In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms
CRITIC ON MOHAMMAD’S SEX LIFE
(See also Atheist-Muslim debate, Is Islam peaceful)
After fourteen hundred years the critics, Christians and atheists, are yet obsessed with Prophet Mohammad’s “particularly active sex life.”
Yet when it comes to the sex-capades of the prophets they believe in Christians (and atheists) become dumb and illiterate.
The critics of Mohammad/Islam believe that the blacker the picture they paint of Mohammad/Islam the greater their chances are that Muslims would apostatise and embrace Christianity or atheism.
And only the peripheral Muslim and the unthinking would leave Islam. To leave Islam for any other religion or atheism is like giving up the best of an item for an inferior one. Islam is superior to all other religions. See also Creation or Evolution.
1. THE CRITIC notes that Mohammad had 9-11 wives though the Qur’an only allows four. And he had sex with all of them on the same day.
What is it to you how many wives the Qur’an allows and that Mohammad exceeded the amount?
How many wives did God give Adam and by how many did Solomon and his son, Rehoboam,1 exceed this amount that God gave Adam?
How many wives did David have, and yet God gave him his master’s wives.2
Mohammad having more than four wives would have been before the injunction limiting the number to four. After which time a limit was placed on the Prophet–(Qur’an 33:5-52. Incidentally, to those who charge that Mohammad wrote the Qur’an, it is strange that if Mohammad wrote the Qur’an, Mohammad would have placed this restriction on himself).
That Mohammad had sex with all his wives on the same day. This is known as treating your wives equally. (Eat your hearts out!)
Though the Prophet Mohammad had some “9-11” wives; as the critic points out, it is significant to know his reasons for multiple marriages. Which reasons are manifold:
(1) Social–married Safiyyah, a high-born Jewess captive of war to maintain her social status.
(2) Federal–to effect unity between tribes; one such marriage was to Hafsa; the Prophet’s marriage to ‘Aisha was three-fold: Divine revelation–(Bokhari Vol. 7, #15; to effect unity between tribes; and to put an end to marriages with pre-teen girls.
(3) Diplomatic–accepted Mary, the Coptic, as gift from ruler of Egypt, (Solomon also engaged in diplomatic marriages: “To secure diplomatic and commercial treaties Solomon contracted marriage with various princesses”–Ency. Brit; 15th Ed; Vol. 2, p. 913).
(4) Religious expediency–married many widows of war,
(5) Divine instructions–married Zainab as per Qur’an 33:36-37. (For the critics so-called “scandal” see Zainab scandal and Hafsa scandal.
Muhammad Ali explains in his commentary to Qur’an 33:50 that:
“regarding the Prophet’s marriages. His life as regards his marriages may be divided into four periods. Briefly these are:
(1) A celibate life up to twenty-five.
(2) A married state with one wife from 25 to 54.
(3) Several marriages from 54 to 60.
(4) No further marriage after 60.
As regards the first period, the life of a celibate youth living in a warm country till 25, the testimony of a hostile writer like Sir William Muir is that “all authorities agree in ascribing to the youth of Muhammad a modesty of deportment and purity of manners rare among the people of Mecca”. In fact, in Arabia at the time profligacy was the order of the day and it was among people who prided themselves on loose sexual relations that the Prophet led a life of transcendent purity.
Then comes the second period from 25 to 54. His first marriage was contracted while he was twenty-five years of age, and the widow Khadsjah whom he married was forty years old, i.e., fifteen years his senior. It was with her, and her alone, that he passed all the years of his youth and manhood until she died three years before the Hijrah, when he was already an old man of fifty. This circumstance alone is sufficient to give the lie to those carpers who call him a voluptuary. After her death, while still at Makkah, he married Saudah, a widow of advanced age. He also married ‘A’ishah, his only virgin wife, while still at Makkah, but her marriage was consummated five years afterwards in the 2nd year of the Hijrah.
Then followed the flight to Madinah, and subsequent to the Flight he had to fight many battles with his enemies, the Quraish, or such tribes as sided with the Quraish. The result of these battles was a great discrepancy between the number of males and females, and as his favourite followers fell in the field of battle fighting with his enemies, the care of their families devolved upon the Prophet and his surviving companions. In the battle of Badr fell Khunais, son of Hudhafah, and the faithful ‘Umar’s daughter Hafsah was left a widow. ‘Umar offered her to ‘Uthman and Abu Bakr in turn, and she was at last married by the Holy Prophet in the third year of the Hijrah. ‘Abd Allah, son of Jahsh, fell a martyr at U√ud, and his widow Zainab, daughter of Khuzaimah, was taken in marriage by the Prophet in the same year. In the next year Abu Salamah died, and his widow, Umm Salamah, was taken to wife by the Prophet. The events are narrated in the last section, leading to Zainab’s divorce by Zaid; the Prophet married her in the fifth year of the Hijrah under circumstances already narrated. Umm Habibah was one of his devoted followers who fled to Abyssinia with her husband, ‘Ubaid Allah, who there became a Christian, and when he died his widow found comfort in being taken as a wife by the Holy Prophet in the seventh year of the Hijrah.
Besides these widows of his faithful followers whom it fell to his lot to take under his protection, the Prophet took three widows of his enemies in marriage, and in each case this step led to the union and pacification of a whole tribe. These three, Juwairiyah, Maimunah and Safiyyah, he married in the years six and seven of the Hijrah. Regarding one of these, it is sufficient to note that, when the Prophet took Juwairiyyah for a wife, over a hundred families of the tribe of the Bani Mustaliq, to which tribe she belonged, were at once liberated by the Muslims.
The fourth period is that when war came to an end; a reference to this is contained in v. 52: “It is not allowed to thee to take wives after this”
Thus it will be seen that all the marriages of the Prophet were due either to feelings of compassion for the widows of his faithful followers or to put a stop to bloodshed and ensure union with some tribe. Compare also 4:3, where it is shown that the permission for polygamy was given under similar circumstances; in fact, many of the companions had to follow the example of the Prophet.”
2. THE CRITIC in trying to denigrate Mohammad notes that Layla al Khatim offered herself in marriage to the Prophet. The Prophet accepted and married her. She informed her family about it who told her that Mohammad was a “womanizer” and for her to annul the marriage. The Prophet annulled the marriage.
That Layla’s family dubbed Mohammad a “womanizer” so what?
Jews ridiculed Jesus as “a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber” –(Matthew 11:19); that “He hath a devil, and is mad”–(John 10:20); and that he was a “bastard” (and his mother was an “adulteress”– (see Jesus-birth miracle or mechanix?). And yet Christians worship him/Jesus as God, Son of God, Holy Ghost (Trinity) and son of man.
Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1976) defines “womanizer” as “a man who pursues or associates illicitly with women.”
As noted in the Hadith, Layla offered herself to the Prophet, the Prophet did not pursue her. And if there was sex it would not have been illicit, but matrimonial. How then is Mohammad a “womanizer?”
To label Mohammad “womanizer” is libel.
(The reasons for the Prophet’s polygamy has already been given in item 1)
If Mohammad’s “9-11” wives made him a “womanizer”:
- What does Solomon 1000 wives and concubines, and his son Rehoboam’s “eighteen wives and three score concubines” make them?
- What does Abraham marrying his father’s daughter, Sarah, make him?–(Genesis 20:11-12). And what does his bedding Hagar, his wife’s “bondwoman” and impregnating her make him?–(Genesis 16:1-4)
- What does Jacob joying with Bilhah and Zilpah, handmaids of his wives Rachel and Leah, make him?–(Genesis 30:1-13).
- What does Judah (the grandfather of your Son of God/God, Jesus) playing hide-and-seek with his daughter-in-law, Tamar, and made her fruit, make him?–(Genesis 38:11-18).
- What does David (in whom your Son of God/God, Jesus, is rooted) dallying with Uriah’s wife, Bathsheba (and sending the poor man to the battle-front to be killed so he can have his wife all to himself); and having a young “virgin” keep him warm, and possessing his master’s wives make him?–(Revelation 22:16; 2 Samuel 11:2-5; 1 Kings 1:1-4; 2 Samuel 12:8); (and Christians sing his praise to the extent of their lungs in melodious tones).
- What does Lot building two nations with his two daughters make him?–(Genesis 19:30-38).
