide for his family; the idea of defining one's life based on a happy career is a modern invention. I think most people have realized that happiness doesn't come from money or a career alone; it's the social connections that make a life worth living (in terms of psychological happiness).

    As for the verse in the Qur'an that says to "hit" one's wife as a third resort, the verb "dereb", which means "hit" is used various other times in the Qur'an and not literally taken to mean "hit". In fact, it commonly is interpreted to mean "make one's own way" or "send forward" or "present to others" (14:24, 16:75, 22:73). This verse is the only time the verb "dereb" is translated violently, and it seems to disagree with hadiths that tell spouses to appoint arbiters, separate physically, and then divorce.

    Women can be a temptation to men, and that is why Muhammad (pbuh) worried that women would be the biggest "affliction" for men. In the verse you quote about women rising from prayer after men, this was to prevent the women from seeing the men exposed while bent over. The verse where Muhammad (pbuh) was turned on when seeing another woman does not necessarily mean that he was imagining her while being intimate with his wife; many things sexually excite someone, and it cannot always be controlled. What Muhammad (pbuh) was saying, however, was that people should only express their sexual needs through their spouses, and not give in to temptation with others. These are verses emphasizing morality, fidelity, and chastity.

    You say yourself that both Miriam (pbuh) and Mary (pbuh) have the same name in Arabic, which is the language that Muhammad (pbuh) spoke; isn't the mistake there in the translation? In the following hadith about the rib: a rib is by nature crooked (and stronger) to protect the internal organs. If one tries to straighten it against its nature (if a man tries to force a woman to do something), it will break. However, if you let woman do what they know how to do, there is great benefit from it.

    To conclude: "You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness…And live with them honorably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good." (An-Nisa 4:19)

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Livingsunnah, you obviously haven’t learnt anything. Try to read the other side’s argument once in a while. Your post is outdated and boring not to mention the cherry picking.

      You wrote, “The long hadith that you quote at the beginning does not indicate that Umar was displeased that his wife was defending herself; he is at first upset because his wife shouts at him”

      The woman in that story was just defending themselves but the macho barbarian, Umar, didn’t interpret it as “defense” because there was no such thing. Whether the retort (not shouting) was meant to defend themselves or not, he didn’t care. The judge was himself, remember?

      You wrote, “Ultimately, though, he does not express opposition to her, and becomes upset that the prophet (pbuh)'s wives would frequently make Muhammad (pbuh) mad and be ungrateful for his protection and support of them”

      The macho barbarian was upset and that’s itself is an opposition if you read it neutrally. Muhammad was a sensitive old man, anything could upset him and all faults must come from someone else. Note that those wives were ok before this old man married them, except the old one Sauda who begged him not to divorce her. Muhammad was not protecting them coz he did those marriages for his own gain. What kind of man who always hide under god’s armpit when facing his own wife? A brave man? I don’t think so.

      Polygamy is not healthy and never ends well because human is selfish, jealousy (in many ways) will always creeps into this kind of marriage.

      You wrote, “The hadith does not chastise women standing up for themselves, but it chastises those who are ungrateful.”

      Wrong. The hadith doesn’t mention anything about “defense” so inserting this is irrelevant. All acts of defending, shouting, and retort are ungrateful acts in their dictionary. A wife is a husband’s slave.

      You wrote, “Also, you're misinformed about the ages of Muhammad (pbuh)'s wives when he married them”

      You have to bring reliable sources on that coz I see some inaccurate ages in there.

      You wrote, “most of them were widows or divorcees”

      Irrelevant, you have to know the reason behind the marriage.

      You wrote, “It does not say that a majority of women will go to Hell, only that a majority of those IN Hell are women”

      It’s the same thing if you ever use logic.

      Anything that displeases the husband is an act of ungratefulness => the judge is the husband => defending herself or not, is still an act of ungratefulness => Women on this earth are ungrateful creatures => hell is waiting for ungrateful women on earth => that’s why in hell they are the majority.

      Come on, re-read the hadith and you’ll find the generalization.

    • livingsunnah says:

      You claim that "being upset" shows that Omar was upset, yet that is not true for the wife?- she was upset that Omar shouted at her in the first place. They both make a mistake by letting their anger represent itself in this destructive way. However, the rest of the hadith goes on to chastise the wives of Muhammad (pbuh) for purposefully making him angry and upsetting him. Again, if you read the entire hadith, it shows this- that women should be grateful for their husband's kindess.

      Women are not men's slaves. There are many verses that stress that women are men's equals in God's eyes (4:124, 33:35, 40:40, 49:13), but the best is perhaps 3:195, "…be you male or female – you are equal to one another."

      Of course, polygamy is not healthy. That is why the Qur'an says to men who desire more than one wife, "You will never be able to do perfect justice between wives even if it is your ardent desire, so do not incline too much to one of them (by giving her more of your time and provision) so as to leave the other hanging (i.e. neither divorced nor married). And if you do justice, and do all that is right and fear Allâh by keeping away from all that is wrong, then Allâh is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (4:3)

      And, yes, of course citing just a few verse from the Qur'an is "cherry picking", as you call it. However, my intention with these comments is simply to provide context to the article's incorrect (and frequently uncited) claims. It is not my obligation to provide the entire argument, only to challenge that which I see to be untrue.

      I don't see why the fact that Muhammad's (pbuh) wives were primarily widows or divorcees is irrelevant. This website likes to claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was a powerful man who used his influence to pressure women into marrying him (pbuh). If this were true, why wouldn't he (pbuh) have married only young virgins? Divorcees and widows, even in Western society, often struggle to enter into another marriage afterwards- hence why Muhammad (pbuh) married them- to provide for and protect them.

      “It does not say that a majority of women will go to Hell, only that a majority of those IN Hell are women” This is NOT the same thing, logically. If a majority of those in Hell are women, and there are only 11 people in Hell, this means 6+ women. This is irrelevant to how many women actually exist, be it 6 or 6 billion.

      The wives' ages (http://web.archive.org/web/20020602101751/http://www.prophetmuhammed.org/docs/relations01.html):
      Khadijah – 40 (widow)
      Sawda- ~50 (widow)
      Aisha- 9
      Hafsah and Zaynab – teenagers (both widowed)
      Umm Salamah – 25+ (widow)
      Zaynab- 33+ (divorcee)
      Juwairiyah- 20
      Ramlah- 39 (widow)
      Saffiya- 19 (divorcee and widow)
      Barra- 36 (widow and divorcee)

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “You claim that "being upset" shows that Omar was upset, yet that is not true for the wife?”

      When someone is upset it is called upset not joy, happy, smiling, or whatever and in this case the blame was on Umar. He was the one who started it because he came from patriarchal society which regarded the women as inferior. The wife of course was upset too but that’s natural. You don’t just generalize their feelings.

      You wrote, “she was upset that Omar shouted at her in the first place”

      This is the answer but you cannot understand it. This is normal.

      You wrote, “They both make a mistake by letting their anger represent itself in this destructive way.”

      Incorrect. Umar was culprit while his wife just followed her instinct. You cannot be blamed for defending yourself. It’s self defense and it’s not destructive. Which perspective did you use anyway?

      You wrote, “However, the rest of the hadith goes on to chastise the wives of Muhammad (pbuh) for purposefully making him angry and upsetting him.”

      May I remind you to be objective? Muhammad himself boasted that when you married multiple wives you had to be fair and yet he couldn’t do it himself. Purposefully? This was the result of unhealthy polygamy. It damaged their mentality and they always wanted to defeat their rivals. This was Muhammad’s own doing. Can’t stand the heat? Don’t do it then. They were not independent, they feelings were split, and they were insecure. All of these are destructive.

      You said that they did that on purpose, but how could you know it and by what standard? Muhammad was beyond any law and judgment. Any mistake he did would not be considered as mistake.

      You wrote, “Again, if you read the entire hadith, it shows this- that women should be grateful for their husband's kindess”

      So, the caged bird should be thankful to the owner? Define “kindness”.

      You wrote, “Women are not men's slaves. There are many verses that stress that women are men's equals in God's eyes (4:124, 33:35, 40:40, 49:13), but the best is perhaps 3:195, "…be you male or female – you are equal to one another."”

      Yes, they are slaves (in the house). I’m not in the mood of explaining verse after verse and I’ll let you do the tafsir on that (which you forgot to do it). All I say is, those verses don’t talk about equality nor it talk about marriage.

      Q 3:195 is not about equality too, it’s about the heavenly reward. Employee A got 1000 dollars and employee B got 500 dollars. Both of them got their reward but according to their deeds and jobs. So, all of these are irrelevant.

      You wrote, “Of course, polygamy is not healthy”

      Quoting that verse is not going to help you, practical world will. Remember, who’s the judge here and what is the result? Muhammad himself couldn’t play fair. What is “fair” here?

      You quoted it wrong, here:

      “If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four”

      Pay attention to the words “if ye fear”.

    • ATOZ says:

      You should see even ali has written in answer to topic perplexed that women are more vindictive and they fight dirtier they are weak..As a matter of fact modern laws are based only on political correctness not upon truth and justice and honesty .These provide maintenance and wealth of males to females but without any right to males .Feminist make strong voices any male expressing his view freely if sitting in good position and he has to resign or shut only because of threat of removal not because of truth or logic.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Oh, does that solve the problem in the muslim world? Modern law is based on the guilty feeling of males judging from the act they did to the females. It's a process and they will get it balanced in the future.

      Do you think just because the law is little bit suspicious due to male's history in the past means you can justify the misogyny in Islam? You are making irrelevant response here.

    • ATOZ says:

      MY RESPONSE IS TOTALLY RIGHT,YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEE THE TRUTH.YOU CALL THE FAIR LAWS OF MUSLIMS MISOGYNIST BUT MODERN LAWS WHICH ARE MISOANDRIST AS A LITTLE BUT SUSPICIOUS THAT IS COMPLETELY WRONG.WHY LAW SHOULD NOT BE SUSPICIOUS TOWARDS FEMALES.AS A MATTER OF FACT YOUR RESPONSE IS IRRLEVENT AND WRONG YOU ARE AFRAID TO STAND THAT MODERN LAWS SHOULD BE TESTED FOR TRUTH AND JUSTICE WHILE YOU THINK THAT YOU HAVE RIGHT TO THROW CRITICISM UPON ISLAMIC LAW .MALES HISTORY IS NOT GUILTY IT IS YOUR MISREPRESENTATION.YOU HAVE TO SEE POSITIVE SIDE ALSO.ACTUALLY FEMINIST STAND IS ALL GOOD DONE BY MALES IS BECAUSE OF FEMALES AND ALL BAD DONE BY MALES IS BECAUSE OF MALES.IF MALES WIN IN CERTAIN THING THAT IT IS BECAUSE FEMALES ARE DISCRIMINATED IF FEMALES WIN THAN IT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPERIOR.MODEREN LAWS ARE COMPLETELY BIASED AND ANTI TRUTH ANTI JUSTICE AND ANTI MALE .I CAN QUOTE 100'S LEGAL PROVISONS FROM INDIAN LAWS OF COURSE SUCH LAWS EXIST ELSEWHERE ALSO.YOU CAN NOT JUSTIFY THAT .

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Your answer is totally right because of what? I see you didn’t even try to discuss the topic and argument I presented here. The modern law, as I’ve told you, is attempting to erase the past guilt when male persecuted female. It is a part of process to adapt the new standard of gender equality and human rights. You can’t compare example like that to the past persecution of female worldwide.

      Suspicion is born from paradigm and the stain of male supremacist is still here in the modern society. It’s a normal way to “atone” your society’s guilt.

      No need to be angry caps lock warrior, you have to make relevant answer to the post I gave. Of course I have the right to criticize Islam because it has done damage and you are here to ignore it, am I right?

