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.


Nonie Darwish  wrote in her book Now They Call Me Infidel (p. 75): “Divorce under Islamic law is very easy for a man and is accomplished by the husband repeating the phrase “I divorce you” three times.”

   Response: Contrary to popular belief there is no “easy divorce” in Islam. Marriage is a sacred contract–(Qur’an 4:21). A sacred matter is not dispensed with lightly. And Prophet Mohammad is reported as saying: “of all things which have been permitted divorce is the most hated by Allah”–Abu Dawud 13:3 (M Ali, comm. # 293).

   It is doubtful that a person of dignity would undertake a “hated” action without first giving it lengthy consideration. Or that Allāh would allow a “most hated” thing to be annulled by a superfluous expression–I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you–considering that even an oath made against one’s-self needs compensation in return for its expiation–(Qur’an 5:89). And a marriage covenant is not only sacred but unites the man and the woman socially, morally, spiritually, and intimately.

   However, while divorce is “the most hated” thing, there is no ‘till death do us part’ in Islam.  If a couple cannot live in harmony, it is better for them to part in peace than live in misery.  Islam enjoins counseling. A divorce is allowed only after all avenues of reconciliation have been explored–(Qur’an 4:35).

   Since woman has rights as those against her–(Qur’an 2:228) and since marriage is a contract–(Qur’an 4:21) either party may file for divorce: “And if they separate, Allah will render them both free from want”–(Qur’an 4:130). And, “if you fear that they cannot keep the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby”–(Qur’an 2:229).

   There is a report of Thabit ibn Qais wife’s seeking permission from the Prophet to divorce her husband; which permission was given on agreement that she return the wedding gift to her husband–(Bokhari Vol. 7, # 197).
Reading the relevant portions of the Qur’an 2:228-232 on divorce Allāh enjoins:

“And the divorced women should keep
themselves in waiting for three courses.
And it is not lawful for them to conceal
that which Allāh has created in their wombs…
And their husbands have a better right to take
them back in the meanwhile if they wish
for reconciliation…(228)

Divorce may be (pronounced) twice;
then keep them in good fellowship or let
(them) go with kindness…(229)

“So if he divorces her (the third time),
she shall not be lawful to him afterwards
until she marries another husband.
And if he divorces her, there is no blame
on them both if they return to each
other (by marriage)….(230)

“And when you divorce women
and they reached their prescribed time,
then retain them in kindness or set them
free with kindness….(231)

“And when you divorce women and
they end their term, prevent them not
from marrying their husbands….(232)

As emphasized, Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; and “So if he divorces her (the third time).”
   It is a mistake to take Allāh’s saying that divorce may be pronounced “TWICE” and if he divorces her the “THIRD” time and group these two to mean that the utterance of the word “divorce” three times dissolves a marriage.

   Firstly, the word “pronounced” in the statement is the translator’s opinion: it is not part of the Qur’anic text. The translator could have alternatively used the word “undertaken” or “effected” which would then render the two statements thusly:
“Divorce may be (undertaken/effected) twice” “So if he divorces her (the third time).” In which instance there would be no question of the husband “pronouncing” I divorce you “three” times.

   As noted, Allāh, says, “Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep them in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness”–(Qur’an 2:229, and 2:228 says reconciliation is allowed during the three-month waiting period); and, “So if he divorces her (the third time), she shall not be lawful to him afterwards until she marries another husband. If he (the latter husband) divorces her, there is no blame on them both if they return to each other (by marriage)”–(Qur’an 2: 230).

   After the first intent to divorce, there is a waiting period of three months before this divorce is finalized; within this three-month waiting period the couple may resume married life, or end the marriage after the waiting period; and may remarry each other–(Qur’an 2:232. Bokhari Vol. 6, # 52). This is allowed for up to two times.

   After the third intent to divorce they may reconcile during the waiting period; but if the divorce is finalized this third time, they can only remarry after the wife has married someone else, consummate that marriage and is divorced from the latter husband–(Qur’an 2:230. Bokhari Vol. 3, # 807).

(The reason that it is mandatory for the wife to marry another man after the third divorce before remarrying her former husband seems obvious. Since carnal intimacy is the closest a man and a woman can be physiccally, and since a man, generally, would not want an-other man to touch his wife, then he must really need/ love the woman to still want her after knowing that she had been intimate with another man. This almost impossible condition for them to remarry seems to be a red flag against hasty divorces).