Unable to advance his beliefs through intelligent discourse –and there is nothing intelligent about God residing in the belly of a woman He created and emerging from her vagina and had the Jews clip His foreskin (God fobid!)– the Christian tries to cloak Mohammad in the garb of hedonist and terrorist.
And not finding any flaw in the teachings of Islam –as the Divine System is perfect– the Christian, like a drowning rat clutching at a straw, manipulates verses of the Qur’an to prove that Islam espouses violence.
Though his God (and as he says Jesus is God, then Jesus) is a “man of war” and is responsible for the bloodiest episodes in Scriptural history and in the world. (Shown later)
3. THE CRITIC points out from Bokhari 5080:
“Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah,
When I got married, Allah’s Messenger said to me, “What type of lady have you married?”
I replied, “I have married a matron.”
He said, “Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?”
Jabir also said: “Allah’s Messenger said, “Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?”
And the critic comments:
Now if you were a normally functioning man without serious mental health issues you can’t really wondering why any grown man would be attracted to a little girl more than to a grown woman.
But Mohammad tries to explain it to us and he tries to explain his preference by comparing ‘Aisha to food). (This part about “Aisha is dealt with in the next topic).
Where is the difficulty in the Prophet suggesting that Jabir marry a “virgin” or “young girl” and fondle/play with her? Don’t you (if you have a spouse) fondle and play with her/him? You should.
As King of Arabia Mohammad could have commanded any number of vestal nubiles (which lusty old men relish) at his disposal, yet (as noted above in item 1) he married mostly widows and matrons. This alone obliterates the critic’s charge that Mohammad was “attracted to a little girl more than to a grown woman.”
Significantly, this quote about Jabir as given by the critic does NOT give the entire hadith as noted in Bokhari Vol. 7, #280, which states (the words in red are not in the critic’s presentation):
“Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah:
My father died and left seven or nine girls and I married a matron.
Allah’s Apostle said to me, “O Jabir! Have you married?”
I said, “Yes.”
He said, “A virgin or a matron?”
I replied, “A matron,”
He said, “Why not a virgin, so that you might play with her and she with you, and you might amuse her and she amuse you?’
I said, “Abdullah (my father) died and left girls, and I dislike to marry a girl like them, so I married a lady (matron) so that she may look after them.”
On that he (the Prophet) said, “May Allah bless you,” or “That is good.”
The hadith seems to convey that Jabir was yet a youth when he married. Thus the reason for the Prophet’s suggesting that he should have married a virgin or young girl –perhaps good parents would counsel their young son and daughter to marry a spouse their own age group. But after Jabir explained his reason for marrying a matron –which was to take care of his sisters, some of whom may have been younger than him– the Prophet commended him as having made a wise choice.
How does this make the Prophet “attracted to a little girl more than to a grown woman?”
This Christian critic must not be “a normally functioning man” and must have “serious mental health issues.”
4. THE CRITIC notes that in. Bokhari 3411: “Allah’s Messenger said, many amongst men have reached (the level of) perfection but none amongst the women reached this level except Asiya, Fir’aun’s (Pharaoh’s) wife, and Maryam (Mary), the daughter of Imran. And no doubt the superiority of ‘Aisha to other women is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. an Arabic dish) to other meals.”
And the critic says “a young girl according to Mohammad is simply a better dish than a grown woman. Some prophet you got there my Muslim friends.”
What utter rubbish!
(Wonder if the people who give ears to this man analyse what he is saying or they just behave like ducks –gobble up whole all and whatever is thrown to them).
The statement clearly shows that this narration of the Prophet is about spiritual excellence of people. And that his comment about ‘Aisha was an analogy. That as the Tharid was the superior among food, so ‘Aisha was the superior among women.
Yes. “Some prophet” we Muslims got here –the greatest man to walk the earth.
5. THE CRITIC notes that Bokhari 2658 shows that the witness of woman is equal to half of a man’s.
See Woman’s testimony-half of man’s.
And what is the “witness” ability/capacity of the Christian woman? Zero!
Whereas Christians try to cast aspersion on this teaching of Qur’an 2:282, the Bible teaches about those who “hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon…” that,
“At the mouth of TWO witnesses, or THREE witnesses. shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of ONE witness he shall NOT be put to death”–(Deut. 17:2-6).
Would Christians say that one man’s witness is not to be taken under all situations? And the answer is yes as Deut. 19:15 shows: “ONE Witness shall NOT rise up against a man for ANY iniquity or for ANY sin…;”
and as the teaching of Jesus (the Christian’s God) shows:
“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between him and thee alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two MORE, that in the mouth of TWO or THREE witnesses every word may be established” “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of TWO MEN is true”–(Matt. 18:15-16; John 8:17).
Whereas Deuteronomy deals with “witness” in the case of false worship and “any” sin, Matthew deals with personal transgression and John seems to deal with all cases which is in consonance with Deut. 19:15.
Thus, the Jewish and Christian man’s witness is less than the Muslim man’s and has only a “half” witness credibility as the Muslim woman’s.
In fact, the Muslim woman’s have greater “witness” power than the Jewish and Christian man considering that the Muslim woman’s “half” witness is restricted only to business matters in contrast to the Jewish and Christian man who has only a “half” witness in ALL matters.
(Jesus mentions the witness of two “MEN,” did he forgot the women, or does the Christian woman has no “witness” credibility?)
In summary, the Muslim man has greater “witness” credibility than the Jewish and Christian man. And, apart from business matters, the Muslim woman also has greater “witness” credibility than the Jewish and Christian man (and the Jewish and Christian woman).
Notably, Jehovah’s Witnesses govern by the teaching of the Bible that “ONE Witness shall NOT rise up against a man for ANY iniquity or for ANY sin”–(Deut. 19:15).
The Toronto Star, Tuesday, July 3, 2012, notes in its article by Wendy Gillis, “Sex abuse verdict emboldens Canadians” which reports the story of a Jehovah’s Witnesses girl when “she was 9 years old” being “repeatedly molested” by a male “fellow churchgoer;” that if the accused denies the charges against him and there is no one to substantiate the charges then the Jehovah’s Witnesses ““elders cannot take action”” because the Scriptures say ““‘No single witness should rise up against a man respecting any error or any sin.’””
It would be interesting to note the Jehovah’s Witnesses response if a 9-7 year-old Jehovah’s Witnesses girl was to have consensual sex with a Jehovah’s Witnesses adult male and if the man was charged by the State, if Jehovah’s Witnesses would apply the defense in court that the Biblical teaching allows girls who have sprouted breasts and genital hairs as being ready for sex.3
6. THE CRITIC notes Muslim 142 in which the Prophet said: “O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers in hell.”
“You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion,” and the prophet explained “your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense, and you spend some nights (and days) in which you do not offer prayer and in the month of Ramadan (during the days) you do not observe fast, that is a failing in religion.”
And the critic charges that this denigrates women.
Can the critic dispute the Prophet’s statements?
That the majority of dwellers in hell are women does not necessarily mean that this will be so at the time of Judgment. Else, the Prophet would not encourage them to “give charity and ask much forgiveness.”
That women should give charity and ask much forgiveness, is sage advice.
That women “curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses.” Can the critic dispute this?
That women are “failing in religion.”
Can the critic dispute this? Isn’t it a failing in religion to neglect prayer and fasting?
That women’s “lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man.”
The Toronto Star Thursday, December 12, 2013 (p. L6) notes in the article Men, Women are wired differently, from the Washington Post, reports that
“Women’s and men’s brains are wired differently, in ways that seem to match the stereotypes.” The test conducted at the University of Pennsylvania “focused on two regions: the cortex, involved in thought, perception and language; and the cerebellum, which co-ordinates movement.”
The findings were that while females were more connected to one side of the brain males were more connected to the opposite side. In males, these differences seem to “promote coordinated movement, which males can generally do faster in tests.” While in females it “might reflect a superior ability to process emotions and understand others’ intentions.”
Thus men also have “deficiency.” This “deficiency” in men and women are not to be viewed as discriminatory. Men and women were created differently and for their own purpose.
The Prophet Mohammad pointing out this “deficiency” in women is not a “blaming” or derogatory expression. Something that is factual cannot be charged as being “blaming” or derogatory. or misogynistic.
That women will go to hell is not because of their mental and religious deficiency –conditions of which they had no choice– but because of their actions: their cursing and ingratitude, and carelessness in observing religious practice.