      Male history is not guilty? It was my misinterpretation? How could you prove it with just mere statement? In the past, the patriarchal system is very obviously one sided to the male, there is no balance. In Islam for example, the women have to be blamed for men’s lust, have to stay at home, beaten and cover their “shame”. They are shameful creature and that’s just one aspect. Can you compare it to your case?

      Now, what do you bring here, solution to people’s issue? No, you only bring irrelevant complain.

      I posted not to justify it but understand it, you didn't read it correctly.

    • ATOZ says:

      LET YOU UNDERSTAND TOPIC .MY BROADER RESPONSE IS MALES UNDER MODERN LAWS .ALI SINA HAS WRITTEN THE BROADEN TOPIC WOMEN UNDER ISLAMIC LAW THEN HE HAS CATEGORIZED SUB TOPIC .IT IS ABOUT WOMEN BEFORE AND AFTER ISLAM.OK.NOW HE WANTS TO PROVE THAT THE MATERIAL POSTED BY HIM SHOWS THAT UNDER ISLAMIC LAW WOMEN ARE TREATED WORSE THAN BEFORE AND IT IS UNFAIR ALSO (IF HE CONSIDER THIS IS JUST THAN HIS POSITION SHOULD BE THAT ISLAM DID THE THE GOOD AND BROUGHT THE JUSTNESS BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF MALES AND FEMALES) O.K. NOW YOU HAD REPRESENTED YOUR POST IN ANSWER TO CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW AND I HAVE POSTED MY COMMENTS IN REPLY TO THAT.BETTER WORD IS COMMENT AND NOT THE REPLY AS MY AIM IS TO CLEAR THE READER THE OTHER POINTS OF VIEW AND WHAT IS GOING IN MODERN LAW.BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE IMPRESSION YOU CREATE THAT THE MODERN LAWS ARE JUST AND TRUE IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD.WHEN YOU WOULD CONSIDER DEEPLY THE MODERN LAWS AND CREATE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE AND BASE THESE LAWS UPON TRUTH THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY ISLAMIC LAW IS OK
      CONT……

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You don’t even pay attention to my post ATOZ. Just look at your initial position and mine. You jumped in to this article first while all this long I talked about Islam and its patriarchal system so let’s assume that you were ready to refute my post about this but actually you didn’t. It makes your post as irrelevant, incomparable and not important in term of urgency.

      You wrote, “LET YOU UNDERSTAND TOPIC .MY BROADER RESPONSE IS MALES UNDER MODERN LAWS”

      This is the result of not reading my post correctly. I do understand your own post and male oriented attitude and I had given you the reason and understanding about the situation. The problem is, do you understand me, capslock warrior?

      Your “broader response” is not a response at all. It’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. You should call it, “stupid response influenced by gender bias”. I call a spade for a spade, sorry.

      You wrote, “ALI SINA HAS WRITTEN THE BROADEN TOPIC WOMEN UNDER ISLAMIC LAW THEN HE HAS CATEGORIZED SUB TOPIC .”

      Oh, sure he wrote that but did you even realize the location? Do you even read this article? Did you pay attention to what I had posted? Do you have the habit of throwing irrelevant things to anyone here?

      You wrote, “NOW YOU HAD REPRESENTED YOUR POST IN ANSWER TO CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW AND I HAVE POSTED MY COMMENTS IN REPLY TO THAT”

      Oh, you called that “in reply to that”? What you actually did is not replying but giving irrelevant answer. In these days, people often don’t know what their purpose is and will proudly say that they have any answer to any problem. This is precisely you. Now, let’s go back for a while and see:

      1. I talked about women in Islam, the imbalance and discrimination.
      2. You didn’t solve this and went on rambling about female “domination” and worse of it you chose to put it in this article. Seeing some lights now?
      3. In the end, the imbalance and gender discrimination weren’t answered at all and here you are, complaining to nothing.

      You wrote, “BETTER WORD IS COMMENT AND NOT THE REPLY AS MY AIM IS TO CLEAR THE READER THE OTHER POINTS OF VIEW AND WHAT IS GOING IN MODERN LAW.”

      Wrong again. You seriously think you are going to clear anything here while you can’t even grasp what I have posted? Is there no end to this self serving post here? Yours was not other POV but irrelevant post. Modern law is western law, not applied to all countries and I’d explained why they did that. This is the law of “cause and effect”. Females wouldn’t get it if the males didn’t allow it, you dig?

      What kind of POV which doesn’t solve the other POV? Dear, oh dear. You know logical fallacies? Try to search it first.

      You wrote, “BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE IMPRESSION YOU CREATE THAT THE MODERN LAWS ARE JUST AND TRUE IN THIS PARTICULAR REGARD.”

      If you couldn’t grasp it just say so, no need to pretend that you understood it. Now, I demand you to read between lines and show me which one is the “impression”? I did state that I didn’t justify it but understand it. My turn, do you justify the Islamic gender bias? Yes or no?

      You wrote, “.WHEN YOU WOULD CONSIDER DEEPLY THE MODERN LAWS AND CREATE FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE AND BASE THESE LAWS UPON TRUTH THEN YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHY ISLAMIC LAW IS OK”

      Modern laws cannot be compared to Islamic law because the later is more damaging than the first. The control is still in male’s hand for both laws and you didn’t even refute my post about Islamic law. So why did you want me to understand this irrelevant rant? Was it because you are muslim?

      Now, tell me logically the reason as to why Islamic law is actually ok. Walk the talk, please.

      Is it ok to beat female, kill them, consider them as property, rape them, or giving them half rights? You said it yourself that this is ok.

      I just use a simple statement to balance Sina’s words:

      Male is a greater danger to society than female coz they want to dominiate all, seek pleasure for themselves, having greater ambition thus creating greater consequences, and of course, this is obvious, they kill much more than the female. Do body count, mate.

    • ATOZ says:

      AS A MATTER OF FACT EITHER YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS WEAK OR YOU PRETEND TO BE.IF YOU FIND MY POST IRRELEVANT IT IS YOUR LACK OF INTELLIGENCE AND KNOWLEDGE .IF YOU FIND MY POST IRRELEVANT YOU ARE FREE TO ANSWER OR NOT ANSWER THEM. YOU THINK THAT YOU HAS RIGHT TO CRITICIZE OTHERS BUT OTHERS ARE NOT SORRY I WOULD CALL YOU ARE JUST A FEMINIST WHO BELIEVES IN MODERN FEMINIST TERRORIST LAWS.WHEN ONE REPLY OR COMMENT SITUATION DO CHANGE .FIRST WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL ME HOW YOUR REPLY IS RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC OF ALI SINA CRITICISM OF ISLAMIC LAW ABOUT THE WOMEN POSITION BEFORE AND AFTER ISLAM

      ou don’t even pay attention to my post ATOZ. Just look at your initial position and mine. You jumped in to this article first while all this long I talked about Islam and its patriarchal system so let’s assume that you were ready to refute my post about this but actually you didn’t. It makes your post as irrelevant, incomparable and not important in term of urgency.
      AS A MATTER OF FACT MY POST IS REL EVENT I NOT TELLING YOU SOME QUANTUM SCIENCE HERE . I HAVE COMMENTED /REPLIED KEEPING IN VIEW THE MAIN ARTICLE AS WELL YOUR AS VIEWS IN BRIEF AND PERHAPS IN YOUR VIEW YOU THINK THAT I SHOULD REPLY WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF REPLY.IF YOU FEEL THAT IT WAS NOT THE REPLY IT IS YOUR WEAKNESS NOT MINE.I REFUTED YOUR ENTIRE CLAIM IN THAT REPLY .YOU ASK ME TO REPLY THAT BUT IN REPLY I HAD EXPOSED YOU AND ALI SINA WHO SUPPORT FEMINIST TERRORIST LAW( LET SPADE BE CALLED A SPADE)THAT IS WHY MY POST IS COMPLETELY RELEVANT .THAT YOU WERE REFUTING ISLAM AND I WAS REFUTING MODERN FEMINIST LAWS. ACTUALLY YOU COULD NOT EVEN IMAGINE THAT THERE CAN BE SUCH A REPLY AND YOU THOUGHT THAT OTHERS SHOULD NOT QUESTION MY VIEW POINT OF MODERN LAWS RATHER THEY WOULD JUST BE REPLY WHAT YOU CONSIDER REPLY. WHAT IS WRONG IN ISLAMIC LAW REGARDING MALE FEMALE RIGHTS .WHY YOU THINK SYSTEM SHOULD BE MATRIARCHAL.WHY ONE PERSON IS IN JAIL AND ONE IS PRESIDENT IT IS BECAUSE ONE IS BAD OTHER IS GOOD SO IF MALES ARE FAR SUPERIOR THAN FEMALES THAN SYSTEM BECOMES PATRIARCHAL IT IS NOT THE LAW IS GIVING UNEQUAL RIGHTS .
      This is the result of not reading my post correctly. I do understand your own post and male oriented attitude and I had given you the reason and understanding about the situation. The problem is, do you understand me, capslock warrior?

      Your “broader response” is not a response at all. It’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. You should call it, “stupid response influenced by gender bias”. I call a spade for a spade, sorry.

      YOU ARE CALLING ME CAPSLOCK WARRIOR.I HAD THE RIGHT TO WRITE IN THE WAY AS I LIKE CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT PURPOSE SMALL LETTERS FULFILL IN THE COMPUTER TYPING.
      I CAN UNDERSTAND YOUR FEMALE ORIENTED VIEW AND I AM EXPLAINING YOU THE TRUE AND RIGHT AND HONEST AND JUST STATE OF AFFAIRS IT IS YOU WHO ARE UNABLE TO REPLY ANY THING EXCEPT A FALSE STATEMENT THAT MALES ARE GUILTY I REFUTE IT THAT MALES ARE GUILTY .IT IS THE FEMALES WHO ARE GUILTY .THE PRBLEM IS WITH YOU THAT YOU HAS ANSWERED NOTHING AND YOU THINK THAT YOU HAS ANSWERED YOUR RESPONSE IS TOTALLY STUPID WITH FALSEHOOD DISHONESTY AND INJUSTICE AND GENDER BIAS .YOU ARE UNABLE TO SHOW HOW MY RESPONSE IS GENDER BIASED OR MALE DOMINATED .YOU ARE CALLING SO BECAUSE YOUR FALSE FEMINIST VIEWS ARE BROKEN BY POINTS AND YOU ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER THEM

      Oh, you called that “in reply to that”? What you actually did is not replying but giving irrelevant answer. In these days, people often don’t know what their purpose is and will proudly say that they have any answer to any problem. This is precisely you. Now, let’s go back for a while and see:
      1. I talked about women in Islam, the imbalance and discrimination.
      2. You didn’t solve this and went on rambling about female “domination” and worse of it you chose to put it in this article. Seeing some lights now?
      3. In the end, the imbalance and gender discrimination weren’t answered at all and here you are, complaining to nothing.
      I CAN SAY ONLY THAT YOUR COMMENT IS TOTALLY APPLICABLE AGAINST YOU NOT ME YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU AND OTHERS ARE WRITIING
      CONT…..

    • ATOZ says:

      3 IN THE END YOU TALK ABOUT SOLUTION AND AND RAMBLING ABOUT IRRELEVANCY AND HERE YOU TALKING ABOUT GENDER DISCRIMINATION AND I AM ANSWERING THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MALES IN MODERN LAWS .AGAIN YOUR VIEW IS CLEAR YOU THINK DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MALES IS NOT GENDER DISCRIMINATION .

