Here We Go Again

Re: # 545

Unfortunately TNT and the communalized Pakistani identity has corrupted the vision of most of the PAkistanis that they empathise with the neo-fascist interpretation of the Al-Qaeda variety of political Islam (the usual wahabi sunni literalist crap)......................and the moderates know that the solution to all this is very much straight forward........isolate these crap mongers..................and we will find these diseased ideologies dissipating from the world in no time..........................................This implies that the moderates should not sympathesize with these diseased minds even if they try to play up their usual drama of ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` ( I feel Osama Bin Laden cuts a sorry figure before the moderate muslims on the TV screen with his recurrent exhortions on this Islam in danger theme).
But in Pakistan the words ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` is enough to make every `educated` Pakistani lose their common sense.....................

read on:

Refrain From Excuses for the Bombers

by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
November 23, 2005

Just hours after last July`s suicide attacks in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair`s advisers were working the phones to arrange an urgent meeting with what they term ``Muslim community leaders``. At the same time, however, the prime minister himself was telling the media that what had happened in London had nothing to do with Islam which was a religion of peace and harmony.
Soon, however, the ``Muslim community leaders`` were sitting across the table from Blair at Downing Street expressing ``Muslim grievances`` that had supposedly led to the suicide attacks. The meeting, followed by other sessions with Blair`s advisers, ended with an invitation by the prime minister to the ``Muslim community leaders`` to prepare a report on ``the deeper causes`` of the London tragedy.

Last week the ``Muslim community leaders`` produced their report. In it they cited two reasons for the tragedy: poverty among British Muslims, and Muslim anger over British foreign policy.

All this is interesting for several reasons.

First, if the London attacks had nothing to do with Islam, as Blair asserted, why invite ``Muslim community leaders`` to discuss it? When Britain was involved in bombing Serbia, to save the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide, Blair did not invite leaders of the Serbian Orthodox community in Britain to discuss matters at Downing Street.

While all the suicide bombers in London were of Muslim extraction their victims also included many Muslims. In fact 15 of the 57 killed in the three attacks were Muslims. In other words the attacks were designed to kill indiscriminately.

But if, contrary to Blair`s assertion, the London attacks did have something to do with Islam then the least that he should do is to say what that is.

By accepting to write the report, the ``Muslim community leaders`` have tacitly agreed that the July bombings did have something to do with Islam. And that, seen from any angle, is a disservice both to Islam and to Britain.

Caught in a cobweb of deceit woven by their own hypocrisy, the British ``Muslim community leaders`` have implicitly agreed that anyone has the right to use Islam as a label for any murderous ideology. At the same time by suggesting that poverty and disagreement on foreign policy were the causes of the suicide attacks, they are putting the British authorities on the wrong track.

The poverty argument as a justification for terrorism is too discredited to merit detailed refutation. Throughout history, terrorists have come from middle class and well-to-do backgrounds. The man who assassinated Caliph Omar was a wealthy Persian pearl merchant. Caliph Osman was assassinated by a group of Qureish aristocrats. Caliph Ali`s murderer was the well-heeled leader of a political faction. Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of Rome`s highest aristocrats. The Narodnik terrorists in Russia, the Anarchists in Central and Western Europe and, more recently, the Red Brigades and the Bader Meinhof terror gangs, all belonged to the upper middle classes.

We see a similar pattern in the recent history of Islamist terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Fedayeen Islam in Iran recruited their assassins from middle class families and were financed by wealthy merchants. The Al Qaida`s central leadership, now disrupted, included at least four millionaires.

The second cause cited by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is even more problematic. To begin with the ``leaders`` cite absolutely no evidence that British Muslims disagree with any aspect of British foreign policy. The reason for this is obvious. British Muslims are as divided on issues of foreign policy as are their non-Muslim fellow citizens.

In any case Britain is a democracy with several political parties representing a rich diversity of views and policies. Any British Muslim opposed to this or that aspect of British foreign policy could join any of the opposition parties or, even, join one of the several anti-Blair wings of the governing Labour Party.

The report produced by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is dangerous because it implies that as long some British Muslims are poor and some British Muslims angry about foreign policy, terrorist attacks would be understandable if not justifiable.

The report creates an ``us and them`` dialectics in which British Muslims see their non-Muslim fellow citizens as ``others``. And from that to treating non-Muslim Britons as the kuffar (infidel), is but a short step.

The only useful contribution that ``Muslim community leaders`` can do is to refrain from furnishing excuses for the terrorists and to hold special sessions to condemn their ideology and put as much blue water between them and other Muslims as possible.

Sadly, the men invited by Blair to help have done the exact opposite.

Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.

Re: # 546

Dear Urstruly:

[The article also mentions how Zoroastrians were later given the status of People of Book. And as Islamic law dictates the Jiziya is not applicable to People of Book.]

Well, I did not know this earlier? Being a person of the book, I could marry a muslim girl. Right? Are you saying that a Zoroastrian male can marry a muslim women? and not be afraid of being killed? Can you authenticate this statement?

Is it possible that you are not adequately informed about Jiziya? FYI....Iranian Zoroastrians were paying Jizya taxes until the 1910`s or so.

Respectfully submitted,

#526 by pmishra2

[#522 Ajeya

I am no fan of mohammed`s attitudes towards women and non-muslims. However, it is silly to apply standards of the 21st century to the 6th century. It is just as silly to insist that certain behaviors of the 6th century are fixed for all time.

You speak of the behavior of Mohammed you dont like. No problem, everyone should be free to criticize and choose. I personally dislike the idea of a prophet who is also a military general just as much as I find many hindu ``gurus`` who have luxurious lifestyle laughable.

But what about the behavior of Ramachandra in slaying Bali? What about Manu-smriti and this was a tremendously important document for certain varnas for many 100s of years. ]


I am tired of saying this again and again on this forum. Firstly, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata are mythologies. Nobody has historic verification of ANY of it. Nobody knows what is true and what is folklore.

And secondly, let`s suppose ALL OF THAT IS TRUE. What about it? If you feel that that is wrong, and his words and deeds are causing Hindus to turn into terrorists, and cause murder and mayhem in the world, you have every right to demand that those parts of the Ramayana be purged from the book, for the prevention of murder and mayhem in the future generations.




[Do you know that in Calcutta, as late as 1900s, 12 year-old hindu girls were married off to old men? ]

I don`t know that it happened in the 1900s, but I know that it used to happen in the past. Not only that, since eligible Brahmin grooms were scarce in Bengal, there have been stories of fathers marrying their daughters to Brahmins on their deathbed, so that the daughter is saved from the ignonimity of remaining unmarried.

But the old men who married 12-year-olds ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PROPHETS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PERFECT MEN, ON WHOSE CREDIBILITY PEOPLE HAVE STAKED THEIR EVERYTHING.

Is this distinction too difficult to understand? Eh?

(And another small point. A 12-year old girl is not the same as a 6-year-old child.)

#496 by soysauce

[Ajeya, you`re starting to talk like a mullah - ignoring empirical evidence in favor of literalism. This is the stuff fundamentalists are made of.
Two naturalized citizens of the United States who have taken the same pledge of allegiance could have different outlooks on life. Should they invade another country preemptively to safeguard the US, what does security of the US mean, who do we mean by the US, is it OK to criticize from within, at a time of war, how do we treat prisoners of war, when does torture become acceptable, what is the minimum level of economic safety that the citizens should have, etc., etc.
Same constitution, same polity, completely divergent views.
Regardless of what a literal reading may lead to, the evidence is there that different muslims read different things into the quoran. That, my friend, is human ingenuity.]


Sometimes I wonder if you guys read your own posts before posting them.

Let`s start with the last line:

[Regardless of what a literal reading may lead to, the evidence is there that different muslims read different things into the quoran. That, my friend, is human ingenuity.]

Yes. Exactly. And THAT is the problem. As long as there are hate-filled words in the Quran, some idiots might actually regard them as God`s instructions, and act as instructed.

Not everyone would rationalize the commission of multiple rapes with just being a normal 6th-century man.



Now let`s proceed to the rest of your post:


[Two naturalized citizens of the United States who have taken the same pledge of allegiance could have different outlooks on life. Should they invade another country preemptively to safeguard the US, what does security of the US mean, who do we mean by the US, is it OK to criticize from within, at a time of war, how do we treat prisoners of war, when does torture become acceptable, what is the minimum level of economic safety that the citizens should have, etc., etc.
Same constitution, same polity, completely divergent views.]

So who`s disputing that? The point is that by their accepting the Quran as the word of God, and teaching the same to their children, BOTH OF THEM are wittingly or unwittingly propagating violence and mayhem that future generations will continue to commit, in the name of Allah.



[Ajeya, you`re starting to talk like a mullah - ignoring empirical evidence in favor of literalism. This is the stuff fundamentalists are made of. ]


I don`t mind you characterizing me like that. If after reading this post, you still feel that I am ``talking like a mullah``, show me why. If you cannot, retract what you said.

I`ll be looking forward to your response.

Behram:

Here is white man`s account of the Muslim conquest of Persia, I hope you find this satisfactory. Although the authors have consulted the Islamic historic accounts yet they have relied mostly on independent accounts and while doing that mentioned where the source had been entirely Islamic. The article mentions the historic tussle between Persian and Bezantyne (Roman) empires and how land of Arabia was used as their battlefiled. The article also mentions how Zoroastrians were later given the status of People of Book. And as Islamic law dictates the Jiziya is not applicable to People of Book. Same principle was applied to Hindu subjects by giving them a status of People of book and keeping them from paying Jiziyah until Aurangzeb Alamgir (may God be pleased with him) imposed this tax albiet controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Iran

As far as the Zorostrian holocaust is concerned, it seems plausible but not likely. It is higly likely that while chasing Yazdgard Muslim happened to take Persian towns, that may have given refuge to Yazdgard, and put it to sword upon resistance but I don`t think that as Persia was conquered gluotines were set all across the Persia and people were given two options; either to get their heads chopped off or accept Islam. This contradicts the histoical facts.