That woman’s testimony is half of the man’s is so only in business matters as Qur’an 2:282 notes:
“O you who believe, when you contract a debt for a fixed time, write it down…But if he who owes the debt is unsound in understanding or weak, or (if) he is not able to dictate himself, let his guardian dictate with fairness. And call to witness from among your men two witnesses; but if there are not two men, then one man and two women…so that if one of the two errs, the one may remind the other.”
A woman’s testimony also supersedes the man’s as pointed out in Qur’an 24:6-9, (in the matter of the wife’s suspected infidelity):
“And those who accuse their wives and have no witnesses except themselves, let one of them testify four times, bearing Allāh to witness, that he is of those who speak the truth. And the fifth (time) that the curse of Allāh be on him, if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the chastisement from her, if she testify four times, bearing Allāh to witness, that he is of those who lie. And the fifth (time) that the wrath of Allāh to be on her, if he is of those who speak the truth.”
While the man’s testimony is “one-fifth” that of the woman’s, no court would dare to assert that a man’s testimony in all matters is inferior to that of the wife’s, or that the testimony of a man is “worth half” (or “one-fifth,” as per the verse) that of a woman’s. And, notably, a woman’s chastity is a more sensitive matter than a business transaction.
If it be claimed that the woman is worth half of a man, then it can be claimed that a man is worth a fifth of a woman.
8. THE CRITIC notes: “Sahih al-Bukhari 5825—Narrated Ikrima: Rifaa divorced his wife whereupon Abdur-Rahman married her.
Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil and complained to her (Aisha) 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 messenger came, Aisha said, “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!”
When Abdur-Rahman heard that his wife had gone to the prophet, he came with his two sons from another wife. She said, “By Allah! I have done no wrong to him, but he is impotent and is as useless to me as this,” holding and showing the fringe of her garment.
Abdur-Rahman said, “By Allah, O Allah’s messenger! She has told a lie. I am very strong and can satisfy her, but she is disobedient and wants to go back to Rifaa.”
Allah’s messenger said to her, “If that is your intention, then know that it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.”
The prophet saw two boys with Abdur-Rahman and asked (him), “Are these your sons?” On that Abdur-Rahman said, “Yes.” The prophet said, “You claim what you claim (that he is impotent)? But by Allah, these boys resemble him as a crow resembles a crow.”
And the critic charges:
Notice that the story is about a woman whose Muslim husband beat her until her skin turned green. Aisha takes the woman to Muhammad, hoping that he would deal with the problem. But instead of punishing or even rebuking the woman’s husband, Muhammad instead criticizes the woman who was being beaten. No wonder Aisha says that Muslim women are treated worse than pagan women.”
First, all the woman had was only ONE SPOT of green on her body. It is doubtful that if she was beaten she would have only one spot of evidence.
(Perhaps Abdur Rahman tried to take her by force and she got bruised in the attempt. Or it might have been self-inflicted to garner sympathy/support in her case for a divorce –much like present-day woman ripping her garment and self-inflicting herself and then cry rape and/or wife-abuse to land the man in jail).
That “instead of punishing or even rebuking the woman’s husband, Muhammad instead criticises the woman who was being beaten.”
Why should Mohammad have punished or even rebuked the woman’s husband?
The woman unjustly denies the husband his marital rights (even while he was fulfilling his obligation to provide for her) and on top of that she barefacedly lied on him and even lied to the Prophet that the man was impotent –though he had two sons to show he was UN-strong; and if he was impotent why would he be demanding conjugal rights?– just so she could get out of the marriage.
The Prophet’s punishing or rebuking the husband would only have served to encourage the wife to engage in lie/deceit. Some people might submit that it would have been appropriate that the Prophet also give her a flogging.
It is rather strange that ‘Aisha would say “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women” considering that she and Hafsa (another wife of the Prophet) argue with the Prophet without the Prophet ever laying a finger on any of them.
Bokhari records a long narration in which ‘Umar’s wife told him that his daughter, Hafsa, “argues with Allāh’s Apostle (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) so much that he remains angry for a full day.”
Whereupon ‘Umar went to Hafsa who admitted, “we argue with him.” To which her father advised her “Don’t be betrayed by the one who is proud of her beauty because of the love of Allah’s Apostle (peace be on him) for her (i.e. ‘Aisha).”(Bokhari, Vol. 6, # 435).
(Depending on when this incident occurred). It is rather queer that ‘Aisha would say, ”Muslim women are treated worse than pagan women,” seeing that Islam liberated women and has given her rights that leave her nothing for which to strive; given her rights alongside man from the cradle to Jannah.
- man and Woman were created from the same essence–(Qur’an 4:1), and instilled with the same laws –such as the five senses and susceptibilities to hunger and disease– one cannot be superior to the other. How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- reverence the womb that bore you (not the loins that emitted you)–(Qur’an 4:1); and Prophet Mohammad taught that paradise lies at the feet of mothers’ (not at the feet of fathers’)–(Ibn Majah, #2771). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- men and women are garments to the other–(Qur’an 2:187). Garments protect, comfort, beautify and conceal the body’s imperfections. Since men and women are to protect, comfort, beautify and keep each other’s flaws private. How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- men and women are friends one of another–(Qur’an 9:71). Friends do not oppress one another: friends liberate and protect one another. How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- women have rights similar to those against her–(Qur’an 2:228). People who have mutual rights cannot subjugate the other. How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- women have rights to inheritance, and full control over her earnings–(Qur’an 4:7, 11, 177; 4:32). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- women have moral and spiritual equality with men–(Qur’an 3:194, 197; 24:30, 31, 55; 33:35; 49:13; 57:12, 18, 19). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Allah has put love and compassion between man and woman, and that man may find peace of mind in her–(Qur’an 7:189; 30:21). The man who abuses his wife, causes her distress or puts her under duress cannot find love and compassion and comfort in her. (This verse also condemns marital rape). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Islam saved the daughter/woman from infanticide–(Qur’an 6:151; 17:31; 81:8-9). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Islam liberated woman from Zihar –whereby her husband compared her to his mother’s backside and deserted her–(Qur’an 33:4). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Islam liberated woman from Ila –in which a husband takes an oath to indefinitely suspend conjugal relations with his wife–(Qur’an 2:226). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Islam liberated woman from being inherited against her will by her late husband’s elder son or male relations–(Qur’an 4:19; Bokhari Vol. 6, #103). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Islam liberated woman from being forced to claim a divorce so her husband could regain his dowry; and Islam requires that she be treated kindly–(Qur’an 4:19). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Islam liberated woman from being married to her late husband’s son–(Qur’an 4:22). How is this “worse than pagan women?”
- Women have three degrees of excellence over men: There is a report of a man asking the Prophet
“Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship,” to which 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”–(Bokhari Vol. 8, #2).
How is this “worse than pagan women?”
Islam esteems womanhood as the symbol of purity and motherhood as the gateway to Paradise. (See Islam-women). In contrast to Islam, Christianity is brutally and rabidly misogynistic (see Christianity-women).
(Notably, in the Hadith the Prophet told the woman that “it is unlawful for you to remarry Rifaa unless Abdur-Rahman has had sexual intercourse with you.” For divorce in Islam, see Islam-divorce).
Significantly. Regarding the Christian woman’s marriage misery, Jesus says:
“I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery;” “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery”–(Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18).
Unlike Allāh/Islam which allows amicable divorce when the parties can no longer live together the Christian woman is doomed to a life of marriage misery and to wilt her (youthful and beautiful) self in a loveless and even brutal marriage or risk being labeled “adulteress” (who are required to be stoned to death in Judeo-Christian law) from earth all the way to next world.
And so does the man who should marry her.
And whereas Allāh allows a divorced couple [who were married and divorced from their second or more partners] to remarry each other the Bible does not and considers the woman as being “defiled” [but the man is not “defiled;” talk about rabid misogyny].
And while the Muslim woman can initiate divorce, there is no mention of the Christian woman being able to do so. Here is what the Bible says about the divorced couple remarrying (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus forbids the former couple remarrying):
“When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he had FOUND SOME UNCLEANNESS in her: then let him WRITE HER A BILL OF DIVORCEMENT, and give it in her hand, and SEND HER OUT OF HIS HOUSE….And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand….Her former husband which sendeth her away, may NOT take her again to be his wife, after that she is DEFILED; for that is ABOMINATION BEFORE THE LORD”–(Deut.24:1-4. Talk about “easy” divorce. This takes the crown).
Whereas Islam has liberate woman and given her rights from the cradle all the way to Jannah. (See Islam-women).
In contrast, Christianity has woman mired in the bog of degradation from birth to the Hereafter. The fruits of freedom the Christian woman is enjoying do not come from the teachings of the Bible but from the trees of modern culture. (See Christianity-women).
9. THE CRITIC says Qur’an 23:1-6; 73:22-30; allows sex with non-Muslim women. And he notes Abu Dawud 2150 which reports:
“Abu Said al-Khudri said: “The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”. That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.” [The Quran verse is 4:24]”
This hadith (without the part about Muslims wanting to have sex with the female captives and revelation of Qur’an 4:24) is noted in Bokhari Vol. 5, #612.
As noted in the hadith of Abu Dawud the Prophet SENT his followers on this mission; the Prophet was NOT present with them. Since the Prophet was not with the Muslims this revelation could not have been given to authorize the Muslims to have sex with their female captives.
Moreover, it is hardly credible that Allah would sanction this sex which is adultery when He has forbidden adultery and even forbidden fornication.
Qur’an 4:24 has nothing to do with the Muslims wanting to have sex with their female captives which the Bible allows:
“And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it; And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself”–Deut. 20:12-14).
What is to be borne in mind is that the battle of Hunain was fought in the eight year of the Hijrah. The injunctions against adultery and fornication were not yet given. Thus, in wanting to have sex with their female captives the Muslims were, either knowingly or not, following the Bible.
To restate the part of Qur’an 4:24 under discussion: “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”.
Muhammad Ali explains:
“It is thus forbidden to a man that he should marry a woman who is already married. An exception is made, however, regarding those whom your right hands possess, by which expression are generally meant in the Holy Qur’an those who are taken prisoners in war. It sometimes happened that such prisoners became converts to Islam, and therefore they could not be sent back. Such women it was lawful to take in marriage, even though they might not have been divorced formally by their former husbands. The words ma malakat aimanu-kum may, however, also mean those whom you have lawfully taken in marriage, because lawful possession is clearly implied in the word aiman, which signifies covenant, marriage also being a covenant. The meaning of the passage may therefore be that all free women are prohibited to you except those whom you have lawfully married.” (See Islam-concubinage).
This verse (Qur’an 4:24) also seems to be a prohibition of polyandry –where one woman has more than one husband or more than one man have a common wife as in Hinduism where the five Pandava brothers had one common wife, Draupadi.
This verse is also a prohibition against the other Hindu practice of Niyoga –contract marriages, in which a childless widow/widower can have temporary marriages with up to eleven spouses, one after the other, for raising children.4
10. THE CRITIC notes a number of Muslim men who raped and forced English girls into prostitution and, as these men were all Muslims, the critic cites Islamic teaching as being responsible for the crimes.
While these individuals may all have Muslim names (and may all have been Muslims) significantly, they did not give any indication that they commit the crime(s) in the name of Allah/Islam (and even if they had made such a claim they could not prove that Islam allows it).
In contrast. Not to minimize the Muslims sex crimes against the British girls but it pales in comparison to Christian Serbs who, aside from their genociding Muslim men in Bosnia, raped in the name of Christ/Christianity –evidenced by their three-finger salute, indicating trinity/Christianity– and raped repeatedly, some 20,000-50,000 Muslim women and girls; and even “infants”:
“Estimates of the total number of women raped during the war vary. The European Union estimates a total of 20,000, while the Bosnian Interior Ministry claims 50,000. The UN Commission of Experts identified 1,600 cases of rape, while experts connected to UNHRC provided evidence of 12,000 rapes. Other estimates range from 12,000 to 50,000.”
“Mr Vukovic, 44, a waiter and driver before the war, repeatedly led gang rapes. Witness 48 was told she would have her throat slashed if she resisted. Mr Vukovic “bit her nipples until they bled and pinched her breasts until she fainted from pain”.
Four of the 72 women held in the Partizan sports hall were raped almost nightly for a month. Witness 186 was raped for six months.
Another victim, described as AB, was just 12 when she was sold by Mr Kovac, 38, to a soldier for 200 Deutschmarks (£66). She is still missing.
Witness 50 was raped on the night of August 2, 1992 – the night the town’s mosque was destroyed – after being taken away by Mr Kunarac. She was raped by a Montenegrin soldier who threatened to cut off her arms and legs and take her to a church to baptise her.
“Women and children, some as young as 12 years old, were detained and raped, vaginally, anally and orally; subjected to gang rapes, forced to dance nude with weapons pointed at them, and even enslaved,” the court heard.
“Unlike many domestic rapes, the offences in this case were often done in the full view of others or in a room were several women were being raped simultaneously,” the prosecutor said. “It will be difficult to fathom the depths of despair and the horror that these victims went through.”–(https://www. theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/21/warcrimes.balkans).
“The question I’ve been asked most frequently since my return in February from interviewing Bosnian Muslim women who were victims of Serbian atrocities is whether the Serbian assaults, including gang rapes, are different from what happens in other wars.
We know any war brings atrocities……
The Serbs, however, in the words of Time magazine (Feb. 22, 1993), have taken the matter of rape in war “down into deeper, more sinister dimensions.” In my opinion they have unleashed the most evil weapon against civilians since germ warfare and the atomic bomb—and they have aimed it at the most innocent victims in any war: women and children.
A Strategy of Genocide
The Serbs are using three kinds of attacks on women and children in their strategy of genocide:
First, they are mutilating sexually by criminally assaulting small girls, and even infants. Physicians for Peace, a worldwide operation, has documented cases of Serbs raping 3-year-old girls.
I interviewed one 56-year-old Bosnian woman named Marta. She wore a dark maroon dress. She had a spirit about her, despite all her travail. She had cried so profusely over the past months that the area around her eyes had gone past the color of red—all around her sockets was the color purple. She was held in a concentration camp with 150 women and children. She said she was raped, that they all were raped. But here I am talking about the mutilation of small girls, and Marta testified:
“I saw Serbs raping children—girls as young as six and eight years old.” She said she and others could do nothing. If a woman objected too strenuously, she said, “they slit your throat.”
I talked with a young and beautiful woman, a Bosnian from Sarajevo. Her first name is Aida. She is blonde, slender, about 30. As she talked, I wrote her words:
“A physician who is a friend of my father came to my father’s house one evening extremely distressed—crying, screaming, wailing. He had treated an eight-year old girl after she had been gang-raped by Serbians. She was torn apart inside. She was bleeding so badly he couldn’t stop it. She was in great pain and could not be repaired. He told my father he had injected her and killed her to relieve her suffering. “
In a refugee camp, I listened to a Bosnian Muslim, Issa, 39. He told me the Serbs had attacked his village. They shot more than 200 civilian men and rounded up others, including Issa, and carted them off to a concentration camp. I wrote his words:
“A doctor from my same town also was a prisoner here. One day the Serbian guards called for this doctor. They wanted him to sew up a 10-year-old girl they had raped. She was torn apart. Seeing the mutilated child, the doctor forgot he was a prisoner, that he was in a concentration camp. He cursed the Serbs, telling them, ‘You are not human!”‘ According to Issa the guards then left the child bleeding on the table and assaulted the doctor. Issa said that when he again saw the doctor, “he was barely alive.”
In addition to the mutilation of small girls, the Serbs have a second method of using women as a weapon of genocide. They keep women separated from their husbands or their potential husbands. They do this by holding the men in concentration camps or by killing them. And, meanwhile, the Serbs hold in captivity women they repeatedly assault sexually. They are forcing the women to give birth to what they term “little Chetniks”—or Serbian soldiers.
Ziba, 26, who with other women was held in a Gracko rape camp, said Serbs shouted at Muslim women with small children: “Look at how many children you can have. You are going to have our children. You are going to have our little Chetniks.” She added, “The rapes went on day and night.”
I can never forget the pained look in the large, dark eyes of a young woman I will call Nadia. She is 20, petite, standing perhaps five-feet-one. She is Muslim by religion—most of the rape victims are. When I talked with her, in a refugee camp, I was with a Bosnian woman physician named Amra, who acted as interpreter. Nadia was seated by a window and it was a bitter cold day.
“Aren’t you cold?” Amra asked.