      NOW READ YOUR INTRODUCTION AND SAY MY POST IS IRRELEVANT. ACTUALLY YOU ARE LIKE SUPPOSE A COUNTRY A START TALKING ABOUT B COUNTRY'S HUMAN RIGHTS AND IF B COUNTRY OR SOME INDEPENNT PERSON ASKS ABOUT A COUNTRY'S HUMAN RIGHTS IT GETS IRRITATED AND STARTS RAMBLING THAT IT IS IRRELEVENT AND SO ON BECAUSE IT WAS THINKING THAT I CAN NOT BE QUESTIONED AND OTHERS ARE CRIMINAL WHO HAVE ONLY TO ANSWER ALL IN ITS (A) 'S BELIEF

      FURTHER I HAVE NOT ASKED YOU TO ANSWER ME OR MUST ANSWER IN URGENCY .YOUR IMAGINATION IS MAKING YOU LIKE SO

    • ATOZ says:

      I ASK WHETHER IT IS O.K. TO BEAT MALES TO H ARRAS THEM THEN WHY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW DOES NOT PROTECT THE MALES .
      WHY MALES HAVE NO LEGAL MACHINERY TO ADDRESS THEIR MATRIMONIAL RIGHTS .THEY HAVE TO GIVE THEIR PROPERTY TO FEMALES BUT WHAT RIGHT THEY WOULD GET IN RETURN 00000 WHEN OUR BOSS OR CLIENT WOULD GIVE US MONEY WE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THEIR ORDERS. THAN WHY MALES WOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHTS AS HE HAS TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE ETC. TO FEMALES ..
      WHY PUNISHMENT OF CASTRATION JAIL CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS OK.
      BETTER YOU SHOULD HAVE THIS STATEMENT IN ORIGINAL ARTICLE .THE IMAGINATION THAT MALES ARE GREATER DANGER TO SOCIETY IS WRONG . that women are more vindictive and they fight dirtier they are weak..YES I UNDERSTAND THAT FIGHTING MORE VINDICTIVELY AND DIRTIER ARE NOT DANGER TO SOCIETY AS PER YOU.
      SEEKING PLEASURE AND HAVING GREATER AMBITION IS NOT BAD TO SOCIETY WHAT A LOGIC YOU HAVE! RATHER TRUTH IS
      MALES ARE GREATER CONTRIBUTOR TO SOCIETY BECAUSE THEY HAVE GREATER AMBITION AND THUS HAVING GREATER CONSEQUENCES FEMALES HAVE ALMOST NO CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY.MALE HAVE DOMINATED BECAUSE THEY DO MORE FOR SOCIETY AS FAR AS KILLING ANY HUMAN BEING MALE OR FEMALE WHO DOES WRONG THING NEED TO BE PUNISHED APPROPRIATELY.YOU SHOULD ALSO COUNT MALE CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY.

    • ATOZ says:

      AND YOU CLEAR WHAT SOLUTION ALI SINA AND YOU ARE SUGGESTING IN YOU ARTICLE AND REPLY NULL EXCEPT CRITICIZING THE LAW OF ISLAM REGARDING MALE FEMALE RELATION.AND YOU WANT TO STOP ME FROM EXPOSING YOUR HYPOCRACY , YOUR CONTRADICTORY VIEWS MODERN LAWS TREATMENT OF LOOTING AND RAPING THE MALES PUTTING THEM IN JAIL , ARRESTING THEM WITH THEIR FAMILY.NOW YOUR CRITICISM IS HIGHLY APPLICABLE AGAINST YOU .MORE THAN IT
      1. NOW YOU ARE YOURSELF ACCEPTING THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WOMEN IN ISLAM AND DISCRIMINATION AND MY RESPONSE IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU IT IS MALES POSITION IN MODERN LAWS AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM .YOU ARE AFRAID TO COMPARE IT BECAUSE IT EXPOSES YOU AND ALL THOSE CRITISIZING ISLAMIC LAW .FOR THEM TALK OF MALES RIGHTS IS NONSENSE AND THEY SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHTS .THAT IS THEY ARE AFRAID TO TALK ABOUT THEM .THEY HATE ISLAMIC LAW BECAUSE IT RECOGNIZE MALES RIGHTS AS WELL .
      ANY BODY READING CRITICISM OF ISLAMIC LAW ON FEMALES RIGHT MUST GENUINELY ASK ABOUT MALES RIGHTS IN MODERN LAWS .IT IS APPLICABLE TO NON MUSLIMS AS WELL TO MUSLIMS I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOU OR ANY BODY ELSE SHOULD ACCEPT ISLAMIC LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE GIVEN BY ALLAH .BUT CAN NOT ONE ACCEPT ANY LAW IF THEY ARE BASED UPON TRUTH JUSTICE AND EQUALITY?.MODERN LAW WANT TO SAY THEY SHOULD SEARCH GENUINELY WHETHER THEIR LAWS ARE EQUAL TO MALES.

      WHY TALKING ABOUT MALES RIGHTS IS NONSENSE AND IRRATIONAL.OF COURSE IT IS THE MODERN VIEW THAT BE SILENT ABOUT MALES RIGHTS TALK ABOUT ONLY THE RGHTS OF WOMEN ONLY THAN ONLY YOU ARE A GOOD PERSON
      2 .YOU ONLY WANT TALK WOMEN AND WANT THAT THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN ALL THE RIGHTS AND NO TALK ABOUT MALES RIGHTS .YOU SOLVED NOTHING IN YOUR COMMENT REPLY NEITHER ALI SINA .YOU AND ALI SINA ARE CRITICIZING ISLAMIC LAW WITHOUT ANY SOLUTION OR YOUR SOLUTION IS IMPLIEDLY OF MODERN LAW. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS COMPLAIN G THAT WHY ISLAMIC LAW DOES NOT GIVE WOMEN ALL THE RIGHTS LIKE MODERN LAWS AND YOU DID NOT SOVE ANYTHING
      SEE SOME LIGHT

    • ATOZ says:

      Wrong again. You seriously think you are going to clear anything here while you can’t even grasp what I have posted? Is there no end to this self serving post here? Yours was not other POV but irrelevant post. Modern law is western law, not applied to all countries and I’d explained why they did that. This is the law of “cause and effect”. Females wouldn’t get it if the males didn’t allow it, you dig?

      What kind of POV which doesn’t solve the other POV? Dear, oh dear. You know logical fallacies? Try to search it first.
      If you couldn’t grasp it just say so, no need to pretend that you understood it. Now, I demand you to read between lines and show me which one is the “impression”? I did state that I didn’t justify it but understand it. My turn, do you justify the Islamic gender bias? Yes or no?

      Modern laws cannot be compared to Islamic law because the later is more damaging than the first. The control is still in male’s hand for both laws and you didn’t even refute my post about Islamic law. So why did you want me to understand this irrelevant rant? Was it because you are muslim?

      Now, tell me logically the reason as to why Islamic law is actually ok. Walk the talk, please.

      Is it ok to beat female, kill them, consider them as property, rape them, or giving them half rights? You said it yourself that this is ok.

      I just use a simple statement to balance Sina’s words:

      Male is a greater danger to society than female coz they want to dominiate all, seek pleasure for themselves, having greater ambition thus creating greater consequences, and of course, this is obvious, they kill much more than the female. Do body count, mate.

      YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG .FIRST YOU AND ALI SINA SOLVING NOTHING JUST CRITICIZING ISLAMIC LAW .MODERN LAW IS NOT JUST WESTERN LAW IT IS BEING APPLIED AROUND THE GLOBE ALMOST IN ALL COUNTRIES THOUGH IN VARYING DEGREES FOR E.G. IN AUSTRALIA ,INDIA JAPAN BRAZIL OR EVEN BANGLADESH.
      YOUR POST IS COMPLETELY FALSE AND IRRATIONAL AND BASED UPON INJUSTICE AND GENDER DISRIMINATION AGAINST THE MALES.NOW YOU YOURSELF DOES NOT UNDERSTAND AND BLAME OTHERS AND THEN TALK ABOUT MY STAND .YOU ARE NOT LOGICAL AND ALL YOU TALK ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES .ACTUALLY YOU LIVE IN A WORLD OF YOURSELF AND THINK ALL YOUR CONCEPTS ARE RIGHT AND TRUE .AND OTHERS SHOULD NOT QUESTION THEM.
      LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT CAN BE APPLICABLE AMONG NON CONSCIOUS BEINGS OR UPTO AN EXTENT UPON ANIMALS ETC.
      SECONDLY IF YOU THINK THAT THESE MODERN LAWS GIVING MALES NO RIGHTS ARE THE CAUSE AND EFFECT THAN THE PREVIOUS LAWS ITSELF WOULD BE EFFECT OF THEIR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE..AND OPPOSITION TO THESE LAWS IS ALSO CAUSE AND EFFECT.THESE LAWS ARE NOT CAUSE AND EFFECT UNLESS YOU BELIEVE IN THEORY OF DETERMINISM.

      ACTUALLY YOU ARE JUSTIFYING THESE MODERN LAWS PUTTING MALES INTO JAILS LOOTING THEIR PROERTY ,CASTRATION OF MALES CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ETC.
      YOUR ARROGANCE WHICH IS FOOLISHNESS CLEARLY REFLECTS WHEN YOU DEMAND FROM ME .FIRST YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE WRITING .YOU CAN NOT UNDERSTAND OTHERS AND BLAME THEM .
      YOU WANT TO SAY THAT IN WESTERN WORLD WOMEN WERE NOT GIVEN IS WRONG THEY PRODUCE NOTHING AND WANT TO LOOT THE PROPERTY OF MALES THAT IS IT.NOW WHAT WERE YOU MEAN BY UNDERSTANDING MY QUESTION TO YOU IS
      1 WHETHER YOU WANT THAT MALES SHOULD BE DISCRIMINATED IN MODERN LAWS OR NOT ?
      2 WHETHER WOMEN RIGHTS ARE GIVEN IN VACCUM OR AGAINST MALES
      3. YOU and ALI SINA ARE AVERSE TO TALKING OF MALES RIGHTS ?4
      4.YOU WRONGLY BELIEVE THAT MALES HISTORY IS GUILTY SO YOU WANT TO PUNISH THE MALES CONTINUOUSLY FOR THEM ?
      AND THUS SUPPORT MODERN LAWS WHICH ALLOWS ARREST OF MALES PUTTING THEM IN JAILS LOOTING THEIR PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE AND SHARE WITHOUT ANY MATRIMONIAL RIGHTS TO MALE ?
      IT IS YOUR IMAGINATION THAT ISLAMIC LAW REGARDING MALE FEMALE RELATIONSHIP IS MORE DAMAGING THAN MODERN LAWS .MODERN LAWS ARE BASED UPON FALSEHOOD HYPOCRACY AND COMPLETE DISREGARDING OF MALES RIGHTS.THE QUESTION IS OF WHICH LAW IS BASED UPON TRUTH HONESTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS BOTH MALES AND FEMALES.YOU HAVE FAILED TO REFUTE MY CHARGES AGAINST MODERN LAWS AND YOUR SELF ACCEPTING THAT YOU DO NOT WANT TO UNDERSTAND ME(.So why did you want me to understand this irrelevant rant? )YOU ARE ALSO GETTING IRRITATED AND USING SUCH LANGUAGE BECAUSE YOU THINK ONLY OTHERS HAVE TO ANSWER YOU AS PER YOUR NARROW VIEW AND NO BODY SHOULD ASK YOU ANY QUESTION ABOUT YOUR VIEW.BECAUSE YOU ARE A FEMALE? I AM NOT SAYING THAT MODERN LAWS IF PASSED BY MALES SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED WHETHER IT IS PASSED BY MALES AND FEMALES IT IS WRONG UNJUST AND DO NOT THINK ABOUT MALES RIGHTS.THOUGH IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT FEMALE PRESSURE CLEARLY EXIST IN ELECTION HOLDING COUNTRIES

    • ATOZ says:

      NOW YOU ARE ANSWERING IN A WAY THAT FULLY JUSTIFY MY COMMENTS SEE YOU HAS A MINDSET THAT MALE HISTORY IS GUILTY THAT IS WHAT IS THE MIND OF A MODERN FEMINIST WHO CLAIMS EQUALITY BUT WANT GREATER RIGHTS .AS I EARLIER STATED THAT MALES ARE NOT GUILTY IT IS TRUE YOU SAY MY STATEMENT IS NOT THE PROOF OF IT BUT THEN HOW YOUR STATEMENT THAT MALE HISTORY IS GUILTY CAN PROVE IT.GOOD BIAS .YOU HAS NOT ANSWERED WHY THE MALES WEALTH SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO FEMALES FOR SHARE AND/OR MAINTENANCE .PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM WAS NOT THE BIASEDNESS .IT REPRESENTED RIGHTS OFBOTH
      CONT…….