   The reason why a divorced woman must wait three menstrual courses before remarrying–(Qur’an 2:228) would seem to be a guide to find out if she is pregnant or not as the continuing words of this verse (2:228) show: “And it is not lawful for them to conceal that which Allāh has created in their wombs.”
Bokhari Vol. 6, #431 notes the Prophet declaring as illegal a divorce which was enacted while the wife was still menstruating. The prescribed waiting time is, generally, three months–Qur’an 2:228; 65:1, 4).

   Allāh mandating against preventing the couple to reunite, even into the third breach of the marriage highlights the expanse to which Islam goes to fortify the marriage-bed on its foundation.    Wife and husband are garments to the other–to protect, beautify, comfort, and conceal flaws–(Qur’an 2:187).

   Allāh enjoining arbitration to prevent dissolution of a marriage and the Prophet’s saying that a divorce is “most hated” in the sight of Allah, either saying taken singularly, has enough weight to crumble the notion that there is “easy divorce” in Islam.

   Saying “I divorce you; I divorce you; I divorce you” to sever this sacred covenant and rent this beautiful garment of marriage is not only “easy,” but absurdity.

(Notably. Whereas in Islam the divorced wife is awarded a settlement, irrespective of her financial status–[Qur’an 4:32], and adjudged according to the length of marriage and the man’s financial status–[Qur’an 2:236-2237], and after which time, if financially straitened, she becomes zakaatable on the State–[Qur’an 9:60],  there is in Secularism the obscene divorce law that can penalize the man to support his wife for the rest of her unmarried life; even though she may have a legion of bed-mates.

   Marriage is a contract of obligations between a man and a woman. There is no “till death do us part.” If the contract is terminated so are the obligations. To tie the man indefinitely to this severed agreement by having him bankroll the woman’s lifestyle is gruesome injustice).

   There is “easy” divorce in Christianity. The Christian man can divorce his wife just for finding “some uncleanness in her;” and if she is divorced or widowed from a second husband she is forbidden to remarry her former husband, and is regarded as being “defiled” (see APPENDIX for Christianity’s brutal and rabid misogyny).

   Nonie Darwish also wrote: Bukhari reported a hadith on divorce that treats the woman as mere property: ““A man may say to his brother (in Islam), ‘Have a look at either of my wives (and if you wish, I will divorce her for you.’”” (Bokhari Vol. 7, #10).

   Response: As this narration shows, Abdur Rahman had  migrated from Makkah to Madinah. As he, Rahman, had no wife, Sa’d bin Arabi who had two wives “suggested that Abdur Rahman take half, his wives and property.”(Talk about brotherhood and benevolence rather than scheme and steal other peoples’ properties and lands; or to bring “pressure” and “duress and coercion” on others to help you steal one person’s property to give to a homeless). The hadith did not say if Sa’d bin Arabi sought the consent of his wives before offering her in marriage to ‘Abdur Rahman. Even if Sa’d did not consult with his wife, given the situation it is doubtful that the “chosen” wife, in the spirit of Islam, would not have agreed to it.

   And whereas this Muslim, a human, can be excused for bowing to the noble art of giving one of his wives in marriage to his wife-less brother-in-faith, and even without consulting her, in contrast, the Christian’s God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) threatened to give David’s wives, and even without their consent, to his (David’s) neighbor to be “raped;” and all because David had married Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, after adulterating with her and sending Uriah to be killed in battle, (the Christian’s God is punishing David by having his wives violated); the Christian’s God (“Jesus”) declared to David:

“because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold. I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I WILL TAKE THY WIVES BEFORE THINE EYES, AND GIVE THEM UNTO THY NEIGHBOR, AND HE SHALL LIE WITH THY WIVES IN THE SIGHT OF THIS SUN. For thou didst it (adultery) secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun”–(2 Samuel 12:10-12).

In which event Sa’d bi Ar-Rabi Al-Ansari was more gracious and merciful than the Christian’s God. But this is not novel, considering that the Christian’s God needed to have a man (Jesus as they say) killed just so he could forgive others for their sins, (even though it was their way-long-gone parents, Adam/ Eve, who had committed the sin). There’s Christian justice for you.

   2. Nonie Darwish wrote: “In some countries, the only way for a wife to get a divorce is to convince the Sharia court and also to pay money to her husband. She could achieve through khul, which means “a release for payment,” whereby a wife pays the husband in return for divorce. In this case a woman must pay her dowry back to her husband, who often asks for a lot more to grant her a divorce.”(Cruel And Usual Punishment, p. 43).