One fact being that the Caliph Omar (ra) was assassinated by a Persian POW named Ferouz. As the tradition goes, Feroz along with his family and many other Persians was brought to Medina as POW. As the Islamic law that was applicable in that day Feroz was given into the custody of an Arab who used him as a laborer. Feroz was an independent soul and used to write poetry of freedom and he used to cry seeing so many Persian slaves in Muslim captivity. feroz was a carpenter by profession and used to make delicate and beautiful pieces of art with wood for decoration etc. One day he met Caliph Omar in the street and told him that his owner did not pay him well for his handicraft and that Omar should order his master to pay him a bit more (imagine slaves and POWs being paid for the work they used to do under Muslim custody). It is said that Omar refused to oblige him the request for pay increase fearing that such pay increase would then would have to be imposed for all POWs; Feroz was not very amused at Caliph`s decision. He had an artifact in his hand which he tried to gift Omar, but Omar refused and jokingly told Feroz that his creation was not very good. This further infuriated Feroz and next day during the wee hours of the morning when Caliph was offering his morning prayers Feroz attacked him with a dagger. The Caliph fell martyr on the third day of the attack.

The moral of this story is that, if forced conversions were going on then the first candidates should have been the prisoners of war; this historical account contradicts that. And second thing is that if a mass murder of a captive nation had happened then the caliph should have been more careful, whereas we see that he is meeting POWs who roam about the streets of Medina freely.

Personally, I don`t think that any ideology that is forced upon people can last. The case in point is the Communism that collapsed like a house of cards, whereas Islam has outlasted all the tests and tribulations that it had been through and not only that it has flourished across the globe.

#540 behram

Good luck to you. It is sad that you believe the garbage that Urstruly is vomiting to be significant. It is tragic to think that adult people want to
discuss hateful nonsense like:

[quote]
It was really interesting to learn from Urstruly that the Prophet himself had instructed attack on Hindoo India
[quote]

People who justify violence in this sick way need help. This is the kind of talk that Nazis and mass murderers indulge in. My suggestion to you is to contact a good mental health professional.

Behram, thanks for your kind comments.

Internet here has provided me a safe way to explore the jihadi mindset. This exploration would not be possible in real life without the discussion turning into a shouting match, with a distinct possibility of physical pushing-and-shoving. And I say this from experience.

I used to think that fanatic ullema had a certain logic to their views. But as I’ve learned over time, they don’t. Their views are flawed in very obvious ways.

A good example is that of apostasy. Ullema have failed to explain how killing for apostasy is consistent with the Quranic view that religion is not to be forced upon others.

The obvious failure on ullema’s part to acknowledge this contradiction is shocking, as well as revealing. It shows how a person can get blinded by hatred … twisting words to validate fanaticism while nursing an insidious ideology. It is a sign that ullema have become bankrupt, intellectually and morally. And it is the same all the way from Indonesia to Brazil.

And this explains the chaos we see in world events, as they unfold, most violently, on daily basis. Ummah stands today at their lowest point. Discussions with mullahs like Urstruly have helped me see how and why that is the case. With such corrupt leadership, ummah can have no hope of reversing their decline into social, political, and economic turmoil.

Re: # 534

Dear Urstruly:

[But invasion of Persia is a differnt story and hostilities increased gradually as I have written in my post.] Definitely not from the Persian Zoroastrian`s side. This is red herring from your side. This is absolutely humbug and not true. There were no hostilities from the Persian`s side.

Can you cite any authentic source, other than yourself, that would suggest that Persian Zoroastrians cared about the Arabs? The invading Arabs went against the teachings of their own prophet and attacked Persian Zoroastrians. And that is a fact.

Respectfully submitted,

”In the matters of faith aggression is strictly forbidden …”

i thought in islam there is no saperation of faith and politics.

Re: # 538

Dear sattar2 and Urstruly:

Thank you for an excellent lesson in the history of political Islam.

[How do you explain killing apostates for leaving Islam?] And that is exactly what Khalid Bin Walid did in the reign of Abu Bakr. Did he not?

Continue the conversation, we might learn something.

Respectfully submitted,

Re: # 536

Dear pmishra2:

Unfortunately, you are wrong. I have always respected all religions. With hundus, it is the Indianess that gets to me, especially when the conversation is not held in a dignified way. When was the last time, we read a Hindoo interactor discuss anything about political Islam? It was really interesting to learn from Urstruly that the Prophet himself had instructed attack on Hindoo India. Can he validate that is yet to be seen.

Actually, I learn a lot about political Islam from Urstruly with this method then sending sugar canes in his way. That therapy is only reserved for the fanatic hindoos of India.

[But the hate-laden and fascist ravings of Mullah Urstruly deserve respect. Why? because, you see, they have something to do with ``islam``.] This is not true. Urstruly is only educating me about the history that he knows it best.

Although, I did not get my questions answered by Urstruly, but hopefully I will get it on some other site. This Sattar2 guy is really making sense to me. And it seems that he is asking the same questions a logical person would ask.

Nevertheless, I respectfully submit

... and another comment ... ``shoulda`` and ``coulda`` are critical ... otherwise you may as well argue that 2+2=5.

Reason tells us that 2+2 ``shoulda`` = 4.

Similarly, arguing that killing for apostasy does not force religion on others ... is like arguing 2+2=5 .... it does not add up ...

Urstruly,

OK, let’s briefly review what you wrote:

+++++++++

- You say … ”In the matters of faith aggression is strictly forbidden …”

How do you explain killing apostates for leaving Islam? If this is not aggression, what is??

Quran makes it clear that there is no worldly punishment for apostasy. If you violate Quran in the name of Islam, you must be kidding ...


+++++++++

- You say … It is explicitly made forbidden to coerce or force someone to accept Islam

Obviously this does not apply to the Prophet … who was allowed to wage war against non-believers due to differences in faith. BTW, you are yet to provide a reference to support this.

Furthermore, is this the same Prophet the Quran calls “best model for believers”? Should the believers also wage war over religious differences??

Furthermore, if a Muslim state should attack non-Muslim states (#487), then it is forcing others to accept Islam … right?

These are glaring contradictions in your views … that fail to add up.

++++++++

As for #487, you should carefully read what Maudoodi wrote: He suggests that it is not possible for a Muslim state to properly follow Islam unless neighboring states too are Muslim … therefore a Muslim state must fight and destroy neighboring non-Muslim states in the name of Islam.

Sattar

There is no point in arguing `shoulda` and `coulda`. I have explained my understanding of the cannonical position on foreign invasions in post #490. That is consistent with what Moududi is saying. Instead of selectively quoting you should post the whole article by Moududi or at least read it. I am sorry it disappoints you but that is the fact.

However, I must make this clear to you that Moududi is not a prophet of God nor he is an ultimate and final authority on Islam. However, he must be given the due credit that whenever he presents his point of view it is consistent with Qura`n and Hadith and where it is not he makes it clear that it is his or someone else`s Ijtehad on a certain issue. In this particular instance I agree with his thesis in the article of which you have posted a selected clipping.

Let me make it loud and clear once again: In the matters of faith aggression is strictly forbidden. It is explictly made forbidden to coerce or force someone to accpet Islam.

#532

This is what is known as dhimmitude. Having grown up in an islamo-supremacistt environment, Shri behram ``knows`` that it is always OK to abuse hindus, buddhists etc. That is but the natural order of things.

But the hate-laden and fascist ravings of Mullah Urstruly deserve respect. Why? because, you see, they have something to do with ``islam``.

Urstruly,

My point is that … historical timeline is of secondary importance here.

Even if the Khusroo’s had done nothing wrong, they still should have been invaded by Muslims, according to you and Maudoodi, since they refused to accept Islam. Once you accept this, unfolding of historical events becomes a moot point.

It is the principle that is critical here. Why? Because the principle you outlined still stands. And according to this principle ummah should continue to wage wars over non-believers.

As for historical accuracy, do read #517 regarding the Mecca march. It negates your speculative account of history.

No comments on #529 or #511? Your views are self-contradictory and fail to add up.

Sattar

It is more important to me to be historically as accurate as possible, rather than write something to please someone or to satisfy my ego. However, if it pleases you Holy prophet (pbuh) did order the invasion of Hind and Constantinople (Capital of Bazintyne Empire). He promised heaven for those who would conquer those two places. Hind was invaded and a part of it was captured by Mohammad Bin Qasim approximately 150 years after Prophet passed away; and Constantinople was attacked and conquered approximately 900 years after Prophet passed away by the Ottoman Caliph Sultan Mohammad Fateh.

But invasion of Persia is a differnt story and hostilities increased gradually as I have written in my post.

Urstruly,

You are arguing a moot point. Whether the war was initiated by the Khusroo’s or the Prophet (pbuh) should be irrelevant from your viewpoint. You may just as well argue that Persia was invaded since they were non-believers.

If the Prophet (pbuh) can invade Mecca due to disbelief of Meccans, what’s wrong with Omar doing the same against Persia? Note that according to Maudoodi, a Muslim state should attack and subjugate non-Muslim states. So why bother with historical details of who did what, when?

its so nice to see behramji truely respectful to urstruly. no ganna offerings anywhere in sight. bravo.

Re: # 530

Dear Urstruly:

Your history is totally different than mine.

Even if we agree with the timeline that you have outlined, then why wait for atleast more than four (4) years after Abu Bakr reign for Umar to attack Zoroastrian Persian at Jang-e-Qassiyeh? And BTW...where is Qassiyeh?

And, please refrain from irrelevant history lessons which has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion.

[Interestingly, it wasn`t Khusrao, to whom the letter was written, who tore down the letter but it was his son.] Again, this is not the argument that I am presenting.

Why attack Zoroastrian Persian, so many years after the prophet`s death?