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “NOW YOU ARE ANSWERING IN A WAY THAT FULLY JUSTIFY MY COMMENTS SEE YOU HAS A MINDSET THAT MALE HISTORY IS GUILTY THAT IS WHAT IS THE MIND OF A MODERN FEMINIST WHO CLAIMS EQUALITY BUT WANT GREATER RIGHTS”

      Yeah, they were guilty in some way than the others. This doesn’t mean the females were innocent. The general wrong had been done by males in history and you can see that everywhere throughout great nations and religions. The problem you had is the lack of evidence of your accusation.

      The behavior of men nowadays is formed through this guilt just like the white do to the black. Next time, just do reality checking before writing.

      Calling it “feminist” won’t erase the history of male domination especially in Islam. The subject has been discussed in many points and you touched not even a single one. This is the same with “islamophobia” tactic, trying to dismiss with name calling with no proof.

      They want greater rights? In my country, they want equal rights because in reality they don’t have it yet. Do you want to blame them for it while the male also wanted/want greater rights in history and now? The male already had it in the past and used it well and now they still had the control over females even though they did it in different form. The balance is the one I talk about and you didn’t understand it. You could or couldn’t read between lines?

      You wrote, “AS I EARLIER STATED THAT MALES ARE NOT GUILTY IT IS TRUE YOU SAY MY STATEMENT IS NOT THE PROOF OF IT BUT THEN HOW YOUR STATEMENT THAT MALE HISTORY IS GUILTY CAN PROVE IT.”

      Male are not guilty because you are male? What kind of “truth” is that? Don’t tell me you wrote this with upright face. My statement is not mere “fan based” statement just like yours. I just saw the fact. In Islam, for example, the women couldn’t have equal rights, killed to preserve honor, couldn’t have multiple husbands, couldn’t get money, beaten etc. In China and India, was also similar. Do you know that in the past the females had to wear small shoes in their foot just to make them not to run away, making it shrinked? The countless concubines also reflected the injustice of male to female. Child marriage also involved female child being given in marriage to older men everywhere. You can see this all over great kingdoms, religions and nations. Show me just one when the injustice of female to male in a big scale like this and try to compare it to your own post.

      In here, you couldn’t score and tried to get an even result.

      You wrote, “GOOD BIAS”

      I suggest you check your own bias before checking my facts. People nowadays are so easy to say “bias” without understanding its meaning and their own position.

      You wrote, “YOU HAS NOT ANSWERED WHY THE MALES WEALTH SHOULD BE DISTRIBUTED TO FEMALES FOR SHARE AND/OR MAINTENANCE .PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM WAS NOT THE BIASEDNESS .IT REPRESENTED RIGHTS OFBOTH”

      I’d answered that if you paid attention. Come on, be a bright person and search it now. I did explain it and try to understand it let alone its irrelevancy. If you wanted to play “haven’t answered” then I can say the same. You haven’t answered anything about the injustice to female.

      You wrote, “CONT…….”

      No need to write that silly. I can see that you don’t even know your place here.

    • ATOZ says:

      Yeah, they were guilty in some way than the others. This doesn’t mean the females were innocent. The general wrong had been done by males in history and you can see that everywhere throughout great nations and religions. The problem you had is the lack of evidence of your accusation.

      The behavior of men nowadays is formed through this guilt just like the white do to the black. Next time, just do reality checking before writing.

      Calling it “feminist” won’t erase the history of male domination especially in Islam. The subject has been discussed in many points and you touched not even a single one. This is the same with “islamophobia” tactic, trying to dismiss with name calling with no proof.

      They want greater rights? In my country, they want equal rights because in reality they don’t have it yet. Do you want to blame them for it while the male also wanted/want greater rights in history and now? The male already had it in the past and used it well and now they still had the control over females even though they did it in different form. The balance is the one I talk about and you didn’t understand it. You could or couldn’t read between lines?
      ACTUALLY YOU HAD WRONG VISION YOU YOURSELF LACK EVIDENCE AND ACCUSE THAT TO ME YOU NEED TO SEE THAT ALL GOOD THINGS AND DEEDS AND INVENTIONS ETC .DONE MAINLY BY MALES .FEMALES HAVE A VERY LITTLE CONTRIBUTION .SO THE QUESTION OF GUILT DOES NOT ARISE AGAINST FEMALES AT ALL .IT IS ARISING ONLY THROUGH FALSE PROPAGANDA DONE BY FEMINISTS .MALE DOMINATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT MALES ARE GUILTY .IF SOME MALES LIKE ALI SINA FEELS THEMSELVES GUILTY THAN I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOU PUNISH THESE MALES BUT NEITHER YOU NOR ANY OTHER HAS THE RIGHT TO PUNISH OTHER MALES .YOU ARE ANGRY WITH MUSLIMS AND OTHER MALES THAT WHY THEY NOT ACCEPT GUILTY AS PER YOUR FALSE AND WRONG THEORY ?
      YOU WANT PROOF FROM OTHERS WHILE YOU YOURSELF WITH ZERO PROOF AGAIN HAVE WRONG BELIEF IN YOUR SELF THAT OTHERS SHOULD PRODUCE PROOF WHILE YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM IT .YOU FAILED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MALES RIGHTS IN MODERN LAW .IT IS YOU WHO IS TRYING TO DISMISS THE ISSUES NOT ME .
      THE PROBLEM IS THAT FEMALES WANT GREATER RIGHTS THOUGH THEY CALL IT EQUAL RIGHTS .I HAD GENRALLY STATED ABOUT MODERN LAWS .I AM NOT AWARE IN WHICH COUNTRY YOU RESIDE .
      FOR EXAMPLE U. N.HAVE INTERNATIONAL WOMEN DAY BUT NO SUCH DAY FOR MEN.
      EUROPEAN UNION IS RESERVING FEMALES SEATS IN COMPANIES BOARD ETC.AND FORCING THE SHAREHOLDERS AND OTHERS TO ELECT THEM .IF WOMEN ARE CAPABLE THEY SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN COMPANIES WHY THEY WANT TO FORCE ESTABLISHED COMPANIES TO ELECT THEM.
      WHY SOME ASIAN COUNTRIES ARE HAVING RESERVATION FOR FEMALES IN ELECTION IT IS THE RIGHT OF PUBLIC UNDER THE MODERN LAW TO ELECT WHOM THEY WANT
      cont…

    • ATOZ says:

      Male are not guilty because you are male? What kind of “truth” is that? Don’t tell me you wrote this with upright face. My statement is not mere “fan based” statement just like yours. I just saw the fact. In Islam, for example, the women couldn’t have equal rights, killed to preserve honor, couldn’t have multiple husbands, couldn’t get money, beaten etc. In China and India, was also similar. Do you know that in the past the females had to wear small shoes in their foot just to make them not to run away, making it shrinked? The countless concubines also reflected the injustice of male to female. Child marriage also involved female child being given in marriage to older men everywhere. You can see this all over great kingdoms, religions and nations. Show me just one when the injustice of female to male in a big scale like this and try to compare it to your own post.

      In here, you couldn’t score and tried to get an even result.

      You wrote, “GOOD BIAS”

      I suggest you check your own bias before checking my facts. People nowadays are so easy to say “bias” without understanding its meaning and their own position.
      OH AND MALES ARE GUILTY BECAUSE YOU ARE A FEMALE .YOU THINK THAT YOUR STATEMENT IS PROOF. I DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT IN ISLAM WOMEN DID NOT HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS .
      WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EQUAL RIGHTS .DO YOU THINK THAT FROM NEXT YEAR ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL WEALTH AND INCOME IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR WORK OR DEED AND ACTS.ALL HUMAN BEINGS SHOULD BE EQUALLY PUNISHED WHETHER THEIR ACTS WERE WRONG OR NOT OR WRONG IN VARYING DEGRRES..HAVE YOU KNOWN HOW MANY MALES ARE ALSO KILLED AROUND THE GLOBE IN THE NAME OF DIFFERENT THINGS .DO YOU KNOW WHO PROVIDE FOOD SHELTER PROTECTION TO WOMEN EITHER MALES DIRECTLY OR STATE LEVYING TAXES UPON MALES AND DISTRIBUTING IT .AS FAR AS HONOUR KILLING IS THERE UNDERSTOOD CAN YOU CITE SOME ISLAMIC LAW PRESCRIBING IT EXCEPT ADULTERY.AS I AM NOT GETTING CLEAR WHETHER THERE IS ANY SUCH ISLAMIC LAW EXIST .I THINK THERE IS NO SUCH ISLAMIC LAW.IT IS NOT THAT THEY COULD NOT GET THINGS IN ISLAMIC LAW HUSBANDS PROVIDE MAINTENANCE TO WIVES AND IN RETURN WIFE HAS TO FULFILL HUSBANDS RIGHTS AGAINST HER.AND MODERN LAW SENDS MALES TO JAIL AND BEAT THEM FOR NOT PAYING MAINTENANCE TO WIFE AND CHILDREN? YOU THINK THAT MALES SHOULD HAVE DUTIES ONLY BUT NOT RIGHTS.ISLAM PERMITTED MORE THAN ONE WIFE IF HUSBAND COULD PROVIDE FOR THEM.YOU FORGET ALL THE GOOD DEEDS OF MALES IT IS THE MALES ALWAYS WHO PROTECTED AND PROVIDED FOR FEMALES .THESE WERE THE MALES WHO HAS TO ALL RISKY JOBS AROUND THE GLOBE .FEMALES JUST DID FORBEAR VERY LITTLE HARDSHIP .AS FAR AS LITTLE SHOES ARE CONCERNED AS PER MY KNOWLEDGE IT WAS FASHION IN CHINA ETC. TO HAVE SMALL FOOTS SO WERE THE SYSTEM OF SMALL SHOES LIKE LADIES WEARING HIGH HEELS TODAY .
      YOU ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT SUPPOSE THEIR ARE 500MILLIONS MALES AND 500 MILLIONS FEMALES THAN IF SUPPOSE 10 MILLION MALES HAVE 3 WIVES EACH THAN AUTO MATICALLY
      CONT…..

