Allah in the Quran, Chapter 86

 

Chapter 86

ALLAH AND WOMEN

 

001 Women are far out in the periphery for the Quran, and not much is written about them in that book - after all Islam is a religion for men, and primarily for the robber, suppressor, and warrior. If you omit what is written about women as pleasure things for men or servants/wives for men, our educated guess is that less than 1% of the texts in the Quran is specifically about women - 50% of humanity.

002 Here are some samples of what you find about women in that book - and you will find they are quite representative. Also remember the houris (in reality sex slaves) and the slaves - 2/3 of at least the slaves from Africa were children and women, mainly for harems (to the Americas 2/3 were men for work (also the women imported to USA mainly were for work, though many cases of sexual disuse happened)).

####### Another - and serious - point is that to "explain" that the Quran means something different from what it really says, is to corrupt it.

Also: What is sure, is that no god ever made a holy book as full of wrong facts, other errors, contradictions, unclear language, etc. like the Quran. #### Besides: Which one of the 20-30 known versions accepted by Islam of the Quran (see 15/9c) - if any (and there were even more versions through the times) - is in case the correct one?

Finally: Always when you read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic books, you should remember that Muhammad accepted the use of and himself used dishonesty in many forms in words and deeds. Even if the names are younger, it was he who institutionalized dishonesty like al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie), Kitman (the lawful half-truth), Hilah (the lawful pretending/circumventing), the use of deceit ("war is deceit" - and "everything" is war), betrayal (f.x. the peace delegation from Khaybar), and even the disuse of oaths (2/225, 5/89, 16/91, 66/2 - and the star case 3/54 (if Allah could cheat, cheating is ok)), which also includes the disuse of words and promises, as they are weaker than oaths = when oaths can be disused, so can words and promises. On top of this it is very clear from the Quran and all other central Islamic books, that Muhammad also liked respect and power and women. Combine these lusts with his acceptance of and personal use of dishonesty - even the gravest kinds: How reliable are that kind of men normally? - and how true and reliable are their never proved claims and tales?

Well, one more point - a thought provoker:

It takes a certain kind of unfeeling and selfish men to rape women - and this even more so when the men are from a culture and a religion making it very clear how destructive "casual" sex is to women. All the same rape is very common by Muslim men when there are occasions "permitting" it - and sometimes else. This results in babies with DNA from their fathers - and thus with a possible tendency to do like their fathers. Good Muslim men normally do not rape, mostly the degenerated ones do. This means that there will be more babies from degenerated/unfeeling/selfish men. This has now been the case for 1400 years - only during the war between Pakistan and Bangladesh, the Pakistani soldiers raped at least 200ooo Muslim - Muslim - women. #######Can this have had a degenerative effect on the average DNA and inborn mentality of Muslims? F.x. a small added effect on the selfishness, inhumanity, or brutality, etc.?

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

003 2/224d: "And do not make Allah's (name) an excuse in your oaths against - - - making peace between persons - - -." Break your oath if you find this will give a better result. Pay expiation if you think this is necessary. In cases of making peace - and also f.x. when you want to cheat women - also al-Taqiyya (the lawful lie) and Kitman (the lawful half-truth), etc. are permitted, if you think this will give better result than honesty.

004 4/127a: “They ask thy (Muhammad’s*) instruction concerning women. Say: Allah doth instruct you about them: and (remember) what hath been rehearsed unto you in the Book, concerning the orphans of women to whom ye give not the portions prescribed, and yet whom ye want to marry, as also concerning the children who are weak and oppressed: that ye stand firm for justice to orphans". Some of the background for the sharia laws.

005 4/127b: “They ask thy (Muhammad’s*) instruction concerning women. Say: Allah doth instruct you about them - - -”. Treat them like the Quran instructs you. The Quran has no instruction the other way round, though. Besides: Even if the Quran is not too bad against woman in some ways, in other ways the “instructions” in the Quran are such that no man would accept it for himself - - - and no human should demand that other humans have to live under conditions he will refuse himself, and especially not that his closest family - wife and daughters - should be forced to live like that. Also: In spite of what Muslims like to claim, Islam represented a step towards the worse for women most places - they refer to strict rules in Mecca, and "forget" that women most places were much freer than in Mecca. Even in Medina they were better off until Islam took over. (F.x. some of Muhammad's nearest co-workers from Mecca complained about the freedom of the women in Medina, according to Hadiths.)