[So through this discussion we come to this conclusion:

1. By tearing down the Holy Prophet`s letter the new King decalred war on Islamic state. In olden times it was considered decalration of war if emmisarries were treated bad or killed or the message was insulted. ]

Is this what you call a declaration of war? Then, why did the Prophet say ignore the Zoroastrian Persian`s action? Or am I wrong with this thought, as well?

[2. Our thesis in point#1 is affirmed by the fact that the new King did actually ordered his commander in yemen to attack and destroy Medina. Thus declaration of war was made by him.]...This is absolutely news to me. But, obvously I am not well versed on early Islamic history.

[These actions of Persian King then put the two states in a condition of war where border skirmishes kept on happening for many years to come even when Holy Prophet (pbuh) departed us.] This absolutely news to me.

Zoroastrian Persians never ever considered engaging with the Arabs. There are Persian historians who would refute that statement.

[So in fact the invasion of Persia was not an attack on Zoroastrians but it was because of the hostilities for the reason of controlling the region militarily and economically.] I would agree with you that it was more political and economical then religious. But then, why such a massive campaign of retribution? Even Alexander the accursed did not damage the Zoroastrian Persian so much as the Arabs did? What was the hatred behind this victory?

Thank you for your help with your knowledge of Islamic political history.

Respectfully submitted,

behram

Holy Prophet (pbuh) and his letter to Khusrao Pervez is as relavant to invasion of Persia as they could be. Interestingly, it wasn`t Khusrao, to whom the letter was written, who tore down the letter but it was his son. When Khusrao received the letter from Holy Prophet (pbuh) he immediately send his envoys to his military commander in western Yemen who had captured a part of Yemen from Ethiopean Christians and established a colony there. Khusrao asked him to check on the military strength of Muslims before he could write a response to the letter. The commander in yemen sent two emissaries to Medina to check on the military strength and Muslims. As those emissaries were presented to Holy Prophet (pbuh), he told the emissaries that their King Khusrao has died and he (prophet) would wait for the reply from the new king. That news was delivered to Prophet by Angel Gabriel and no one could verify that. Those emissaries went back to commander in yemen and told him that King had died. The said commander was struck with this news and did not believe it. He sent messengers to Persian capital (I think it was Madain at the time) to verify the news and if news was found to be true then seek a response to the letter from the new king. The King when came to know about the letter and read its content he tore the letter down and told the messengers that his order was that the commander in Yemen should immediately attack and destroy medina. But when messengers got back to Yemen and told the commander that the Holy Prophet`s telling that King had died was true, the commander, the messengers and emmissaries immediately accepted Islam. the commander sent a letter to Prophet pledging his allegiance to the Islamic state and reaffirmation of his faith. The Holy prophet wrote him back a congartulatory note and affirmed his rule over Yemen.

So through this discussion we come to this conclusion:

1. By tearing down the Holy Prophet`s letter the new King decalred war on Islamic state. In olden times it was considered decalration of war if emmisarries were treated bad or killed or the message was insulted.

2. Our thesis in point#1 is affirmed by the fact that the new King did actually ordered his commander in yemen to attack and destroy Medina. Thus declaration of war was made by him.

These actions of Persian King then put the two states in a condition of war where border skirmishes kept on happening for many years to come even when Holy Prophet (pbuh) departed us. The final invasion was taken place by the order of Second Caliph Omar (ra) which put an end to the perpetual hostilities and ended the rule of Persian King.

The historical accounts tell us that Persians faught well and hard and they defended their territory with all that they could. But war has only one outcome - one loses other wins.

So in fact the invasion of Persia was not an attack on Zoroastrians but it was because of the hostilities for the reason of controlling the region militarily and economically. I hope that helps.

Urstruly,

It is one thing for you to suggest that religion should not be forced on others. But devil is in the details, and details do you in. Consider the following:

- You insist that an apostate of Islam should be killed. If this is not forcing religion on basis of sword, I wonder what is.

- You suggest that if people refuse of accept Islam, it is likely due to a conspiracy, in which case war should be waged (#490). Maudoodi argued that if a Muslim state has the power, it should wage war against non-believing nations, period (#487).

- You argue that a prophet is allowed to wage war against non-believers simply on basis of faith. You’ve failed to explain how you came to this conclusion.

Furthermore, Quran tell us that the Prophet (pbuh) is a model for believers. So should his example, as suggested by you, be followed by believers, who should go on attacking non-believers (suicide bombers come to mind …)?

(On a related topic, I am interested in finding out what happens when Issa-ibne-Marriam returns. Would it lead to the ummah waging war on other nations?? Feel free to ignore these issues … once again … since you remain clueless as ever).

Your thinking has too many gaps, which you bridge with blind, irrational, contradictory faith. Your views are devoid of reason. Besides speculating (rewriting?) on history, you are unable to provide arguments or references to support your views.

Re: # 525

Dear Urstruly:

Thank you for your response, which is sort of a red herring. Actually, Zoroastrian Persia was attacked by Umar. Why did you have to bring into this conversation anything to do with the Prophet?

The question is still unanswered regarding why Zoroastrian Persia was attacked by Arabs? when they were clearly admonished to regard ajami as equal to the arabs by their own Prophet in his life time?

Are these statements authenticated in your holy books...[As a matter of fact Prophet (pbuh) spoke so highly of him that his companions thought that Zorthustra might be a prophet of God in olden times.]

[However, the attack on Persia was targetted more at the then emperor and his establishment of that time.] And let us be clear about this. The attack was under Umar`s caliphate and not by the Prophet.

There is no need to bring any conversation regarding the Prophet, as he was not living. So this becomes an irrelevant argument.

Considering the political perspective that you have outlined one wonders why Zoroastrian Persia? They never considered these Arabs as competitors in their sea routes ...[.... whereas Persian Empire had the control of the Arabian sea in the south....]

Zoroastrian Persia never considered worthwhile to get engaged with the Arabs, on any level.

This statement can not be validated ....[In the East, Persia, however, was a great military power and considered new Arabian state as a threat to its dominance on the Eastern trade routes that connected central and south Asia, China, India and far east to the rest of the world.]

I would agree with you..[So in my opinion the invasion of Persia was mostly due to political reasons than the religious ones.], if it was left at that. Then, why the forceful conversion of Zoroastrian Persia to Islam?

Respectfully submitted,

Dear Farzana, Chowk Staff, and Chowkies, this is a serious alert ...

for an insidious assault on Chowkies` privacy. I believe that the previous administration, including member(s) of Chowk Staff have helped John Galt (aka JG or JagdeeshGodbole) in obtaining confidential information, such as e-mail and IP addresses, about certain Chowkies. This information has been shared with Saminasha and Scout and involves Temporal and a few other insiders. Not very long ago, a post was intercepted and it was clear that the intended victim was Dalit. Recently other victims have been myself, Queenie, and a couple of others seen as ``enemies`` by this gang of insiders. This information is discussed and exchanged in media outside of Chowk, such as e-mails and other websites and chatrooms.

While this is a breach of confidentiality and certainly against all norms of ethical conduct and possibly US laws, it is very difficult to prove in a court of law. You have to prove that the act was intentional, malicious, and resulted in tangible harm to the victims. Emotional distress is no longer a guarantee for conviction.

I have been using Anonymous IP software for a very long time to preclude my IP address from being divulged. Not that I care, but it is fun to have them think that I am in UK one minute, and then in Poland the next, while appearing in US, Canada, and even Germany during the day. Almost all my life is an open book and I really don`t care about people knowing more about me than they already do. But, I do not appreciate covert actions, behind my back, to use insider information and break a trust that was ostensibly established between Chowk and Chowkies. The identities and locations of Chowk Management are well known as are the ones for some of the criminal perptetrators. I hope they realize this.

If, however, any actual harm comes to me or my family as a result of John Galt, Temporal, Scout, or Saminasha`s despicable and immoral behavior, I will come looking for them. We can always start with Ms. McDonald and go from there.

So, here is my sincere request:
1. Chowk Management need to investigate and correct this obvious breach of confidentiality.
2. The pernicious activity by JohnGalt (JagdeeshGodbole), Temporal, Scout, and Saminasha needs to stop RIGHT NOW.
3. A simple apology from the perpertrators will suffice once this silly game is stopped.

Thanks,

#522 Ajeya

I am no fan of mohammed`s attitudes towards women and non-muslims. However, it is silly to apply standards of the 21st century to the 6th century. It is just as silly to insist that certain behaviors of the 6th century are fixed for all time.

You speak of the behavior of Mohammed you dont like. No problem, everyone should be free to criticize and choose. I personally dislike the idea of a prophet who is also a military general just as much as I find many hindu ``gurus`` who have luxurious lifestyle laughable.

But what about the behavior of Ramachandra in slaying Bali? What about Manu-smriti

---

and this was a tremendously important document for certain varnas for many 100s of years.

Do you know that in Calcutta, as late as 1900s, 12 year-old hindu girls were married off to old men?

[quote]
The Child Marriage Restraint Bill (also known as the Sarda Act) was the result of almost
70 years of agitation4 by Indian reformers and legislators, counter-protest by orthodox
Hindus, and latterly, campaigns by the All India Women’s Conference (AIWC).5 The age of
consent had been set at 10 years old for girls in 1860; the Special Marriage Bill raised it to
14 years for Brahmos in 1872; and in 1891 the age was raised to 12 years for all girls. But
reformers considered this to be barbarically low; and their attempts to raise the age of
consent still further were seen by conservatives as an attack on Hindu culture.
[quote]


http://www.sarai.net/journal/05_pdf/10/01_alice.pdf

Behram # 514

The invasion of Persia should be understood at too levels. One level gives the religious perspective and other the political.

The religius perspective:

The religious perspective is that attack on Persia was not made because of the Persian`s belief in Zorthustra. As a matter of fact Prophet (pbuh) spoke so highly of him that his companions thought that Zorthustra might be a prophet of God in olden times. However, the attack on Persia was targetted more at the then emperor and his establishment of that time. As the correspondence between the Holy Prophet (pbuh) and the Emperor indicates, Prophet did convey him the message of Monotheism i.e. Islam and appealed to him to listen to that message. He also sent missionaries to expalin to him the message, but Emperor tore down the letter written to him and expelled the missionaries from his court. This is one aspect.