    • ATOZ says:

      HOW DO IMPLY THAT PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM MEANS NO RIGHTS TO FEMALES. IF THERE IS ONE MALE IS A BILLIONAIRE AND OTHER IS IN HEAVY DEBT ONE IS FREELY ROAMING AND ONE IS IN JAIL. THE SAME IS FOR FEMALES DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PERSON WHO IS IN JAIL OR IN DEBT IS DISCRIMINATED ? IT IS ITSELF NO PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE LAWS.AS I HAVE STATED MALE HISTORY IS NOT GUILTY NEITHER IF YOU CONSIDER IT TO BE TRUE THAT MEANS TO HAVE REVENGE AGAINST THE PRESENT DAY MALES .MODERN LAW IS JUST MADE BY ONE OR MORE THAN ONE HUMAN BEINGS .ITS STANDARD ARE NOT OF TRUTH ,HONESTY AND JUSTICE .ITS STANDARD CONSIDERS ONLY WOMEN RIGHTS TALKS OF THEM .TALKS OF GENDER EQUALITY WHEN GIVING RIGHTS TO FEMALES BUT TALKS OF MALES RIGHTS IS NOT CONSIDERED EQUALLY.NEW STANDARD DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE STANDARD ARE TRUE HONEST AND BASED UPON JUSTICE .THESE STANDARDS ARE TOTALLY ABSURD AND WRONG AND THINK AND TALK OF WOMEN RIGHTS ONLY.IF SOMEONE HAVE BETTER CAPABILITY THAN HOW IT IS WRONG TO CLAIM THAT THING .BY THAT STANDARD EVERYONE COMMENT AND REPLY HERE IS OF EQUAL STANDARD? MODERN LAW IS NOT SOMETHING WHO IS A THING HAVING CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITS OWN AS YOU ARE SAYING OT IS TAKING PARADIGM OF ITS.IT IS SHAPED BY HUMAN BEINGS AND I HAVE FULL RIGHT TO SHOW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE MODERN LAW MAKER AND APPROVER IS UNTRUE ,DISHONEST UNJUST AND IS AGAINST MALES RIGHTS.YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE THINGS I HAVE NOT POSTED THAT 2+2=4 .IF I HAVE POSTED LIKE THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT.BUT MY POSTING PERTAINING TO MODERN LAWS BIASNESS AGAINST THE MALES PUTS THE PERSPECTIVE RIGHT IN AN INTELLIGENT AND UNBIASED PERSON.OF COURSE I AM RIGHT HERE BECAUSE MODERN LAW IS DOING GREAT HARM TO TRUTH JUSTICE ,HONESTY AND MALES RIGHTS .IT IS BASED UPON CONSIDERATION OF WOMEN RIGHTS ONLY.WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT ISLAM IS SUPPRESSING WOMEN RIGHTS AND IF WE SAY THAT IT IS NOT SO RATHER MODERN LAW IS SUPPRESSING MALES RIGHTS YOU CALL IT IRRELEVANT. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM .LET US FOR EXAMPLE IN MODERN LAW SECTION 354 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860( MADE BY BRITISHERS ORIGINALLY) IT IS AN OFFENCE TO INTENTIONALLY TO OUTRAGE THE MODESTY OF A WOMEN .THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT SECTION EXCLUSIVELY FOR MALES .SECONDLY THERE ARE COMPLETELY ONE SIDED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS WHICH THROWS OUT THE MALES FROM THEIR HOMES AND IN JAIL .THEN THERE ARE RAPE LAWS WHICH ARE BIASED AGAINST THE MALES SOME STATES PERHAPS AMERICA ALSO PRESCRIBE CASTRATION BY MEDICINE ETC. IN SOME RAPE CASES BUT DO THESE LAWS PROVIDE THAT TONGUE WOULD BE SPEECHLESS IF ACCUSATION FOUND UNTRUE .THIS IS JUST TIP OF ICEBERG

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Nope, you are assuming your opponent according to your own biased view because you don’t give any response to the other problem here.

      You wrote, “HOW DO IMPLY THAT PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM MEANS NO RIGHTS TO FEMALES. IF THERE IS ONE MALE IS A BILLIONAIRE AND OTHER IS IN HEAVY DEBT ONE IS FREELY ROAMING AND ONE IS IN JAIL.”

      The partiachal system is obvious if you are not a fan of it. It gives the male an authotity, an imbalanced one, in order to maintain their dominance over the opposite sex. As a male, you can set the rule that benefit male more than female so you can kiss the balance good bye. This doesn’t mean the female has no rights but only limited rights, more often at disadvantage, dominated, subdued aka has no free will.

      What is the connection of “a billionare, debter, free man and prisoner” to the system? You are so hilarious in giving irrelevant argument. Then you wrote,

      “THE SAME IS FOR FEMALES DOES IT MEAN THAT THE PERSON WHO IS IN JAIL OR IN DEBT IS DISCRIMINATED?”

      Now, let me imitate this hilarious statement and put the other side and let’s see the result:

      How do you imply that the modern law means no rights to male if there is rich female, others in debt, one is free, and one is in jail, female section? The same for male, does that mean the person in jail or debt is discriminated?

      Do you understand discrimination? Or could you know the difference between discrimination and punishment for violating the law? Rich, in debt, in jail or free roamning the street doesn’t have anything to do with gender, silly. It’s with life and crime.

      You wrote, “IT IS ITSELF NO PROOF OF DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE LAWS.”

      Of course, it is no proof, silly and I never talked about this one, it was you who did that. Why did you make a statement and shoved it to my mouth eh? Did I write about this in my subject about woman in Islam? Wow, you are so …. I don’t know to say it.

      You wrote, “AS I HAVE STATED MALE HISTORY IS NOT GUILTY NEITHER IF YOU CONSIDER IT TO BE TRUE THAT MEANS TO HAVE REVENGE AGAINST THE PRESENT DAY MALES .MODERN LAW IS JUST MADE BY ONE OR MORE THAN ONE HUMAN BEINGS”

      As I have stated too that male shitory is proven to be guilty in general with facts and proofs and of course just like others, you run from this one. Revenge? Since when did I talk about revenge? You are so clueless yet so adamant. Learn this:

      1. Modern law was made by male
      2. Society is controlled by male and still had the tendency to favor males
      3. The guilty feeling is a lesson learned too far by, guess what, male again.
      4. The law was born from view and adopted by many males, not just one.
      5. Why are there many males? It’s because the “damage” was global.
      6. Human rights, anti racism, anti Semitism, religious freedom and tolerance were also born from this.
      7. If you didn’t care about female’s suffering then why should they care about male’s “suffering”? Wy would anyone listen to a person who justify Islamic law that clearly one sided? You are not seeking a balance at all.

      You wrote, “.ITS STANDARD ARE NOT OF TRUTH ,HONESTY AND JUSTICE .ITS STANDARD CONSIDERS ONLY WOMEN RIGHTS TALKS OF THEM .TALKS OF GENDER EQUALITY WHEN GIVING RIGHTS TO FEMALES BUT TALKS OF MALES RIGHTS IS NOT CONSIDERED EQUALLY.”

      Says who? You consider Islamic law as ok and that means it has truth, honesty and justice in it. So, treating female like in Islam that is justice, truth and honest. I agree with the “honest” one and in different meaning. You can cite any law that gives the description you brought here now and prove it. I repeat my first comment to you, “does this solve the problem in Islam?” This is the first question and you didn’t even answer it, typical.

      You wrote, “NEW STANDARD DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE STANDARD ARE TRUE HONEST AND BASED UPON JUSTICE”

      So, Islamic law is based upon this one eh? Do you not read that this “problem” of yours is incomparable to the problem Islam has? Do you know that in Saudi Arabia, female got death penalty because they are raped? Sure, this is the standard of truth, justice and honesty eh?

      So easy to counter this mere statement:

      Past standard is definitely lower than the current standard. It doesn’t mean the current standard is perfect, it’s just better just like human knowledge.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “THESE STANDARDS ARE TOTALLY ABSURD AND WRONG AND THINK AND TALK OF WOMEN RIGHTS ONLY.IF SOMEONE HAVE BETTER CAPABILITY THAN HOW IT IS WRONG TO CLAIM THAT THING”

      Better, yes, changeable, yes, but absurd and wrong, no if you compare it to the past and your own standard of “Islam is ok”. On the contrary, Islamic standard is worse, not changeable, absurd, barbaric, and of course wrong. There is no need for someone to know which one is better as long as you have a healthy conciousness.

      You wrote, “MODERN LAW IS NOT SOMETHING WHO IS A THING HAVING CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITS OWN AS YOU ARE SAYING OT IS TAKING PARADIGM OF ITS.IT IS SHAPED BY HUMAN BEINGS AND I HAVE FULL RIGHT TO SHOW THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE MODERN LAW MAKER AND APPROVER IS UNTRUE ,DISHONEST UNJUST AND IS AGAINST MALES RIGHTS.YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE THINGS I HAVE NOT POSTED THAT 2 2=4 .”

      Dear, oh dear, done with the self praising post eh? Modern law is a part of human progress and of course human progress gets affected with history, nothing is shaped outside human history, not even Islam. Paradigm is shaped by different experience and lesson and as human being, we should progress and leave the negative part out. You have the right to say anything, even a silly one, but everyone have the right to criticize you if your post is silly. It goes both ways. In here, you didn’t give any right to others and were so stubborn claiming “truth” in your statement. You had already decided that you are 100 % right without listening at all and I know that because you misquoted many of my posts. I have full right and of course proof to show that Islamic law is worse and the real problem, relevant to the article, unjust, dishonest, is against female and by justifying it you are against them too and I’m right to say that your post didn’t answer this problem at all, let alone the article, yet you just say it is ok. Yeah, you have the right to joke around.

      Why should I consider yours as “true” and “balanced” If you are already shown your true color by justifying injustice to female? You didn’t understand mine.

      You wrote, “IF I HAVE POSTED LIKE THAT THAT MAY HAVE BEEN IRRELEVANT.BUT MY POSTING PERTAINING TO MODERN LAWS BIASNESS AGAINST THE MALES PUTS THE PERSPECTIVE RIGHT IN AN INTELLIGENT AND UNBIASED PERSON.”

      Hah? You were giving irrelevant response from day 1 so no need to flatter yourself with the crown of irrelevancy. Any opponent I face in this site is all like that actually. Your post about modern law is irrelevant, doesn’t have anything to do with Sina’s woman nature, biased against female, and incomparable. The persepective wasn’t right because:

      1. You didn’t prove male dominantion, crime and discrimination in the past or now to be right.
      2. You didn’t compare it to the topic
      3. You are biased person so by saying “putting the right prespective” is truly joking around.

      You wrote, “OF COURSE I AM RIGHT HERE BECAUSE MODERN LAW IS DOING GREAT HARM TO TRUTH JUSTICE ,HONESTY AND MALES RIGHTS”

      Yeah, you are right because you say you are right. Any kids can say that. You know what? I’m right not because I say it but because the fact says it. Modern law doesn’t do great harm to any thing you mentioned in general scale, but Islamic law is. Just see the Saudi, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan. Even humanist doesn’t like these countries.

      Hey, I’m male and doesn’t feel harmed by this law otherwise there should be male activists seeking rights all over the world. If I was female and inside Islamic law, I would be harmed by the law.

      If you think only about male and justifying hatred towards female then you can forget your own “truth, justice, and honesty” because it is universal and genderless.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “IT IS BASED UPON CONSIDERATION OF WOMEN RIGHTS ONLY.WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT ISLAM IS SUPPRESSING WOMEN RIGHTS AND IF WE SAY THAT IT IS NOT SO RATHER MODERN LAW IS SUPPRESSING MALES RIGHTS YOU CALL IT IRRELEVANT.”

      Let me play your own game. If there is only one right which is female’s then why in the western world we have too many:

      1. Male leaders, scientists, and public figures
      2. Male freedom
      3. Male workers everywhere
      4. Rich males dominating females
      5. Playboy the mansion.

      I said that Islam is oppressing women rights with evidence and scriptural sanction, I also said that your problem is hardly comparable let alone refuted it.

      You know tuquoque fallacy? Before you deny irrelevancy let’s make a parable so that you can understand. Obviously, muslim never learn logic:

      S: This male is a robber, a rapist and a mass murderer, he steals too
      A: What? He doesn’t.
      S: Why is that?
      A: It’s because this female steals too!
      S: That’s irrelevant.
      A: You call it irrelevant!!!! How can you!!!
      S: Look, whatever this female did doesn’t erase the crime of this male, that’s irrelevant.
      A: What! The male had been blah, blah, blah, blah, …. They need justice!
      S: How can a robber, rapist and murderer be free with one (another, just a) thief as if the crime never existed?

      A classic fallacy here, I talked about female victim but you talked about female doer. Does that mean female can be discriminated just because the present of modern law which was made by male had done some "injustice"? Why can’t the male be discriminated because of Islamic law? You can’t have one way and discard the rest, that’s bias.