   Response: This may be so in “some” countries. But according to Islam a woman can get a divorce for any reason she likes (though arbitration is first required to save the marriage). The husband may ask for “a lot more to grant” the wife a divorce” but he has no basis in Islam for this blackmail/extortion. As Allāh says, “there is no blame on them for what SHE GIVES UP” to end the marriage; NOT what he demands (though she may give in to his demands). (See full verse further on).

   That the “wife pays the husband in return for divorce.” Isn’t this what equality is all about? Isn’t this what feminism wants – equality with man? So you want when the man divorces you to pay you but when you divorce the man you do not want to pay him, but in fact still wants the man to pay you; and pay you till he dies or till you die or remarry, or even if you have half-a-dozen or more bedmates? And you call this monumental and grotesque obscenity against the man justice?

   Regarding this khul divorce Allāh says in His Qur’an 2:229 as already noted:  “Divorce may be (pronounced) twice; then keep (them) in good fellowship or let (them) go with kindness. And it is not lawful for you to take any part of what you have given them, unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah. Then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allāh, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allāh, so exceed them not; and whoever exceeds the limits of Allāh, these are the wrongdoers.” And Muhammad Ali explains:

“The divorce spoken of here is the revocable divorce of v. 228, after which a reconciliation may be effected in the waiting period. In the days of ignorance a man used to divorce his wife and take her back within the prescribed time, even though he might do this a thousand times. Islam reformed this practice by allowing a revocable divorce on two occasions only, so that the period of waiting in each of these two cases might serve as a period of temporary separation during which conjugal relations could be re-established. As shown in 228b, even re-marriage of the same parties is allowed after the lapse of the waiting period. The husband must make his choice after the second divorce either to retain the wife permanently or to bring about a final separation. The object of a true marriage union is indicated in the simple words keep them in good fellowship. Where the union is characterized by quarrels and dissensions instead of good fellowship, and two experiences of a temporary separation show that there is no real love in the union, and good fellowship is therefore entirely absent; the only remedy that remains is to let the woman go with kindness. It is both in the interests of the husband and the wife and in the interests of society itself that such a union should be brought to a termination, so that the parties may seek a fresh union. But even in taking this final step the woman must be treated kindly. The full payment of the dowry to the woman is another condition relating to the Islamic law of divorce, and it serves as a very strong check upon the husband in resorting to unnecessary divorce.  These words give the wife a right to claim a divorce. It is one of the distinguishing characteristics of Islam that it gives the wife the right to claim a divorce, if she is willing to forgo the whole or part of her dowry. The case of Jamilah, wife of Thabit Ibn Qais, is one that is reported in numerous reports of the highest authority. Here it was the wife who was dissatisfied with the marriage. There was not even a quarrel, as she plainly stated in her complaint to the Prophet: “I do not find any fault with him on account of his morals (i.e., his treatment) or his religion”. She only hated him. And the Prophet had her divorced on condition that she returned to her husband the orchard which he had made over to her as her dowry (B. 68:12). It is even said that the husband’s love for the wife was as intense as her hatred for him (Rz). If, then, a woman could claim a divorce for no reason other than the unsuitableness of the match, she had certainly the right to claim one if there was ill-treatment on the part of the husband or any other satisfactory reason, and among the early Muslims it was an established right. Even now it is a right which is maintained in many Muslim countries. Technically such a divorce is called Khul‘. It will be noted that though this verse forms the basis of the law relating to Khul‘, the words indicate an unwillingness on the part of both spouses to continue the marriage relation — unless both fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allāh. This is explained as meaning their inability to perform towards each other their marital obligations and to maintain good fellowship (B. 68:13). The reason for this, apparently, is that the passage follows one requiring a permanence of relationship that can no more be broken when the husband has adopted this choice after a second divorce, so that the relation can only be broken if the wife finds it unbearable. Another reason seems to be that the woman is usually the last to be willing to break up the marriage relationship. The words if you fear evidently refer to the properly constituted authorities and this shows that the authorities can interfere in the matter. Cases are actually on record in which a wrong done by an unjust divorce was mended by the authorities.”

   Also the verse states that there is no blame on them for what she “gives” up in order to have the divorce, not that she “must” give up or return the dowry to become free.