“How could I feel anything so unimportant as that?” Nadia replied. She was reliving her nightmare.
When the Serbs assaulted her village, she and others ran to the hills. Among them were three 12- and 13-year-old boys. The Serbs found the group.
“Before my eyes,” Nadia says, the Serbs began shooting the boys. “Don’t kill them!” Nadia shouted, running to defend them. A Serb knocked her unconscious. When she awakened, she was in a room with one of her arms tied to a bedpost. She was in a rape camp.
“I was kept in that room for three months. It was mostly walls. It had a concrete floor. And straw on the concrete. Other women and children were there. None of us were permitted to leave the room.
“Even on Christmas day,” Nadia said, “eight Serbs came, saying ‘Now we celebrate.”‘ All eight gang-raped Nadia that day.”(http://www.wrmea.org/1993-april-may/women-s-bodies -a-battlefield-in-war-for-greater-serbia.html).
But for the Muslim trees of “sex” crimes against British girls, the Christian critic of Islam cannot see the Christian forest of “sex” crimes against Muslims.
If Islam is to be blamed for the Muslims “sex” crimes, then evidently Christianity is to be blamed for the Christian Serbs “sex” crimes. And more so since the Christian Serbs commit their crimes in the name of Christ –flashing their three-finger (trinity) salute.
The critic also dabbles in Jihad. For jihad see Islam-Jihad & Jihad Watch
11. THE CRITIC notes Qur’an 5:32 which states: “For this reason We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men. And certainly Our messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excesses in the land.”
And the critic postulates that individuals who use this verse to show that Islam does not condone violence are wrong because this verse is directed to the Children of Israel and not to Muslims.
But this injunction is not restricted to the Children of Israel. As preceding verses (27-31) show, verse 32 is in relation to the story of Cain and Abel. After killing Abel, Cain did not know what to do with the body: “Then Allah sent a crow scratching the ground to show him how to cover the dead body of his brother.”
Then came the verse of 32:
“For this reason We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men.”
Apart from the fact that teachings of rectitude in the Qur’an regardless of which people it was directed to is also guidance to Muslims. This admonition as it stems from the beginning of creation is, by extension, for all people.
That this verse is applicable to Muslims is further cemented in the following admonitions from Allah God:
“Say: Come! I will recite what your Lord has forbidden to you: Associate naught with Him and do good to parents and…kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice” (which is almost identical to the injunction given to the Children of Israel)–(Qur’an 6:151; also 17:33; 25:68).
Thus the individuals –including politicians and heads of State– who quote 5:32 to prove that Islam does not sanction killing the innocent are absolutely correct.
There is an important aspect of Qur’an 5:32 that needs to be delved into. Allah recounted that He specifically directed this statement at the Children of Israel, Why?
The ending of the verse furnishes the answer: “And certainly Our messengers came to THEM (Children of Israel) with clear arguments, but even after that many of them commit excesses in the land.”
And some of the Israelite excesses include their killing of prophets of God, as evidenced by no less a personality than Jesus:
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophet, and stonest them which are sent to thee”–(Matthew 23:37).
And one of these prophets that the Israelites killed was “Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar”–(Matthew 23:35).
It would seem that Allah revealing this verse “whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he had killed all men. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved the lives of all men” was a reminder to the Jews who were then, along with the pagans, scheming to kill the Prophet Mohammad:
- “The Jews,” as Muhammad Husayn Haykal noted in his book The Life of Muhammad, “sent some of their rabbis to feign conversion to Islam in order to enter Muslim ranks and councils. While showing all piety, these rabbis were commissioned to disseminate doubt and suspicion of Muhammad among his own people.…A number of hypocrites from al Aws and al Khazraj tribes joined Islam for the same purpose.” And “upon Muhammad’s arrival at Madinah” the Jews, “after befriending him and pledging to honor his freedom to practice and preach the new religion, they had begun to oppose and plot against him. In fact, no sooner had Muhammad settled down and the prospects of Islam had begun to improve, than the Jews, for their part, began their undeclared war against him. Their opposition and hostility were never open.” (Perhaps this is true even today; except for their open hostilities towards Palestinians in Occupied Palestine) (pp. 191, 206-207. There is a lot of detail to this topic).
- Muhammad Ali notes:
that upon his settling into Madinah the Prophet Muhammad made a “treaty of mutual obligation” with the Jews in which “the Muslims and the Jews were bound not only not to turn their hands against each other but also to defend one another against a common enemy.”
The Bani Quraizah were in alliance with the Prophet, but when the Quraish attacked Madinah, which, under the treaty, they were bound to repel, “they secretly sided with the invading army”
And “when the enemy laid siege to Madinah, they (Bani Quraizah) were bound to repel the attack” but “Instead of this they sided with the investing army.”–(comm. to Qur’an 2:84, 85; 33:26. See also MA’s comm. to Qur’an 59:2. Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an which is an invaluable source of information can be viewed/downloaded at www.musli.org).
THE CRITIC also states that it’s even more ironic when you realize that according to Surah 5:32 Allah gives Jews the legal right to carry out legal punishments for manslaughter or for mischief in the land of Israel. So the land of Israel belongs to the Jews –that Muslims must not forget this when they quote this verse.
And what is the legal punishment that Jews were given to carry out?
Death/stoning for adultery; apostasy; blasphemy; honor killing (the damsel that does not bleed on her wedding night); homosexuality.
Also, “he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death”–(Exodus 21:17).
Are the Jews in the “land of Israel” carrying out these commandments of God?
That Muslims “must not forget” that the land of Israel belongs to the Jews:
Muslims do more than “not forget:” we know to whom the land belong!
Jesus said “no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN”–(John 3:13. Notably, this verse is taken from the “Authorized King James Version” of the Bible. Other Bibles such as “Good News” and “New American Standard” do not have the words “WHICH IS IN HEAVEN;” their verse ends at “even the Son of man.” Obviously they do not want the world to know that the Son of man was yet “IN HEAVEN” to come. So much for Christian’s claim that their Bible is all “word of God). (See APPENDIX).
Since Jesus is on earth speaking and the Son of man is yet in heaven, then evidently Jesus cannot be this “Son of man” who is yet in heaven.
Who then is this Son of man yet in heaven? Mohammad is this “Son of man” yet in heaven, as Jesus himself foretold his coming as the Comforter, and as recounted by Allah God in His Qur’an 61:6:
“And when Jesus, son of Mary, said: O Children of Israel, surely I am the messenger of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Torah and giving the good news of a Messenger who will come after me, his name being Ahmad (which is another name of Prophet Mohammad). But when he (Mohammad) came to them with clear arguments, they said: This is clear enchantment”
Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. as foretold by Jesus:
““O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophet, and stonest them which are sent to thee…. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate”–(Matthew 23:37-38);
“See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down”–Matthew 24:1-2).
Jesus also foretold that the kingdom of will be taken from Jews and given to another people (the Arabs/Muslims):
“The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”–(Matthew 21:43. Christians might be apt to claim that this prophecy relates to them. This is hallucination. Jesus was a Jew who upheld the Judaic law and enjoined his people to do the same. Thus, those who want to follow Jesus would be following the Judaic law. But Christians are not following Christ or the Judaic law, they are following Paul and Paganism. Christians are more correctly Paulians and their religion Paulianity).
After this destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. while some Jews remained in “Israel” (as the critics call it), many went to Arabia and other place(s). As Prof. Edward Said points out in his scholarly presentation The Question of Palestine (p. 58), “the entire historical duration of a Jewish state in Palestine prior to 1948 was a sixty-year period two millennia ago.”
Thus, for the past two thousand years –from 70 A.D. to 1948, when Palestine was stolen from Palestinians/Muslims by American diplomatic thuggery at the then League of Nations (currently United Nations) and given to Jews– while the pocket of Jews in Palestine may have observed religious rituals there was NO “land of Israel” for them to apply their “legal right to carry out legal punishments for manslaughter or for mischief in the land”
Nor could they be. For
As noted above in John 3:13, the son of man was yet in heaven to come, and Jesus foretold the coming of him (as the Comforter) who will give “all truth” and “abide for ever” and whom all are to follow; and Jesus also foretold that the kingdom of God will be taken from Jews and given to another people (Arabs/Muslims). This was the herald for the end of the Bible, Judaism, and Jesus. (See Bible corrupt & obsolete; Jesus-redundant no ransom).
That Jews/Judaism would be replaced by Muslims/ Islam is not unique to Jesus’ prophecies. This was decreed by God since the time of the prophet Jacob (who was renamed Israel by God–Genesis 35:10).
- Genesis 49:10 says that power and prophethood shall not depart from Judah until the coming of Shiloh: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a law-giver from between his feet until Shiloh come; and UNTO HIM shall the gathering of the people be.”
Prof. Abdul Ahad Dawud –“the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect”– has explained in his book Muhammad In The Bible that this prophecy cannot apply to Moses, David, or Jesus, but that it could relate only to Mohammad because “Muhammad came with military power and the Qur‘an to replace the old Jewish worn-out sceptre and the impracticable and old-fashioned law of sacrifices and of a corrupt priesthood.”
Prof. Dawud notes that the Jewish “institutions” of “Royal Sceptre and the Prophetical Succession” “have been extinct for over thirteen centuries;” and that “the tribe of Judah also has disappeared together with its royal authority and its sister –the prophetical succession”– both have been out of existence for the same period of time as the advent of Mohammad.
- God said to Moses: “The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee (Israelites) a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me (Moses); unto him ye shall hearken,” “And I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him”–(Deuteronomy 18:15, 18).
A brother/brethren is “a male who has the same parents as another or has one parent in common with another”–(Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary; brother). Ishmael and Isaac had one common parent, Abraham. Thus, their children –Arabs and Israelites– are “brethren” of the other. Mohammad is the prophet like Moses.
Further, God said about this prophet like Moses, “I…will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I WILL REQUIRE IT OF HIM” (“I Myself will call him to account” as The Jewish Publication Society of America has it)–(Deut. 18:18-19).
The Qur’an –which begins “In the name of Allāh God”– is the “words” which God put into the mouth of the Prophet Mohammad through the Angel Gabriel. And as God says, whosoever does not follow Mohammad that person will have to answer to Him for his/her disobedience/rejection. (See Jesus-like Moses).
Thus, as Judaism was Divinely decreed to end upon the advent of the Prophet Mohammad, then, as Muhammad Ali points out, rightly, “spiritually the Jewish religion has no future.”
That Jews have a right to 20th century Palestine:
Unless U.S. President Harry Truman is God of the Jews and that God achieves His purpose through political intrigue –in this case, American diplomatic thuggery at the League of Nations (present-day United Nations)– Palestine is wholly and solely Arab/Muslim land.
Moreover, it is doubtful the present occupiers of Palestine who call themselves Jews can prove they are descendants of the prophet Jacob/Israel.
Arthur Koestler in his book The Thirteenth Tribe theorized, convincingly so, that the Khazar –a Turkish tribe– that converted to Judaism in the eighth century may be the ascendants of modern World Jewry.
Though his attempt to follow the history of the Khazar Empire is based on insufficient available materials, Koestler has endeavored to show that anthropological evidence agrees with history in negating the accepted belief in a Jewish race of Biblical lineage; he also points out that the large majority of existing Jews is of “Eastern European” ancestry. (See also Anti-Semitism).
And for the critic’s information:
We Muslims will “not forget” this even long after we have retaken every grain of sand of Palestine that was stolen from us.
Palestine is the moral, social, historical and spiritual heritage of Palestinians and all Muslims.
Muslims who acquiesce to this foreign domination of Palestine are traitors to Allāh and His noble Messenger and to Muslims and to themselves–(Qur’an 48:10; 2:190-191; 8:72-73; 60:9; 42:39-41).
Such disloyal Muslims are to formulate their answers for their betrayal to Allah on the Day of Reckoning.
THE CRITIC also quotes Qur’an 5:33 and charges that this verse advocates violence and terrorism.
The verse reads:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides…”
And the critic states that mischief includes apostasy, preaching a religion other than Islam, adultery, becoming too westernized; if you violate Shari’ah, you’re making mischief you’re spreading corruption and you have to pay.
And that this verse (5:33) advocates terrorism and killing civilians because in Islam the people (civilians) who fund the battle are also responsible.
If you violate the law of the land in which you live do you not have to pay? If a foreigner/visitor to your land violates its law doesn’t the visitor have to pay?
While in Islam there are lashes for adultery. Apostasy, preaching a religion other than Islam, becoming westernized are not considered “mischief” in Islam.
As detailed further on there is no terrorism or violence in the Qur’an/Islam. Islam allows only a defensive fight against those who first take up arms against Muslims. The Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Divine Message of the Qur’an not to enforce it.
Civilians do not fund battles. Civilians pay taxes to the government. Civilians are not responsible for what the government does with the taxes. There are many instances in which civilians vociferously oppose government fighting wars.
That the Qur’an advocates terrorism and killing civilians because they “fund” the battle is gross ignorance of Islam or blind bigotry. Or both.
Islam was/is the only religion that lays down rules of war; and which rules have influenced modern nations.
Before engaging in battle, the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) instructed his soldiers:
- “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)
- “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)
- Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)
- Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)
- “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)
- “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)
- “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)
- “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)
- “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).
- “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi) http://1000gooddeeds.com/2012/11/20/10-islamic-rules-of-war/
“The basic principle in fighting in the Qur’an is that other communities should be treated as one’s own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist. The principle of forgiveness is reiterated in between the assertions of the right to self-defense.
During his life, Muhammad gave various injunctions to his forces and adopted practices toward the conduct of war. The most important of these were summarized by Muhammad’s companion and first Caliph, Abu Bakr, in the form of ten rules for the Muslim army:
O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well!
Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.
According to Tabari, the ten bits of “advice” that Abu Bakr gave was during the Expedition of Usama bin Zayd. During the Battle of Siffin, the Caliph Ali stated that Islam does not permit Muslims to stop the supply of water to their enemy.
In addition to the Rashidun Caliphs, hadiths attributed to Muhammad himself suggest that he stated the following regarding the Muslim conquest of Egypt that eventually took place after his death:
You are going to enter Egypt a land where qirat (money unit) is used. Be extremely good to them as they have with us close ties and marriage relationships. When you enter Egypt after my death, recruit many soldiers from among the Egyptians because they are the best soldiers on earth, as they and their wives are permanently on duty until the Day of Resurrection. Be good to the Copts of Egypt; you shall take them over, but they shall be your instrument and help. Be Righteous to God about the Copts.
These principles were upheld by ‘Amr ibn al-‘As during his conquest of Egypt. A Christian contemporary in the 7th century, John of Nikiû, stated the following regarding the conquest of Alexandria by ‘Amr:
On the twentieth of Maskaram, Theodore and all his troops and officers set out and proceeded to the island of Cyprus, and abandoned the city of Alexandria. And thereupon ‘Amr the chief of the Moslem made his entry without effort into the city of Alexandria. And the inhabitants received him with respect; for they were in great tribulation and affliction. And Abba Benjamin, the patriarch of the Egyptians, returned to the city of Alexandria in the thirteenth year after his flight from the Romans, and he went to the Churches, and inspected all of them. And every one said: ‘This expulsion (of the Romans) and victory of the Moslem is due to the wickedness of the emperor Heraclius and his persecution of the Orthodox through the patriarch Cyrus. This was the cause of the ruin of the Romans and the subjugation of Egypt by the Moslem. And ‘Amr became stronger every day in every field of his activity. And he exacted the taxes which had been determined upon, but he took none of the property of the Churches, and he committed no act of spoliation or plunder, and he preserved them throughout all his days.
For example, after Al-Kamil defeated the Franks during the Crusades, Oliverus Scholasticus praised the Islamic laws of war, commenting on how Al-Kamil supplied the defeated Frankish army with food:
Who could doubt that such goodness, friendship and charity come from God? Men whose parents, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, had died in agony at our hands, whose lands we took, whom we drove naked from their homes, revived us with their own food when we were dying of hunger and showered us with kindness even when we were in their power.
The early Islamic treatises on international law from the 9th century onwards covered the application of Islamic ethics, Islamic economic jurisprudence and Islamic military jurisprudence to international law, and were concerned with a number of modern international law topics, including the law of treaties; the treatment of diplomats, hostages, refugees and prisoners of war; the right of asylum; conduct on the battlefield; protection of women, children and non-combatant civilians; contracts across the lines of battle; the use of poisonous weapons; and devastation of enemy territory.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_ military_jurisprudence).
Muslims undertook Jihad on behalf of Christians. Thomas Arnold notes in his The Preaching of Islam (p.54):
“Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, writing in the latter half of the twelfth century…writes: “This is why the God of vengeance…beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.”
Muslims not only fought on behalf of Christians but also made gifts to their Churches as Muhammad Ali notes:
“Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab conquerors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time: “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the dominion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate])””(The Early Caliphate, p. 86).
Have you ever wondered why there was no Muslim “terrorism” and “violence” against non-Muslims before Palestine was stolen and Muslims being slaughtered in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Grozny, Dagestan and Ingushetia, Pakistan?
It is not the Qur’an/Islam that is the source of Muslim “terrorism’ and “violence,” you need to look to western governments’ wretched foreign policies. They want to lord over other peoples’ lands and live like parasites. (See also Atheist-Muslim debate, Is Islam peaceful
Regarding Qur’an 5:33:
“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides…”
The varying degree of punishment depends on the crime committed. If mischief-makers are not dealt with severely, which should serve as a deterrent to others, then society would be at the mercy of marauders. (There are places where people live in gated communities to be safe from criminals: honest people suffer imprisonment while criminals roam free).
It is doubtful that a leader/government would allow criminals and mischief-makers to roam his land. In fact, as the critic points out, God commanded the Jews to inflict capital punishment on mischief-makers. Even the man who deals in human trafficking is to lose his head:
“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death”–(Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7).
However, whereas the Christian critic quotes Qur’an 5:33 he did not quote verse 34 which extends the hand of mercy to the criminals who repent before they are apprehended. Here are the two verses together:
“The only punishment of those who wage war against Allāh and His Messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is that they should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned. This shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.
EXCEPT those who repent before you overpower them; so know that Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.”
Such is the magnitude and the magnificence of the mercy of Allāh/Islam. (See Muhammad Ali’s comm. on this verse–Qur’an 5:33. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed/downloaded online: www. muslim.org).
Apart from the verse above where the taking of a life is restricted to the administering of justice: “and kill not the soul which Allah has made sacred except in the course of justice”–(Qur’an 6:151), Islam allows fighting only a defensive war that was/is forced upon the Prophet and Muslims:
- “Permission (to fight) is given to those on whom war is made, because they are oppressed….Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah”–Qur’an 22:39). This shows that Muslims were victims of persecution and war was first made on them.
- “And fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah loves not the aggressors”–(Qur’an 2:190). Again, this verse testifies that Muslims are only allowed a defensive war.
- “Whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you and keep your duty to Allah, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty”–(Qur’an 2:194).
“And if you take your turn, then punish with the like of that with which you were afflicted. But if you show patience, it is certainly best for the patient”–(Qur’an 16:126).
- “And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah”–(Qur’an 8:39). This verse makes it clear that fighting is only to be engaged in until there is no more persecution. When the enemies desisted from their persecution of Muslims, Muslims were to stop fighting.
“The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements –there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allah.” (M. Ali comm.).
To emphasize, Muslims were only allowed to fight a defensive war to end persecution. In fact, Islam is such a peaceful religion that Muslims are to make peace even in the face of possible deception by the enemy:
“And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it…And if they intend to deceive thee, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee…” “So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them”–(Qur’an 8:61-62; 4:90).
Muslims could not lay down their arms and “incline to peace” if Islam had required the annihilation of all non-Muslims.
“And those who, when great wrong afflicts them, defend themselves. And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoever forgives and amends, his reward is with Allåh. Surely He loves not the wrongdoers. And whoever defends himself after his being oppressed, these it is against whom there is no way (of blame). The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and revolt in the earth unjustly. For such there is a painful chastisement. And whoever is patient and forgives — that surely is an affair of great Resolution”–(Qur’an 42:39-43).
These verses need no comment as to the peaceful and just nature and lofty value system of Islam.
Evidently, contrary to the Christian postulations, Islam is not only the “Religion” of peace: Islam is the “abode of peace”–(Qur’an 10:25).
As mentioned above, Prophet Mohammad’s duty was only to deliver the Divine Message of the Qur’an not enforce it:
- “thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an him who fears My warning”–(Qur’an 50:45).
- “And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(Qur’an 10:99);
- “And say: Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29);
- “There is no compulsion in religion”–(Qur’an 2:256);
- And obey Allāh and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away. the duty of Our Messenger is only to DELIVER (the message) clearly”–(Qur’an 64:12; also 3:19; 5:92, 99; 13:7, 40; 16:82; 24:54; 29:18; 46:35).
- “Tell those who believe to forgive those who fear not the days of Allåh that He may reward a people for what they earn. Whoever does good it is for himself, and whoever does evil, it is against himself; then to your Lord you will be brought back”–(Qur’an 45:14-15).
In contrast to Islam which is sourced in the abode of peace, it is Christianity that is rooted in violence and terrorism:
- “When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it…thou shalt SMITE THEM, and UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, thou shalt MAKE NO COVENANT with them, NOR SHOW MERCY UNTO THEM”–(Deuteronomy 7:1-2. See Josh. 12:1-6).
- “So Joshua SMOTE ALL THE COUNTRY of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and ALL THEIR KINGS: HE LEFT NONE remaining, but UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THAT BREATHED, as the LORD GOD of Israel commanded…And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the LORD GOD of Israel fought for Israel;”
“And they UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL that was in the city, both MAN AND WOMAN, YOUNG AND OLD, AND OX, AND SHEEP, AND ASS, with the EDGE OF THE SWORD”–(Joshua 10:19, 24, 26, 40-42; 6:21. Read Numbers 21:24, 35; chapter 31; Deuteronomy 20:16-17; Judges 1:1-7; Joshua chapters 10-12; 1 Sam. 15:2-3).
- “I am come to send FIRE on the earth”–(Luke 12:49).
- “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth, Nay; but rather DIVISION: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; and the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law”–(Luke 12:51-53).
- “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me”–(Matthew 10:35-37).
- “Think NOT that I am come to send peace on earth: I came NOT to send peace, but a SWORD”–(Matthew 10:34).
- “If any man come to me, and HATE NOT his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple”–(Luke 14:26).
- “He that is not with me is against me” (and a person can be neutral)–(Matthew 12:30).
- “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (though the enemies might not militate against him)–(Luke 19:27. Jesus here counsels murder).
If these sayings of Jesus in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 19:27 were to be implemented more than five billion people of the world that do not accept Jesus as Divine and vicarious atoner, as Christians say he was, would be slaughtered.
- And as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus was instrumental in the bloodiest episodes in Scriptural history: Jesus was complicit in all the wars and killings –from Moses, Joshua, Saul, Gideon, David, to Solomon–where not even the “ox, and sheep, and ass” were spared the “edge of the sword.”
After all, the Christians’ God (Jesus) “is a man of war”: “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name”–(Exodus 15:3).
Jesus also caused the death of innocent “swine”–(Matthew 8:28-32).
The only reason the Church does not now wield the blade against “infidels/heathens” is because she holds no sway in the land.
If Christians/Christianity was lording America or any place else non-Christians would have to either kiss the useless and unGodly crucifix, hightail it to Papua New Guinea or lose their heads. (See Jesus or Mohammad-best system).
Christianity, is evil, hate, intolerant, backward.
Christianity is also an enemy to knowledge. If North America and Europe were to follow the Bible, instead of them being on the pinnacle of progress they would plummet like a giant lead ball into the black-hole of backwardness.
Christianity-lies, evil, hate
Christianity-enemy to knowledge
Bible corrupt & obsolete
Notably, aside for the Christian’s God (Jesus) causing division in the family, this Christian’s God declared he came to send fire and sword on earth. Thus, the wars, “violence” and “terrorism” Mohammad is said to have committed as well as those committed by Muslims (and others) would have been the result of Jesus’ legacy to the world.
Jesus’ legacy of sword and fire also produced:
-rampage by Genghis Khan
-murderous Crusades by his “vicars”
-two World Wars
-Italy savaging Libya
-Germany holocausting Jews
-Jews more than seven decades of inhumanities against Palestinians
-France genocide in Algeria
-Russia’s razing of Grozny –plus
-war in Nicaragua
-the Allies invasion and war on Iraq –twice.
-America bombing Benghazi
-Serbia frolicking in Bosnia
-civilian slaughters in Cambodia, China, Philippines, Argentina, mass killings in America
-Daesh/Isis raging in the Middle-east
-carnage in Syria and Libya.
-Myanmar/Burma’s pogroms of Rohingya Muslims.
Jesus’ “fire and sword” list seems to be like the “song without end.’ And the world is not yet ended.
Evidently, Jesus’ sword and fire was/is the all-time blockbuster of blood and gore.
And the Christian bellyaches about Mohammad and his “particularly active sex life.”
Jesus said “no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN”–(John 3:13. Notably, this verse is taken from the “Authorized King James Version” of the Bible. Other Bibles such as “Good News” and “New American Standard” do not have the words “WHICH IS IN HEAVEN;” their verse ends at “even the Son of man.”
Obviously they do not want the world to know that the Son of man was yet “IN HEAVEN” to come. So much for Christian’s claim that their Bible is all “word of God.
- Authorized King James Version, Self-Pronouncing Edition, Published by The World Publishing Company, 2231 West 110TH Street, Cleveland 2, Ohio.
- Good News New Testament, The New Testament (Fourth Edition) And Psalms, in Today’s English Version; Canadian Bible Society, 1835 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4S 1Y1.
N.T. Text: American Bible Society 1966, 1971, 1976. Psalms: American Bible Society 1970; Maps: United Bible Societies 1976, 1977.
- New American Standard Bible, 1985 Edition. (“Placed by the Gideons”). Printed and bound in Canada by RBW Graphics. The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973.
According to “The Editorial Board” “This translation follows the principles used in the American Standard Version 1901 known as the Rock of Biblical Honesty”
“Rock of Biblical Honesty”? Really now! This is hilarious. If your verse (of John 3:13) is Biblical “Honesty” then the Authorized King James Version is Biblical dis-“Honesty.” Tell them!
Regarding Matthew 19:16-17. The first quote in the following is from the Authorized King James Version, the second quote is from New American Standard which is based on the “Rock of Biblical Honesty.”
Words in “red” show the alteration; underlined words are NOT in the New American Standard (Gideons Bible):
(1) “And, behold, one came and said unto him (Jesus), Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is God: but…” (King James)
(2) “And behold, one came to Him (Jesus) and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life? And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but…” (American New Standard)
Even the forgery is clumsy: who better is there to tell or to ask “what is good” than God or the “Son of God.”
Is it not telling a “lie” on God that He revealed the changed words? Is it not telling a “lie” on Jesus that he uttered the changed words?
It is not goodness to tell a “lie” on God or His prophet. It is not goodness to blaspheme against God: it is Hell-Fire–Mark 3:29).
Are these changes Biblical “Honesty’?
(Incidentally, the Good News translation is similar to that of the American New Standard).
American New Standard pledges about their Bibles:
“These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.” (Never mind Jesus was not Greek nor spoke Greek).
So whose translation is “true to the original” and whose is false?
American New Standard also promises to “give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him.”
So what is Christ’s “proper place” that “the Word gives him”? Is Christ God, Son of God, Trinity, or prophet like Moses?
Is Christ vicarious atoner, and for which sin inherited or committed?
Or is Christ only a “Teacher” wholly and solely to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” and prayed only “for them” and “not for the world”?–(Matthew 15:24; John 17:9).
Bible corrupt & obsolete
Christianity is Paganism;
Jesus as God;
Jesus-inherited sin to ascension;
Jesus-only for Jews
Jesus-Son of God
1. Solomon had “seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3. And Solomon is said to be “wise”); Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, had “eighteen wives and three score concubines” (2 Chr. 11:21).
2. God gave David his master’s wives, (2 Sam. 12:8);
3. Biblical teaching allows girls who have sprouted breasts and genital hairs as being ready for sex; as the Answering Islam Christian apologist and critic (on the Internet) states:
“the Holy Bible makes a reference to the general age of a girl considered for marriage. The reference is found in a parable where God likens Israel to a baby girl whom Yahweh took in and then eventually married.” The verse in reference reads:
“On the day you were born your cord was not cut, nor were you washed with water to make you clean, nor were you rubbed with salt or wrapped in cloths. No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, ‘Live!’ I made you grow like a plant of the field. You grew up and developed and became the most beautiful of jewels. Your breasts were formed and your hair grew, you who were naked and bare. Later I passed by, and when I looked at you and saw that you were old enough for love, I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness. I gave you my solemn oath and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Sovereign LORD, and you became mine. I bathed you with water and washed the blood from you and put ointments on you. I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put leather sandals on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments. I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck, and I put a ring on your nose, earrings on your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. So you were adorned with gold and silver; your clothes were of fine linen and costly fabric and embroidered cloth. Your food was fine flour, honey and olive oil. You became very beautiful and rose to be a queen. And your fame spread among the nations on account of your beauty, because the splendor I had given you made your beauty perfect, declares the Sovereign LORD.” Ezekiel 16:4-14.
God mentions that the young babe attained the age for lovemaking after her breasts had formed and her pubic hairs had grown, clear signs of puberty. The reason we believe that the reference is to pubic hair is because a) the hair on the head of a girl grows many years before reaching the time of puberty, and b) the connection to nakedness suggests that the exposure of her body parts needed to be covered since it was shameful for them to be exposed for all to see. In other words, there was no shame for the hair of a girl’s head to be uncovered, but exposing one’s pubic hairs would be.” Pay attention to the fact that it is only after the young girl attained maidenhood, puberty, that God passed by again and then proceeded to marry her. God’s spreading the corner of his garment and making a covenant with the young maiden refers to marriage.”
“Thus, we have a biblical text establishing puberty as the minimum age for marriage.” (The Christian also notes the views of others and concludes): “In light of the foregoing we conclude that the Bible does set forth the acceptable age of marriage. Yahweh’s parable to his people presupposes their prior knowledge and acceptance of the marriageable age being set sometime after a young maiden has attained puberty. Anything before this would be viewed as abnormal and unusual.” (Color added).
The main purpose of the Christian’s moon-dancing seems to be an attempt to denigrate the Prophet Mohammad for his marriage to nine-year old ‘Aisha, supposing that ‘Aisha was prepubescent when the Prophet had marital relations with her.
Firstly, a girl may develop breasts and pubic hair years before having her period. Secondly, if breasts and pubic hair are the criteria for having sex what about those women who do not develop breasts (and perhaps some women may not even have pubic hair), are these adult women not ready for marriage/sex?
According to Christians the Bible is the word of God. And according to God as He revealed in Ezekiel 16:4-14 above, and as the Christian submitted, a girl is ready for marriage when her breasts are formed and she has pubic hair which are indications of puberty. According to news-report and other materials on the Internet an alarming number of girls in America –from those examined, 10 percent of Whites, 14 percent of Hispanics and 23 percent of Blacks– begin puberty at the age of seven (7) years, developing breasts, pubic hair and even menstruating.
Thus, according to the Christian’s God/Bible girls of about eight or nine are capable of marriage.
And as noted in ‘Aisha & Mohammad “Al-Hassan bin Salih said “I saw a neighboress of mine who became a grandmother at the age of twenty-one” (the footnote to this narration explains that:
“This woman attained puberty at the age of nine and married to give birth to a daughter at ten; the daughter had the same experience”).
Obviously then, Arab and Jewish girls must have developed “breasts” and “pubic hair” and menstruating at an early age –which is in accordance with the Bible, Ezekiel 16:4-14– as the Christian points out (and also in accordance to modern reports).
In fact, seems that Eastern girls also began/begin womanhood at the age of about seven (7) years as the Biblical declaration finds resonance in Hinduism which teaches that “after being seven years old, the sooner a girl is married, the better.”
4. Swami Dayananda Saraswati quotes the Rig Veda as stating:
“When a man is incapable of producing children, let him address his wife as follows: –O Thou that art desirous of getting children do not expect me to raise off-spring upon thee. Do thou, therefore, seek another husband.” The woman seeking to contract Niyoga, should, however, continue to serve her husband by marriage; similarly when a woman on account of some chronic disease is rendered incapable of bearing children, let her address the following words to her husband. “My Lord! Do not expect me to bear any children. Do thou, therefore, contract Niyoga with a widow”–(Light Of Truth, p. 137.
Though the woman tells the husband to contract Niyoga with a “widow” it does not negate him from contracting Niyoga with a married woman seeing that Hinduism allows polygamy as well as polyandry. (For more on Niyoga see Hinduism & women).