      You wrote, “WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM .LET US FOR EXAMPLE IN MODERN LAW SECTION 354 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860( MADE BY BRITISHERS ORIGINALLY) IT IS AN OFFENCE TO INTENTIONALLY TO OUTRAGE THE MODESTY OF A WOMEN”

      What is my problem? You’re replying me and not knowing this? Do you even read anything? If you truly read it you wouldn’t write this. British rule of India? Does that erase the Islamic law which discriminates female in Islamic countries? Are you Indian? Are you thinking that the world is only India or all countries use that law?

      You wrote, “.THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT SECTION EXCLUSIVELY FOR MALES .SECONDLY THERE ARE COMPLETELY ONE SIDED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAWS WHICH THROWS OUT THE MALES FROM THEIR HOMES AND IN JAIL .THEN THERE ARE RAPE LAWS WHICH ARE BIASED AGAINST THE MALES SOME STATES PERHAPS AMERICA ALSO PRESCRIBE CASTRATION BY MEDICINE ETC. IN SOME RAPE CASES BUT DO THESE LAWS PROVIDE THAT TONGUE WOULD BE SPEECHLESS IF ACCUSATION FOUND UNTRUE .THIS IS JUST TIP OF ICEBERG”

      I am not an expert of Indian law and this is irrelevant because:

      1. If this is true still India is just one country and doesn’t solve anything I presented
      2. One sided domestic violence exists in Islam in the form of male domination which allow male to beat female be it wives or slaves. Do you want to say that slavery is ok too including sexual?
      3. Rape law is also male oriented in Islam and allow them to rape wives, slaves, and even outsider. The law can make male to escape it and the victim can’t get justice. Again, this is against female.
      4. If you want to talk about a country outside your own you should bring legal reference, cite it using legal site, not just saying “perhaps”. Even if the castration does exist then you should have no problem giving one example in real life.
      5. 2 wrongs won’t make one right. Islam is global and not a country.
      6. Yeah, the tip of the iceberg, an irrelevant iceberg to be precise.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      Let’s reverse the position. I know this is hard for muslim to digest but try to read correctly this time. Imagine that some bloke named “Shenuts” wrote an article about “discrimination of males in modern law in some countries”. Well, this “Shenuts” often makes articles and comments that speaks about gender injustice in modern law and very adamant to attack female position. Then you, ATOZ, came in and posted comments that explain about it. All is well and documented but hey, suddenly, I went in and said that all this is wrong because Islamic law discriminates female and posted some reference. I just said that you guys are wrong because of this. Now, am I right?

      Note: I pretend that the damage is equal and I ignore the difference that at that time I was discussing with another person regarding specific topic which you didn't have answer except a word called "no".

    • ATOZ says:

      YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE ALI COMMENTS IN ANSWER TO TOPIC PERPLEXED I ALSO MENTIONED IT ABOVE BUT EITHER YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT OR IGNORED IT "Women can be very vindictive. They fight dirty, much dirtier than men. This is biological. They are weaker physically so they compensate with viciousness. Don’t corner a woman as she can destroy you."

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE ALI COMMENTS IN ANSWER TO TOPIC PERPLEXED I ALSO MENTIONED IT ABOVE BUT EITHER YOU COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IT OR IGNORED IT”

      Dude, seriously, you are so deluded. You tried to connect 2 different articles and subjects, desperately trying to blame me for that. You should know that I posted my comment to specific issue in this specific article. Whatever happened in “perplexed” has nothing to do with my subject and Islam. Woman nature surely has its flaws and danger but in history the domination of male didn’t give it a chance to do damage while the male one was the one who kept damaging its surrounding.

      I just ask you a very simple question:

      Since when I talk about the nature of woman related to the other article made by Sina? When did I disagree with that particular point?

      Is it me or you who don’t understand it? If you don’t understand me then ask, don’t throw accusation like muslims here. That’s child play.

      Key words: society vs personal issue. You dig?

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “However, my intention with these comments is simply to provide context to the article's incorrect (and frequently uncited) claims. It is not my obligation to provide the entire argument, only to challenge that which I see to be untrue.”

      So, you do agree with some part of the article. And here I am, challenging all you arguments. Why is that? It’s because your argument is not proven nor it is scholarly, it’s mere opinion.

      You wrote, “I don't see why the fact that Muhammad's (pbuh) wives were primarily widows or divorcees is irrelevant”

      Oh yes, it’s irrelevant. Sina was talking about the women’s position in Islam and Muhammad’s lust on women. Be it divorced or not doesn’t change his lust nor their position.

      You wrote, “This website likes to claim that Muhammad (pbuh) was a powerful man who used his influence to pressure women into marrying him (pbuh)”

      Touche, that’s true. Fact 1: he was a powerful man, fact 2: he had god in his pocket, fact 3: he didn’t do that when he was weak and with his first rich wife. Success happens when opportunity meets desire. Do you agree?

      You wrote, “If this were true, why wouldn't he (pbuh) have married only young virgins?”

      I don’t think being virgin was too important to him beside he already had that in Aisha. Sex and power was his agenda.

      You wrote, “Divorcees and widows, even in Western society, often struggle to enter into another marriage afterwards- hence why Muhammad (pbuh) married them- to provide for and protect them”

      Marriage is not the only way to protect someone, you can provide them with jobs or position, you can adopt them, or you can let them choose their own spouse. Muhammad should give verse that nullifying the difference between virgin and divorced. Did he do it? No. Those divorced women were mostly young and beautiful, you know.

      You wrote, “If a majority of those in Hell are women, and there are only 11 people in Hell, this means 6+ women. This is irrelevant to how many women actually exist, be it 6 or 6 billion.”

      Kiddo, read the hadith again, will you? Muhammad was talking about hell and hell is global. This indicates global population (including kafir) which I’ve given you. These women, according to Muhammad, were ungrateful on earth and were called “deficient”. Deficiency is a default condition and that condition takes them to hell automatically.

      Pay attention that Muhammad didn’t give specific name to the women, he just called them women. Did he know them personally? I don’t think so.

      About the wives’ age:

      1. Khadijah – 40 (widow) => She’s irrelevant if you look at the condition at that time
      2. Sawda- ~50 (widow) => She’s irrelevant since Muhammad only got her for substitution for Khadijah. Aisha was still a kid, you know and he pressured her to give the turn to this kid.
      3. Aisha- 9 => Agreed, she had fulfilled Muhammad’s fantasy.
      4. Hafsah and Zaynab – teenagers (both widowed) => Hey, you said that Hafsa was 24 and now this. Make up your mind, will you? She was 18 according to Watt. Zaynab who?
      5. Umm Salamah – 25+ (widow) => She’s still young
      6. Zaynab- 33+ (divorcee) => Zaynab bin Jahsh? Muhammad desired her and made his adopted son divorced her.
      7. Juwairiyah- 20 => agreed and that’s young and beautiful. Muhammad was the culprit, so he protected her from himself?
      8. Ramlah- 39 (widow) => 35 according to Watt.
      9. Saffiya- 19 (divorcee and widow) => 17 according to Watt, again she’s young and beautiful. It’s the same with Juwairiyah.
      10. Barra- 36 (widow and divorcee) => you are not clear here. There are multiple wives whose original name was barra. Who is this? Maimunah? She was 27 according to Watt.

      In the end, he tasted them all, from kid to old women. What a greedy man. One more, your source is not reliable.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “demographics would suggest the same thing”

      Last time I check, the global population is 1.01 man per 1 woman. Where did you get that? Your prophet?

      You wrote, “Nonetheless, women are only in Hell because they are ungrateful, not for being female”

      Wrong again. The nature of female is ungratefulness according to Muhammad.

      You wrote, “Women are "deficient" in their religion because they are not required to do as much as men: they do not pray or fast during their menses so they are comfortable and not in pain.”

      Sorry, you are not that smart, aren’t you? The menses are not their doing. It was created by Allah himself, so the blame is in Allah’s hand. He made the rule (of menstruation) but he blamed the victim and called them deficient with one purpose only, “sending them to hell”. Muhammad was a misogynist.

      You wrote, “They are deficient in intelligence (or, information) in certain matters such as finances or other economic transactions, and therefore their witness counts for half of a man's.”

      Now you are getting worse, you are using circular logic. Both woman and man can understand finance and economy if they study it. Woman can also memorize things just like man can naturally. This is proven in practical world, not in a 7th century Arab’s mouth.

      Huh? Information? You love to add something that isn’t there, eh? Intelligence is the quickness of understanding and information is just news, something that is told. Your post shows deficient in intelligence and that’s coming from following Muhammad.

      You wrote, “Women have many other obligations and duties- for which their witness counts fully- that may interfere with the ability to remember something as trivial as another person's agreement.”

      Not proven, men also have many obligations and duties that can lead them to forget trivial things coz their jobs are so damn important to them. On the contrary, women especially housewives are doing simple household things (many of them even have maids) and that makes them easier to notice trivial things. The nature of women also makes them to love talking about trivial things, even remembering unimportant event.

      Is this all you got? You only bring theory after theory from the mind of one man.

      You wrote, “Woman are not viewed as inferiors because their primary duty is to the family”

      Wrong again. Women are seen as inferior because they are labeled as incompetent from the very start. They are not given the chance to prove anything, they are purely subordinate. Family? Both men and women are equally responsible for the family, not just women.

      You wrote, “A popular hadith says that "paradise can be found at the foot of the mother",”

      Provide reliable source including the context of the story. You can’t just come here and say, “a popular hadith blah…blah…blah”. That’s amateurish.

    • livingsunnah says:

      It is true that the ratio of males to females is 1.01/1; this does take into account societies such as India and China, which abort female fetuses more than male (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13264301), (http://www.jstor.org/pss/1972351). However, you are right, if they're not being born, they they can't go to Hell.

      Muhammad (pbuh) says nothing about women being inferior. The Qur'an (as I quoted above) says that women are equals. Besides, ingratitude is not inherent, and that is why Muhammad (pbuh) warned them not to be victim to it. Women are not, by "nature" ungrateful or going to Hell.

      Yes, science has proven that men and women have equal memory abilities. What I refer to above is that the primary duty of a woman in Islam is to care for the family, involving many different duties that capture a woman's attention. A man's duty is to provide financially for the family, which may or may not deal with finances in itself. Ultimately, however, witnesses are not actively involved in the transaction, and in this case, yes, women are at a disadvantage when witnessing (since they live in a separate sphere, which has been shown to decrease memory ability (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~mrbworks/articles/1987_MQR.pdf). Besides the wording of this verse in the Qur'an says "if one should make a mistake", the second will remind her. If the first remembers, there is no need for the second.

      I'm not adding something that isn't there. Information is a synonym for intelligence- the definition that is most appropriate for this hadith. Ex. The CIA collected intelligence about the accident. In the hadith, intelligence refers to information moreso than an internal intelligence. Besides, again, intelligence is fluid, and Islam encourages women to become educated and become pious.

      So, to explain again. The woman is deficient in her religion only in that she does not have to pray or fast during menses. Sure, it's not their choice, that's why it's a deficiency. And her only deficiency in intelligence is that in some cases (not in the case of adultery charges, etc. 24:6-9) the situation may require two women in place of one man. Again, this is only if she forgets, which is out of her control as well.

      Sure, men and women must take care of the family, but they each have different responsibilities.

      The Hadith comes from the collection of Tirmidhi.
      Similar Hadiths:
      Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 2:
      Narrated Abu Huraira:
      A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man said. "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man further said, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man asked for the fourth time, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your father."

      Sahih Muslim Book 008, Hadith Number 3469
      Ab Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) as saying: A believing man should not hate a believing woman; if he dislikes one of her characteristics, he will be pleased with another.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      We are talking about global population because Muhammad said about that. Hell is for all, not just for Indian or Chinese and this also break downs your argument.