###006 7/28b: “Allah never commands what is shameful - - -.” This is contradicted by several points in the Quran, f.x.:

  1. 2/230: “If a husband divorces his wife (irrevocably), he cannot, after that, remarry her until after she has married another husband and he has divorced her.” This situation is not common, but it does happen in a culture where divorce is so easy as in Islam. In Islam the woman then has to prostitute herself in legal forms, to be permitted to remarry her original husband (the intermediate marriage has to be a “fulfilled" one).
  2. Enslaving is “lawful and good”.
  3. Killing and murdering and war are not only "lawful and good", but the best service to Allah.
  4. A raped woman who cannot produce 4 male witnesses to the very act, is to be punishes severely for unlawful sex. Similar goes for boys/men homosexually raped.
  5. Allah commands/permits sex with children. For an adult to enjoy sex with a child is utterly shameful. For an adult to introduce a child to sex is inhuman and even more shameful. Muhammad even demonstrated that it was ok at least from the girl is 9 – and worse: She – Aishah - became his favorite wife the rest of her childhood.
  6. Allah commands that one can take slaves in a jihad - and any skirmish or war where Muslims are involved, mostly is declared jihad. For centuries (till ca. 1930 – 1940) all the four law schools of Islam said that if the opposite parts were pagans, this was good enough reason to declare jihad – which means that at least theoretically any slave hunter in Africa or Asia could claim to be waging jihad. To force fellow humans to become slaves, to toil for free for you, to be free for you to sell or mistreat or use for a sex toy, is utterly inhuman, utterly selfish, utterly immoral – and utterly shameful. Not to mention that it is a grotesque act to commit in the name of a presumed god and benevolent good.
  7. To rape a child captive/slave/victim is grotesquely selfish, immoral, inhuman and grotesquely shameful - - - but Allah has commanded that it is ok if the child is mot pregnant - and over 9 years according to Islam (the age of Aishah when Muhammad started to have sex with her - anything Muhammad did is just and right).
  8. To rape any woman prisoner/slave/victim – a fellow human being – is nearly as selfish and shameful and bad as raping a child. But in the Quran it is “good and lawful” if the woman is not pregnant. That it is "lawful and good" may be a reason why rape is so common by Muslim warriors/soldiers. (Another possible reason is that empathy is not an integrated part of Islam - and the same with moral philosophy).
  9. To murder opponents – also personal opponents (Muhammad even had one killed in the Kabah - so much for its holiness when it conflicted with – in the name of a presumably good god is something much more than shameful.
  10. To incite to discrimination, hate and war, in the name of a presumably good god is even worse than this again – and a proof for a god or a “prophet” full of hypocrisy.
  11. To steal/rob/plunder and extort in the name of such a god – and with his permission as “good and lawful” - is nearly a bad and as much hypocrisy as raping and killing and apartheid/suppression. And to do so in the name of a god, makes the god, the religion and the acts even more perverted and distasteful. But all these points have this in common:
    1. They attract selfish warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    2. They attract greedy warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    3. They attract inhuman warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    4. They attract primitive warriors to a robber “prophet’s” army – and to his successors’.
    5. It is a cheap way for a robber “prophet” – and for his successors – to get an army. A cheap army and an inhuman army.

Finally: Severe or capital punishment for a woman who has been raped, but is unable to produce 4 male eye witnesses to the very act, most likely is the most inhuman, most immoral, most unjust, and most shameful law we have ever come across in any at least half civilized religion or culture, and Allah/Muhammad has introduced this law.

007 10/31b: "(Allah*) brings out the living from the dead - - -". This is one of the interesting claims, as the Quran frequently repeats things like this, but there never was a proof - only words, and words are very cheap. Whereas Yahweh/Jesus proved their power over death according to both the Quran (5/110) and the Bible (f.x. 1. Kings 17/22, 2. Kings 4/34-35, Matt. 9/25 and 27/52, Luke 7/15, John 11/44, Acts 9/40, and Acts 20/10 - not to mention Jesus himself).

008 16/72a: “And Allah has made for you mates - - -”. To be a bit flippant: Some men and many women think their mate is not from a god, but from a devil. But at least: Let us see Islam’s proof for this being true - it is not proved it is an act of Allah.

009 24/33c: "But if anyone compels them (slave women*), yet, after such compulsion, is Allah Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)". Women who were forced to prostitution, did not sin - they were forced to do it. But it tells something that Islam needed such a verse - - - and that the omnipotent and predestining Allah can permit or predestine such things. ###Yes, if the Quran is correct and Allah really decides and predestines everything, he even predestines and decides that forced prostitution is to happen.

010 33/33i: "- - - Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you (Muhammad's women, included his wives*) - - -". Does this private matter (included trouble with Muhammad's women) belong in a holy book sanctified and revered by a god? - or in a religion?

011 33/37g: "- - - We (Allah*) joined her (Zaid's wife Zainab*) in marriage to thee (Muhammad*): in order that (in future) there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the matter of) marrying with the wives of their adopted sons (after divorce - widows not mentioned*)". This is perhaps the thinnest excuse we have ever heard for a serious selfish deed.