The political perspective:

The political perspective is that at the time Arabia was surrounded by three powers on all sides. Two of these were the superpowers of the time. On the North and West it was Roman Empire, on the East it was Persian Empire and on the South it was Christian Empire of Etheopia who had established colonies on the South of Arabian Pennisula at the present day Yemen. The Christian Emire used to controlled the trade routes of Red Sea whereas Persian Empire had the control of the Arabian sea in the south. These three Empires had been in a constant state of war with each other to control the trade routes through the sea and also on the land that went through Arabia.

Just as the Islam emerged as not only a new religion but also as a political force in the middle of the trade routes it concerned the three powers greatly. At the time Holy Prophet had established very amicable realtionships with the Christian south and the Emperor of Ethiopia, Neiges became his personal friend. As a matter of fact he was Prophets friend from the days when he was a young trader and used to paddle his merchandise to far of places. The Christian empire gave refuge to early Muslims and ultimately Emperor Neiges accepted islam and when he died Holy Prophet (pbuh) offered his funeral prayers. That is the reason there never was an invasion on Yemen or Eastern African coastal areas.

In the North and West, Roman Empire was in the state of perpetual decline. As a matter of fact they had almost abandoned their North African colonies of Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Morroco etc. The Muslims filled the power vacuum that emerged after the departure of such great military power that ruled that area for centuries.

In the East, Persia, however, was a great military power and considered new Arabian state as a threat to its dominance on the Eastern trade routes that connected central and south Asia, China, India and far east to the rest of the world. No one should under-estimate the prowess of Holy Prophet (pbuh) as a General and a Strategist. His military strategy is evident from his war and peace tactics. He had conquered an area bigger than Europe at the expanse of about 900 Muslims and about 2000 non-beleivers over a period of less than 10 years. So it was a common sense that Persians would pre-empt anytime. But even then Persians were offered truce and an agreement to a peaceful co-existence but The Persian Emperor in his arrogance tore down Holy Prophet`s letter.

So in my opinion the invasion of Persia was mostly due to political reasons than the religious ones.

Ajeya #482, {``But we know one thing - his message of love - asking God to forgive his enemies, for they did not know what they are doing!

What a man! Nothing could be closer to God, nothing more deserving of respect and admiration! Not surprisingly, Jesus Christ is considered a saint by Hindus all over India, and much as people resent missionaries out to buy human souls, Jesus Christ is admired and loved by all Hindus. I have seen his pictures and paintings in many of my relatives houses``}

Ajeya,
I agree with you about how Jesus is admired and adored by almost all people. Slaves hated the white slave masters, but worshipped Jesus. The Indians in the New World were butchered by Catholic Conquistadores and their aggressive priests, but learned to respect Jesus. That is why it is so important to separate those who kill in the name of God from God Himself. I know of many cases in India where Hindus honor and pray to Imam Hussein, the Holy Prophet (PBUH), and even Sufi saints such as Nizamuddin, Saleemuddin Chishti, and Moinuddin Chishti. This is probably the most admirable aspect of Hindus - that they are able to appreciate good even among those outside of their own religious confines.

Ajeya, my good friend. One can pick numerous Hadiths to validate one`s point of view. There are Hadiths that substantiate the Shia perspective. Then there are Hadiths that affirm the Sunni point of view, as well as Wahabbi extremes. I am sure that you can come up with Hadiths to support Hinduism, Christianity, and even Judaism. Sometimes it appears that there are more Hadiths than the number of words ever spoken by the Holy Prophet (PBUH). You missed the ones that talk about the moon coming down to earth and the sun bowing to him at his birth. I know this is ridiculous but so are people who pick Hadiths out of their back pockets to suit any occasion. I am not talking about you. :)

That the Holy Prophet was a mere man, we have already discussed. As a 6th/7th century man, he lived his life according to his beliefs and we all know that he was respected even by his enemies. Abu Sufiyan had praise for him while contemplating a war against him with the support of the Byzantine Emperor. We have discussed the sexual aspect of his life and I am sure that we can debate about his life as a husband, a father, a nephew, and a grandfather. We can also talk about his business practices, his negotiation skills, and his honesty. To call him lazy, greedy, and conniving, while it may feel good for his detractors, is probably not truthful.

Ajeya, the Holy Prophet`s life is complete. He accomplished his assigned mission successfully and has long returned to his Creator. If people feel good about demeaning him then obviously he continues to serve all of humanity - those who love to love him and those who love to hate him. If one wants to thoroughly trash his name, one must get in a long line of even more talented and gifted hatemongers - Dante, Washington Irving, and Salman Rudhdie for example. Dante put the Holy Prophet in the hottest and lowliest of hells in the Inferno. I think he selected Ali to give him company in that incarceration. By putting the Holy Prophet in the worst part of hell, Dante said a lot about his own judgement, his own prejudices, and his own ability to rank evil. I think that Genghis Khan had already come and gone by the time Dante discovered the contents of hell - this does not say much about the general knowledge prevailing in Italy at the beginning of the Renaissance.

rsridhar #513, {``Once muslim intellecutals have placed Qoran in its proper context (as u have attempted to do in your small way in your post) and exposed the fundamentalists for what they really are, Islam would have come a long way.``}

Shri Sridhar,
I agree. We cannot allow a single revelation, a single document, or even a single message to govern mankind`s behavior forever. Both Christianity and Judaism have long overcome this mistake. Hinduism also has separated the issues of sacred text from blind faith. First of all, the verbal message gets garbled as it is transmitted from mouth to mouth. Then, even the writtern message is subject to context, interpretation, and varying morality from time to time and place to place. I think that the greatest divine message we can follow is the ``inner voice`` inherent in all of us. This does not mean that The Holy Prophet was not sincere, honest, and an example for mankind. :)

Re:#482 by Salim_Chauhan

My dear Salim,

You may not know this, but your post is typical of the standard Muslim responses to charges levelled against Islam and Muhammad.

I am surprised that a an intelligent and well-read person, you could not overcome your personal rigidly-held beliefs.

In any case, let me go through your responses one by one:

[If you are dwelling too much on the Messenger and NOT the Message, you are obviously overlooking the main point, but then maybe that is your main point. Anyway, freedom of religion lies in the ability to believe as you please or not believe as you please. ]

I would like to begin with the most egregious one, and in fact, even you have realized that it overrides all others:

What is more important - the Messenger, or the Message?

Now if a messenger who is a demonstrably bad person were to come and tell me that you should do good things and not bad things, I would say, okay, what you say is true, but please do not pontificate, you being a bad guy.

But if he comes and tells me that he has been talking to God himself, and God told him to say this or that, I would question him NOT ABOUT HIS MESSAGE, BUT ABOUT GOD SPEAKING TO HIM. If I find out that he is of a bad character, I would not believe that God has been talking to him, and therefore, ignore ANYTHING HE HAS TO SAY.

You can believe as you please, of course, and are free to believe that Hitler was a good guy, but you would be very wrong as well.



[Let me try to explain how I view the various obviously troubling verses that Ajeya quoted from the Holy Koran. Several of these are encouraging Muslims to be violent, to fight enemies, and to be patient during the months of piligrimage and then to attack the infidels. There are also numerous verses advising Muslims about how to treat Christians, Jews, and infidels.

Please keep in mind that the Holy Koran is a series of specific admonishments, advice, and encouragement revealed to The Holy Prophet (PBUH) during his lifetime as the Messenger of God. The ``infidels`` mentioned in these verses are the people of Mecca, mostly from the Holy Prophet`s own Quraish tribe who had resolved to stop the spread of God`s message. Many of the early Muslims were pacifists and would not fight their relatives who had expelled them from their homes, tortured them, and even exiled them. Apparently, God was encouraging Muslims to fight their own relatives despite all odds and bonds of blood. This is not very different from the God of the Old Testament punishing evildoers by flood, fire, and turning sinners into pillars of salt. ]

Yes, but again, would you believe him when he says that God was telling him to kill those people or some others? To me, he doesn`t have any credibility.

And about this comparison with Christianity - we KNOW that the Old Testament DID NOT come out of Christ`s mouth, and there is no firm historical evidence that the New Testament did either.

But we know one thing - his message of love - asking God to forgive his enemies, for they did not know what they are doing!

What a man! Nothing could be closer to God, nothing more deserving of respect and admiration! Not surprisingly, Jesus Christ is considered a saint by Hindus all over India, and much as people resent missionaries out to buy human souls, Jesus Christ is admired and loved by all Hindus. I have seen his pictures and paintings in many of my relatives houses.




[The Christians and Jews discussed in the Holy Koran are the residents of Medina and surrounding localities where the Muslims had come into contact with them. Many Muslims have interpreted that the Holy Koran is indisputable and applicable for all instances for all time. I disagree with this as do many many Muslims. I think that each verse was specifically addressed for a particular event or issue. For examply many verses having to do with the treatment of animals, for the treatment of slaves, for peace with infidels in Mecca, for treating idols in the Kaaba may not be applicable in our times. ]

You CANNOT interpret the Quran the way you want to.

The verse ``This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion`` 5:3 reverberates in the ears of every Muslim. It leaves no room for interpretations and reformations. How can anyone improve or change something that is perfect?



[Now let`s talk about The Holy Prophet, sex, and his marriage to Ayesha, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Nowhere does anyone claim that Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was not a man. He performed all of the normal functions performed by men during his life time, including relations with women. As a young man of 25, he married Khadija who was 15 years his senior and a sincere woman with whom he fell in love . He did not marry any other women during her lifetime. After her death and in his role as the leader of Muslims, he married several women, including an Egyption Copt, an African slave, and daughters of his closest allies. He also gave his own daughters` hands in marriage to Ali and Osman. This was the custom of the period among Arab tribes - they formed bonds of alliance by marriage, something that was practised quite widely among European royalty down to the 20th century. ]

Yes, he married Khadija who was 15 years his senior, because he was lazy and it was an easy way out for him to live the life of a drone.

And raping numerous slave girls (often after killing their husbands/fathers the same day) is NEVER GOING TO BE RESPECTED BY THE REST OF HUMANITY, regardless of the excuses people like you like to offer.




[The marriage to Ayesha was performed when she was very young and was not consummated until she reached the age of puberty, the legal age for conjugal bliss in Islamic custom of that time. To accuse him of being a pedophile is to engage in slander only to cast harm to Muslims for their belief in a man who married a very young girl. Had he been a pedophile, there certainly would have been repeated acts of lewd attachment to minor females. This was certainly not the case. Abu Bakr offered his daughter`s hand in marriage and it would have been an insult and wrong for The Holy Prophet to refuse - don`t forget we are talking about 7th century Arabia and not 21st century Europe.]


Many Muslims claim that it was Abu Bakr who approached Muhammad asking him to marry his daughter. This is of course not true and here is the proof:,

Sahih Bukhari 7.18
Narrated `Ursa:
The Prophet asked Abu Bakr for `Aisha`s hand in marriage. Abu Bakr said ``But I am your brother.`` The Prophet said, ``You are my brother in Allah`s religion and His Book, but she (Aisha) is lawful for me to marry.``

Arabs were a primitive lot with little rules to abide. Yet they had some code of ethics that they honored scrupulously. For example, although they fought all the year round, they abstained from hostilities during certain holy months of the year. They also considered Mecca to be a holy city and did not make war against it. A adopted son’s wife was deemed to be a daughter in law and they would not marry her. Also it was customary that close friends made a pact of brotherhood and considered each other as true brothers. The Prophet disregarded all of these rules anytime they stood between him and his interests or whims.

Abu Bakr and Muhammad had pledged to each other to be brothers. So according to their costoms Ayesha was supposed to be like a niece to the Holy Prophet. Yet that did not stop him to ask her hand even when she was only six years old.

But this moral relativist Prophet would use the same excuse to reject a woman he did not like.
Sahih Bukhari V.7, B62, N. 37
Narrated Ibn `Abbas:
It was said to the Prophet, ``Won`t you marry the daughter of Hamza?`` He said, ``She is my foster niece (brother`s daughter). ``

Hamza and Abu Bakr both were the foster brothers of Muhammad. But Ayesha must have been too pretty for the Prophet to abide by the codes of ethics and custom.

In the following Hadith he confided to Ahesha that he had dreamed of her before soliciting her from her father.

Sahih Bukhari 9.140
Narrated `Aisha:
Allah`s Apostle said to me, ``You were shown to me twice (in my dream) before I married you. I saw an angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said to him, `Uncover (her),` and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), `If this is from Allah, then it must happen.` Then you were shown to me, the angel carrying you in a silken piece of cloth, and I said (to him), `Uncover (her), and behold, it was you. I said (to myself), `If this is from Allah, then it must happen.` ``

Whether Muhammad had actually such dream or he just said it to please Ayesha is not the point. What matters here is that it indicates that Ayesaha was a baby being “carried” by an angel when the Prophet dreamed of her.



[The perverted Victorian sense of sexual ``morality,`` is a an acquired custom for Muslims, because the social environment in early Islam was far more liberal than even today. Denial of sexual participation has never been considered an act of piety in Islamic civilization - in fact celibacy is frowned upon and may even be considered a transgression against God for not enjoying that which He has bestowed upon us. Thus, in Islam, there are no priests, no temple virgins, no temple prostitutes, no virgin sacrifices, and no inherent evil associated with women, AND no original sin. ]

It`s interesting that you are using the position of women in Islam as an issue that allows you to take a dig at the ``temple prostitutes`` (in many parts of India, for example).

Here`s some information about the ``respect`` towards women in Islam:



[The purpose of this article is to consider the place of women in the pure teaching of Islam. It must be recognised that not every Muslim, nor every Muslim nation follows all of these teachings. These teachings come from both the Qur`an and the Hadith. The Hadith is `The Tradition of Mohammad`, that is, the stories of Mohammad`s deeds and sayings. This Hadith is of


``paramount importance side by side with the Qur`an in the formation of the religious life of a human being and for the attainment of perfection. Indeed a Qur`an minus Hadith remains unintelligible in many cases in the work- a-day life of a man.``[1]
The commentator Jalal-ud-Din as-Suyouti said that the Hadith ``is the commentary on the Qur`an and its explanation``[2] This is why almost all commentaries rely in the first place on the Hadith to explain the Qur`an. The authentic Hadith is believed to be


``nothing short of revelation, [for the Qur`an says of Mohammad] ``he does not speak out of low desires. It is not but inspiration which is inspired (Q. 53:3-4).`` The only difference between the Qur`an and the Hadith is that whereas the former was revealed directly through Gabriel with the very letters that are embodied from Allah, the latter was revealed without letters and words.``[3]
``Thus, next to the Holy Qur`an, the Hadith is the second source of the Islamic Law of social and personal behaviour, because the commandments of the Holy Prophet are as binding on the believers as the commandments of Allah. `Whenever Allah and the Apostle have decided a matter, it is not for a faithful man or woman to follow a course of their own choice (Q. 33:36).```[4]

The Hadith is to be followed exactly ``for that which differs from the Hadith to the extent of a hair shall be given up.``[5]


``A Muslim therefore stands in absolute need of a copy of the Qur`an and a copy of the Hadith for the guidance of his life``[6]
MEN`S SUPERIORITY

The Qur`an expresses the equality of the works of the sexes and the oneness of origin of the sexes in the following verses.


``And their Lord answereth them, `I will not suffer the work of him among you that worketh, whether of male or female, to be lost. The one of you is the issue of the other.`` (Q. 3:195) Rodwell.
``Mankind fear your Lord, who created you of a single soul, and from it created its mate.`` (Q. 4:1) Arberry

So while the Qur`an holds the works of men and women in equal regard and acknowledges that they are completely interdependent as to their very existence, they are not regarded as having equal worth as people. The men are a step above the women and superior to them as is clear from the following two verses.


``And it is for the women to act as they (the husbands) act by them, in all fairness; but the men are a step above them.``[7] (Q. 2:228) Rodwell ``Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other.``(Q. 4:34) Dawood.
The famous commentator Ibn Kathir commented on (Q. 4:34) saying:


``Men are superior to women, and a man is better than a woman.``[8]
Other commentators such as Razi, Baidawi, Zamakhshari, and Tabari are of the same opinion.

Razi, commenting on Q. 4:11, said:


``(The males share is that of two females). Man is more perfect than the woman in creation, and intelligence, and in the religious sphere, such as the suitability to be a judge, and a leader in worship. Also, the testimony of the man is twice that of the woman. So that whoever is given great responsibilities must be given correspondingly great privileges. As the woman is deficient in intelligence and of great lust, if she is given much money, much corruption will be the result. ``[9]
He also added:


``The male is mentioned first in Q. 4:11 because the male is better than the female.``[10]
This superiority according to Razi is due to mens natural superiority in ``knowlege and power, and because the man gives his wife the dowry and spends on her.``[11]

A modern writer said about the previous verse:


``God established the superiority of men over women by the above verse (the Qur`an 4:34) which prevents the equating of men and women. For here man is above the woman due to his intellectual superiority and his ability to administer and spend on the woman.``[12]
WOMEN`S DEFICIENCIES

1. WOMEN ARE DEFICIENT IN INTELLIGENCE AND RELIGION

The intellectual and religious deficiencies of women are stated in the following Hadith found in Sahih al-Bukhari which is considered by Muslim scholars to be ``The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (ie. the Qur`an)``:[13]


``Allah`s Apostle once said to a group of women : `I have not seen any one more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious, sensible man could be led astray by some of you.` The women asked: `O Allah`s Apostle, what is deficient in our intelligence and religion?` He said: `Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?` They replied in the affirmative. He said: `This is the deficiency of your intelligence` ... `Isn`t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?` The women replied in the affirmative. He said: `This is the deficiency in your religion.```[14]
The authenticity of the above Hadith is undisputed. It is reported by the two most reliable collections of Hadith; Bukhari and Muslim. The agreement of Bukhari and Muslim on its authenticity makes it (mutafaqun `alayhi) `agreed upon`, which is the highest degree of authenticity. The above Hadith has been accepted and used by eminent scholars, such as Ghazali, Ibn al-`Arabi, Razi, Suyouti, Qortobi, Nawawi, and Ibn Kathir, in their writings.

The above Hadith does not describe women only in early Islam, but it is a description for all times, so long as `women can neither pray nor fast during their menses` and so long as `the evidence of two women is equal to the witness of one man.` This reasoning is not a temporary one, but is rooted in and derived from the Qur`an for all time until the day of resurrection.

Commenting on the Qur`anic verse Q. 30:21 which states ``And of His signs is that He created for you, of yourselves, spouses, that you may repose in them`` Razi said:


``His saying `created for you` is a proof that women were created like animals and plants and other useful things, just as the Most High has said `He created for you what is on earth` and that necessitates the woman not to be created for worship and carrying the Divine commands. We say creating the women is one of the graces bestowed upon us and charging them with Divine commands to complete the graces bestowed upon us, not that they are charged as we men are charged. For women are not charged with many commands as we are charged, because the woman is weak, silly, in one sense she is like a child, and no commands are laid upon a child, but for the grace of Allah upon us to be complete, women had to be charged so that they may fear the torment of punishment and so follow her husband, and keep away from what is forbidden, otherwise corruption would be rampant.``[15]
Another eminent Muslim thinker, Hadi Sabzevari, in his commentary on Sadr al-Mote`alihin wrote:


That Sadr ad-Deen Shirazi classifies women as animals is a delicate allusion to the fact that women, due to the deficiency in their intelligence and understanding of intricacies, and due to their fondness of the adornments of the world, are truly and justly among the mute animals [al-haywanti al-sa^mita]. They have the nature of beasts [ad-dawwa^b], but they have been given the disguise of human beings so that men would not be loath to talk to them and be compelled to have sexual intercourse with them. That is why our immaculate Law [shar`ina al-mutahhar] takes men`s side and gives them superiority in most matters, including divorce, ``nushuz,`` etc. (Quoted in Soroush, Abdolkarim, _Farbehtar az ideoloji_, Sera^t, Tehran, 1373 A.H.S.). [A.H.S. = After the Hegira, in Solar years].
The above is consistent with the authentic Hadith that says women are deficient in intelligence and religion. This belief has been accepted by Muslim scholars and writers for the past thirteen hundred years.


One modern writer said: ``The woman`s share of intellect does not reach man`s level.``[16]
He then went on to say that ``al-`Aqad, one of the most eminent Arabic writers, in his book al-Mar`ah wal-Qur`an,


``has a valuable chapter in which `Aqad demolished the intellectual equality of women and men.``[17]
As a matter of fact the expression ``naqisatan `aqlan wa dinan`` (deficient in intelligence and religion) is one of the bywords and axioms of life on the lips of the masses in Arabic countries.


2. WOMEN ARE DEFICIENT IN GRATITUDE

Women are not only deficient in intelligence, but they also lack gratitude. Women`s lack of gratitude is expressed in another Hadith from Bukhari:


``Women are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favours and the good (charitable) deeds done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, `I have never received any good from you.``[18]
So according to this Hadith, women are not only intellectually and spiritually deficient but also deficient in gratitude.


3. WOMEN ARE DEFICIENT AS WITNESSES

The testimony of the woman is not equal to that of the man. Her testimony is half the testimony of the man with regard to financial matters. The Qur`an states,


``And call in to witness two witnesses, men; or if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witness as you approve of, that if one woman errs the other will remind her.``[19]
An educated Muslim woman in trying to explain why the testimony of the woman is half that of the man said,


`Woman was made to bear and feed children. Therefore she is very emotional. And she is forgetful, because if she did not forget how it is to give birth she would not have another child. That is why she will not be as reliable a witness as a man.``[20]
Therefore in Islam, the woman is perceived as being deficient in three important areas: to others due to her denial of man`s kindness; to herself, due to her inadequate intelligence; and in relation to God, due to her inadequacy in religion.

WHAT IS A WOMAN ?


THE WOMAN IS A TOY

The previously mentioned deficiencies show the woman`s inadequacy as a companion for man. Her deficiency in intelligence and religion prevent her from exchanging secular or sacred ideas or participating in religious or related spheres. To what level do these deficiencies reduce the woman?


```Omar [one of the Khalifs] was once talking when his wife interjected, so he said to her: `You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you.```[21]
And `Amru Bin al-`Aas, also a Khalif, said: ``Women are toys, so choose.``[22]

This was not just `Amru Bin al-`Aas and `Omar`s opinions. Mohammad himself said:


`The woman is a toy, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her).``[23]
The belief that a woman is a toy is of vital importance for the spiritual well being of a man. For according to the great philosopher Ghazali


``In the company of women, looking at them, and playing with them, the soul is refreshed, the heart is rested, and the man is strengthened to the worship of God...this is why God said: `That he might rest in her.` (Q. 7:189)``[24]


THE WOMAN IS `AWRAH

Apart from the deficiencies of the woman, she is also has ten `awrat. The Encyclopedia of Islam defines `awrah as pudendum, that is ``the external genitals, especially of the female. [Latin pudendum (literally) a thing to be ashamed of]``[25]


``Ali reported the Prophet saying: `Women have ten (`awrat). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten.``[26]
And according to the following Hadith, women not only have ten `awrat, but the woman herself is perceived as `awrah :


``The woman is `awrah. When she goes outside (the house), the devil welcomes her.``[27]
(This Hadith is classed as `Sahih` that is sound or faultless.) So going outside the house is a form of exposure of the `awrah; a thing that delights the devil.

This is why women are discouraged from going outside the house, even to pray in the mosque, as the following Hadith indicates.


``A woman is closest to God`s face, if she is found in the core of her house. And the prayer of the woman in the house is better than her prayer in the mosque.``[28]
(This Hadith is classed as `Hassan`, that is approved.)

Dr. Buti a modern scholar said, ``Muslim teachers unanimously agreed in every generation that the woman should cover all her body except her hands and face, that is without any make up, from strangers.``[29] While the followers of Hanbal and some followers of Shafi`i consider even the hand and the face to be `awrah, and therefore should be covered.[30]


``And those who allow the woman to show her hand and face -the Malikiyah and Hanafiyah- do so with the provision that make up will not be used, but if the woman`s face is naturally beautiful, then she must cover her face for fear of being a temptation to men.``[31]
Dr. Buti gives the reason behind the wearing of the Hijab.


``Allah, the most high, decreed that the woman should be veiled. He did so in protecting the chastity of the men who might see her, and not in protection of the chastity of the woman from the eyes of those who look at her.``[32]

THE WOMAN IS LIKE A RIB

The character of women is likened to a rib, crooked. Bukhari reported the following Hadith:


``The woman is like a rib; if you try to straighten her, she will break. So if you want to get benefit from her, do so while she still has some crookedness.``[33] This Hadith is classed as agreed upon.
Another Hadith attributes this crookedness to the act of creation because the woman was created from man`s rib.[34] This crookedness then is inherent and incurable, the man has to live with it and make the most out of it. This belief is accepted not only by the masses but by celebrated scholars such as Imam Shafi`i who said :


`three [persons] if you esteem them they will dishonour you and if you dishonour them they will esteem you : the woman, the servant and the Nabatea.`[35]
and Ghazali who said:


``If you relax the woman`s bridle a tiny bit, she will take you and bolt wildly. And if you lower her cheek-piece a hand span, she will pull you an arm`s length ... Their deception is awesome and their wickedness is contagious; bad character and feeble mind are their predominant traits ... Mohammad said[36] : `The likeness of a virtuous woman amongst women is like a red beaked crow among a hundred crows.``[37]
Thus it is believed that virtuous women are rare and their crookedness is as natural as the crooked rib.

In spite of all these deficiencies Ghazali found some redeeming features in women: ``[A man`s wife] fears him, while he fears her not, a kind word from him satisfies her, where nothing of hers has importance in his eyes, it is she who must tolerate the presence of concubines, and it is she who worries when he is ill whereas even her death would leave him indifferent.``[37a]

HUSBAND`S RIGHTS

1. HUSBAND`S DESIRES MUST BE MET AT ONCE

Man`s sexual needs are considered so urgent that it is better for food to burn in the oven than a man to burn in waiting for his wife to satisfy his desire. If she refuses, the angels of heaven will turn against her.


``The prophet of Allah said: When a man calls his wife to satisfy his desire, let her come to him though she is occupied at the oven.``[38]
(The above Hadith is agreed upon, that is, no scholar doubts its authenticity.)


``The messenger of Allah said: Whenever a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and then he passes the night in an angry mood, the angels curse her till she gets up at dawn.``[39]
The understanding that man`s sexual needs are more important than the woman`s was not only believed by the early Muslims, but is also believed by modern-day Muslims. A contemporary scholar wrote:


``Allah the most high has fashioned the woman`s psychological and physiological make up in such a way that man`s pleasures are satisfied in her more than her pleasures satisfied in him. Not only that but she also finds her happiness in feeling so.``[40]
Another contemporary scholar wrote:


``Sexual intercourse is an action, and the woman does not act.``[41]
The famous commentator Qortobi said:


``The woman was created so that man can rest in her ... for by her he gets rid of his sexual storm. The female sexual organ was created for men. For when Allah the most high said `(You) leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives?`[42] Allah made it known that that place of the woman was created from man for man`s sake. So the woman must yield it whenever the husband calls her. If she refuses then she is an oppressor and in a grave position. Sufficient proof of this was reported from Sahih Muslim in the Hadith that says `When a man calls his wife to his bed, and she refuses, the One Who is in the heaven will be angry with her until he [her husband] is pleased with her``[43]

2. OBEDIENCE TO THE HUSBAND IS THE KEY TO PARADISE

All the woman`s piety is considered useless if she disobeys her husband. Her disobedience to her husband represents an unlawful and irrational act. But obedience to her husband is the key to Paradise as is clear from the following Hadith:


``There are three (persons) whose prayer will not be accepted, nor their virtues be taken above: The runaway slave until he returns back to his master, the woman with whom her husband is dissatisfied, and the drunk until he becomes sober.``[44]
``Whosoever female dies while her husband is pleased with her, will enter Paradise.``[45]

``The prophet once said to a woman: `Watch how you treat your husband for he is your Paradise and your Hell.``[46]



3. HUSBAND`S RIGHTS ARE DIVINE

The obedience of the woman to her husband is an important prerequisite that shows her piety and guarantees her eternal destiny. He is her Paradise or her hell. Man is thus so elevated that by comparison with the woman, he is placed on a divine level. Her response to him approaches worship. That however, is impossible, as worship belongs to God alone.

Mohammad said:


``Had I ordered anybody to prostrate before any one, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands on account of men`s rights over the women ordained by Allah.``[47]


4. HUSBAND`S RIGHTS ARE GREATER THAN THE SACRIFICE OF WOMAN`S BREASTS

Man`s status is so much higher than woman`s that no sacrifice on the woman`s part will ever gain her her full right in relation to a man. Even in our own time (1985) a Muslim writer, Ahmad Zaky Tuffaha, seriously and reverently quotes the following Hadith :


``If a woman offered one of her breasts to be cooked and the other to be roasted, she still will fall short of fulfilling her obligations to her husband. And besides that if she disobeys her husband even for a twinkling of an eye, she would be thrown in the lowest part of Hell, except she repents and turns back.``[48]
Although this Hadith is not mentioned in Bukhari, it is consistent with the other Ahadith quoted by Bukhari.

It is a noble sacrifice for a man to share his life with the woman as described in Bukhari`s sound Ahadith; she being deficient in mind, religion, and gratitude. It is condescension on the part of the man to spend his life with her. She can not repay this favour, no matter what sacrifice she makes.

Indeed, the rights of the husband are so vast that


``If blood, suppuration, and pus, were to pour from the husband`s nose and the wife licked it with her tongue, she would still never be able to fulfil his rights over her.``[49]
This Hadith is repeated, also with great reverence, five times by commentator Imam Suyuti who is regarded as one of the greatest of all Muslim scholars.


WOMAN`S RIGHTS

While the Hadith enumerates the husband`s rights, the woman`s rights are simple, as the following Hadith shows:


```O Messenger of Allah ! What right has the wife of one among us got over him?` He said: `It is that you shall give her food when you have taken your food, that you shall clothe her when you have clothed yourself, that you shall not slap her on the face, nor revile her, nor desert her except within the house.```[50]
MAN`S PREROGATIVES

1. MAN MAY BEAT AND SEXUALLY DESERT HIS WIFE

The Qur`an describes the natural relationship between the husband and the wife as one of love and mercy: ``He has set between you love (mawaddah) and mercy.`` Q. 30:21. A contemporary scholar, Sayyed Qotb sees that the love and the mercy spoken of in this verse as the natural feelings the man has for the opposite sex that was planted by the creator. Earlier scholars saw that ``love`` between the husband and the wife in the above verse refers to the sexual act, while ``mercy`` refers to the offspring of the man and his wife.[51] The important thing to note is that this love and mercy is not found in the man apart from the woman, but it is a mutual thing found in both. And the Qur`an commands men to ``Consort with them (women) in kindness (ma`ruf).`` Q. 4:19 According to the Dictionary of Qur`anic terms and concepts the word ``ma`ruf`` means ``customary law; enjoining good and forbidding evil.``[52]

Elsewhere the word is translated many times as equitable as in Usif Ali`s English translation of the Qur`an.[53] In other words when women behave properly they are to be treated kindly, the treatment must be equitable according to the customary laws.

There is also a Hadith that describes the good husband; ``The best of you are those who are the best to their wives.``[54] (that Hadith is mentioned only by Tirmizi). But how far this goodness will go in difficult times, when the wife does not behave properly?

The man according to the Qur`an has the responsibility to admonish his wife, and the right to desert her sexually, and to beat her to correct any rebelliousness in her behaviour.

The Qur`an states:


``Righteous women are therefore obedient, ... And those you fear may be rebellious (nushuz) admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.``[55]
Some translators add the word lightly after `beat them`[56] in Q. 4:34. Others like Mohammed Pickthall and Rodwell translate the word `edrebouhon - beat them` as `scourge them`.

The occasion in which Q. 4:34 was revealed sheds more light on the meaning of that verse. Most commentators mention that


``the above verse was revealed in connection with a woman who complained to Mohammad that her husband slapped her on the face (which was still marked by the slap). At first the Prophet said to her: `Get even with him`, but then added: `Wait until I think about it.` Later on the above verse was revealed, after which the Prophet said: `We wanted one thing but Allah wanted another, and what Allah wanted is best.```[57]
The beating in the previous incident can hardly be described as light, unless that is what is meant by light beating. This beating comes as the last corrective measure when sexual desertion fails. Light beating after sexual desertion is an anticlimax that serves no purpose. But firm beating is the logical progression from admonishing, then sexually deserting, finally beating her. This beating must be stronger than sexual desertion to have any effect.

This beating however is not like the whipping of a slave,[58] but ``a beating without causing injury``[59] (agreed upon).

So the man has the right to beat his rebellious wife as long as that beating is not like the whipping of the slave and will not result in injury.

The translator of Mishkat Al-Masabih wrote in a footnote of Fatwa by Qazi Khan that said beating the wife mildly is


``allowed in four cases (1) When she does not wear fineries though wanted by the husband, (2) When she is called for sexual intercourse and she refuses without any lawful excuse, (3) When she is ordered to take a bath [to clean herself] from impurities for prayer and she refuses and (4) When she goes abroad without permission of her husband.``[60]
In another footnote the translator of Mishkat Al-Masabih said,


``No wife shall refuse her husband what he wants from her except on religious grounds ie. at the time of menstrual flow or fasting. Some theologians regard this refusal as unlawful as the husband may get enjoyment from his wife in other ways, by embracing, kissing etc. The duty of the wife is to give him comforts in his bed whenever he wants her.``[61] (emphasis added)
This beating is the husband`s unquestionable right.

Ibn Kathir in his commentary mentioned a Hadith on the authority of zal Ash`ath Ibn al-Qays who was visiting `Omar and at that time. `Omar took his wife and beat her, then said to Ash`ath:


`Memorise three things from me, which I memorised from the prophet who said: ``The man is not to be asked why he beat his wife ...```[62]
Man`s right to `beat his wife` does not belong to the distant past. The Guardian Weekly reported,


``In 1987 an Egyptian court, following an interpretation of the Koran proposed by the Syndicate of Arab Lawyers, ruled that a husband had the duty to educate his wife and therefore the right to punish her as he wished.``[63]
Sayyed Qotb a modern scholar and commentator tries to justify the provision for a man to beat his wife, found in the above Qur`anic verse:


``The facts of life, and the psychological observations of certain forms of deviations indicate that this approach (beating the wife) is the most appropriate one to satisfy a particular form of deviation, reforming the behaviour of the person ... and gratifying her ... at the same time!
Even without the existence of this form of psychological deviation, perhaps some women will not recognise the power of the man whom they love to have as their guardian and husband, except when the man conquers them physically! This is not the nature of every woman. But this kind does exist. And it is this kind that needs this last treatment to be set straight, and remain within the serious organisation [marriage] in peace and tranquillity.``[64]

Some intellectuals, referring to the above quotation, said:


``Women`s rebelliousness (nushuz) is a medical condition. It is of two kinds: The first is the condition when the woman delights to be the submissive partner who finds pleasure in being beaten and tortured. This is what is called Masochism. The second is when the woman loves to hurt and master and dominate the other partner. This is what is called Sadism. Such woman has no remedy except removing her spikes and destroying her weapon by which she dominates. This weapon of the woman is her femininity. But the other woman who delights in submission and being beaten, then beating is her remedy. So the Qur`anic command: `banish them to their couches, and beat them` agrees with the latest psychological findings in understanding the rebellious woman. This is one of the scientific miracles of the Qur`an because it sums up volumes of the science of psychology about rebellious women.``[65]
The above two quotations state that the Qur`anic injunction to beat the perverted masochist woman will cure her from her disorder. But will it rather increase her perversion by giving her the pleasure she sought? Will giving alcohol to the alcoholic be his remedy too? And why beat the sadist wife? Why not let her have her own way too, like the masochistic one? Why not let her beat and torture others?

Even if this treatment is of benefit to the minority of women who are perverted, does this justify the command to beat the wife who rebels for any and every reason?

Whether or not the beating of wives is justified, this is the man`s right, and his alone.

The man who fears rebelliousness in his wife must admonish her first. If that does not work, the husband has the right to desert her sexually. If that does not work either, he has the right to beat her.

Sayyed Qotb explains the dynamics of deserting the wife sexually if admonishing her does not work:


``Here comes the second phase ... the man has to make a superior psychological move against all her attraction and beauty, by banishing her to her couch, for the couch (the bed) is the place of temptation and enticement, where the rebellious woman reaches the summit of her power. If the man can conquer his disposition against her temptation, then he has disarmed her from her sharpest and most treasured weapon.``[66]
Another scholar reiterating the above said:


``This sexual desertion is a remedy that curbs the rebelliousness of the woman, and humiliates her pride, in that which she treasures most, her femininity ... thus inflicting the most humiliating defeat on the woman. ``[67]
The man then has the right to desert his wife sexually and beat her, if he fears rebelliousness in her.

The woman, however, can not resort to such measures, if she fears rebelliousness in her husband, as is clear from the following verse:


``If a woman fears rebelliousness or aversion in her husband, there is no fault in them if the couple set things right between them; right settlement is better.``[68]
It is clear from Q. 4:128 & Q. 4:34 that the Qur`an commands diplomacy when a woman fears rebelliousness in her husband. But when the man fears rebelliousness in his wife, the Qur`an commands the use of force and sexual desertion.

Bukhari gives an example of the wife`s options if she fears cruelty or desertion on her husband`s part in the following Hadith:

``... narrated `Aisha (regarding the verse:- `If a wife fears cruelty or desertion on her husband`s part...) It concerns the woman whose husband does not want to keep her with him any longer, but wants to divorce her and marry some other lady, so she says to him: `Keep me and do not divorce me, and then marry another woman, and you may neither spend on me, nor sleep with me.` This is indicated by the statement of Allah:- `There is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable set tlement between them both, and such settlement is better.```[69] (emphasis added)

So according to Bukhari`s sound Hadith, the recommended amicable settlement for the woman who fears cruelty or desertion on her husband`s part, is to submit to her husband`s will to marry another woman, and to forego her financial and sexual rights.

Beating the rebellious wife is the last resort before divorcing her. She must be admonished first. If that does not work, the husband has the right to desert her sexually. The Qur`anic injunction to consort with women kindly is not inconsistent with beating the rebellious wife and sexually deserting her, this beating is included and part of the scope of the kind treatment. The prophet himself, who was the kindest of all Muslims to his wives, deserted them all sexually for one month.[70] Imam Ghazali puts it this way: ``There is wickedness and weakness in women. Diplomacy and harshness is the remedy of wickedness, kindness and gentleness is the remedy of weakness.``[71]

In contrast to the way a husband can treat his wife, in Islam children are required to treat their mothers with utmost respect according to the following two Hadiths:


Abu Hurairah reported that a man came to the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) and asked: ``O Messenger of Allah, who is the person who has the greatest right on me with regards to kindness and attention?`` He replied, ``Your mother.`` ``Then who?`` He replied, ``Your mother.`` ``Then who?`` He replied, ``Your mother.`` ``Then who?`` He replied, ``Your father.``
And


``Paradise is under the feet of mothers.``
Dr. Suhaib Hasan comments on the latter:


The [above] hadith with this wording is da`if, but its meaning is contained in the hadith of Ibn Majah and al-Nasa`i that a man came to the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and said, ``O Messenger of Allah! I intend to go on a (military) expedition, but I have come to ask your advice.`` He said, ``Is your mother alive?`` He said, ``Yes.`` He said, ``Then stay with her, for the Garden is under her feet.``[71a]
It is a fact that some mothers deserve the lowest place in hell. It is logical then that Paradise is not under the feet of every mother. The statement ``the Garden is under her feet`` was said in regard to a particular woman, who probably was known to Mohammad for her uprightness.

Furthermore, the fact that Muhammad did not command every one of his fighting men to stay at home if their mothers were still alive makes it clear that this was not a general principle but refered to a specific woman who possibly was old and in need of the care of her (only?) son.

Even if that Hadith is sahih, it must be noted that both hadiths do focus on mothers in particular, not women in general. Both Hadiths exclude wives who have no children and of course single women.

It must be noted also that both Hadith regulate the specific relationship between children and mothers, not the relationship between husband and wife. So while a son is required to give his mother the utmost respect, the husband of this mother still has the right to desert her, and beat her if he ``fears rebelliousness`` on her part.

Some other Hadiths that are often quoted in order to counterbalance the many Hadiths that enumerate men`s rights are the following:


The best of you is he who is best to his wife.[71b]
The best of you are those who are best to their ahl, meaning spouses and children. And I am the best of you to my family.[71c]

These Hadiths must be viewed in the light of the facts of history. It is a fact that ``Mohammad deserted his wives for a whole month.``[71d] At one occasion he also called both Aisha and Hafsa ``the Companions of Joseph`` which is a very derogatory term.[71e] He also intended to divorce Sawda for no reason except that she became old (Ibn Kathir commenting on Q. 4:128). Mohammad`s superiority as a husband did not prevent him from exercising his rights as a Muslim man.



2. MEN MAY MARRY UP TO FOUR FREE WOMEN AND HAVE SEX WITH AN UNLIMITED NUMBER OF SLAVE GIRLS

A provision is made for men to marry more than one woman as follows:


``If you fear you can not treat orphans (girls) with fairness, then you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three or four of them. But if you fear that you can not maintain equality among them, marry only one or any slave girls you may own. This will make it easier for you to avoid injustice.``[72]

Some however have argued that since maintaining equality is impossible, then marrying more than one wife is not permissible using the following verse:


``Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially. Do not set yourself altogether against any of them.``[73]

But the majority of the commentators agreed that


The equality in Q. 4:3 is concerned with apportioning time and money, while the equality mentioned in Q. 3:129 is concerned with the affection and love of the man towards his wives.[74]

They further argued that Mohammad himself was not impartial in his affections towards his wives, for he loved `A`isha more than any of his wives.[75] So as long as the husband can be fair in apportioning his time and money he can marry up to four.

Others believe the number is limited to nine wives, as two and three and four make nine, and Mohammad himself when he passed away had nine wives, and to follow his tradition is the commended way of living.[76]

Others believe that the above verse is the proof for an unlimited number of wives, because the verse does not say two or three or four but literally says two and three and four, meaning two and three and four etc.[77] The majority believe the number of wives the man may marry to be limited to four, because of the reported Hadith about a man who had ten wives. When he became a Muslim, Mohammad said to him : `Keep four, and leave the rest.`[78]

The reason for marrying more than one woman is given by Ghazali the great Muslim scholar:


``Some men have such a compelling sexual desire that one woman is not sufficient to protect them [from adultery]. Such men therefore preferably marry more than one woman and may have up to four wives.``[79]

Besides the above provision men have the right to have sex with their slave girls.


``For if a man purchases a slave girl, the purchase contract includes his right to have sex with her.``[80] ``This contract is primarily to own her and secondarily to enjoy her sexually.``[81]

And the reason for having sex with the slave girls beside one`s wives is also given by Ghazali:


``Since among Arabs passion is an overpowering aspect of their nature, the need of their pious men to have sex has been found to be the more intense. And for the purpose of emptying the heart to the worship of God they have been allowed to have sex with women slaves if at some time they should fear that this passion will lead them to commit adultery. Though it is true that such action could lead to the birth of a child that will be a slave, which is a form of destruction,...yet enslaving a child is a lighter offence than the destruction of religious belief. For enslaving the new born is a temporary thing but by committing adultery eternity is lost.``[82]

Ghazali gives us an example of this overpowering sexual desire.


``The son of `Omar who was an ascetic, and a scholar, used to break his fast by having sex before having food. And he might have had sex with three of his slave girls before the last meal.``[83]

And Bukhari reported,


``The Prophet used to pass (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives.``[84]

For

``He once said of himself that he had been given the power of forty men in sex.``[85]


And

``Ali who was the most ascetic of all the companions had four wives, and seventeen slave girls as concubines.``[86]


While

``some of the other companions had three and four wives and those who had two wives were countless in number.``[87]


Concerning the provision for having sex with slave girls, found in the last part of the above Qur`anic verse, Razi said:


``God made the provision of having sex with many slave girls as easy as marrying one free woman. Besides, the responsibilities and provisions of the slave girls are lighter than those of the dowers, no matter (never mind) if you have a few of them or many, no matter if you were fair in apportioning your nights amongst them or not, no matter whether you completed the sexual act or not.``[88]

The commentator Qortobi sees in that verse (Q. 4:3) that slave girls used as such by the free Muslim man


``have neither sexual rights, nor financial rights. For God made the `one free woman` and the `slave girls you may own` of the same category. The man however owes the slave girls the appropriate rights of ownership, and the kindness that befits slaves.``[89]

So because ``the need of the pious men to have sex was found to be the more intense, and for the purpose of emptying the heart for the worship of God`` they have been allowed to marry up to four women and have sex with an unlimited number of slave girls even if this provision may lead to ``the birth of a child that will be a slave, which is a form of destruction.``

3. MAN`S RIGHT TO DIVORCE HIS WIFE

Divorce is recognised by most societies as a horrible thing. It is viewed as such in Islam except that it is viewed as a lawful course of action. The Hadith states, ``The most detestable of lawful things near Allah is divorce.``[90]

The power to divorce usually resides in the hand of the man. Bukhari reported a Hadith that shows how easy the detestable and lawful act can be.


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.```[91]
It can even happen against the will, and the love of the husband and the wife concerned.


``The son of `Omar reported: I had a wife under me whom I loved but whom `Omar disliked. He told me: `Divorce her`. But I refused. Then `Omar came to the Messenger of Allah and notified it to him. The messenger of Allah told me: `Divorce her`.``[92] (Quoted by Tirmizi and Abu Daud)
4. MAN`S PRIVILEGES IN THE CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

Man is the privileged party in cases of custody of the children. Gaziri a modern scholar in Islamic Law wrote:


The Hanafites, who form the largest Muslim group, said ``The conditions of the custody of the children is as follows. First the wife should not reject Islam. If she rejects Islam, she has no right to the custody of the children. Second, she must be of good character for if it was proven that she is corrupted by illicit sex, or theft, or has a low trade such as a professional mourner, or a dancer, she loses her right to custody. Third, she is not allowed to marry anyone except the father of the child. If she remarries, she has no right to custody, unless her new husband is related to the child as a paternal uncle. But if she marries a foreigner she has no right to custody. Fourthly, she must not leave the child without supervision. Especially if the child is a female, because females need protection. So if the mother had to go outside for a long period and so neglect her child, she has no right to the custody of the child. Fifthly, if the father is poor, and the mother refused the custody of the child except for payment, and his aunty said `I will look after him for free`, then the aunt will have the right to the custody of the child. To follow the religion of Islam is not a condition to the right to custody, for if the husband is married to one of the people of the Book, she has the right to custody as long as he is safe from apostasy, or corruption. But if that is not so, such as he saw her taking the child to a church, or feeding him pigs meat, or giving him wine, then the father has the right to take the child from her, and sanity is a pre-requisite that is agreed upon by all.``[93]
As to the period of custody, Gazirir added


``the Hanafites said, the mother has the rights to the custody of the boy until he is seven years old. Others said ``Until he is nine``. But the first opinion is the one that is legally accepted. For the girl there are two opinions. The first until she menstruates. The second until she reaches the age of puberty which was set to be nine years old. This is what is accepted legally.``[94]
The mother can have the child for the most difficult years where she wakes up at night to feed and change nappies and toilet train etc. then the father can take over when the child is capable of being a help instead of needing help.

5. MEN IN PARADISE WILL ENJOY SEX WITH PERPETUALLY EXQUISITE VIRGIN WOMEN.

Muslim men are entitled to several wives in this life. In Paradise, they are further rewarded with additional women - perfect in beauty.

Mu`az reported from the messenger of Allah who said:


``A woman does not give trouble to her husband in this world but his wife of the pure-eyed virgin ones [huris] does not say to her: `Do not give him trouble. May Allah destroy you, He is only a passing guest with you and it is very near that he will soon leave you to come to us`.``[95]
The editor of Mishkat wrote in a footnote to that tradition:


``No woman should give trouble and anxiety to her husband. She is to give him ease and comfort in the household. If she acts otherwise, she will not be able to be his mate in Paradise. There the pure-eyed virgin girls will be his consorts.``
For the Qur`an promises godfearing men, beautiful women in Paradise. The following are their descriptions:


``Lo! those [men] who kept their duty will be in a place secure amid gardens