      You wrote, “Muhammad (pbuh) says nothing about women being inferior. The Qur'an (as I quoted above) says that women are equals. Besides, ingratitude is not inherent, and that is why Muhammad (pbuh) warned them not to be victim to it. Women are not, by "nature" ungrateful or going to Hell.”

      Yes, he did. He talked about women being inferior in society and household. Your quotes from Quran is in wrong context. Saying no will not help you because the hadith is clear, Muhammad was talking about general women, not specific women. Ingratitude is of course not inherent but we are talking about Muhammad’s standard here, not nature. He lived in a different world with different dictionary.

      You wrote, “Yes, science has proven that men and women have equal memory abilities. What I refer to above is that the primary duty of a woman in Islam is to care for the family, involving many different duties that capture a woman's attention”

      Read my post again. You are repeating things here.

      You wrote, “A man's duty is to provide financially for the family, which may or may not deal with finances in itself.”

      Sure if you want to take it that way but don’t put women into prison just because of this.

      You wrote, “Ultimately, however, witnesses are not actively involved in the transaction, and in this case, yes, women are at a disadvantage when witnessing”

      They don’t need to be involved otherwise they are not witnesses but the doers. They just watch it and take a note of it. How simple is that? PS: Link can't be accessed.

      You wrote, “Besides the wording of this verse in the Qur'an says "if one should make a mistake", the second will remind her. If the first remembers, there is no need for the second.”

      This is based on the assumption that women can’t remember it. What will happen if the man can’t remember it because he is too busy doing his own stuff? You know, doing things here and there, traveling to other cities, getting stressed or new problems because of the business. At least, women don’t have these things. They all just do routine works and that’s easy. Your brain and body will adapt it and you can even think/talk of something else while doing that. Let’s say, they are automatic worker who don’t need memory much.

      You wrote, “I'm not adding something that isn't there. Information is a synonym for intelligence- the definition that is most appropriate for this hadith. Ex. The CIA collected intelligence about the accident. In the hadith, intelligence refers to information moreso than an internal intelligence. Besides, again, intelligence is fluid, and Islam encourages women to become educated and become pious.”

      Yes, you are adding it. No, information is not synonym for intelligence. Intelligence is the receiver and information is the signal. The signal can be weak or strong depending on many things. CIA? It seems you have misunderstood me. I was talking about an intellect not information. That CIA thingy is a just phrase they use and it has the same meaning with, “CIA collected detailed and relevant information about the accident”. “Intelligence” in here means this, not information in general and called “intelligent information”. Information includes irrelevant news, rumor, gossip, and trivial things.

      Islam what? A source please.

      You wrote, “So, to explain again. The woman is deficient in her religion only in that she does not have to pray or fast during menses. Sure, it's not their choice, that's why it's a deficiency”

      If that’s the case then men are also deficient in sex, not to mention other things but Muhammad never mentioned this. And these women will go to hell because of this? Allah/Muhammad is a misogynist because they related this with the chance to enter hell.

      You wrote, “And her only deficiency in intelligence is that in some cases (not in the case of adultery charges, etc. 24:6-9) the situation may require two women in place of one man. Again, this is only if she forgets, which is out of her control as well.”

      This is again and again based on the assumption that women can’t remember well. What will happen if the men forget it? This scenario never entered Muhammad’s mind because he was a male and as a male of course he would use his own perspective (self righteousness). Could Muhammad himself remember things well? I don’t think so. He even forgot his own revelation. Everyone has their own problem and their own capability.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “Sure, men and women must take care of the family, but they each have different responsibilities.”

      And that responsibility is not fixed, it is variable since human is different to each other.

      You wrote, “The Hadith comes from the collection of Tirmidhi.”

      Kiddo, I was asking about the source of that narration not a brief statement like this. Where are the quote, the number, the context, and the meaning? By the way, is this hadith even authentic?

      You wrote, “Similar Hadiths: Sahih Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 2”

      I can see that this hadith talks about limited context (child to mother) and that’s irrelevant.

      You wrote, “Sahih Muslim Book 008, Hadith Number 3469”

      “should not hate” doesn’t mean “equally respected”. This only deals with personal feeling of the man, not the treatment. You can like the woman but still treat her as subordinate. There are plenty hadiths about that.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “Men are expected to take care of women not because woman are unable to take care of themselves”

      Illogical statement. Of course this rule was born from the view, “women cannot take care of themselves”.

      You wrote, “Men are stronger (better suited to manual work, protection) and the natural choice to go out and work and make money if the woman is nursing or raising children, etc”

      Define “manual work” and “better” coz I don’t take assumption. Nursing and raising children is only one part of women’s life, a small one actually.

      You wrote, “Besides, a woman has every right to work and make money once her obligation to family is completed”

      Source needed. In Muhammad’s view, the women are the guardian of the house so their obligation stays inside the house.

      You wrote, “A man is obliged to work to provide for his family; the idea of defining one's life based on a happy career is a modern invention.”

      A modern invention is based on past experience, learning and actual condition, you know. No one says that happy career is the defining factor of happiness. Doing what you like is the defining factor.

      You wrote, “think most people have realized that happiness doesn't come from money or a career alone”

      Oh, of course unless your hobby is your career. Money cannot buy happiness but living without money cannot produce happiness too, especially the one without financial independence. To reach happiness, living for oneself must be fulfilled first before you live for someone else, otherwise you can only produce fake smile just to appease others.

      You wrote, “it's the social connections that make a life worth living (in terms of psychological happiness).”

      Not entirely true. Social connections can be created through various elements including workplace and society. Being a housewife is surely limiting this.

      You wrote, “As for the verse in the Qur'an that says to "hit" one's wife as a third resort, the verb "dereb", which means "hit" is used various other times in the Qur'an and not literally taken to mean "hit"”

      When used to an object, it is literal. The word “idriboo” in Q 4:34 also exist in:

      1. Q 2:73. So We said: "Strike the [body] with a piece of the [heifer]."

      2. Q 8:12. “smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."

      3. Q 8:50. “[How] they smite their faces and their backs”

      All of these mean “to literally hit an object”.

    • livingsunnah says:

      Just because you disagree with something does not make it illogical.

      Manual work refers to physical labor. Men have more upper-body strength by nature. And women, biologically, are better suited to nurse children. Raising children is not a small part of anyone's life- it is a life-long effort, one that both men and women take part of.

      The book "Labor in the Medieval Islamic World" by Maya Shatzmiller talks about the division of labor between men and women, and how women were present in most sectors. So long as the work did not interfere with the health of the children, women were allowed to work outside the home.

      "A modern invention is based on past experience, learning and actual condition, you know." Yes, but that doesn't automatically mean that it is correct, nor that the "progress" is from a bad to a good thing.

      Of course you can't live without money (or something to support yourself, if not money). However, financial independence isn't necessary in happiness. Much of happiness is due to the discrepancy between ambitions and reality (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-0297.00646/abstract). The largest indicators for happiness (http://opus.bibliothek.uni-wuerzburg.de/volltexte/2007/2170/pdf/subjwellbeing.pdf#page=85) are personal traits like extroversion and a positive outlook on life, being surrounded by friends and family, as well as stability and certainty about one's life. Also, being involved in a "productive" activity, regardless of how intellectual or "cognitively" challenging it is, is highly correlated. These are all things that women and men can share in together, regardless of location, and are encouraged by Islam.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “Just because you disagree with something does not make it illogical.”

      You got it backward. I disagree because it’s illogical.

      You wrote, “Manual work refers to physical labor. Men have more upper-body strength by nature. And women, biologically, are better suited to nurse children. Raising children is not a small part of anyone's life- it is a life-long effort, one that both men and women take part of.”

      Ah, so you interpret all works as “physical” while there are many jobs on this earth that aren’t physical. So according to you, men are suitable to be coolies or porters and women are suitable for desk jobs because of their patience and diligence. Biologically, women are of course better suited for that but only temporary. Women also, biologically, can have multiple husbands. Can this be inserted too?

      Raising children is only smart part because there are other parts such as, no children part, teenager part, and grown up part. This doesn’t need women to be inside the house all the time. Unless you are thinking about breeding an army here and this is bad for the woman, family, economy and environment.

      You wrote, “The book "Labor in the Medieval Islamic World" by Maya Shatzmiller talks about the division of labor between men and women, and how women were present in most sectors.”

      I don’t care about that book. I care about what Muhammad had thought because muslims followed him, not Maya Shatzmiller. Give me Quranic source about that.

      You wrote, “Yes, but that doesn't automatically mean that it is correct, nor that the "progress" is from a bad to a good thing.”

      The result speaks for itself not the theory. In modern times, women are free to choose their path and none of them protest it, but in Islam they have no freedom and women activists rise, here and there because of this. Just because Muhammad said something, it doesn’t mean it is correct.

      You wrote, “However, financial independence isn't necessary in happiness”

      On the contrary, financial independence can give someone a “weapon” to fight against abuser or authority. Being dependant on someone give disadvantage, that’s for sure because human naturally want to be free. The balance must exist otherwise problem will always rise. The strong will always “eat” the weak, that’s nature.

      You wrote, “Much of happiness is due to the discrepancy between ambitions and reality”

      You don’t put the entire human race into one article, you know. Happiness is relative. It depends on each human who has different mindset, social economy, environment, etc.

      You wrote, “The largest indicators for happiness are personal traits like extroversion and a positive outlook on life, being surrounded by friends and family, as well as stability and certainty about one's life.”

      Incorrect. The largest indicator for happiness is the safety of the individual from many dangers that can ruin the individual’s “physical presence” and “idealism”. That “idealism” can be many things. Extroversion is just a trait for some people and there are others who don’t enjoy too many companies on their life, only important one. “A positive outlook on life” is relative too. It can be different for each person. “being surrounded by family and friends” can be achieved with nowadays standard. With Muhammad’s standard, women cannot go with her friends freely.

      Again, you don’t put entire human race into one article. Why don’t you put this into men too? Should men stay at home in order to achieve this?

      You wrote, “Also, being involved in a "productive" activity, regardless of how intellectual or "cognitively" challenging it is, is highly correlated. These are all things that women and men can share in together, regardless of location, and are encouraged by Islam”

      Ah, the productive activity for women is inside the house and it is more literal than you think. Source please.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “In fact, it commonly is interpreted to mean "make one's own way" or "send forward" or "present to others" (14:24, 16:75, 22:73)”

      Idriboo is interpreted as “beating” in most English translations and tafsirs. So now you are smarter than these scholars? Who are you? Where is your license?

      Q 14:24 uses “daraba”, Q 16:75 also uses “daraba”, and Q 22:73 uses “duriba”. Where is the “idriboo”?

      Let’s enter your assumption into the sentence:

      “and [as to] those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and …”:

      1. Make their own way => So, in the end you let them act like that? I doubt it since this is not a solution and this verse talks about solution ala Muhammad
      2. Send them forward => Sending them to who and where?
      3. Present them to others => Offering them to other men? Crazy solution.
      4. Separate from them => So after you’ve separated them from you in the house then you separate from them again? The word “talaq” would be more accurate and that word doesn’t exist in that verse.

      Don’t just use feeling and Arabic word games, use logic too.

      You wrote, “This verse is the only time the verb "dereb" is translated violently, and it seems to disagree with hadiths that tell spouses to appoint arbiters, separate physically, and then divorce.”

      Then you didn’t read the other verses. Multiple hadiths support the beating, you know and that phase you are talking about is a different phase.

      You wrote, “Women can be a temptation to men, and that is why Muhammad (pbuh) worried that women would be the biggest "affliction" for men”

      Men cannot hold their natural instinct and start to blame the other side. Duh, Muhammad was a man so it was common sense for him to think like that. Hey, don’t blame the thief for stealing, right? It’s the fault of the owner.