  1. For one thing: Is this a situation which happens so often that it merits a dramatic demonstration?
  2. For another: Many a doubter would be willing to bet that if Muhammad had not been "hot" on this woman, this old Arab law - forbidden to marry your adopted son's former wife - had existed today.
  3. For a third and the main point: A verse from Allah had had JUST the same effect.

Hypocrisy.

012 33/38a: "There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah has indicated him to do (here: To marry Zaid's wife Zainab)". Anyone able to believe Muhammad married her because it was a duty, are permitted to do so - but it will tell a lot about their brain. Also see 33/37i just above.

013 33/38d: "- - - what Allah has indicated to him (Muhammad*) as a duty (to marry Zaynab*) - - -". More too easy to see hypocrisy. See 33/37g+i above.

And: How did this story end up in a book claimed to be written before Earth was created?

014 33/54b: "- - - Allah has full knowledge of all things." The old reminder and warning - here connected to: Do not have sex with my widows (33/53). A self centered man? But also see 2/233h above. But what is sure is that if Allah has sent down the Quran, he far from knows all things - and much of what he in case believed was wrong.

015 37/48a: “And beside them (Muslims*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty)”. The famed houris – for free use. And what use did primitive – and for that case some other – men think of? Hardly of polite and intellectual conversation.

There is no place in the Quran mentioned one single thought about how Paradise is for the houris. The Quran seldom cares about the life and feelings of others than the main persons – the male Muslim, preferably a warrior. Houris, slave woman, slaves, servants, and others - even to a large degree the free(?) Muslim women: Just things for the brave warrior to use and to serve him. Things.

Also remember that the deep differences between the reasons for joy in Yahweh's Paradise compared to in Allah's Paradise, are one of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

016 37/48b: “And besides them (Muslim men in Paradise*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty).” These are the famous houris that are to comfort Muslim men in Paradise. And what comfort did primitive – and for that case some other – men think of? The women are solely for man’s pleasure in Paradise, too, (well, on Earth they also are for giving him sons). Nothing is said in the Quran about where the houris come from, nothing is said about how they like to be in the harems of often rough, uneducated and primitive – and naïve? – warriors - - - and also nothing is said about how the wives enjoy the competition. Only what the man likes counts.

There as mentioned is another mystery: From where did the houris come? – and what were they. A theory that the early Muslims – f.x. Hasan al-Basri - believed, is that they were women who had lived a pious and good life on Earth. Of necessity they could not have been married (or married to men who ended in Hell?), because married women followed their husbands – it is not said which one if they had been married more times, but perhaps the last one). But how many such single women existed compared to the millions of warriors that had a right to up to 72 each? And how did such women like to be sex slaves for often rough and self centered and primitive men – was it a Paradise for them too, or - - -? Another theory was/is that they were girls who died as babies or unmarried children - but then they in case should belong to their father's household in Paradise. And the same question: How many children died compared to how many houris needed as gifts to warrior and terrorists?

##017 37/48c: “And besides them (Muslim men in Paradise*) will be chaste women, restraining their glances, with big eyes (of wonder and beauty).” This is one of the 200% sure proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same gods: Their paradises are universes (see 51/47c) apart - mentally and morally. Allah: Beautiful, obedient women, good food and drinks, shade and plenty of water, and laziness, etc. (little is said about women's paradise). Yahweh: You become like angels (f.x. Mark 12/25).

If they had been the same god, their Paradise had been one and the same.

018 37/149b: "- - - is it that thy (Muslims'*) Lord (Allah*) has (only) daughters, and they have sons." In a very masculine world it was an argument that Allah could not have something so without value like daughters - - - but Islam pretends to be for all the world, and daughters were valuable in many parts of the world. Would a universal god use arguments valid only in parts of the world? Besides, according to the Bible he had a son - Jesus (if Yahweh and Allah had been the same one).

019 38/52b: “And beside them will be chaste women, restraining their glances, (companions) of equal age.” In the Bible the resurrected ones are above such things as sex, which here is the clear indication; "they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage" but "are like angels" (f.x. Luke 20/35-36), not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). And also not to mention: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12/25). One of the 100+% proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god.

020 43/16a: "What! Has He (Allah*) taken daughters - - -". In the pagan old Arabia the 3 main goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat and also the angels were reckoned to be the daughters of the main god, al-Lat/Allah, whom Muhammad later took for his god, named him only Allah, and declared he was the only real god (out of some 300 - 400 or more in the old Arabia - there were 360 only in the Kabah until Muhammad threw out all of them except al-Lah/Allah).