   Notably, when the man divorces the woman without even consummating the marriage and they had agreed on a dowry he is to only to take back half or none of this dowry or she can forgo it:
“And if you divorce them BEFORE you have touched them and you have appointed for them a portion, (pay) half of what you have appointed unless they forgo or he forgoes in whose hand is the marriage tie. And it is nearer to dutifulness that you forgo. Nor neglect the giving of free gifts between you. Surely Allāh is Seer of what you do”–(Qur’an 2:237).

   And even when the man divorces her without consummating the marriage and where there is no agreement on a dowry he is required to give her a settlement.
“There is no blame on you if you divorce women while yet you have not touched them, nor appointed for them a portion. And provide for them, the wealthy according to his means and the straitened according to his means, a provision according to usage. (This is) a duty on the doers of good”– (Qur’an 2:236).
Muhammad Ali notes: “The faridah or the portion is the dowry, so that even when no dowry has been agreed upon, and marriage has not been consummated, liberality must be shown to the divorced wife, and some provision should be made for her, even though the husband may be in straitened circumstances.” (This is another instance that shows the husband is to give alimony).

   And the Prophet Mohammad married a man and woman based on the amount of the Qur’an he (the man) had memorized–(Bokhari Vol. 3, 505; Vol. 6, 547, 548). If then, it is mandatory that “a woman must pay her dowry back to her husband,” as Nonie Darwish claims, how can the woman return the portion of the Qur’an that her husband had taught her (or that he knew)?


Christianity is brutally and rabidly misogynistic: (Christians may not be practicing it but their God/Scripture demands it, and heaven/paradise lies in obeying the commands/God. Muslim women who convert to Christianity believing that Christianity ameliorates their lot are woefully deluded –these Muslim women know even less about Christianity than they do about Islam. To trade Islam for Christianity, or for any other religion, is like trading the superior of an item for an inferior one; no religion can be shown to be superior to, or equal with, Islam. Islamic SHARI’AH IS THE SUPREME SYSTEM. Such Muslim women need to learn Islam and confront their males over their transgression against the injunctions of Allāh and demand their God-given rights. Whereas Islam has ennobled WOMAN and given her rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to paradise, CHRISTIANITY has woman mired in the bog of disgrace and degradation from birth to death and even beyond). Here are the Biblical gems on women:

▪ “And if a man SELL HIS DAUGHTER to be a maidservant, she shall not go out (“be freed)” as the menservants do”–(Exodus 21:7).

▪  “Unto the woman He (God) said….thy desire shall be to THY HUSBAND, and HE SHALL RULE OVER THEE”–(Genesis 3:16).

 ▪ and “Let the woman learn in SILENCE with ALL SUBJECTION. But I SUFFER NOT A WOMAN TO TEACH, NOR TO USURP AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN but to be IN SILENCE–(1Tim. 2:11-12); “WIVES, SUBMIT YOURSELVES UNTO YOUR OWN HUSBANDS, AS UNTO THE LORD” “As the Church is subject unto Christ, SO LET THE WIVES BE TO THEIR OWN HUSBANDS IN EVERY THING” – “And the wife see that  HE REVERENCE HER HUSBAND”–(Ephesians 5:22-23, 33. The man being told to love his wife does not mean she is free from bondage. People also “love” their dogs and other pets and even bequeath fortunes to them. And Paul also instructs masters to be kind to their slaves–Ephesians 6:9; Col. 4:1).

▪  “And Adam was not deceived BUT THE WOMAN BEING DECEIVED WAS IN THE TRANSGRESSION”–(1 Tim. 2:14. Allah tells us that both Adam and Eve were deceived; and that they were forgiven–Qur’an 2:36-37; 7:20-22).

▪ “he (man) is the IMAGE AND GLORY OF GOD: but the WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN. For the man is NOT of the woman; but the WOMAN OF THE MAN”–(1 Cor. 11:7-8), and “Neither was the man created for the woman; BUT THE WOMAN FOR THE MAN–(1 Cor. 11:9), “It is GOOD for a MAN NOT TO TOUCH A WOMAN. Nevertheless, TO AVOID FORNICATION, let everyman have his own wife”–(1 Cor 7:1-2. Allāh tells us that He created man and woman of the same substance and that they are mates of the other, has established marriage between them, that he might find peace and comfort in her, and has put between them love and compassion; that men and women are friends and protectors of the other; that husbands and wives are garments to the other and have mutual rights and spiritual equality, and will reside together in Gardens in the next life–(Qur’an 4:1, 3-4, 25; 7:189; 16:72; 25:54; 30:21; 9:71-72; 2:187; 2:228; 3:194, 197; 4:124; 24:30-31; 33:35; 36:56; 43:70; 49:13; 57:12, 18, 19).

▪ “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is NOT PERMITTED UNTO THEM TO SPEAK; but they are COMMANDED to be under obedience, as also saith the LAW. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at HOME: FOR IT IS A SHAME FOR WOMEN TO SPEAK IN THE CHURCH”–(1 Cor. 14:34-35. Today this law is violated and women are preachers in the Church).   Clearly, permission to employ whatever methods are necessary to “rule” over the wife and to bring/keep her in “silence and in “all subjection’ are inherent and enshrined in these words of God and Paul. To take the matter further, authority for employing corporal punishment to discipline the rebellious wife who does not desire to be “ruled” over in “silence” and “all subjection” may be gleaned from the Biblical verses on child-rearing. God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, then Jesus) says: “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes;” “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying;” “Withhold not correction from the child: for if you beatest him with the rod, he shall not die, Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell” (and without doubt every “Christian” husband wants to deliver his stubborn/rebellious wife’s “soul from hell”)–(Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 23:13-14). A Bishop is to be “One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with ALL GRAVITY”–(1 Tim. 3:4). Even God beats and scourges His sons into obedience and those who are not are “bastards”: “For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be WITHOUT CHASTISEMENT, whereof all are partakers, then are ye BASTARDS, and NOT SONS”–(Hebrews 12:6-8). Thus one can imagine what latitude the Christian husband is allowed to bring/keep his wayward wife in all subjection and for him to become a “Bishop” and even to get into heaven to sit “on the right hand of God.” A survey of wives of all Christian sects can be conducted to find out how many were “beaten” into “silence” and “all subjection.” Surely, not all the “battered” wives in Western countries are non-Christians.

▪ Perhaps the ultimate Christian indignity towards women is during her menstrual period. He is forbidden to eat, drink, and sleep in the same bed with her; in fact, he is not allowed to touch anything she touches. The Biblical God (and as Christians say Jesus is God, Jesus) says: “When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening. Everything also on which she lies during her menstruation impurity shall be unclean, and everything on which she sits shall be unclean. And anyone who touches her bed shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening. And whoever touches any thing on which she sits shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening. Whether it be on the bed or on the thing on which she is sitting, when he touches it, he shall be unclean until evening. And if a man actually lies with her, so that her menstrual impurity is on him, he shall be unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies  shall be unclean”–(Lev. 15:19-24). Contrast this Christian’s treating the menstruating woman like a leper to that of Islam in which Allāh says about menstruation that “they are a hurt and a pollution. So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean”–(Qur’an. 2:222). This injunction to not approach the menstruating woman does not mean that she is unclean; only that the flow is unclean and to not have sex with them. This is made clear by the Prophet Mohammad who is reported to have said in explanation to the above quoted verse of the Qur’an: “Associate with them (wives) in the houses and do everything except sexual intercourse”–(Abu Dawud Vol. 1, #258). And,  ‘Aisha said: I would eat flesh from a bone when I was menstruating, then hand it over to the Prophet (may peace be upon him) and he would put his mouth where I had put my mouth; I would drink, then hand it over to him, and he would put his mouth (at the place) where I drank”–(Ibid. #259). Again, “‘Aishah said: The Apostle of Allāh (may peace be upon him) would recline on my lap when I was menstruating, then recite the Qur’an”–(Ibid. #260). And the classic: “‘Aishah said: The Apostle of Allāh (may peace be upon him) said to me: Get me the mat from the mosque. I said: I am menstruating. The Apostle of Allāh (may peace be upon him) then replied: Your menstruation is not in your hands”–(Ibid. #261. Also #’s 267-273).  And whereas the Christian who has sex with his menstruating wife is “unclean seven days, and every bed on which he lies shall be unclean,” the Muslim who has sex with his menstruating wife (while it is unlawful to do so) needs only give charity–(Abu Dawud Vol. 1, #’s 264-266).

▪ And the Christian woman’s marriage misery: “I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of un-chastity, 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”–(Matt. 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. Interestingly, whereas Deut. [Moses] says a man can divorce his wife if he finds some “uncleanness” in her, Jesus, the Christians God and son of God, says that if anyone divorces his wife for any reason except “un-chastity” makes her an ‘adulterer’ yet he [Jesus] tells his people to do whatever the Scribes and Pharisees bid them do because they sit in Moses’ seat; and the Scribes and Pharisees follow the Mosaic law which says you can put away your wife for some “uncleanness.” Talk about a circle of confusion. Again the Mosaic law teaches an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but Jesus says to give the other cheek instead, yet he says to do what the Scribes and Pharisees says to do and the Scribes and Pharisees follow the Mosaic law which requires an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Another circle of confusion. The contradictions in Christianity are “staggering.” Matt. 23:2; Ex. 21:24; Matt. 5:38-39).

Regarding the saying that woman is “defiler” of man, the Book of Revelation (7:4-8; 14:1-4; and Matt. 19:28) states that 144,000 who will be JEWS (non-Jews, note well), and will all be MEN –consisting of 12,000 from each of the Twelve Tribes of Israel– will sit with Jesus in the next life judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel. About this 144,000 it is said:  “These are they which were not DEFILED WITH WOMEN; for they are VIRGINS. These are they which follow the Lamb (Jesus) whithersoever he    goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.” (God created man and woman to “fill the earth” and instilled in them passions for companionship to affect this; but Christians view this Divine scheme as sacrilege. A classic woman-hater). Regarding the 144,000 who will be with Jesus, one Christian apologist on the Internet suffered tremendous labor pains trying to baptize these literal “VIRGINS” into metaphorical ones. These 144,000 MEN are said to be the ones who remained “faithful to Jesus” by being celibates/”virgins” as Jesus was, as the Gospels say. That these are literal “virgins” “not defiled” by literal “women” is substantiated by the Bible itself. Jesus says in Matthew 5:32 that whoever marries a woman that is divorced for other than fornication “commits adultery.” Thus, woman here, even though she be married to the man “defiles” the man into an adulterer. Paul makes the matter clearer, he states that, but for avoiding “fornication,” “It is GOOD for a man NOT to touch a woman.” Why not? Because, as Paul says, “He that is UNMARRIED careth for the things that belong to the LORD, how he may please the LORD: But he that is MARRIED careth for the things that are of the WORLD, how he may please his WIFE”–(1 Cor. 7:32-33). In other words, when a man takes a wife his caring for God is compromised by his caring for his wife –or she “defiles” him or causes him to be “defiled.” Further, Paul declares that as the wife has no power over her own body but the husband     has power over her: “likewise also the husband hath NOT POWER of his own body, but the WIFE (has power of him)”–(1 Cor. 7:4). These Biblical teachings show that sexual contact with a woman “defiles” the man spiritually; and no amount of the Christian apologist’s literary gymnastics can flip this fact over. These 144,000 “virgins” are physical “virgins” who were ”not defiled” by physical “women,” and as they were not married, and therefore had no “wifely” constraints, they devoted their entire life to the pursuit of the spiritual and were the true followers of Jesus who, as the Gospels show, lived a life of celibacy. The Good News Bible understands this and states: “The 144,000 people stood before the throne…. They are the men who have kept themselves pure by NOT having SEXUAL RELATIONS with WOMEN; they are    VIRGINS.” The Gideons Bible concur: “These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are CELIBATES.” (See CHRISTIANITY-144,000 VIRGINS).

▪ The Bible and the Christian’s God (Jesus) condemns  woman as betrayer of man. The Bible says: “Behold,  everyone that useth proverbs shall use this proverb against thee (Jerusalem), saying, As is the mother, SO IS HER DAUGHTER”–(Ezek. 16:44). As Christians view woman as the “transgress-or” (by virtue of her/Eve  violating the command of God and eating of the forbidden fruit), and as she betrayed the man/Adam by giving him the fruit to eat, then according to this teaching of the Bible, every woman is a betrayer of man. In fact, according to Christianity every woman to be   born and all the way to the Resurrection, is a betrayer of man. (Islam ABROGATED these teachings on women–Qur’an 16:101 and 2:106)

▪ The Christian’s God (and as Christian’s say Jesus is God, Jesus) even took a peek at the Jewish daughters “private parts” because of their flaunting: “Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their SECRET PARTS” –Isaiah 3:16-17).

From its declarations Christianity is not only misogynistic; Christianity is brutally and rabidly misogynistic. Whatever lofty status the Christian Woman is enjoying is due only to the dictates of modern culture. In contrast, as stated, Islam has ennobled WOMAN, liberated her, and given her rights unparalleled in the history of religions –it has given her rights alongside man from the cradle all the way to Jannah. She has nothing more for which to strive.

Islam is the Great Liberator of Woman!
Islam is the only Liberator Woman has known!