      You wrote, “In the verse you quote about women rising from prayer after men, this was to prevent the women from seeing the men exposed while bent over”

      Exposed? Were they wearing short clothes so that their awrat could be seen? I don’t think so. Women are not like men who can think of sex everyday you, know. The exposed part is your assumption.

      You wrote, “The verse where Muhammad (pbuh) was turned on when seeing another woman does not necessarily mean that he was imagining her while being intimate with his wife; many things sexually excite someone, and it cannot always be controlled.”

      Ah, a mind reading expert. Tell me, when does your magic show appear? Muhammad was sexually aroused and in that condition, men imagine many things naturally, period. Muhammad was a holy aroused prophet, end of the line.

      You wrote, “What Muhammad (pbuh) was saying, however, was that people should only express their sexual needs through their spouses, and not give in to temptation with others.”

      Imagination and expression are 2 different things, beside Muhammad could satisfy his desire using his status.

      You wrote, “These are verses emphasizing morality, fidelity, and chastity”

      In his own standard.

      You wrote, “You say yourself that both Miriam (pbuh) and Mary (pbuh) have the same name in Arabic, which is the language that Muhammad (pbuh) spoke; isn't the mistake there in the translation?”

      The mistake was in Muhammad’s limited knowledge of the bible and you didn’t answer this problem in Quran. The older Maryam never entered his mind but his father and brothers did and since he knew only one famous Maryam then …

      You wrote, “If one tries to straighten it against its nature (if a man tries to force a woman to do something), it will break.”

      You seriously believe this parable? Every human has its limitation whether male or female. This parable itself is discrimination towards women, it’s like “you can beat them but don’t beat too much, they’ll die”.

      You wrote, “However, if you let woman do what they know how to do, there is great benefit from it.”

      You should let women do things what they like to do, not what they know since information is not natural. It is learned. The benefit exists only in men’s eyes and practical world has proven this.

      You wrote, “To conclude: "You are forbidden to inherit women against their will, and you should not treat them with harshness…And live with them honorably. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike a thing and Allah brings through it a great deal of good." (An-Nisa 4:19)”

      Irrelevant verse, kiddo. It talks about property and that is totally different things with different reasons.

    • livingsunnah says:

      The logic of using "derab" to refer to divorce (or letting the wife "make her own way" or "go forward" from the marriage…) is just as valid as using the word to mean "hit". There are many different ways to interpret the root "derab". This is not my own interpretation, but a reflection of the debate concerning the interpretation of this word.

      Logically, it doesn't make sense for a couple to talk about the issue, then to separate physically (which corresponds to the waiting period during divorce), then… for the man to just beat his wife into submission? If the man was allowed to hit his wife, why would he- as the logic of this article claims- just do it the second the woman defends herself?

      Verse 35 follows with "and if you fear a breach…". This supports the idea of derab indicating a final separation/divorce. Additionally, verse 35 continues by encouraging the family to get involved- appointing an arbitrator on both sides- to see if any hope for reconciliation remains.

      Men and women are temptations for each other. That is why Muslims are encouraged to lower their gaze, and are warned of the temptations. In the case of the hadith in which the women rose from prostration after the males, the men were not wearing the izar (outer garment). Neither of us can know what the men were wearing underneath, certainly. But, since women are not generally asked to rise after men, and this hadith starts by stating that the men wore their izars around their neck, the idea of one being in an improper position is the only explanation that does make sense.

      I don't claim to read Muhammad (pbuh)'s mind. That was claimed by the author of the article, who said that Muhammad (pbuh) was imagining the other woman. Again, I repeat my previous statement: the hadith shows that sometimes we can't control our urges or desires (non-sexual as well), however we should always find lawful ways to express them.

      What problem of Maryam in the Qur'an? Even if the names are referred "incorrectly", the Bible also represents this practice: using one's heritage as a nickname (calling Jesus (pbuh) "son of David", or saying that "Rachel" wept for the children killed when Herod ordered the killing of the newly born male Jews).

      Forcing a woman to do something does not necessarily have to mean using force. Not does breaking the rib have to mean death; it can mean a broken spirit, or a reluctance for life or living or feeling happy or in control of one's life.

      The verse 4:19 is not irrelevant. It is just one of many verses that tell husbands to be kind, and to care for their wives. I'm not sure how you interpret that verse to refer to property, especially since women are not considered property in Islam.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      You wrote, “The logic of using "derab" to refer to divorce (or letting the wife "make her own way" or "go forward" from the marriage…) is just as valid as using the word to mean "hit".”

      The word “talaq” would be more accurate coz Quran claims to be clear and easy to understand. No, the word “idriboo” is used to literally hit an object as I’ve pointed to you. This is not logic but assumption and you neglected the multiple hadiths about beating.

      You wrote, “There are many different ways to interpret the root "derab". This is not my own interpretation, but a reflection of the debate concerning the interpretation of this word”

      Sure, there are many different ways but in the case of “idriboo”, it means “literally hit the target”. This is your own opinion which defies many scholars of old which knew classical Arabic.

      You wrote, “Logically, it doesn't make sense for a couple to talk about the issue, then to separate physically (which corresponds to the waiting period during divorce), then… for the man to just beat his wife into submission? If the man was allowed to hit his wife, why would he- as the logic of this article claims- just do it the second the woman defends herself?”

      Wrong, it is perfectly logical for a man like Muhammad to think about that. First, the husband warns (not talks) her, then separates from her, after all these fail, he is permitted to beat them to submission. Why? It’s because the words and the sex has failed. What do you have left? Your fist. What will happen after that? If the wife submit then you stop, if not then you keep beating her. Submission to the husband is obligatory in Islam.

      Defends herself? When does that happen? The judge is the husband and the suspicion belongs to the husband. Feeling is enough to do all these things.

      You wrote, “Verse 35 follows with "and if you fear a breach…". This supports the idea of derab indicating a final separation/divorce. Additionally, verse 35 continues by encouraging the family to get involved- appointing an arbitrator on both sides- to see if any hope for reconciliation remains.”

      No true. This verse is about the breach of rule in verse 34 both in men and women. Darab doesn’t mean “final separation” but “strike/hit”. There is no “final element” in that word and when you look at verse 35 it becomes clear that this isn’t taking about divorce. Note that Allah always uses “talaq” for divorce.

      If verse 34 talked about divorce then verse 35 shouldn’t exist at all because in verse 35 the couple is still fighting with unclear reasons and the marriage is still undecided yet. The third party arrives to make peace between them and get things clear such as, who has done wrong according to the rule in verse 34. Verse 34 talks about matters inside the house and verse 35 talks about interference but the peak (divorce) isn’t there yet in both of these verses.

    • Sanada_10 says:

      If a man issued talaq then no one could take it back. This is what Ibn Kathir said and he is more reliable than any sites you have:

      “The Fuqaha' (scholars of Fiqh) say that when estrangement occurs between the husband and wife, the judge refers them to a trusted person who examines their case in order to stop any wrongs commited between them. If the matter continues or worsens, the judge sends a trustworthy person from the woman's family and a trustworthy person from the man's family to meet with them and examine their case to determine whether it is best for them to part or to remain together. Allah gives preference to staying together”

      It talks about the “fighting” and if it keeps like that the third party must interfere. In this condition the third party will advise to both of them to divorce or not.

      You wrote, “Men and women are temptations for each other.”

      Not entirely true. Men obviously had bigger problem with that method while women do not.

      You wrote, “That is why Muslims are encouraged to lower their gaze, and are warned of the temptations. In the case of the hadith in which the women rose from prostration after the males, the men were not wearing the izar (outer garmen”

      Why they were not wearing it? Even if this is the case, still the temptation is quite unlikely unless you reverse the position. It’s just biologically not accurate.

      You wrote, “the idea of one being in an improper position is the only explanation that does make sense.”

      See? The discrimination continues.

      You wrote, “I don't claim to read Muhammad (pbuh)'s mind. That was claimed by the author of the article, who said that Muhammad (pbuh) was imagining the other woman. Again, I repeat my previous statement: the hadith shows that sometimes we can't control our urges or desires (non-sexual as well), however we should always find lawful ways to express them.”

      Sure, including taking your adopted son’s wife, attacking other tribes, or persuading an old friend. You don’t claim to read but you claim what he was not, that’s just the same.

      You wrote, “What problem of Maryam in the Qur'an? Even if the names are referred "incorrectly", the Bible also represents this practice: using one's heritage as a nickname (calling Jesus (pbuh) "son of David", or saying that "Rachel" wept for the children killed when Herod ordered the killing of the newly born male Jews).”

      I’ve done that in related article. Go there, will you? I don’t like repetition. The bible didn’t do this practice and obviously the bible didn’t commit an overwhelming coincidence like this. A mistake is a mistake, honesty is important here.

      You wrote, “Forcing a woman to do something does not necessarily have to mean using force. Not does breaking the rib have to mean death; it can mean a broken spirit, or a reluctance for life or living or feeling happy or in control of one's life.”

      That could be many things including the thing I’ve mentioned. It could be about beating, sex, cooking, etc. The concept itself is a symbol of discrimination because men is like that too but absent in this particular parable. Woman is positioned as rib and man is positioned as hand. What do you get from all of these?

      You wrote, “The verse 4:19 is not irrelevant. It is just one of many verses that tell husbands to be kind, and to care for their wives. I'm not sure how you interpret that verse to refer to property, especially since women are not considered property in Islam”

      Wrong again. This verse talks about inheritance be it woman or her property taken from her dead husband. The context is totally different from ordinary marriage.

      PR: women are considered property in Islam. You know jewelry? The concept is like that.

  21. Layla says:

    Of all the photos that Ali Sina could've picked from he chose the burka. For crying out loud, the burka isn't even obligatory. And showing Afghanistan and Iranian women only is also a down point. Go to Algeria, Morocco, even western countries where there are lots of muslim women there. There must be a reason why non-muslim women who used to do whatever they pleased convert to Islam. Only showing the negative side isn't exactly helping people to understand.

    • Ali Sina says:

      In my previous comment I said Muslims don\’t read and you just proved my point. Commenting on the pictures only? Why don\’t you read the article?

    • wdednh says:

      Wont read for there would be no argument!

    • helx says:

      Well Layla, in my country, the reason is usually some dark-eyed male but when the relationship fails, then the women leave Islam quite quickly. Also, please, do not be worried about "showing the
      negative side". A "negative thing" is not a problem itself – the thing that matters is the way HOW negative things are solved – you can ignore problems, or try to "hide" them, or you can think up various excuses to "prove" that the bad thing is actually a good thing, or you can get offended and attack people that point the problem…
      But you also can point the problem yourself, then put appropriate label on it and then analyze the problem to find the cause. Because if you get the cause, you can often fix things so that it would not happen again – and all of this should be done by a way that does not hurt others (of course!).
      In another words, just a list of bad or good things is not far enough to understand Islam – got that?

    • everin says:

      Layla, I think the burka should be the uniform prescribed for women by Mo.

    • EntoyDrDragoN says:

      oh layla. you are only hurting and embarrassing yourself. free from your cult then you would be surprised to know that you are smarter than you think.

  22. ali says:

    zer nazan binim………vatan fooroosh

    • Ali Sina says:

      Man vatan forusham yaa to ei tazi parast?

    • denialisnoproof says:

      what does this mean sina?
      I can understand how you feel to loose your civilization to these arabian barbarians.

    • vijay says:

      Some guy is calling Dr Sina, seller of his nation/Traitor, while Dr Sina asks him that this guy is worship of Tazi(perhaps it is Tazia, the shia tableau during Mohram procession).

  23. g-blade says:

    Ali Sina,
    You are the best
    Go you good thang!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

que es azithromycin 250 mg, http://alisina.org/pharmacy-nolvadex/, http://alisina.org/sildenafil-citrate-buy/