021 43/16b: "What! Has He (Allah*) taken daughters out of what He himself creates, and granted to you (Arabs*) sons for choice?" In the old Arabia daughters had so low esteem that Muhammad could use this as an argument - a god impossibly could want daughters! But many places is the world women were not reckoned to be that invalid (actually not many places the world over was as bad for women as in Mecca and a few other places), and some places they even were valuable - matriarchates or valuable as brides (= money to the parents many places) or as partners for the man in the toil for the daily food. Islam claims Allah is god for the entire world. Would a universal god use arguments which would not be universally understood? - here simply an Arabism -(this is far from the only such case where mainly Arabs would understand the point).

022 43/70-71: “Enter ye the Garden, ye and your wives, in (beauty and) rejoicing. To them will be passed round, dishes and goblets of gold: there will be all that the souls could desire, all that the eyes could delight in - - -”. Like the richest ones in Arabia – and with plenty of fruits to eat according to 43/73. Is earthlike luxury (and sex) all an omnipotent god has to offer in his Paradise?

One of the strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - if they had been, their paradises had been the same one.

And what if the wife - and/or children - did not qualify for the same garden in the same of the 7 heavens? Could f.x. those of Muhammad's children who died as babies or infants merit the same level in the Paradise as the claimed top prophet(?) Muhammad?

###023 44/54a: “- - - and We (Allah*) shall join them to Companions with beautiful, big, and lustrous eyes.” Women as payment for "good deeds" like stealing, suppressing, torturing, killing. Some moral code and some view on women - slaves/things to use for gifts or payment. Not in the Bible. One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - their paradises are utterly different. If they had been the same god, their Paradise had been one and the same. See f.x. Luke 20/36, not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). And also not to mention: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12/25).

##024 52/20b: “- - - and We (Allah*) shall join them to Companions, with beautiful big and lustrous eyes.” The famous houris. Like 37/48 and 42/25 above – see them. The introduction of houris by Muhammad into Islam seems to come from old Persian pagan religion, where they were named paaris.

One of the really strong proofs for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god - their paradises are too different. And the fact that Jesus prohibited polygamy in any form - and also rape (sex where the woman/houri must do it against her will and wish) - is one of the really strong proofs for that Jesus and Muhammad did not belong to the same religion, not to mention the same line of prophets.

025 55/56a: "In them (the gardens of Paradise*) will be (Maidens), restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before has touched". A nice Paradise for primitive men - and women does not count much in the Quran - but totally different from Yahweh's Paradise - only this verse proves so formidable difference to Yahweh (see f.x. Luke 20/36 , not to mention: "For the Kingdom of God/Yahweh is not a matter of eating and drinking (or sex*) - - -", (Rom.14/17). And also not to mention: "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven" (Mark 12/25)) that this alone proves Yahweh and Allah cannot be the same god - and then there are all the other differences in addition.

026 55/56b: “In them (the Gardens of Paradise*) will be fair (Companions (houris*)), good, beautiful - - -.” Houris are a bit special kind of women, but the “fact” that they are given to the men arriving in Paradise as repayment for good (?) deeds, tells miles about Islam’s view of women. The servile nature of the houris – the ideal women – in the descriptions, also tells volumes about Islam’s point of view on how women shall behave.

There is no explanation in Islam from where the houris come - they simply are there. But the idea about houris as reward in paradise for warriors, it seems Muhammad has "borrowed" from the old Persian pagan religion - see 55/56e below (nearly everything in Islam is borrowed from somewhere, and strangely(?) enough only from in and around Arabia - Allah had few, if any new ideas or ideas from other parts of Earth for his religion).

027 55/56c: "- - - (Maidens), chaste - - - whom no man or Jinn before them (the Muslims in Paradise*) has touched - - -". The houris are virgins at arrival, but hardly for a long time.

Compare this to f.x. Matt.22/30: "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven". 200+% sure that Yahweh and Allah do not run the same paradise, and thus are not the same god. And as these are the words of Jesus: As sure that Jesus and Muhammad do not belong in the same moral world neither in this nor in a possible next life. A lot of things in this world are not true even if they are repeated often - f.x. that Jesus and Muhammad belong to the same line of prophets (in addition to that Muhammad was no real prophet - he had not the gift of prophesying).

028 65/1b: “O Prophet! When ye (also all other Muslims*) divorce women - - -". What Muslims never mention, is that Muhammad had at least 16 short-time wives (see the chapter about Muhammad and his women - at least 36 - in www.1000mistakes.com), and divorced each of them. NT on the other hand does not really accept divorce (f.x. Matt. 5/32) - and polygamy not at all. One more proof for that Yahweh and Allah are not the same god, and a 100%+ for that Jesus and Muhammad is not in the same religion or in any line of anything religiously essential.

28 comments. Sub-total = 9882 + 28 = 9910.


>>> Go to  Next Chapter

>>> Go to  Previous Chapter

This work was upload with assistance of M. A. Khan, editor of islam-watch.org and the author of "Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery".