Islam and Discrimination.

Preface:

Being born in a traditional Muslim Bangladeshi family and growing up in Muslim dominating society I have seen inner and outer part of Muslim society in Bangladesh. Going to Madrasha (An Islamic institution run by Imams to teach Quran and Islamic lifestyle) to learn Quran was an automatic choice. I learned how to read Quran in Arabic without even understanding what was in it. As five years old boy I learned how I was not allowed to ask about Gods existences and question anything that might go against teaching of Islam. There was only one rule “Do not dare asking but believe”. I grew seeing religious leaders giving hate speech against non-Muslims, LGBT community, Woman. It is a very popular trend in Bangladesh still highly practiced and unchallenged.

It is hard to get any statement from Imams against eve-teasing, treatment of woman in Bangladeshi society. Most of the speeches given in Mhafil ( Big gathering for prayer) contains provocating hate speech.

In my teenage I started learning about “khilafah” ( A model Islamic system to run a country). I get to learn about the rules and regulations of a model Islamic state. Understanding the khilafah has raised a lot of question in my mind. I found it so difficult that how could religion be so discriminating, self-contradictory, unbalanced and clearly differs from common sense.

I believe religion created more difference between human races than anything else. If the purpose of any religion was to create peace in the world, have any of them been able to do so? No matter what preacher’s claims the truth religion divided us more than uniting us.

Bangladeshi society is no different than other nation in the world. It has been even worse in our culture. We already carry a history of class war and domination, religion just fuelled this more.

And off course our politician has taken full advantage of that. For years politician has been using religious sentiment to gain votes. Before every General election (it’s a common scenario in our country) we see our cult leaders going to Hajj and wearing religious outfit. Religious extremism seen as bravery and appreciated by most of the people of the country.

In this writing I am going to point out some serious issues in Islam and how it’s polluting our society and dominating our everyday life in this country. In 8 chapters of this books I am going to talk about Gender and social discrimination, LGBT rights, slave owing rules, Punishment for non-Muslims, Kafirs (non-believers) treatment under model Islamic state, land/property distribution regulation in Islam, Polygamy and treatment of war prisoners and women’s of war in Islam and also freedom of speech in Islam as well.

This is more of a research paper then my independent thought unlike my other books. I tried to point out Quranic verses and Hadiths about my concern subjects.

Chapter 1

Gender Discrimination

“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.” Quran 4:34.

All too often, textual reality (the Quran) matches up with the historical reality of seventh—century Arabia. Gender inequality and oppression in the Quran reflect the culture of seventh century desert nomads. This is exactly what we can see in our society today. Our woman mainly stays home, do household work and doing so is an obligation. This is highly practiced in Bangladeshi urban life. Even though few of our women are allowed to work (If lucky enough) this days after years of oppression form all part of the society they still continue doing everyday household work and make sure husband and rest of the family gets food ready on dinner table on time. I personally know so many of our woman still being punished, threatened with divorces and physically and verbally abused for working in offices or working at all. Garments and NGO workers(women) seen as lower class and always been abused and teased cause they dare working against all the odds that religious society created for woman in this country.

Marital and child rape is hidden cancer is our society. What does Islam says???

“If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angles send their curses on her till morning” (Bhukhari)

A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

“Your woman are your fields,so go into your fields whichever way you like”

It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that ‘a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.’
Not much of a choice left for a Muslim woman is it? Just cause they happen to be born different to man.

Although at some point Quran views woman and man equally in human dignity but this spiritual and ethical equality has not been reflected in Muslim laws. At some point it’s completely contradictory. As I mentioned earlier verse 4:34 limits the movement, right to speak, right of education and access to economic opportunities and independence. Bangladeshi society has taken full advantage of this and created an awful situation for our woman in this country.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

“Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status”

Muhammad Said

“Most of the inhabitants of hell is Woman” and also

“Evil omen is in three things the horse, the woman and the house” (Bhukhari).

This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness off course!

In Islam women’s witness has half of a man evident by this verse in Quran:

“And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents

[contracts of loans without interest]

. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.” Surah 2:228.

The foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may ‘forget’ something. This verse goes to the nature of womankind, and implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’ (Bhukari)

Muhammad’s special marriage privileges

Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre—Islamic days of ignorance.

The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:

“O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave—girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers.”

This verse says that besides those women whose dowry Muhammad paid, he may marry slave girls, he may have sex with them. Maududi (An Pakistani scholar and politician, founder of Jammat-e-islam Bangladesh) references three slave girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave girls.

But the capstone of these ‘special’ marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex—wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son in law divorced her with the Prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter in law in a state of undress so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah conveniently reveals to him that this marriage between father in law and daughter in law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36—44.

Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether Islam actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’ (Bhukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right—hand Companion:

‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’ (Muslim)

Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617,)

Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:

Therefore, making mention of the waiting—period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran—believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

The hadith says:

. . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bhukhari)

This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.

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. (Bhukhari)

This hadith recounts the fifty plus year old Muhammad’s and the nine year old Aisha’s first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.

. . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girlfriends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bhukhari)

This hadith describes Muhammad counselling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.

When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, ‘What type of lady have you married?’ I replied, ‘I have married a matron.’ He said, ‘Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?’ Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’  (Bhukhari)

This hadith describes Muhammad’s and Aisha’s ill timed sexual encounters:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bhukhari)

All this statements and examples from earlier of Islam has a very serious amplification is today’s Bangladeshi society. Even though we have three women leading our big three political party nothing has changed at all. We still see high rate of eve-teasing, abusing woman, rape (including marital and child). According to UN crime states Bangladesh stands on 30th out of 96 countries. This supposed to be low in a model Islamic society!? Not to forget we belong to a country where 89.2% urban men agrees or strongly agrees with a statement “if a women doesn’t physically fight back it’s not a RAPE”!!!

While I am writing this article hate speech against woman is being preached, this Quranic verses and hadiths are being read all over the country unchallenged and with pride. People of Islam are being told what consequences this world has to pay for giving women’s equal rights. How women’s are going to be elements of hell fire. Our society sees working women as distracted and spoiled. We hardly see any women driver in this country. Hidden sharia laws is being practiced in our society, women are being punished, abused everyday and hardly gets in the limelight of media. Discrimination against women is not news worthy!! It’s a everyday thing in Bangladesh.

Child marriage is in practice even though its illegal by country law. But still highly practiced in all over the country including big cities Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Sylhet.

Chapter 2

LGBT Rights in Islam

Islam treats homosexuality as a crime instead of a sin. Is that the best policy?

The Quran

This section of my writing analyzes two Quranic passages, which are the foundation for later hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on how to punish homosexuals. However, as we shall see, the Quran is unclear on homosexuality in its legal punishments, but not in its immorality.

Sura 7:80-84

While living in Mecca before his Hijrah in AD 622, Muhammad does not seem to have decreed an official punishment for homosexuals. However, he frequently told stories about Lot, who lived in Sodom. This passage in Sura 7, representing others in Meccan suras (chapters), was revealed late in Mecca, but scholars are rarely confident about the precise date of Meccan suras or chapters in the Quran.

In any case, this general assessment of Muhammad’s time in Mecca is beyond dispute: he was undergoing strong persecution at the hands of the Meccans, so he was warning them of divine judgments in the past. If Allah wreaked death and destruction on his enemies after he sent messengers to warn them in days of old, then he may judge the Meccans for opposing the best and final prophet—Muhammad. Sura 7:80-81 and 84 reads:

[7:80] And We sent Lot as a Messenger: Remember that he said to his people, “Have you become so shameless that you commit such indecent acts as no one has committed before you in the world? [81] You gratify your lust with men instead of women: indeed you are a people who transgress the limits!” . . . [84] And We rained upon his people; then behold what happened in the end to the guilty ones! (Maududi,The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 2, p. 45)

In general terms this passage condemns homosexuality because it “transgresses the limits” of nature. The punishment for the inhabitants of Sodom was a rainstorm, “We rained upon his people,” which is based on Genesis 18 and 19. Suras 11:82 and 15:74 say dry clay was rained on Sodom.

From these Quranic verses and others on Lot and some hadith passages (hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran), legal scholars have come up with punishments for sodomy, which we explore below in the section “Classical legal rulings.”

Sura 4:15-16

Sura 4:15-16 has caused much debate over its meaning. We first analyze the historical and literary contexts. Sayyid A’La Abul Maududi (d. 1979), whose translation we used, above, was an Indo-Pakistani who worked hard at establishing a theocracy in Pakistan through the Jamaat-i-Islami Party. He is highly respected traditional commentator who says that this sura, itself titled “Women,” was revealed at different times, but still in the timeframe of AD 625 to 626, in Medina, for Muhammad has already emigrated. He is establishing his Muslim community in the face of opposition and adverse circumstances, though Islam manages to overcome them. Verse 34 fits into the framework of vv. 1-35, which sees the specific establishment of rules for the family. For instance, in the aftermath of the Battle of Uhud in 625, in which the Muslims lost a lot of men, Muhammad says that orphans should be given their property and not to replace their good things with bad, which means to deal fairly and wisely with their assets (vv. 1-6). Also, he discusses the rules for inheriting property, such as one son having the share equal to two daughters or that a husband should inherent half of his wife’s property, unless they have children, in which case he inherits one-fourth (vv. 11-14).

We now come to the two target verses. MAS Abdel Haleem’s translation reads:

4:15 If any of your women commit a lewd act, call four witnesses from among you, then, if they testify to their guilt, keep the women at home until death comes to them or until God gives them another way out. 16 If two men commit a lewd act, punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone—God is ready to accept repentance from those who do evil out of ignorance and soon afterwards repent: these are the ones God will forgive. (The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

Does v. 15 refer to male-female sexual sin or to lesbianism? Does v. 15 refer to male-male sex? Commentators are divided. However, Haleem’s translation of v. 16 says that if two men commit a lewd act, implying homosexuality, they are to be punished, but this translation is still ambiguous.

This translation by Hilali and Khan, funded by the Saudi royal family, adds parenthetical glosses implied in the Arabic, but not original to it:

4:15 And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other way). 16 And the two persons (man and woman) among you commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both . . . . (The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 2002)

As to the women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, this translation of v. 15 reads the same way as Haleem’s. Are they committing the sin with men or with women? But this translation interprets v. 16 as the act occurring between a man and a woman.

Two prominent commentators reach different conclusions about the verses.

Maududi says that Sura 4:15-16 has nothing to do with homosexual acts, implying that Muhammad did not confront this unnatural crime, which is outside of normal life and is found under abnormal circumstances. Maududi notes that after the prophet’s death, the companions or his close followers never referred to these verses to adjudicate the crime of homosexuality (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 317, note 24).

Sayyid Qutb, the other commentator, was the godfather of modern jihadist movements who was executed in 1966 for trying to overthrow the Egyptian government. In a section titled “First Step Towards Eradicating Sexual Immorality” (wrongly implying that eradication is possible in the first place; see his next section, “A Perfectly Moral Society”), he agrees that the two women are committing lewd acts with men in v. 15—that is, he does not say that they are lesbians—but the two men who commit lewd acts are homosexuals in v. 16 (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 3, pp. 67-72)

Thus, according to Maududi and Qutb, confusion rules over v. 16 (homosexual sin), but not over v. 15 (heterosexual sin). Clarity is one of the frequent claims in the Quran, but this is untrue in this case. It is one thing for commentators to disagree on important topics, but these are the only two verses in which the topic of homosexuality may be dealt with in Medina, where Muhammad was constantly laying down the rules for sexual misconduct—but no clear guidance was offered in Sura 4:15-16.

Finally, the end of v. 15 says that men should confine the guilty women to their houses—house arrest in patriarchal Arab society—until death or Allah provides another way out. Qutb rightly notes that these clauses represent an interim ruling because the words “until God gives them another way out” (Haleem) is open-ended. And this is where Maududi and Qutb agree (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 317, note 26; Qutb, In the Shade of the Quran, vol. 3, pp. 68-71):

Sura 24:2 abrogates or cancels Sura 4:15-16. It should be recalled that 24:2 says that those who commit zina or sexual immorality generally (usually taken to mean fornication or non-marital sex in this verse) should be flogged. Reliable hadith that many scholars connect to 24:2 says that adulterers and adulteresses should be stoned to death. But if we isolate Sura 24:2 and its specific punishment for zina generally, then the judge has the option to flog a convicted homosexual, even though homosexuality is a special case, since it is regarded as an additionally unnatural sex act in Islamic law.

Qutb cites a hadith that shows how Muhammad received this revelation of a “way out” in Sura 4:15

. . . The Prophet used to be visibly affected every time revelations were bestowed on him from on high. His face changed and he looked ill at ease. One day, after he received revelations and he regained his color, he said: “Learn this from me. God has opened another way out for them, both in the case of a married man and a married woman and that of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. For the married, one hundred lashes and stoning, and for the unmarried one hundred lashes and exile for a year. (vol. 3, pp. 69-70; see Muslim vol. 3, p. 911, no. 4192)

Thus, the “way out” does not lead to forgiveness and restoration, but to flogging and stoning. Muhammad has raised sexual sin to a crime, which means that it must be criminally punished in the same way that theft and highway robbery are criminally punished. This policy is misguided—despite the dubious belief that it came from divine inspiration, though the excerpt from Qutb implies that it was channeled from the spirit world. However, Sura 24:2 does not clearly deal with homosexuality as such, so later Muslim jurists have to base their rulings on punishing this “crime” on general Quranic principles and on the hadith, where matters become clearer.

To conclude this section, the Quran does not prescribe a clear way of dealing with homosexuality. The sacred book condemns it in the stories about Lot, which were told during the Meccan period, but in the Medinan period, Sura 4:15-16, the only reference that seems to come close to dealing with this sin, is so ambiguous that Muslim scholars cannot reach a consensus on its meaning. This contradicts Muhammad’s frequent claim that the Quran provides complete guidance for life. In this major area of human sexuality, the Muslim holy book comes up short. So now we must turn to the hadith, where things are less ambiguous.

The Hadith

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. The four most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), Abu Dawud (d. 875), and Tirmidhi (d. 892), who was a student of Bukhari. The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legal rulings. But in the matter of homosexuality, the Quran is unclear, so the hadith guides Islam more clearly.

It is believed that when Muhammad uttered a curse against someone, it is so significant and powerful that it may carry eternal damnation—or at least it puts its recipient outside of the Muslim community, which hangs hell over his head (see Sura 9:30). Muhammad cursed effeminate men and masculine women in this hadith edited by Bukhari and narrated by Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet cursed effeminate men and those women who assume the similitude (manners) of men. He also said said: “Turn them out of your houses.” He turned such and such a person out, and Umar [a principal companion of Muhammad] also turned out such and such person. (Bukhari vol. 8, no. 6834; see vol. 7 nos. 5885 and 5886)

Thus, effeminate men and masculine women are cursed and driven out of the early Muslim community. These men may not be homosexuals, but may have lost their sex drive or desire for women. Either way, rejection, not salvation, is the rule in early Islam, under the guidance of Muhammad.

The same rejection happened when Muhammad heard an effeminate man talking about capturing a man’s daughter, who was fat, for an arranged marriage, when the Muslim army was trying or about to try to conquer the city of Ta’if in AD 630. The prophet replied: “These (effeminate men) should never enter upon you (O women!),” in your houses. That is, Muhammad’s wives should not associate with effeminate men (Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4324; see vol. 7, nos. 5235 and 5887).

The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is another reliable collection of hadith. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: “Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death” (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

Thus, these two passages in Sunan Abu Dawud go further than merely rejecting and banishing homosexuals or sexual sinners, as we saw in Bukhari’s collection. Rather, Ibn Abbas says that Muhammad and the early Muslim community commanded their execution.

The hadith editor Timidhi repeats Ibn Abbas’ narration: “Ikrima reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that God’s messenger [Muhammad] said: ‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Recorded in Mishkat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson, vol. 2, p. 763, Prescribed Punishments).

In the same hadith collection, the Mishkhat al-Masabih, a compendium that brings together other hadith collections, are found the punishments of being burned to death and having heavy objects thrown on the guilty homosexuals:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, “Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.” In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments; cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68)

Finally, Muhammad Aashiq Illahi Muhajir Madani, a modern-day Mufti (jurist), wrote Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Quran, 2nd ed. trans. and ed. Mufti A. H. Elias, (Karachi: Pakistan, Zam Zam, 2003). In his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, he is open to the interpretation that the two verses speak of homosexuality, so he provides two hadith that he considers reliable, which deal with punishing homosexuals (vol. 2, pp. 365-69).

This early ruling repeats the one that homosexuals must be burned:

With regard to the method in which these people [homosexuals] are to executed, Abu Bakr after consulting with Ali and other Sahaaba

[companions of Muhammad]

, ruled that they be burnt.

Mufti Madani’s next citation says that convicted homosexuals should undergo this terrible punishment (cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68):

. . . Ibn Abbas ruled that they be thrown headlong from the highest summit.

To conclude this section, these hadith demonstrate that sexual non-conformists (effeminate men and masculine women) and homosexuals are not only unwelcome in the Islamic community (that is a religion’s prerogative), but they must also be criminally punished. The hadith punishments range from rejection and banishment to execution by terrible methods, such as being stoning, burned alive, or thrown off a high point. It should be reiterated here that if later Islamic judges follow the punishment meted out in Sura 24:2 for zina generally, then they may flog the convicted homosexuals with a hundred lashes.

In fact, they will impose some or all of these penalties, depending on the circumstances, as we now see in the next section.

Classical legal rulings

Sharia means the body of Islamic law rooted in the Quran and the hadith; fiqh means the science of interpreting and applying this law, done by qualified Islamic judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad’s death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq. They base their legal opinions and rulings on the Quran and the hadith. We examine the opinions of some of these schools.

Maududi records that Shafi himself says that “both the criminals involved in sodomy should be killed, whether married or unmarried” (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68).

However, later developments in the Shafi school go in different directions on the issue of punishing homosexuals as criminals. The brief law book from the Medieval Age, A Sunni Shafi Law Code (trans. Anwar Ahmed Qadri, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984), says that “the commission of sodomy and bestiality is an act which is equivalent to zina” (adultery, fornication or rape) . . . (p. 118). A footnote says that “legal punishment (stoning as done to adulterers) should be applied, but “the accepted view is for tazir [the judge’s discretion] punishment” (p. 118). So the punishment ranges from stoning to a judge’s discretion, possibly down to flogging.

Another Shafi law book, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994) also compiled in the Medieval Age, says that the punishment of stoning the homosexual must be imposed, provided that he or she has reached puberty, is sane, and committed the act voluntarily, “no matter whether the person is a Muslim, a non-Muslim subject of the Islamic State, or someone who has left Islam” (p. 610, o12.1).

An additional requirement is whether the person can remain chaste (is in a legal marriage). Thus, this law book binds the judge to impose death by stoning, unlike the Sunni Shafi Law Code, which allows discretionary punishment.

Maududi also records an assortment of opinions that rule as follows: “the punishment [for sodomy] is the same as for [zina], that is, one hundred stripes and exile for the unmarried, and stoning to death for the married” (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68). Some scholars reinterpret banishment as imprisonment.

As for Abu Hanifa, Maududi says that the founder “is of the opinion that the culprit should be punished in accordance with the circumstances of the crime with an exemplary punishment” (vol. 2, p, 52, note 68). An exemplary punishment means that it must be done in public, so people will learn and fear. But it is clear that the judge may exercise discretion.

Malik decrees straightforwardly: “Malik . . . asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed sodomy. Ibn Shihab said, ‘He is to be stoned, whether or not he is muhsan’” (legally married). Regardless of his marital status, then, someone who commits sodomy must be stoned—no mercy or extenuating circumstances. (Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law, rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001), p. 346, 41.1.11).

To sum up this section, the schools of fiqh are divided. A less severe punishment than stoning, such as flogging, is meted out according to the judge’s discretion. But sometimes the punishment is execution by stoning. It seems, then, that some of these schools have softened the clear example of the prophet and his companions in the hadith. They ordered death by stoning, being thrown off a high point, or toppling a dilapidated building on the criminals. This demonstrates that the Quran’s confusion or absence of a clear decree has slipped into the later legal rulings. The opposite of the case is true for fornication and adultery, or zina, which elicits the minimal penalty of flogging and the maximum of stoning for adultery, according to the hadith. The judges are much more definitive about zina because the Quran is too. However, this is not true with sodomy.

Before leaving the main section “Islam,” the last three subsections can be boiled down to this simple conclusion: Islam treats homosexuals as criminals and seeks to change them from the outside with threats, flogging, and death. This is seen clearly in Sayyid Qutb’s two sections in his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, which are titled “First Step towards Eradicating Immorality” and “A Perfectly Moral Society” (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 3, pp. 68-71). This goal, though seemingly noble, is actually harmful.

No society can achieve perfect morality, and even the attempt to achieve it places severity and harshness and excessive power in the hands of the religious elite and self-righteous. So this policy and goal is completely misguided. It fails to understand human nature.

Following all this Quranic and Hadith where does my beloved country Bangladesh Stands??

According to Section 377 of the Bangladeshi Penal Code, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of description that is, hard labour or simple for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”!!

We have a very serious number of LGBT community in the country but hidden under the shadow of our evil socity Any LGBT community members gets abused and even tortured publically without authorities concern. Once arrested it’s even worse. Not to forget how we treat Hijras (Transgender).

Chapter 3

Islam and Slavery

Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves? 

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.

Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero)

Quran (33:50) 

– “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”

 This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad – in this case allowing a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restricted to four wives, but they may also have sex with any number of slaves, following the example of their prophet.

Quran (23:5-6) – “who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Quran (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, sex slavery must be very important to him. He was relatively reticent on matters of human compassion and love.

Quran (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Quran (8:69) – “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.”

Quran (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Quran (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man).

Quran (16:75) – “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means) praise be to Allah.’ Yet another confirmation that the slave is not equal to the master. In this case, it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves – those whom the god of Islam has not favoured).

Hadith and Sira:

Bukhari (80:753)- “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'” 

Bukhari (52:255)- The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Bukhari (41.598)- Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but they can be used to pay off the debt.

Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.



Bukhari (34:432)- Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them.

Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

Bukhari (47.765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West (where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime) are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.

Muslim 3901 – Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.

Muslim 4345 – Narration of a military raid against a hapless tribe trying to reach their water hole. During the slaughter, the women and children attempt to flee, but are cut off and captured by the Muslims. This story refutes any misconception that Muhammad’s sex slaves were taken by their own volition.

Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.

Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command.

Bukhari (59:637) – “The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him.

He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves.

This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives.” This is because Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.

Abu Dawud (2150) – “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Quran 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Quran. Not only does Allah give permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)

Abu Dawud (1814)- “…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement. 

Ibn Ishq 34 – A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.

Abu Dawud 38:4458 – Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. 

A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”).

Ibn Ishaq (693) – “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.”Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight). 

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13)- According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled. This would not be necessary if she were widowed by battle, which is an imaginary stipulation that modern apologists sometimes pose.

Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine. 

Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Quran, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin. They limit the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through taking and ransoming hostages, which began under Muhammad.

A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was “revealed” at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is no record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Quran changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world.

The taking of women and children as slaves, particularly during the conquests outside Arabia, belies the notion that Jihad was being waged in self-defence,

since the enemy’s families reside neither with the Muslims nor (generally) on the battlefield. These were innocent people captured from their homes and pressed into slavery by Muhammad’s companions and successors.

Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although freeing a believing slave is said to increase the master’s heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Quran (4:92). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment.

Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam’s religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion.

One of Muhammad’s closest companions was Umar, who became the 2nd caliph only two years after the prophet of Islam died. It is fair to say that he would have known Islam better than any contemporary apologist – those who say that slaves can only be captured in war and wars can only be waged in self-defense. He obviously did not agree with this.

Under Umar’s authority, Arab armies in Egypt invaded Black Africa to the south and attempted to conquer the Christian Makurians who were living there peacefully. Although the Muslims were held off, the Makurians had to sign a treaty to prevent recurring invasions. The terms of the Baqt included an annual payment of 360 “high quality” African slaves. The treaty stood for 700 years with no mention of the slightest opposition from generations of Muslim clerics and scholars.

Umar himself was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. In this case, the slave was captured during the campaign against a Persia, one of many offensive wars waged by the Muslims against people who were not attacking them.

“Raiding non-Muslim territories became a constant phenomenon after Muslim powers were established in Southeast Asia…. Over five centuries after Muslims came to power in the early fifteenth century, those animist hill peoples completely disappeared as a result of their incorporation, through enslavement, into the Muslim populace of Malaya, Sumatra and Borneo ‘by a mixture of raiding, tribute and purchase, especially of children.’

In Muslim wars in Southeast Asia, the enslavement was often complete: the entire population were enslaved and carried away…. These enslaved people…[belonged] to the polytheistic Hindu, Buddhist and Animist creeds….” M.A.Khan .(Islamic Jihad 143-144)

Islamic empires and societies since the dawn of Islam had undoubtedly absorbed cultures in which slavery already existed – including pre-Islamic Arabia – and continued the practice. It was a part of the fabric of most powerful empires and cultures. The Qur’an and Hadith reflect that, and so are used to justify slavery through fourteen centuries. This is religious supremacy, not a trait of Islam specifically. That is more than enough than my own reading of certain passages – of which interpretations are abundant – of the Qur’an and Hadith, which seem to me to be a reflection of late Antiquity more than anything. I also find it irrelevant. An ideology that specifically sets out to control the liberty of others – whether less harsh than what came before or not – is oppressive and supremacist by its very nature. This is wholly illegitimate and so even if a holy text called for a slave to be given the comfiest bed in the house, and an elaborate breakfast every morning, it’s irrelevant, because it’s still slavery. For example, a 1332 decree of appointment notes:

“The people of Damascus are often in need of a judge from the Hanbalite school in most contracts of sale and lease, in certain sharecropping contracts, in assessing settlements when contracts are frustrated by natural disasters, in marrying off a male slave to a free woman with the permission of his master….”

The life of a human being here, is considered property, in at least Hanbali jurisprudence of the 14th century. The master – a muslim – is considered supreme by the simple fact that he is muslim. Again, this is supremacy and it is by definition, oppression. Whether the slave is treated well or not is irrelevant. Owning the life and liberty of another human being is the issue. In any case, slavery in Islamic societies wasn’t always more humane that its western counterpart. Often ‘Eunuch stations’ were set up across trade routes, that included the genital mutilation of young boys in such unsanitary conditions, most died. Punishment for trying to escape often resulted in execution.

A popular punishment for not satisfying the desire of the ‘master’ was the immensely painful practice of foot whipping, used also on young criminals in Massachusetts as late as 1969,

as a way to obtain confessions from prisoners in Czechoslovakia during its communist period, and reportedly by the Assad regime against rebels.

With that in mind, we begin in the first century of Islam. Muhammad bin Qassim was a young general embarking on a mission to conquer India for Islam in 711. On his expedition, he stopped in the Markan region to kill rebellions against Umayyad rule in Arman Belah among others. Pushing east across the Indus river, towns succumbed quickly to Qassim’s invasion. His armies collected and sent back spoils of war, including hundreds of slaves, to Qassim’s paternal uncle, Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj. Expansion of the imperial Arab Muslim empire, right from the beginning, benefited hugely from slavery.

This continued into the 8th century, with military leader Hasham bin Amru invading Kashmir and collecting slaves to send home to the Caliph al-Mansur.

Later, in the 9th century, manual labour – such as draining the marshes – was considered demeaning for muslims in certain parts of the empire. In southern parts of modern day Iraq, just to the east of Basra, slaves from Africa were imported to fill the gap left by a lack of muslim labour. Over the years, and as the Abbasid caliphate weakened, the slaves in southern Iraq mounted a massive rebellion. After taking al-Ubullah in 870, and defeating the forces of the caliphate, the slave rebellion was eventually crushed by al-Muwaffaq – the brother of the new caliph, and leader of the armies of the caliphate – in 883. The incident shows us that regardless of new ‘protections’ afforded slaves as offered by interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith, despite manumission encouraged by Islamic tradition, slaves were still recognised as slaves. The Qur’an acknowledges and so legitimises slavery, and this was all the justification that was required. People still owned and controlled the lives of others as a master and slave relationship, and those considered slaves fought back.

A few centuries later, the slave trade had gone beyond the spoils of war, and now became a key ingredient in muslim economies. The National Library of France shows a 13th century slave market in Zabid, Yemen:

Slave market in 13th century Yemen.
Credit: BnF (National Library of France).

This practice continued for centuries. We can imagine scenes like that depicted in the picture above, playing out across markets full of slaves imported from Africa. Zanzibar was perhaps one of the most important and largest slave ports dominated by Arab muslims. The slave traders – including Europeans – managed to get as far west as the Congo, forcing African people young and old to carry ivory and other goods across Africa – many died on the way – to be chained and thrown onto boats to be escorted to Stone Town in Zanzibar. At this point, there were kept in cramped, dark, underground prisons, chained to the floor, before being sold on. The London Maritime Museum has this utterly horrendous photo on display, of a chained child slave, on Zanzibar, controlled by the Arab Muslim slave trade:


– The slave trade in Zanzibar did not come to an end until 1873.

It is true that racial supremacy was not the presumed authority upon which Islamic slavery existed – religious supremacy was the motive – but racial supremacy was a factor. The 14th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldūn wrote:

“The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage.”

From this, we get the sense that Arab racial supremacy existed, and was used to justify slavery by at least the 14th century.

Also in the 14th century, the Ottoman Sultan Murad I instituted the practice of Devşirme. Every four years, the Ottoman Empire kidnapped and enslaved young boys from families in the Balkans, converted them to Islam, and prepared them for military service. This is elaborated on by Çandarlı Kara Halil Hayreddin Pasha, the Grand Vizier under Murad:

“The conquered are slaves of the conquerors, to whom their goods, their women, and their children belong as lawful possession”

By the 17th century, Barbary raiders had the potential to become immortalised. On the sunny island of Rhodes stands the Murat Reis Mosque.

A charming temple built a few decades after the Ottoman’s took over Rhodes in the 16th Century. It is named after former slave, and convert to Islam, Murat Reis. Reis was a pirate that led a group of Turks and Algerians in a 1631 raid on Baltimore in West Cork in Ireland. At 2am that morning, the raiders – having slowly made their way to the village – stood outside of the doors of the inhabitants sleeping inside. On a given signal, they burst into the houses with iron bars, beat the confused and frightened people of the town, murdered a couple, and took the rest captive. The unprovoked raid ended with 107 men, women and 54 children herded onto the Corsair boats – on which the men were beaten to ensure conformity – and sold into slavery in northern Africa. Upon arriving in Algiers, the captives were taken to an official of the state, entitled to 10% of all booty. They were then chained and stripped and shown to potential buyers throughout North Africa. Reis continued capturing slaves to be sold throughout the Ottoman Empire and neighbouring Islamic states for years, before being made Governor of Oualidia. It is also suggested that he was so admired, that he married the daughter of Mawlay Zidan el Nasir; the Sultan of Morocco.

A few decades later, another Sultan from Morocco, Moulay Ismaïl Ibn Sharif was building a private protection force made up of African slaves captured as children – a practice echoed in the 21st century by the Christian fundamentalist Lord’s Resistance Army among others. These guards were made to swear allegiance to the Sultan on a copy of Sahih Bukhari’s Hadith book. Among more of his 25,000 slaves working on manual labour projects, included Christian Europeans captured and forced to build Moulay’s new capital city.

Two centuries later, Hamdan bin Othman Khoja wrote from Algiers in the 1830s condemning the French invasion of Algeria as a free country intent on enslaving the muslim population. Khoja failed to point out that Algiers was home already to hundreds of European slaves held by muslims, and was a key outpost for Barbary pirates dropping off their spoils including slaves. Apparently this wasn’t worthy of condemnation.

Interestingly, the great US abolitionist Charles Sumner noted in “White Slavery in the Barbary States” that Algiers fell on the Parallel 36°30′ north, the parallel of latitude that marked the Missouri compromise line between free states and slave states in pre-civil war US. He goes on to say that Virginia, Carolina, Mississippi and Texas, are the American version of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.

Sumner was writing a number of decades after President Jefferson (himself a slave holder) was forced to go to war with the Muslim Berber states over his refusal to pay such high ransoms for American ships being hijacked and their crews enslaved. It is estimated that between the 16th and 19th centuries, 1.25 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved by Barbary pirates, enriching the rulers of the semi-independent Berber states, and subjecting the crews – with families back home – to torturous slavery.

At the turn of the century that I was born in, slaves in Islamic South East Asia had a range of ‘duties’. According to W. G. Clarence-Smith:

“A Malay master around 1900 expected his slaves to: ‘plant his field, weed and tend his crops, to wash and guard his cattle, to punt his boat, to attend to him upon his journeys, to cook rice, and to serve in his house’”.

As well in South East Asia, throughout the Ottoman Empire most slaves were domestic slaves. The male slaves would perform domestic chores and – as noted in the Clarence-Smith quote – attend to the ‘master’, whilst the female (including children) slaves were quite simply, raped. They were there to be used as sex objects. Often young female slaves would be offered as gifts to people in positions of power for the sake of political favours, as noted by one 16th Century traveler:

“…the governors and other officials in the provinces take as their own slaves the most beautiful. They send a portion of these to the Sultan to gain his favour. These are usually sent at between the ages of ten and fifteen.”

Mehmed II rebuilt the lands surrounding Constantinople using slave labour. At the end of the 1400s, around 1200 slaves lived surrounding Istanbul.

In the 1840s, Tunisia was importing and selling slaves in the Sūq al-Birkaslave markets. This was happening, regardless of Mo Ansar’s revisionism in which he appears to be under the odd impression that imperialism began when the French invaded Tunisia, choosing to ignore the Islamic imperialism that led to Tunisia being a “Muslim country” held together by slaves in the first place.

In the 1860s, Egypt – run as an eyalet of the Ottoman Empire – experienced a boom in cotton exports owing to the sudden outbreak of civil war in the US. The export of cotton in 1860 stood at 500,000 cantars, compared to 2,000,000 just five years later. According to Kenneth Cuno’s study:

“… during the cotton boom (1861–64), some 25,000 to 30,000 slaves were brought to Egypt each year to satisfy the demand for labor generated by the rapid expansion of cotton cultivation.”

This wasn’t new in Egypt. It wasn’t an imitation of how the US south managed cotton cultivation. Slaves in Ottoman controlled Egypt was not new.

It was simply increased in order to meet demand and enrich the privileged Islamic inhabitants.

In 1866 – two years after the Egyptian cotton boom – Dr David Livingston writing from Africa noted the horrifying treatment of slaves by their Arab ‘owners’:

“We passed a woman tied by the neck to a tree and dead, the people of the country explained that she had been unable to keep up with the other slaves in a gang, and her master had determined that she should not become the property of anyone else if she recovered after resting a time. . . . we saw others tied up in a similar manner . . . the Arab who owned these victims was enraged at losing his money by the slaves becoming unable to march, and vented his spleen by murdering them.”

The decade following the Egyptian cotton boom, a report following an expedition to Afghanistan in the 1870s noted:

“…A slave, if a strong man likely to stand work well, is, in Upper Badakshan, considered to be of the same value as one of the large dogs of the country, or of a horse, being about the equivalent of Rs 80. A slave girl is valued at from four horses or more, according to her looks. The men are, however, almost always exchanged for dogs.”

– A decade after that, and staying in Afghanistan, the ‘Iron’ Emir, Abdur Rahman Khan smashed a rebellion in Urozgan Province, and according to S.A.Mousavi:

“…thousands of Hazara men, women, and children were sold as slaves in the markets of Kabul and Qandahar, while numerous towers of human heads made from the defeated rebels as a warning to others who might challenge the rule of the Amir.”

In 1924, the Somalian anti-colonial leader Shaykh Hagi Hassan wrote to the Italians:

“All our slaves escaped and went to you and you set them free. We are not happy with the [antislavery] order. We abandoned our law, for according to our law we can put slaves in prison or force them to work…
The government has its law and we have ours. We accept no law other than our own. Our law is that of God and of the Prophet.”

As late as the 1920s, incredibly hypocritical anti-colonial leaders were using Islamic tradition to justify the owning of other human beings as slaves. Notice also the justification by religious freedom? Hasan’s tone is one of indignation that his religious freedom to control others has been abused, by breaking the shackles of those he thought he had a divine right to oppress. His presumed “right” to oppress others, he considers more important than a human being’s right to control his or her own life and body. The argument for ‘religious freedom’ is often a not-so-subtly-masked argument defending religious supremacy and privilege.

Abolitionism in Islamic societies did exist. Though it gained very little traction or philosophical reasoning and support, until the 19th century. Prior to that, the debate surrounded who could and who couldn’t be enslaved, and how they should be treated. This shouldn’t be considered abolitionism in any sense of the word. That being said, in the late 19th century the great Ahmad Khan used the Qur’an to argue that slavery was anti-Islamic and must be abolished. The poet and politician Muhammad Iqbal in the early 20th century condemned slavery.

In the later 20th century – particularly after Zia-ul-Haqq took power in Pakistan – slavery advocates began to make their voices heard again by insisting that abolition denies the “right” of future muslims to free slaves.

The historian Paul Lovejoy estimated that the Islamic slave trade was responsible for the enslavement of around 11,500,000 African people alone, from the 7th century, to the mid 20th century.

Today, 20% of the population of Mauritania are today considered slaves. A new proposed Iraqi law allows the marriage of girls as young as 9; modern day sexual slavery. In the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia, slavery was officially abolished in 1962, when the country still had over 300,000 slaves. That hasn’t changed much in Saudi. Human Rights Watch reported:

“Over 8 million migrant workers fill manual, clerical, and service jobs, constituting more than half the national workforce. Many suffer multiple abuses and labor exploitation, sometimes amounting to slavery-like conditions.”

– It is a curious misrepresentation of history to believe that ‘imperialism’ and slavery are anchored to the western colonial powers only. It is doubtless a narrative that complements anti-western sentiment, but it is wholly false. From the 2nd Century BC until around 1949, institutionalised slavery existed in China, it existed in Japan, it existed throughout the Joseon dynasty of Korea, Angkor Wat was built by slaves. It is the product of imperial conquest. Arab Muslim societies were not immune to this, nor did they take great efforts to end the slave trade. The spread of Islam relied on conquest and enslaving populations. They established the institution through Islamic jurisprudence and enforced it through violence. At the same time that the Atlantic slave trade was beginning to take shape, and slowly morphing from Christian supremacy, to racial supremacy, the Arab muslim slave trade was already in full swing. Those societies enshrined slavery into law using holy texts and traditions to justify it. Their economies relied heavily on slavery, and – as with the US, Europe, and China today – the Islamic world owes much of its success and privileges to the often violent oppression of the lives of those they deemed to be slaves.

The narrative must be re-framed. Human liberty protected by a secular and democratic framework, granting no special privileges according to race, beliefs, sexuality or gender is not a ‘western’ colonial value, it is not a political ideology, but a universal human value, and that universal value has to be the great cause of the 21st Century.

Slavery is not in practiced in our country however the way we treat our house makers in everyday life. Unlimited working hours, physical and mental torture is common occurrence. It’s forbidden in our modern society today to even talk about our behaviour towards them.

Chapter 4

Treatment of Ex-Muslims in Islam

One of biggest issues in Islam is Islam gives you freedom choice only if you are willing take Islam as your religion. What does islam says about when someone wants to leave the religion?

The Arabic word for apostate is murtadd, “the one who turns back from Islam,” and apostasy is denoted by irtidåd and ridda. Ridda seems to have been used for apostasy from Islam into unbelief (in Arabic kufr), and irtidåd from Islam to some other religion. A person born of Muslim parents who later rejects Islam is called a murtadd fitri; fitri meaning “natural,” it can also mean “instinctive, native, inborn, innate.” One who converts to Islam and subsequently leaves it is a murtadd milli; from milla, meaning “religious community.” The murtadd fitri can be seen as someone unnatural, subverting the natural course of things, whose apostasy is a wilful and obstinate act of treason against God and the one and only true creed, and a betrayal and desertion of the community. The murtadd milli is a traitor to the Muslim community and equally disruptive. Punishing apostates is a long-standing and fundamental feature of all major religions. Repudiating religion is deemed to be the worst of crimes. In the twenty-first century, however, it is only apostates from Islam that continue to face execution. This is because of the political Islamic movement’s power and influence. This far-right movement is this era’s inquisition and totalitarianism. To the degree political Islam or Islamism has power, that is the degree it controls every single aspect of people lives and society via its Sharia law—from what people wear, who they have sex with, what music they listen to—even what they are allowed to think. One of the characteristics of an inquisition is the policing of thought. Freethinking and freedom of conscience are banned. Even for Muslims, a ‘personal’ religion is impossible under an inquisition. You can’t pick and choose as you’d like. Any transgression is met with threats, intimidation, imprisonment or execution. Islamists will kill, threaten or intimidate anyone who interprets things differently, dissents, thinks freely or transgresses their norms.

Of course people resist day in and day out but that is a testament to the human spirit despite Islamism and Sharia. If you look at the purpose of the Sharia “justice” system, it is there to teach the masses the damnable nature of dissent and free thought. Where it has power, like in Iran, there are 130 offences punishable by death—from heresy, blasphemy, enmity against god, adultery, and homosexuality.

Quran

4:89 “…But if they turn renegades (“reject faith”), seize them and SLAY them wherever ye find them”

4.88-9 (Hilali-Khan)…. Comment: Ali Sina This verse is a command to slay apostates. “emigrate in the way of Allah” (Arabic: “yuhajiroo fee sabili Allahi”, transliterated: “make Hijra in the way of Allah”) means; interpreting “hijra” in its spiritual sense, to “become Muslim” and thus people who “turn back” are turning back or away from Islam – i.e. becoming apostate….

In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for Muslims choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions “guaranteeing” freedom of religion (including Bangladesh), there is the enforcement of this law with intimidation and the vigilante murder of apostates.

Hadith and Sira

The most reliable Hadith collection contain numerous accounts of Muhammad and his companions putting people to death for leaving Islam. According to verse 4:80 of the Quran:”Those who obey the Messenger obey Allah.”

Bukhari (52:260)) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” 

Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Bukhari (89:271)  – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

Bukhari (84:58)  – “There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’ Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.’ Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we discussed the night prayers'” 

Bukhari (84:64-65)  – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'”

Bukhari (11:626)  – “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.’ The Prophet added, ‘Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses’.”

Abu Dawud (4346)  – “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?” 

Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to “repent” under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad’s former scribe, who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine “revelations” – upon finding out that grammatical changes could be made. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8. – “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).


Islamic Law:

There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din

[religion]

‘…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”



The OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration is transparent in its rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10: 



“Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.” Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam: “[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a]

Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Historical example of apostasy punishment:

Tabari’s History, volume 10, focuses on aftermath of Muhammad’s death and the wars of apostasy that occurred. Muhammad coerced many tribes via threat, or direct war, to convert to Islam. After he died many of these tribes no longer wanted to be ruled by Islam. Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s best friend and father of his child bride Aisha, became the Caliph, and in obedience to Muhammad’s commands he waged war upon the apostates, both near and far. Thousands of people who no longer wanted to be Muslims were killed or returned to Islam under threat of death.

Volume 10 is full of the various attacks the Muslims made upon the apostates. The translator of volume 10, Fred Donner, summarizes the situation following Muhammad’s death on page xii. Bold emphasis is mine.

… Even as the core of the Muslim community – the Prophet’s Meccan and Medinan followers – was deciding to remain under united leadership, may other groups whom the Prophet had brought into his community in various parts of Arabia were deciding to end their submission to Medina. Some tribes claimed that they wished to remain Muslims in the religious sense – by performing prayer, for example – but would not send to Abu Bakr the tax payments that Muhammad had requested of them in his last years. Others repudiated both the political and the religious leadership of Medina; they wished simply to go their own way, now that the Prophet was dead, in some cases choosing to follow other figures who claimed, like Muhammad, to be prophets (and whom the Muslim tradition naturally, condemns as “false prophets”).

Still others, it seems hoped simply to take advantage of the turmoil in Medina to raid the town, enriching themselves with plunder and ending what they perhaps felt to be vexations demands for tribute. All of these movements are termed riddah “apostasy” by the Muslim sources, even in cases where the opponents of Medina showed no desire to repudiate the religious aspects of the faith. Abu Bakr vowed to fight them all until they were subdued and dispatched several armies to deal with the main rebellions.

Indeed, the campaigns did not limit themselves to the reconquest of Arabian tribes that had previously had some contract with Muhammad; they spilled over the whole of Arabia, and many tribes and groups that had had no contact with the Prophet at all, and who certainly had not been allied to or subjected by him, were conquered for the first time. The Arabic sources classify these wars, too, as wars against the riddah, even though they involved neither apostasy nor rebellion – only resistance to expansion of the new Islamic state based in Medina. The riddah wars constitute, in effect, the first chapter in the earlyIslamic conquest movement that led to the establishment throughout the Near East of a new imperial state ruled by Arabian Muslims.

Below are quotes from Tabari’s History, volume 10.pages 55-7

Abu Bakr’s letter to the apostates.

… So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.

… I have learned that some of you have turned back from your religion after you had acknowledged Islam and labored in it, out of negligence of God and ignorance of His command, and in compliance with the devil….

… I have sent you someone at the head of an army of the Muhajirun and the Ansar and those who follow (them) in good works. I ordered him not to fight anyone or to kill anyone until he has called him to the cause of God; so that those who respond to him and acknowledge (Him) and renounce (unbelief) and do good works, (my envoy) shall accept him and help him to (do right), but I have ordered him to fight those who deny (Him) for that reason. 

So he will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, (but may) burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive; nor shall he accept from anyone anything except Islam.

Page 69: The delegations of Banu Asad and Ghatafan and Hawazin and Tayyi came to him, and the delegations of Quda’ah encountered Usamah b. Zayd, whereupon he led them to Abu Bakr; so they gathered in Medina, staying with the chiefs of the Muslims on the tenth (day) after the death of the Apostle of God. Then they proposed to do the ritual prayer, provided that they be exempted from the zakat. A council of those who were lodging them agreed to accept that, so that they might attain what they desired. Every one of the chiefs of the Muslims lodged someone of them, except al-‘Abbas. Then they came to Abu Bakr to inform him of their tidings and of what their council had agreed on. But Abu Bakr did not (agree), for he refused (to accept) anything except what the Apostle of God had accepted. They refused (these terms), so he sent them back, giving them respite of a day and a night (to leave), whereupon they dispersed to their tribes.

Another volume of Tabari’s History, volume 17, pages 187-88 details the murder of other apostates.

Among them were many Christians who had accepted Islam, but when dissension had developed in Islam had said, “By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.” And they returned to their former religion. Al-Khirrit met them and said to them, “Woe unto you! Do you know the precept (hukm) of ‘Ali regarding any Christian who accepts Islam and then reverts to Christianity? By God he will not hear anything they say, he will not consider any excuse, he will not accept any repentance, and he will not summon them to it. His precept regarding them is immediate cutting off of the head when he gets hold of them.Those of the Banu Najiyah and other who were in that district came to him, and many men joined him.

I was in the army that ‘Ali b. Abi Talib sent against the Banu Najiyah. We came to them and found them split into three groups. Our commander said to one of these groups, “What are you?” and they replied, “We are a Christian people who do not consider any religion to be better than ours, and we hold fast to it. Our commander said to them, “Be off with you (i’tazilu)!” He said to another band, “What are you?” and they said, “We were Christians, but we accepted Islam and we hold fast to our Islam.” He said to them, “Be off with you!”

Then he said to the third group, “What are you?” and they said,We are a people who were Christians. We accepted Islam but we do not think, that any religion is better than our previous one.” He said to them, “Accept Islam!”

but they refused. He said to his men, “When I rub my head three times, attack them and kill the fighting men and make captive the dependants.”

The dependants were brought to Ali, page 191

…But there was an old man among the, a Christian called al-Rumahis b. Mansur, who said, “By God the only error I have made since attaining reason was abandoning my religion, the religion of truth, for your, the religion of wickedness. No by God, I will not leave my religion and I will not accept yours so long as I live.” Ma’qil brought him forward and cut off his head.”

 page 192, Ma’qil wrote a letter to ‘Ali, the Caliph:

… For anyone who had apostatized, we offered return to Islam or else death. As for the Christians, we made them captive and led them off so that they might be a warning for those of the protected people who come after them not to refuse the jizyah and not to make bold against our religion and community, for the protected people are of little account and lowly in status.

The history tells us that the apostates were killed by the various Caliphs following Muhammad’s death for leaving Islam. Christians were of “little account and lowly in status.” That proves that some of the apostates were no threat to the Muslims, and they didn’t fight the Muslims. They were murdered for the only reason of leaving Islam. They realized the evil in Islam and chose to leave it.

 Although the Bangladeshi Constitution and other laws claim to protect religious freedom. Section 295A of the Bangladeshi Penal Code states that anyone who has “deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings” can be imprisoned. The Code of Criminal Procedure includes clauses (99a-f), stating that “the government may confiscate all copies of a newspaper if it publishes anything subversive of the state or provoking an uprising or anything that creates enmity and hated among the citizens or denigrates religious beliefs.” Religious leaders made declarations they described as fatwas and which were used as a tool of extrajudicial punishment. Jamaat-e-Islami, the country’s largest Islamic party, along with other Islamists, have long campaigned for Bangladesh to be renamed the ‘Islamic Republic of Bangladesh’

And adopt a Constitution based on Sharia law. Despite recent electoral rejection of Islamism, Jamaat-e-Islami continue to campaign on the promise of introducing a blasphemy law.Persecutions and arrests on the basis of blasphemy charges continue to be made, despite no enacted blasphemy law in Bangladesh.

Chapter 5

Polygamy in Islam

Quran

Quran (4:3) – “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess.” This verse plainly allows a man to have up to four wives (Allah conveniently granted Muhammad an exception… on the authority of Muhammad, of course). According to the Hadith, the “justice” spoken of merely refers to the dowry provided the bride, not the treatment accorded following the wedding.

Quran (4:129) – “Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire” Underscores that a man is not able to treat multiple wives fairly. He would therefore be unable to acquire more than one wife if this were a requirement – which it is not. In fact, Muhammad was not able to treat his own wives fairly (see Additional Notes).

Quran (66:5) – “Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” A disobedient wife can be replaced. A man can only have up to four wives, but he can rotate as many women as he pleases in and out of the lineup.

Hadith and Sira

Bukhari (62:2) – Provides the context for verse 4:3 of the Quran. “Dealing justly” is defined within a financial context. It refers to providing a fair dowry to secure marriage – not to the equal or fair treatment of wives (which is impossible according to verse 4:129).

Bukhari (5:268)  – “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.” Muhammad had a “special rule” that allowed him to have at least eleven wives. (His successors had more than four wives at a time as well.)

Bukhari (62:6)- “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.”

Bukhari (77:598) – “Allah’s Apostle said, “No woman should ask for the divorce of her sister (Muslim) so as to take her place, but she should marry the man (without compelling him to divorce his other wife)” Polygamy is firmly established in the Islamic tradition.

 I will add an example from Malaysia ! where sharia law the law of the country so we can see the truth of polygamy no matter what Islamists claims. Malaysian women’s rights organisation sisters in islam (SIS) did an research on polygamous family, the research found that the Religious Department’s records for 1993-2006 are very uneven. Whether or not actual numbers of polygamous marriages have increased in recent decades, there has been a noticeable normalising of the practice. Many conservative Malay-Muslim politicians ironically claim they have women’s needs at heart, saying: “In the modern context, there are more and more educated, professional women who remain unmarried so we should encourage polygamy”.

Preliminary findings from the SIS research show that many children of first wives report a strong negative emotional impact.

Most reported neglect from the father once he got a second wife and more so when he started having children from her. Especially where fathers had more than two wives or more than 10 children, daughters and sons often claim their father can hardly recognise them. When they went to ask for pocket money or school fees, their father would look at them clueless and say “Which mother are you from?”. This happened across the classes.

Polygamy also negatively affects the relationship between children and their mothers, with the former resenting the mother for being unable to make sure the father does not neglect them or for becoming depressed and also neglecting their emotional needs.

Regardless of gender, they lack of confidence in their own ability to have stable relationships because they have only experienced a family life filled with traumatic quarrels and resentment.

The children of second wives usually cope better because from birth they know their father has another family. But the children from the first family can see the comparison: the lack of time, lack of resources, their father’s absence when they needed him. Some of the children insisted SIS help them set up a support group to help them cope with feelings of isolation; at school they cannot relate their problems to anyone as they feel embarrassed about the situation.

The findings about the impact on children may offer an important opening for advocacy and change that can ultimately benefit women. Historically, changes to patriarchal interpretations of Muslim laws have often come in an effort to protect children’s rights. For instance, many Muslim countries now follow the principle of the best interests of the child when deciding custody, rather than rigidly applying traditionalist interpretations which deny mothers custody.

The impact of polygamy on women has both economic and emotional aspects. The research has found that many men in both lower and middle economic groups marry second wives so that they will contribute to the economic maintenance of their polygamous families. Women contribute to the nafaqa (the Muslim husband’s responsibility for maintenance) which polygamous husbands tend not to fulfil. Thinking through the last month’s expenditures, one second wife discovered for herself that the husband only provides one-third of the family’s basic needs: rice, sugar, coffee, vegetables, school fees, expenditure for school books, etc. The social reality is that most Malaysian women are breadwinners for their families, but women in polygamous families even more so. Many have some cottage business such as catering or making snacks without which there won’t be food on the table. A number of polygamous wives reported “I might as well be a single mother.” Under current government welfare policy, a single mother (divorced or widowed) can apply for welfare support but a polygamous wife, at least on paper, has a husband and

cannot get that support. The interviews have challenged the traditional perception that second wives are ‘husband stealers’ who will benefit from the marriage as they reveal that most, even in the middle classes, live a hard life.

SIS’ research also looks at nafkah batin, a Malay term referring to sexual and emotional support. Those who support polygamy invariably claim that polygamy works if the husband properly follows the practice of giliran, or ‘turn-taking’: dividing time between the wives. All polygamous men claim they practice giliran,perhaps reflecting a subconscious recognition that the Qur’an enjoins equal treatment of multiple wives.

But the in-depth interviews show thatgiliranis in fact unworkable: unplanned domestic crises such as a child falling sick or work crises all intervene to derail any giliran. Some polygamous men even seem to be trapped in the fable of masculine prowess.

Taxi drivers with wives in two different states, or those who lose time travelling between families, say they are sometimes simply too tired to give time to their other family. When asked “Would you recommend polygamy to your children, your son?” a number of the better educated, professional middle class men said, “Seriously, I have to admit I wouldn’t. It’s quite stressful.”

Not just unworkable, the giliran ‘roster’ in fact seems to be largely a myth. When husbands were asked “So who’s turn is it today?” they were unable to answer, while wives simply said “Oh my husband keeps track of that.” Thus expected to follow the husband’s lead, women have evolved strategies for keeping their man. Interviews with rural women found widespread reliance on black magic to make sure the first husband does not forget her or to hex the second family. But the rural women also said “Don’t underestimate this. Even women in the Klang Valley area

[where the capital Kuala Lumpur is situated]

resort to this. They come back home to Kelantan and Terengganu, and consult the local bomoh.”

Husbands also report that the first wife becomes sexually competitive and manipulative. One said, “Before I took another wife, our sexual relations had waned a bit but as soon as I got married she is making more demands and I’m getting exhausted and I think it’s affecting my heart problem.” A second wife in Kelantan said “He asked me to give him a massage in order to ‘revive’ him. Hell, I gave him such a good massage and he fell asleep and started snoring and that ‘thing’ would not even go up!” The women quite openly discuss these problems. Although some of the interviews verge on the farcical, this should not detract from the fact that polygamous wives clearly suffer profound emotional and economic harm, two powerful grounds for future campaigning. But Malaysia may not yet be ready for a public discussion about the right to a satisfying sexual relationship, clearly also an issue in polygamous situations.

Far from the traditional Muslim ideal of a harmonious family with a male breadwinner providing all the family’s needs, the SIS research is revealing how polygamy leads to unstable and dysfunctional families and how the possibility of being just between wives and avoiding economic harm is a myth !!!

Chapter 6

Inheritance Discrimination in Islam

Women discrimination is evident in Islamic laws of inheritance:

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of bequests and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah. and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of bequests and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of bequests and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of bequests and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah,. and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing. (Quran 4: 11,12)

Some scholars quote a few instances where women are not discriminated. However, as a general principle the women discrimination is clear in this Ayah. Furthermore, exceptions don’t make a rule.

Women discrimination in Islamic laws of inheritance is criticized as ‘unequal rights’ for women. Some criticize that these rights do not meet modern standards of civilization.

However, most of the critics ignore another vital factor. Quran gives a system of life to be implemented in a human society. It is law of God enunciated for the societies who want to follow it. The basic rung of this social system is a family unit. Even the philosophy of marriage revolves around this first brick of the system.

Within a family, the whole responsibility to feed, dress and provide shelter to a family lies with the husband. The wife may make money but she are not bound to spend even a single penny on the family for which she is a part and parcel.

Whatever share of inheritance a husband gets, he is bound to spend on the welfare of the family. However, whatever share a wife gets is purely owned by the woman without any responsibility to spend it on the family. It is natural to conclude that man needs more resources within a family than a wife may need.

Most of the Islamic scholars agree that Islam does not treat women with discrimination in most of the affairs. However, when it is issue of a family benevolence the men are given preference for their responsibilities.

There is a lot of discrimination in Islam towards woman. A full book can be written on this subject. Women are not just degraded in every part of their social life in Islam. They are also unequally treated.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place?

No marriage should take place between prisoners of war and their captives, married or not. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. 

Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so. For more information on this Quran—inspired immorality. also Suras 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30, all of which permit male slave-owners to have sex with their slave—girls. Suras 23:5-6 and 70:22-230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one—fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law, had just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [of the booty] and . . . Ali had taken a bath [after a sexual act with a slave—girl from the Khumus].

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more that that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists ‘received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.’ They asked the Prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invoked the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:

That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

There is more evidence about the treatment of women prisoners of war in Islam.

The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general.

The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk;

who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her.

She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Conclusion

I spent countless night and days studying the truth of Islam so I can educate myself, what I learnt is incredible. A completely different Islam that I have been told and preached since my childhood. I do not have any issues about people being religious, but this truth has to come forward. People should know Islam is not what we have been told for years. It’s a lot different than it seems. Understanding Quran and Hadith and using your common sense can help anyone to see the real religion of Islam.

Anyone standing out on the street preaching hate speech against woman, non-believers, child, LGBT and accepting slavery as from of lifestyle would be treated as filth. But when it comes to religion we blindly accept everything!

In our Bangladeshi society everything goes we hate woman, we hate our homemakers who works all day long for us, we hate Gay, Lesbians, Hijras (transgender) at same time we claim to be the best human beings in the world cause we are Muslims !!! Hypocrisy!!!

Humayun Azad was not wrong about Bangladeshis at all. Only great writer like him can picture our hypocrisy.

It’s time to wake up. Bombing and discriminating against human being will never make a religion or a nation great. But a true understanding of Humanity can change us as a nation. We have a great history of rebellion and standing up for the truth. I am waiting for that time when Bangladeshis will come out of the delude of religion and start loving people and freedom again.

References:

Verious sourecs of Quran,Hadith,News Articles and my own writing in other books and printed blogs.

Preface:

Being born in a traditional Muslim Bangladeshi family and growing up in Muslim dominating society I have seen inner and outer part of Muslim society in Bangladesh. Going to Madrasha (An Islamic institution run by Imams to teach Quran and Islamic lifestyle) to learn Quran was an automatic choice. I learned how to read Quran in Arabic without even understanding what was in it. As five years old boy I learned how I was not allowed to ask about Gods existences and question anything that might go against teaching of Islam. There was only one rule “Do not dare asking but believe”. I grew seeing religious leaders giving hate speech against non-Muslims, LGBT community, Woman. It is a very popular trend in Bangladesh still highly practiced and unchallenged.

It is hard to get any statement from Imams against eve-teasing, treatment of woman in Bangladeshi society. Most of the speeches given in Mhafil ( Big gathering for prayer) contains provocating hate speech.

In my teenage I started learning about “khilafah” ( A model Islamic system to run a country). I get to learn about the rules and regulations of a model Islamic state. Understanding the khilafah has raised a lot of question in my mind. I found it so difficult that how could religion be so discriminating, self-contradictory, unbalanced and clearly differs from common sense.

I believe religion created more difference between human races than anything else. If the purpose of any religion was to create peace in the world, have any of them been able to do so? No matter what preacher’s claims the truth religion divided us more than uniting us.

Bangladeshi society is no different than other nation in the world. It has been even worse in our culture. We already carry a history of class war and domination, religion just fuelled this more.

And off course our politician has taken full advantage of that. For years politician has been using religious sentiment to gain votes. Before every General election (it’s a common scenario in our country) we see our cult leaders going to Hajj and wearing religious outfit. Religious extremism seen as bravery and appreciated by most of the people of the country.

In this writing I am going to point out some serious issues in Islam and how it’s polluting our society and dominating our everyday life in this country. In 8 chapters of this books I am going to talk about Gender and social discrimination, LGBT rights, slave owing rules, Punishment for non-Muslims, Kafirs (non-believers) treatment under model Islamic state, land/property distribution regulation in Islam, Polygamy and treatment of war prisoners and women’s of war in Islam and also freedom of speech in Islam as well.

This is more of a research paper then my independent thought unlike my other books. I tried to point out Quranic verses and Hadiths about my concern subjects.

Chapter 1

Gender Discrimination

“Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.” Quran 4:34.

All too often, textual reality (the Quran) matches up with the historical reality of seventh—century Arabia. Gender inequality and oppression in the Quran reflect the culture of seventh century desert nomads. This is exactly what we can see in our society today. Our woman mainly stays home, do household work and doing so is an obligation. This is highly practiced in Bangladeshi urban life. Even though few of our women are allowed to work (If lucky enough) this days after years of oppression form all part of the society they still continue doing everyday household work and make sure husband and rest of the family gets food ready on dinner table on time. I personally know so many of our woman still being punished, threatened with divorces and physically and verbally abused for working in offices or working at all. Garments and NGO workers(women) seen as lower class and always been abused and teased cause they dare working against all the odds that religious society created for woman in this country.

Marital and child rape is hidden cancer is our society. What does Islam says???

“If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses to come to him, then the angles send their curses on her till morning” (Bhukhari)

A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

“Your woman are your fields,so go into your fields whichever way you like”

It includes sexual positions. In a footnote to this verse, Haleem says that Muslims in Medina heard from the Jews that ‘a child born from a woman approached from behind would have a squint.’
Not much of a choice left for a Muslim woman is it? Just cause they happen to be born different to man.

Although at some point Quran views woman and man equally in human dignity but this spiritual and ethical equality has not been reflected in Muslim laws. At some point it’s completely contradictory. As I mentioned earlier verse 4:34 limits the movement, right to speak, right of education and access to economic opportunities and independence. Bangladeshi society has taken full advantage of this and created an awful situation for our woman in this country.

The Quran in Sura 2:228 says:

“Wives have the same rights as the husbands have on them in accordance with the generally known principles. Of course, men are a degree above them in status”

Muhammad Said

“Most of the inhabitants of hell is Woman” and also

“Evil omen is in three things the horse, the woman and the house” (Bhukhari).

This parallel hadith explains that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women because they are ungrateful and harsh towards their husbands. There is no word about the husbands’ ingratitude and harshness off course!

In Islam women’s witness has half of a man evident by this verse in Quran:

“And let two men from among you bear witness to all such documents

[contracts of loans without interest]

. But if two men be not available, there should be one man and two women to bear witness so that if one of the women forgets (anything), the other may remind her.” Surah 2:228.

The foundational reason for having two women witnesses is that one of the women may ‘forget’ something. This verse goes to the nature of womankind, and implies that a woman’s mind is weak.

The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’ (Bhukari)

Muhammad’s special marriage privileges

Moreover, it seems that Allah gave Muhammad special permission to marry as many women as he desired or take them as slaves or concubines, just as in the pre—Islamic days of ignorance.

The Quran in Sura 33:50, a lengthy verse, grants Muhammad wide latitude in his marriages:

“O Prophet, We have made lawful to you those of your wives, whose dowers you have paid, and those women who come into your possession out of the slave—girls granted by Allah, and the daughters of your paternal uncles and aunts, and of your maternal uncles and aunts, who have migrated with you, and the believing woman who gives herself to the Prophet, if the Prophet may desire her. This privilege is for you only, not for the other believers.”

This verse says that besides those women whose dowry Muhammad paid, he may marry slave girls, he may have sex with them. Maududi (An Pakistani scholar and politician, founder of Jammat-e-islam Bangladesh) references three slave girls taken during raids, and Mary the Copt, a gift from an Egyptian ruler. Muhammad had sex with her, and there does not seem to be a political need for this. Second, Muhammad may marry his first cousins, and Maududi cites a case in which this happened. Third, if a believing woman offers herself to Muhammad, and he desires her, then he may marry her (Maududi vol. 4, note 88).

This hadith shows that Muhammad was intimate with his slave girls.

But the capstone of these ‘special’ marriages occurs when Muhammad also marries the ex—wife (Zainab) of his adopted son (Zaid). His son in law divorced her with the Prophet standing in the background. In fact, early Islamic sources say that Muhammad catches a glimpse of his daughter in law in a state of undress so he desired her. Once the divorce is final, Allah conveniently reveals to him that this marriage between father in law and daughter in law is legal and moral in Sura 33:36—44.

Husbands may hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives (quite apart from whether Islam actually are highhanded).

The Quran in Sura 4:34 says:

4:34 . . . If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great. (Haleem, emphasis added)

The hadith says that Muslim women in the time of Muhammad were suffering from domestic violence in the context of confusing marriage laws:

Rifa’a divorced his wife whereupon ‘AbdurRahman bin Az—Zubair Al—Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Apostle came, ‘Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’ (Bhukhari)

This hadith shows Muhammad hitting his girl—bride, Aisha (see rule no. 1, below), daughter of Abu Bakr, his right—hand Companion:

‘He [Muhammad] struck me [Aisha] on the chest which caused me pain.’ (Muslim)

Mature men are allowed to marry prepubescent girls.

The Quran in Sura 65:1, 4 says:

65:1 O Prophet, when you [and the believers] divorce women, divorce them for their prescribed waiting—period and count the waiting—period accurately . . . 4 And if you are in doubt about those of your women who have despaired of menstruation, (you should know that) their waiting period is three months, and the same applies to those who have not menstruated as yet. As for pregnant women, their period ends when they have delivered their burden. (Maududi, vol. 5, pp. 599 and 617,)

Maududi correctly interprets the plain meaning of verse 4, which appears in the context of divorce:

Therefore, making mention of the waiting—period for girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl at this age but it is permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur’an has held as permissible. (Maududi, vol. 5, p. 620, note 13, emphasis added)

Divorcing prepubescent girls implies marriage to them. So the fathers of prepubescent girls may give them away, and their new husbands may consummate their marriage with them. If Islam ever spread around the world, no one should be surprised if Quran—believing Muslims lowered the marriage age of girls to nine years old.

Why should this surprise us? After all, Muhammad was betrothed to Aisha when she was six, and he consummated their union when she was only nine.

The hadith says:

. . . [T]hen he [Muhammad] wrote the marriage (wedding) contract with Aishah when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed [sic, consummated] that marriage when she was nine years old. (Bhukhari)

This hadith demonstrates that Muhammad pursued Aisha when she was a little girl.

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. (Bhukhari)

This hadith recounts the fifty plus year old Muhammad’s and the nine year old Aisha’s first sexual encounter. She was playing on her swing set with her girlfriends when she got the call.

. . . [M]y mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girlfriends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became all right, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, ‘Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.’ Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age. (Bhukhari)

This hadith describes Muhammad counselling a Muslim man to marry a young virgin for the extra thrill it gives him to fondle her, and she him.

When I got married, Allah’s Apostle said to me, ‘What type of lady have you married?’ I replied, ‘I have married a matron.’ He said, ‘Why, don’t you have a liking for the virgins and for fondling them?’ Jabir also said: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Why didn’t you marry a young girl so that you might play with her and she with you?’  (Bhukhari)

This hadith describes Muhammad’s and Aisha’s ill timed sexual encounters:

Narrated ‘Aisha:

The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses). (Bhukhari)

All this statements and examples from earlier of Islam has a very serious amplification is today’s Bangladeshi society. Even though we have three women leading our big three political party nothing has changed at all. We still see high rate of eve-teasing, abusing woman, rape (including marital and child). According to UN crime states Bangladesh stands on 30th out of 96 countries. This supposed to be low in a model Islamic society!? Not to forget we belong to a country where 89.2% urban men agrees or strongly agrees with a statement “if a women doesn’t physically fight back it’s not a RAPE”!!!

While I am writing this article hate speech against woman is being preached, this Quranic verses and hadiths are being read all over the country unchallenged and with pride. People of Islam are being told what consequences this world has to pay for giving women’s equal rights. How women’s are going to be elements of hell fire. Our society sees working women as distracted and spoiled. We hardly see any women driver in this country. Hidden sharia laws is being practiced in our society, women are being punished, abused everyday and hardly gets in the limelight of media. Discrimination against women is not news worthy!! It’s a everyday thing in Bangladesh.

Child marriage is in practice even though its illegal by country law. But still highly practiced in all over the country including big cities Dhaka, Chittagong, Khulna, Sylhet.

Chapter 2

LGBT Rights in Islam

Islam treats homosexuality as a crime instead of a sin. Is that the best policy?

The Quran

This section of my writing analyzes two Quranic passages, which are the foundation for later hadith (reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran) and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on how to punish homosexuals. However, as we shall see, the Quran is unclear on homosexuality in its legal punishments, but not in its immorality.

Sura 7:80-84

While living in Mecca before his Hijrah in AD 622, Muhammad does not seem to have decreed an official punishment for homosexuals. However, he frequently told stories about Lot, who lived in Sodom. This passage in Sura 7, representing others in Meccan suras (chapters), was revealed late in Mecca, but scholars are rarely confident about the precise date of Meccan suras or chapters in the Quran.

In any case, this general assessment of Muhammad’s time in Mecca is beyond dispute: he was undergoing strong persecution at the hands of the Meccans, so he was warning them of divine judgments in the past. If Allah wreaked death and destruction on his enemies after he sent messengers to warn them in days of old, then he may judge the Meccans for opposing the best and final prophet—Muhammad. Sura 7:80-81 and 84 reads:

[7:80] And We sent Lot as a Messenger: Remember that he said to his people, “Have you become so shameless that you commit such indecent acts as no one has committed before you in the world? [81] You gratify your lust with men instead of women: indeed you are a people who transgress the limits!” . . . [84] And We rained upon his people; then behold what happened in the end to the guilty ones! (Maududi,The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 2, p. 45)

In general terms this passage condemns homosexuality because it “transgresses the limits” of nature. The punishment for the inhabitants of Sodom was a rainstorm, “We rained upon his people,” which is based on Genesis 18 and 19. Suras 11:82 and 15:74 say dry clay was rained on Sodom.

From these Quranic verses and others on Lot and some hadith passages (hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and deeds outside of the Quran), legal scholars have come up with punishments for sodomy, which we explore below in the section “Classical legal rulings.”

Sura 4:15-16

Sura 4:15-16 has caused much debate over its meaning. We first analyze the historical and literary contexts. Sayyid A’La Abul Maududi (d. 1979), whose translation we used, above, was an Indo-Pakistani who worked hard at establishing a theocracy in Pakistan through the Jamaat-i-Islami Party. He is highly respected traditional commentator who says that this sura, itself titled “Women,” was revealed at different times, but still in the timeframe of AD 625 to 626, in Medina, for Muhammad has already emigrated. He is establishing his Muslim community in the face of opposition and adverse circumstances, though Islam manages to overcome them. Verse 34 fits into the framework of vv. 1-35, which sees the specific establishment of rules for the family. For instance, in the aftermath of the Battle of Uhud in 625, in which the Muslims lost a lot of men, Muhammad says that orphans should be given their property and not to replace their good things with bad, which means to deal fairly and wisely with their assets (vv. 1-6). Also, he discusses the rules for inheriting property, such as one son having the share equal to two daughters or that a husband should inherent half of his wife’s property, unless they have children, in which case he inherits one-fourth (vv. 11-14).

We now come to the two target verses. MAS Abdel Haleem’s translation reads:

4:15 If any of your women commit a lewd act, call four witnesses from among you, then, if they testify to their guilt, keep the women at home until death comes to them or until God gives them another way out. 16 If two men commit a lewd act, punish them both; if they repent and mend their ways, leave them alone—God is ready to accept repentance from those who do evil out of ignorance and soon afterwards repent: these are the ones God will forgive. (The Qur’an, Oxford UP, 2004)

Does v. 15 refer to male-female sexual sin or to lesbianism? Does v. 15 refer to male-male sex? Commentators are divided. However, Haleem’s translation of v. 16 says that if two men commit a lewd act, implying homosexuality, they are to be punished, but this translation is still ambiguous.

This translation by Hilali and Khan, funded by the Saudi royal family, adds parenthetical glosses implied in the Arabic, but not original to it:

4:15 And those of your women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, take evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them (i.e. women) to houses until death comes to them or Allah ordains for them some (other way). 16 And the two persons (man and woman) among you commit illegal sexual intercourse, hurt them both . . . . (The Noble Qur’an, Riyadh: Darussalam, 2002)

As to the women who commit illegal sexual intercourse, this translation of v. 15 reads the same way as Haleem’s. Are they committing the sin with men or with women? But this translation interprets v. 16 as the act occurring between a man and a woman.

Two prominent commentators reach different conclusions about the verses.

Maududi says that Sura 4:15-16 has nothing to do with homosexual acts, implying that Muhammad did not confront this unnatural crime, which is outside of normal life and is found under abnormal circumstances. Maududi notes that after the prophet’s death, the companions or his close followers never referred to these verses to adjudicate the crime of homosexuality (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, p. 317, note 24).

Sayyid Qutb, the other commentator, was the godfather of modern jihadist movements who was executed in 1966 for trying to overthrow the Egyptian government. In a section titled “First Step Towards Eradicating Sexual Immorality” (wrongly implying that eradication is possible in the first place; see his next section, “A Perfectly Moral Society”), he agrees that the two women are committing lewd acts with men in v. 15—that is, he does not say that they are lesbians—but the two men who commit lewd acts are homosexuals in v. 16 (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 3, pp. 67-72)

Thus, according to Maududi and Qutb, confusion rules over v. 16 (homosexual sin), but not over v. 15 (heterosexual sin). Clarity is one of the frequent claims in the Quran, but this is untrue in this case. It is one thing for commentators to disagree on important topics, but these are the only two verses in which the topic of homosexuality may be dealt with in Medina, where Muhammad was constantly laying down the rules for sexual misconduct—but no clear guidance was offered in Sura 4:15-16.

Finally, the end of v. 15 says that men should confine the guilty women to their houses—house arrest in patriarchal Arab society—until death or Allah provides another way out. Qutb rightly notes that these clauses represent an interim ruling because the words “until God gives them another way out” (Haleem) is open-ended. And this is where Maududi and Qutb agree (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 317, note 26; Qutb, In the Shade of the Quran, vol. 3, pp. 68-71):

Sura 24:2 abrogates or cancels Sura 4:15-16. It should be recalled that 24:2 says that those who commit zina or sexual immorality generally (usually taken to mean fornication or non-marital sex in this verse) should be flogged. Reliable hadith that many scholars connect to 24:2 says that adulterers and adulteresses should be stoned to death. But if we isolate Sura 24:2 and its specific punishment for zina generally, then the judge has the option to flog a convicted homosexual, even though homosexuality is a special case, since it is regarded as an additionally unnatural sex act in Islamic law.

Qutb cites a hadith that shows how Muhammad received this revelation of a “way out” in Sura 4:15

. . . The Prophet used to be visibly affected every time revelations were bestowed on him from on high. His face changed and he looked ill at ease. One day, after he received revelations and he regained his color, he said: “Learn this from me. God has opened another way out for them, both in the case of a married man and a married woman and that of an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. For the married, one hundred lashes and stoning, and for the unmarried one hundred lashes and exile for a year. (vol. 3, pp. 69-70; see Muslim vol. 3, p. 911, no. 4192)

Thus, the “way out” does not lead to forgiveness and restoration, but to flogging and stoning. Muhammad has raised sexual sin to a crime, which means that it must be criminally punished in the same way that theft and highway robbery are criminally punished. This policy is misguided—despite the dubious belief that it came from divine inspiration, though the excerpt from Qutb implies that it was channeled from the spirit world. However, Sura 24:2 does not clearly deal with homosexuality as such, so later Muslim jurists have to base their rulings on punishing this “crime” on general Quranic principles and on the hadith, where matters become clearer.

To conclude this section, the Quran does not prescribe a clear way of dealing with homosexuality. The sacred book condemns it in the stories about Lot, which were told during the Meccan period, but in the Medinan period, Sura 4:15-16, the only reference that seems to come close to dealing with this sin, is so ambiguous that Muslim scholars cannot reach a consensus on its meaning. This contradicts Muhammad’s frequent claim that the Quran provides complete guidance for life. In this major area of human sexuality, the Muslim holy book comes up short. So now we must turn to the hadith, where things are less ambiguous.

The Hadith

The hadith are the reports of Muhammad’s words and actions outside of the Quran. The four most reliable hadith collectors and editors are Bukhari (d. 870), Muslim (d. 875), Abu Dawud (d. 875), and Tirmidhi (d. 892), who was a student of Bukhari. The Quran and the hadith are the foundations for later legal rulings. But in the matter of homosexuality, the Quran is unclear, so the hadith guides Islam more clearly.

It is believed that when Muhammad uttered a curse against someone, it is so significant and powerful that it may carry eternal damnation—or at least it puts its recipient outside of the Muslim community, which hangs hell over his head (see Sura 9:30). Muhammad cursed effeminate men and masculine women in this hadith edited by Bukhari and narrated by Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s cousin and highly reliable transmitter of hadith:

Narrated Ibn Abbas: The Prophet cursed effeminate men and those women who assume the similitude (manners) of men. He also said said: “Turn them out of your houses.” He turned such and such a person out, and Umar [a principal companion of Muhammad] also turned out such and such person. (Bukhari vol. 8, no. 6834; see vol. 7 nos. 5885 and 5886)

Thus, effeminate men and masculine women are cursed and driven out of the early Muslim community. These men may not be homosexuals, but may have lost their sex drive or desire for women. Either way, rejection, not salvation, is the rule in early Islam, under the guidance of Muhammad.

The same rejection happened when Muhammad heard an effeminate man talking about capturing a man’s daughter, who was fat, for an arranged marriage, when the Muslim army was trying or about to try to conquer the city of Ta’if in AD 630. The prophet replied: “These (effeminate men) should never enter upon you (O women!),” in your houses. That is, Muhammad’s wives should not associate with effeminate men (Bukhari vol. 5, no. 4324; see vol. 7, nos. 5235 and 5887).

The Sunan Abu Dawud, named after its editor, is another reliable collection of hadith. Ibn Abbas reports the following about early Islam and Muhammad’s punishment of homosexuals: . . . “If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done” (vol. 3, p. 145, no. 4447).

The next one from the same collection says that an unmarried man who commits sodomy should be stoned to death: “Ibn Abbas said: if a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death” (vol. 3, p. 1245, no. 4448).

Thus, these two passages in Sunan Abu Dawud go further than merely rejecting and banishing homosexuals or sexual sinners, as we saw in Bukhari’s collection. Rather, Ibn Abbas says that Muhammad and the early Muslim community commanded their execution.

The hadith editor Timidhi repeats Ibn Abbas’ narration: “Ikrima reported on the authority of Ibn Abbas that God’s messenger [Muhammad] said: ‘If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it and the one to whom it is done.’” (Recorded in Mishkat al-Masabih, trans. James Robson, vol. 2, p. 763, Prescribed Punishments).

In the same hadith collection, the Mishkhat al-Masabih, a compendium that brings together other hadith collections, are found the punishments of being burned to death and having heavy objects thrown on the guilty homosexuals:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, “Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.” In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad’s chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments; cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68)

Finally, Muhammad Aashiq Illahi Muhajir Madani, a modern-day Mufti (jurist), wrote Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Quran, 2nd ed. trans. and ed. Mufti A. H. Elias, (Karachi: Pakistan, Zam Zam, 2003). In his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, he is open to the interpretation that the two verses speak of homosexuality, so he provides two hadith that he considers reliable, which deal with punishing homosexuals (vol. 2, pp. 365-69).

This early ruling repeats the one that homosexuals must be burned:

With regard to the method in which these people [homosexuals] are to executed, Abu Bakr after consulting with Ali and other Sahaaba

[companions of Muhammad]

, ruled that they be burnt.

Mufti Madani’s next citation says that convicted homosexuals should undergo this terrible punishment (cf. Maududi vol. 2, p. 52, note 68):

. . . Ibn Abbas ruled that they be thrown headlong from the highest summit.

To conclude this section, these hadith demonstrate that sexual non-conformists (effeminate men and masculine women) and homosexuals are not only unwelcome in the Islamic community (that is a religion’s prerogative), but they must also be criminally punished. The hadith punishments range from rejection and banishment to execution by terrible methods, such as being stoning, burned alive, or thrown off a high point. It should be reiterated here that if later Islamic judges follow the punishment meted out in Sura 24:2 for zina generally, then they may flog the convicted homosexuals with a hundred lashes.

In fact, they will impose some or all of these penalties, depending on the circumstances, as we now see in the next section.

Classical legal rulings

Sharia means the body of Islamic law rooted in the Quran and the hadith; fiqh means the science of interpreting and applying this law, done by qualified Islamic judges and legal scholars. Over the first two centuries after Muhammad’s death in AD 632, four main Sunni schools of fiqh emerged, led by these scholars: Malik (d. 795), who lived in Medina, Arabia; Abu Hanifa (d. 767), who lived in Kufa, Iraq; Shafi (d. 820), who lived mostly in Mecca, Arabia, but who was buried in Cairo, Egypt; and Ibn Hanbal (d. 855) who lived in Baghdad, Iraq. They base their legal opinions and rulings on the Quran and the hadith. We examine the opinions of some of these schools.

Maududi records that Shafi himself says that “both the criminals involved in sodomy should be killed, whether married or unmarried” (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68).

However, later developments in the Shafi school go in different directions on the issue of punishing homosexuals as criminals. The brief law book from the Medieval Age, A Sunni Shafi Law Code (trans. Anwar Ahmed Qadri, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1984), says that “the commission of sodomy and bestiality is an act which is equivalent to zina” (adultery, fornication or rape) . . . (p. 118). A footnote says that “legal punishment (stoning as done to adulterers) should be applied, but “the accepted view is for tazir [the judge’s discretion] punishment” (p. 118). So the punishment ranges from stoning to a judge’s discretion, possibly down to flogging.

Another Shafi law book, Reliance of the Traveler: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, (rev. ed., trans. Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Beltsville, Maryland: Amana, 1994) also compiled in the Medieval Age, says that the punishment of stoning the homosexual must be imposed, provided that he or she has reached puberty, is sane, and committed the act voluntarily, “no matter whether the person is a Muslim, a non-Muslim subject of the Islamic State, or someone who has left Islam” (p. 610, o12.1).

An additional requirement is whether the person can remain chaste (is in a legal marriage). Thus, this law book binds the judge to impose death by stoning, unlike the Sunni Shafi Law Code, which allows discretionary punishment.

Maududi also records an assortment of opinions that rule as follows: “the punishment [for sodomy] is the same as for [zina], that is, one hundred stripes and exile for the unmarried, and stoning to death for the married” (vol. 2, p. 52, note 68). Some scholars reinterpret banishment as imprisonment.

As for Abu Hanifa, Maududi says that the founder “is of the opinion that the culprit should be punished in accordance with the circumstances of the crime with an exemplary punishment” (vol. 2, p, 52, note 68). An exemplary punishment means that it must be done in public, so people will learn and fear. But it is clear that the judge may exercise discretion.

Malik decrees straightforwardly: “Malik . . . asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed sodomy. Ibn Shihab said, ‘He is to be stoned, whether or not he is muhsan’” (legally married). Regardless of his marital status, then, someone who commits sodomy must be stoned—no mercy or extenuating circumstances. (Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik ibn Anas: The First Formation of Islamic Law, rev. trans. Aisha Bewley, Inverness, Scotland: Madina Press, 1989, 2001), p. 346, 41.1.11).

To sum up this section, the schools of fiqh are divided. A less severe punishment than stoning, such as flogging, is meted out according to the judge’s discretion. But sometimes the punishment is execution by stoning. It seems, then, that some of these schools have softened the clear example of the prophet and his companions in the hadith. They ordered death by stoning, being thrown off a high point, or toppling a dilapidated building on the criminals. This demonstrates that the Quran’s confusion or absence of a clear decree has slipped into the later legal rulings. The opposite of the case is true for fornication and adultery, or zina, which elicits the minimal penalty of flogging and the maximum of stoning for adultery, according to the hadith. The judges are much more definitive about zina because the Quran is too. However, this is not true with sodomy.

Before leaving the main section “Islam,” the last three subsections can be boiled down to this simple conclusion: Islam treats homosexuals as criminals and seeks to change them from the outside with threats, flogging, and death. This is seen clearly in Sayyid Qutb’s two sections in his commentary on Sura 4:15-16, which are titled “First Step towards Eradicating Immorality” and “A Perfectly Moral Society” (In the Shade of the Qur’an, vol. 3, pp. 68-71). This goal, though seemingly noble, is actually harmful.

No society can achieve perfect morality, and even the attempt to achieve it places severity and harshness and excessive power in the hands of the religious elite and self-righteous. So this policy and goal is completely misguided. It fails to understand human nature.

Following all this Quranic and Hadith where does my beloved country Bangladesh Stands??

According to Section 377 of the Bangladeshi Penal Code, “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of description that is, hard labour or simple for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”!!

We have a very serious number of LGBT community in the country but hidden under the shadow of our evil socity Any LGBT community members gets abused and even tortured publically without authorities concern. Once arrested it’s even worse. Not to forget how we treat Hijras (Transgender).

Chapter 3

Islam and Slavery

Does Islam condone slavery? Does Islamic teaching allow Muslim men to keep women as sex slaves? 

Islam neither ignores nor condemns slavery. In fact, a large part of the Sharia is dedicated to the practice.

Muslims are encouraged to live in the way of Muhammad, who was a slave owner and trader. He captured slaves in battle; he had sex with his slaves; and he instructed his men to do the same. The Quran actually devotes more verses to making sure that Muslim men know they can keep women as sex slaves (4) than it does to telling them to pray five times a day (zero)

Quran (33:50) 

– “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee”

 This is one of several personal-sounding verses “from Allah” narrated by Muhammad – in this case allowing a virtually unlimited supply of sex partners. Other Muslims are restricted to four wives, but they may also have sex with any number of slaves, following the example of their prophet.

Quran (23:5-6) – “who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess…” This verse permits the slave-owner to have sex with his slaves. See also Quran (70:29-30). The Quran is a small book, so if Allah used valuable space to repeat the same point four times, sex slavery must be very important to him. He was relatively reticent on matters of human compassion and love.

Quran (4:24) – “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” Even sex with married slaves is permissible.

Quran (8:69) – “But (now) enjoy what ye took in war, lawful and good” A reference to war booty, of which slaves were a part. The Muslim slave master may enjoy his “catch” because (according to verse 71) “Allah gave you mastery over them.”

Quran (24:32) – “And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male slaves and your female slaves…” Breeding slaves based on fitness.

Quran (2:178) – “O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.” The message of this verse, which prescribes the rules of retaliation for murder, is that all humans are not created equal. The human value of a slave is less than that of a free person (and a woman’s worth is also distinguished from that of a man).

Quran (16:75) – “Allah sets forth the Parable (of two men: one) a slave under the dominion of another; He has no power of any sort; and (the other) a man on whom We have bestowed goodly favours from Ourselves, and he spends thereof (freely), privately and publicly: are the two equal? (By no means) praise be to Allah.’ Yet another confirmation that the slave is not equal to the master. In this case, it is plain that the slave owes his status to Allah’s will. (According to 16:71, the owner should be careful about insulting Allah by bestowing Allah’s gifts on slaves – those whom the god of Islam has not favoured).

Hadith and Sira:

Bukhari (80:753)- “The Prophet said, ‘The freed slave belongs to the people who have freed him.'” 

Bukhari (52:255)- The slave who accepts Islam and continues serving his Muslim master will receive a double reward in heaven.

Bukhari (41.598)- Slaves are property. They cannot be freed if an owner has outstanding debt, but they can be used to pay off the debt.

Bukhari (62:137) – An account of women taken as slaves in battle by Muhammad’s men after their husbands and fathers were killed. The woman were raped with Muhammad’s approval.



Bukhari (34:432)- Another account of females taken captive and raped with Muhammad’s approval. In this case it is evident that the Muslims intend on selling the women after raping them because they are concerned about devaluing their price by impregnating them.

Muhammad is asked about coitus interruptus.

Bukhari (47.765) – A woman is rebuked by Muhammad for freeing a slave girl. The prophet tells her that she would have gotten a greater heavenly reward by giving her to a relative (as a slave).

Bukhari (34:351) – Muhammad sells a slave for money. He was thus a slave trader.

Bukhari (72:734) – Some contemporary Muslims in the West (where slavery is believed to be a horrible crime) are reluctant to believe that Muhammad owned slaves. This is just one of many places in the Hadith where a reference is made to a human being owned by Muhammad. In this case, the slave is of African descent.

Muslim 3901 – Muhammad trades away two black slaves for one Muslim slave.

Muslim 4345 – Narration of a military raid against a hapless tribe trying to reach their water hole. During the slaughter, the women and children attempt to flee, but are cut off and captured by the Muslims. This story refutes any misconception that Muhammad’s sex slaves were taken by their own volition.

Muslim 4112 – A man freed six slaves on the event of his death, but Muhammad reversed the emancipation and kept four in slavery to himself. He cast lots to determine which two to free.

Bukhari (47:743) – Muhammad’s own pulpit – from which he preached Islam – was built with slave labor on his command.

Bukhari (59:637) – “The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, ‘Don’t you see this (i.e. Ali)?’ When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him.

He said, ‘O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus.'” Muhammad approved of his men having sex with slaves, as this episode involving his son-in-law, Ali, clearly proves.

This hadith refutes the modern apologists who pretend that slaves were really “wives.” This is because Muhammad had forbidden Ali from marrying another woman as long as Fatima (his favorite daughter) was living.

Abu Dawud (2150) – “The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Quran 4:24) ‘And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.'” This is the background for verse 4:24 of the Quran. Not only does Allah give permission for women to be captured and raped, but allows it to even be done in front of their husbands. (See also Muslim 3432 & Ibn Kathir/Abdul Rahman Part 5 Page 14)

Abu Dawud (1814)- “…[Abu Bakr] He then began to beat [his slave] him while the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) was smiling and saying: Look at this man who is in the sacred state (putting on ihram), what is he doing?” The future first caliph of Islam is beating his slave for losing a camel while Muhammad looks on in apparent amusement. 

Ibn Ishq 34 – A slave girl is given a “violent beating” by Ali in the presence of Muhammad, who does nothing about it.

Abu Dawud 38:4458 – Narrated Ali ibn AbuTalib: “A slave-girl belonging to the house of the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) committed fornication. He (the Prophet) said: Rush up, Ali, and inflict the prescribed punishment on her. I then hurried up, and saw that blood was flowing from her, and did not stop. So I came to him and he said: Have you finished inflicting (punishment on her)? I said: I went to her while her blood was flowing. He said: Leave her alone till her bleeding stops; then inflict the prescribed punishment on her. And inflict the prescribed punishment on those whom your right hands possess (i.e. slaves)”. 

A slave girl is ordered by Muhammad to be beaten until she bleeds, and then beaten again after the bleeding stops. He indicates that this is prescribed treatment for slaves (“those whom your right hand possesses”).

Ibn Ishaq (693) – “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.”Muhammad trades away women captured from the Banu Qurayza tribe to non-Muslim slave traders for property. (Their men had been executed after surrendering peacefully without a fight). 

Umdat al-Salik (Reliance of the Traveller) (o9.13)- According to Sharia, when a child or woman is taken captive by Muslims, they become slaves by the mere fact of their capture. A captured woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled. This would not be necessary if she were widowed by battle, which is an imaginary stipulation that modern apologists sometimes pose.

Slavery is deeply embedded in Islamic law and tradition. Although a slave-owner is cautioned against treating slaves harshly, basic human rights are not obliged. The very fact that only non-Muslims may be taken as slaves is evidence of Islam’s supremacist doctrine. 

Of the five references to freeing a slave in the Quran, three are prescribed as punitive measures against the slaveholder for unrelated sin. They limit the emancipation to just a single slave. Another (24:33) appears to allow a slave to buy their own freedom if they are “good.” This is in keeping with the traditional Islamic practice of wealth-building through taking and ransoming hostages, which began under Muhammad.

A tiny verse in one of the earliest chapters, 90:13, does say that freeing a slave is good, however, this was “revealed” at a time when the Muslim community was miniscule and several of their new and potential recruits were either actual slaves or newly freed slaves. Many of these same people, and Muhammad himself, later went on to become owners and traders of slaves, both male and female, as they acquired the power to do so (there is no record of Muhammad owning slaves prior to starting Islam). The language of the Quran changed to accommodate slavery, which is why this early verse has had negligible impact on slavery in the Islamic world.

The taking of women and children as slaves, particularly during the conquests outside Arabia, belies the notion that Jihad was being waged in self-defence,

since the enemy’s families reside neither with the Muslims nor (generally) on the battlefield. These were innocent people captured from their homes and pressed into slavery by Muhammad’s companions and successors.

Contrary to popular belief, converting to Islam does not automatically earn a slave his freedom, although freeing a believing slave is said to increase the master’s heavenly reward (Muslim slaves are implied in Quran (4:92). As far as the Islamic courts are concerned, a master may treat his slaves however he chooses without fear of punishment.

Muhammad, the most revered figure in the religion, practiced and approved of slavery. Even his own pulpit was built with slave labor. Caliphs since have had harems of hundreds, sometimes thousands of young girls and women brought from Christian, Hindu and African lands to serve Islam’s religious equivalent of the pope in the most demeaning fashion.

One of Muhammad’s closest companions was Umar, who became the 2nd caliph only two years after the prophet of Islam died. It is fair to say that he would have known Islam better than any contemporary apologist – those who say that slaves can only be captured in war and wars can only be waged in self-defense. He obviously did not agree with this.

Under Umar’s authority, Arab armies in Egypt invaded Black Africa to the south and attempted to conquer the Christian Makurians who were living there peacefully. Although the Muslims were held off, the Makurians had to sign a treaty to prevent recurring invasions. The terms of the Baqt included an annual payment of 360 “high quality” African slaves. The treaty stood for 700 years with no mention of the slightest opposition from generations of Muslim clerics and scholars.

Umar himself was stabbed to death by a slave whose liberty he refused to grant. In this case, the slave was captured during the campaign against a Persia, one of many offensive wars waged by the Muslims against people who were not attacking them.

“Raiding non-Muslim territories became a constant phenomenon after Muslim powers were established in Southeast Asia…. Over five centuries after Muslims came to power in the early fifteenth century, those animist hill peoples completely disappeared as a result of their incorporation, through enslavement, into the Muslim populace of Malaya, Sumatra and Borneo ‘by a mixture of raiding, tribute and purchase, especially of children.’

In Muslim wars in Southeast Asia, the enslavement was often complete: the entire population were enslaved and carried away…. These enslaved people…[belonged] to the polytheistic Hindu, Buddhist and Animist creeds….” M.A.Khan .(Islamic Jihad 143-144)

Islamic empires and societies since the dawn of Islam had undoubtedly absorbed cultures in which slavery already existed – including pre-Islamic Arabia – and continued the practice. It was a part of the fabric of most powerful empires and cultures. The Qur’an and Hadith reflect that, and so are used to justify slavery through fourteen centuries. This is religious supremacy, not a trait of Islam specifically. That is more than enough than my own reading of certain passages – of which interpretations are abundant – of the Qur’an and Hadith, which seem to me to be a reflection of late Antiquity more than anything. I also find it irrelevant. An ideology that specifically sets out to control the liberty of others – whether less harsh than what came before or not – is oppressive and supremacist by its very nature. This is wholly illegitimate and so even if a holy text called for a slave to be given the comfiest bed in the house, and an elaborate breakfast every morning, it’s irrelevant, because it’s still slavery. For example, a 1332 decree of appointment notes:

“The people of Damascus are often in need of a judge from the Hanbalite school in most contracts of sale and lease, in certain sharecropping contracts, in assessing settlements when contracts are frustrated by natural disasters, in marrying off a male slave to a free woman with the permission of his master….”

The life of a human being here, is considered property, in at least Hanbali jurisprudence of the 14th century. The master – a muslim – is considered supreme by the simple fact that he is muslim. Again, this is supremacy and it is by definition, oppression. Whether the slave is treated well or not is irrelevant. Owning the life and liberty of another human being is the issue. In any case, slavery in Islamic societies wasn’t always more humane that its western counterpart. Often ‘Eunuch stations’ were set up across trade routes, that included the genital mutilation of young boys in such unsanitary conditions, most died. Punishment for trying to escape often resulted in execution.

A popular punishment for not satisfying the desire of the ‘master’ was the immensely painful practice of foot whipping, used also on young criminals in Massachusetts as late as 1969,

as a way to obtain confessions from prisoners in Czechoslovakia during its communist period, and reportedly by the Assad regime against rebels.

With that in mind, we begin in the first century of Islam. Muhammad bin Qassim was a young general embarking on a mission to conquer India for Islam in 711. On his expedition, he stopped in the Markan region to kill rebellions against Umayyad rule in Arman Belah among others. Pushing east across the Indus river, towns succumbed quickly to Qassim’s invasion. His armies collected and sent back spoils of war, including hundreds of slaves, to Qassim’s paternal uncle, Umayyad governor Al-Hajjaj. Expansion of the imperial Arab Muslim empire, right from the beginning, benefited hugely from slavery.

This continued into the 8th century, with military leader Hasham bin Amru invading Kashmir and collecting slaves to send home to the Caliph al-Mansur.

Later, in the 9th century, manual labour – such as draining the marshes – was considered demeaning for muslims in certain parts of the empire. In southern parts of modern day Iraq, just to the east of Basra, slaves from Africa were imported to fill the gap left by a lack of muslim labour. Over the years, and as the Abbasid caliphate weakened, the slaves in southern Iraq mounted a massive rebellion. After taking al-Ubullah in 870, and defeating the forces of the caliphate, the slave rebellion was eventually crushed by al-Muwaffaq – the brother of the new caliph, and leader of the armies of the caliphate – in 883. The incident shows us that regardless of new ‘protections’ afforded slaves as offered by interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith, despite manumission encouraged by Islamic tradition, slaves were still recognised as slaves. The Qur’an acknowledges and so legitimises slavery, and this was all the justification that was required. People still owned and controlled the lives of others as a master and slave relationship, and those considered slaves fought back.

A few centuries later, the slave trade had gone beyond the spoils of war, and now became a key ingredient in muslim economies. The National Library of France shows a 13th century slave market in Zabid, Yemen:

Slave market in 13th century Yemen.
Credit: BnF (National Library of France).

This practice continued for centuries. We can imagine scenes like that depicted in the picture above, playing out across markets full of slaves imported from Africa. Zanzibar was perhaps one of the most important and largest slave ports dominated by Arab muslims. The slave traders – including Europeans – managed to get as far west as the Congo, forcing African people young and old to carry ivory and other goods across Africa – many died on the way – to be chained and thrown onto boats to be escorted to Stone Town in Zanzibar. At this point, there were kept in cramped, dark, underground prisons, chained to the floor, before being sold on. The London Maritime Museum has this utterly horrendous photo on display, of a chained child slave, on Zanzibar, controlled by the Arab Muslim slave trade:


– The slave trade in Zanzibar did not come to an end until 1873.

It is true that racial supremacy was not the presumed authority upon which Islamic slavery existed – religious supremacy was the motive – but racial supremacy was a factor. The 14th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldūn wrote:

“The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage.”

From this, we get the sense that Arab racial supremacy existed, and was used to justify slavery by at least the 14th century.

Also in the 14th century, the Ottoman Sultan Murad I instituted the practice of Devşirme. Every four years, the Ottoman Empire kidnapped and enslaved young boys from families in the Balkans, converted them to Islam, and prepared them for military service. This is elaborated on by Çandarlı Kara Halil Hayreddin Pasha, the Grand Vizier under Murad:

“The conquered are slaves of the conquerors, to whom their goods, their women, and their children belong as lawful possession”

By the 17th century, Barbary raiders had the potential to become immortalised. On the sunny island of Rhodes stands the Murat Reis Mosque.

A charming temple built a few decades after the Ottoman’s took over Rhodes in the 16th Century. It is named after former slave, and convert to Islam, Murat Reis. Reis was a pirate that led a group of Turks and Algerians in a 1631 raid on Baltimore in West Cork in Ireland. At 2am that morning, the raiders – having slowly made their way to the village – stood outside of the doors of the inhabitants sleeping inside. On a given signal, they burst into the houses with iron bars, beat the confused and frightened people of the town, murdered a couple, and took the rest captive. The unprovoked raid ended with 107 men, women and 54 children herded onto the Corsair boats – on which the men were beaten to ensure conformity – and sold into slavery in northern Africa. Upon arriving in Algiers, the captives were taken to an official of the state, entitled to 10% of all booty. They were then chained and stripped and shown to potential buyers throughout North Africa. Reis continued capturing slaves to be sold throughout the Ottoman Empire and neighbouring Islamic states for years, before being made Governor of Oualidia. It is also suggested that he was so admired, that he married the daughter of Mawlay Zidan el Nasir; the Sultan of Morocco.

A few decades later, another Sultan from Morocco, Moulay Ismaïl Ibn Sharif was building a private protection force made up of African slaves captured as children – a practice echoed in the 21st century by the Christian fundamentalist Lord’s Resistance Army among others. These guards were made to swear allegiance to the Sultan on a copy of Sahih Bukhari’s Hadith book. Among more of his 25,000 slaves working on manual labour projects, included Christian Europeans captured and forced to build Moulay’s new capital city.

Two centuries later, Hamdan bin Othman Khoja wrote from Algiers in the 1830s condemning the French invasion of Algeria as a free country intent on enslaving the muslim population. Khoja failed to point out that Algiers was home already to hundreds of European slaves held by muslims, and was a key outpost for Barbary pirates dropping off their spoils including slaves. Apparently this wasn’t worthy of condemnation.

Interestingly, the great US abolitionist Charles Sumner noted in “White Slavery in the Barbary States” that Algiers fell on the Parallel 36°30′ north, the parallel of latitude that marked the Missouri compromise line between free states and slave states in pre-civil war US. He goes on to say that Virginia, Carolina, Mississippi and Texas, are the American version of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli.

Sumner was writing a number of decades after President Jefferson (himself a slave holder) was forced to go to war with the Muslim Berber states over his refusal to pay such high ransoms for American ships being hijacked and their crews enslaved. It is estimated that between the 16th and 19th centuries, 1.25 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved by Barbary pirates, enriching the rulers of the semi-independent Berber states, and subjecting the crews – with families back home – to torturous slavery.

At the turn of the century that I was born in, slaves in Islamic South East Asia had a range of ‘duties’. According to W. G. Clarence-Smith:

“A Malay master around 1900 expected his slaves to: ‘plant his field, weed and tend his crops, to wash and guard his cattle, to punt his boat, to attend to him upon his journeys, to cook rice, and to serve in his house’”.

As well in South East Asia, throughout the Ottoman Empire most slaves were domestic slaves. The male slaves would perform domestic chores and – as noted in the Clarence-Smith quote – attend to the ‘master’, whilst the female (including children) slaves were quite simply, raped. They were there to be used as sex objects. Often young female slaves would be offered as gifts to people in positions of power for the sake of political favours, as noted by one 16th Century traveler:

“…the governors and other officials in the provinces take as their own slaves the most beautiful. They send a portion of these to the Sultan to gain his favour. These are usually sent at between the ages of ten and fifteen.”

Mehmed II rebuilt the lands surrounding Constantinople using slave labour. At the end of the 1400s, around 1200 slaves lived surrounding Istanbul.

In the 1840s, Tunisia was importing and selling slaves in the Sūq al-Birkaslave markets. This was happening, regardless of Mo Ansar’s revisionism in which he appears to be under the odd impression that imperialism began when the French invaded Tunisia, choosing to ignore the Islamic imperialism that led to Tunisia being a “Muslim country” held together by slaves in the first place.

In the 1860s, Egypt – run as an eyalet of the Ottoman Empire – experienced a boom in cotton exports owing to the sudden outbreak of civil war in the US. The export of cotton in 1860 stood at 500,000 cantars, compared to 2,000,000 just five years later. According to Kenneth Cuno’s study:

“… during the cotton boom (1861–64), some 25,000 to 30,000 slaves were brought to Egypt each year to satisfy the demand for labor generated by the rapid expansion of cotton cultivation.”

This wasn’t new in Egypt. It wasn’t an imitation of how the US south managed cotton cultivation. Slaves in Ottoman controlled Egypt was not new.

It was simply increased in order to meet demand and enrich the privileged Islamic inhabitants.

In 1866 – two years after the Egyptian cotton boom – Dr David Livingston writing from Africa noted the horrifying treatment of slaves by their Arab ‘owners’:

“We passed a woman tied by the neck to a tree and dead, the people of the country explained that she had been unable to keep up with the other slaves in a gang, and her master had determined that she should not become the property of anyone else if she recovered after resting a time. . . . we saw others tied up in a similar manner . . . the Arab who owned these victims was enraged at losing his money by the slaves becoming unable to march, and vented his spleen by murdering them.”

The decade following the Egyptian cotton boom, a report following an expedition to Afghanistan in the 1870s noted:

“…A slave, if a strong man likely to stand work well, is, in Upper Badakshan, considered to be of the same value as one of the large dogs of the country, or of a horse, being about the equivalent of Rs 80. A slave girl is valued at from four horses or more, according to her looks. The men are, however, almost always exchanged for dogs.”

– A decade after that, and staying in Afghanistan, the ‘Iron’ Emir, Abdur Rahman Khan smashed a rebellion in Urozgan Province, and according to S.A.Mousavi:

“…thousands of Hazara men, women, and children were sold as slaves in the markets of Kabul and Qandahar, while numerous towers of human heads made from the defeated rebels as a warning to others who might challenge the rule of the Amir.”

In 1924, the Somalian anti-colonial leader Shaykh Hagi Hassan wrote to the Italians:

“All our slaves escaped and went to you and you set them free. We are not happy with the [antislavery] order. We abandoned our law, for according to our law we can put slaves in prison or force them to work…
The government has its law and we have ours. We accept no law other than our own. Our law is that of God and of the Prophet.”

As late as the 1920s, incredibly hypocritical anti-colonial leaders were using Islamic tradition to justify the owning of other human beings as slaves. Notice also the justification by religious freedom? Hasan’s tone is one of indignation that his religious freedom to control others has been abused, by breaking the shackles of those he thought he had a divine right to oppress. His presumed “right” to oppress others, he considers more important than a human being’s right to control his or her own life and body. The argument for ‘religious freedom’ is often a not-so-subtly-masked argument defending religious supremacy and privilege.

Abolitionism in Islamic societies did exist. Though it gained very little traction or philosophical reasoning and support, until the 19th century. Prior to that, the debate surrounded who could and who couldn’t be enslaved, and how they should be treated. This shouldn’t be considered abolitionism in any sense of the word. That being said, in the late 19th century the great Ahmad Khan used the Qur’an to argue that slavery was anti-Islamic and must be abolished. The poet and politician Muhammad Iqbal in the early 20th century condemned slavery.

In the later 20th century – particularly after Zia-ul-Haqq took power in Pakistan – slavery advocates began to make their voices heard again by insisting that abolition denies the “right” of future muslims to free slaves.

The historian Paul Lovejoy estimated that the Islamic slave trade was responsible for the enslavement of around 11,500,000 African people alone, from the 7th century, to the mid 20th century.

Today, 20% of the population of Mauritania are today considered slaves. A new proposed Iraqi law allows the marriage of girls as young as 9; modern day sexual slavery. In the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia, slavery was officially abolished in 1962, when the country still had over 300,000 slaves. That hasn’t changed much in Saudi. Human Rights Watch reported:

“Over 8 million migrant workers fill manual, clerical, and service jobs, constituting more than half the national workforce. Many suffer multiple abuses and labor exploitation, sometimes amounting to slavery-like conditions.”

– It is a curious misrepresentation of history to believe that ‘imperialism’ and slavery are anchored to the western colonial powers only. It is doubtless a narrative that complements anti-western sentiment, but it is wholly false. From the 2nd Century BC until around 1949, institutionalised slavery existed in China, it existed in Japan, it existed throughout the Joseon dynasty of Korea, Angkor Wat was built by slaves. It is the product of imperial conquest. Arab Muslim societies were not immune to this, nor did they take great efforts to end the slave trade. The spread of Islam relied on conquest and enslaving populations. They established the institution through Islamic jurisprudence and enforced it through violence. At the same time that the Atlantic slave trade was beginning to take shape, and slowly morphing from Christian supremacy, to racial supremacy, the Arab muslim slave trade was already in full swing. Those societies enshrined slavery into law using holy texts and traditions to justify it. Their economies relied heavily on slavery, and – as with the US, Europe, and China today – the Islamic world owes much of its success and privileges to the often violent oppression of the lives of those they deemed to be slaves.

The narrative must be re-framed. Human liberty protected by a secular and democratic framework, granting no special privileges according to race, beliefs, sexuality or gender is not a ‘western’ colonial value, it is not a political ideology, but a universal human value, and that universal value has to be the great cause of the 21st Century.

Slavery is not in practiced in our country however the way we treat our house makers in everyday life. Unlimited working hours, physical and mental torture is common occurrence. It’s forbidden in our modern society today to even talk about our behaviour towards them.

Chapter 4

Treatment of Ex-Muslims in Islam

One of biggest issues in Islam is Islam gives you freedom choice only if you are willing take Islam as your religion. What does islam says about when someone wants to leave the religion?

The Arabic word for apostate is murtadd, “the one who turns back from Islam,” and apostasy is denoted by irtidåd and ridda. Ridda seems to have been used for apostasy from Islam into unbelief (in Arabic kufr), and irtidåd from Islam to some other religion. A person born of Muslim parents who later rejects Islam is called a murtadd fitri; fitri meaning “natural,” it can also mean “instinctive, native, inborn, innate.” One who converts to Islam and subsequently leaves it is a murtadd milli; from milla, meaning “religious community.” The murtadd fitri can be seen as someone unnatural, subverting the natural course of things, whose apostasy is a wilful and obstinate act of treason against God and the one and only true creed, and a betrayal and desertion of the community. The murtadd milli is a traitor to the Muslim community and equally disruptive. Punishing apostates is a long-standing and fundamental feature of all major religions. Repudiating religion is deemed to be the worst of crimes. In the twenty-first century, however, it is only apostates from Islam that continue to face execution. This is because of the political Islamic movement’s power and influence. This far-right movement is this era’s inquisition and totalitarianism. To the degree political Islam or Islamism has power, that is the degree it controls every single aspect of people lives and society via its Sharia law—from what people wear, who they have sex with, what music they listen to—even what they are allowed to think. One of the characteristics of an inquisition is the policing of thought. Freethinking and freedom of conscience are banned. Even for Muslims, a ‘personal’ religion is impossible under an inquisition. You can’t pick and choose as you’d like. Any transgression is met with threats, intimidation, imprisonment or execution. Islamists will kill, threaten or intimidate anyone who interprets things differently, dissents, thinks freely or transgresses their norms.

Of course people resist day in and day out but that is a testament to the human spirit despite Islamism and Sharia. If you look at the purpose of the Sharia “justice” system, it is there to teach the masses the damnable nature of dissent and free thought. Where it has power, like in Iran, there are 130 offences punishable by death—from heresy, blasphemy, enmity against god, adultery, and homosexuality.

Quran

4:89 “…But if they turn renegades (“reject faith”), seize them and SLAY them wherever ye find them”

4.88-9 (Hilali-Khan)…. Comment: Ali Sina This verse is a command to slay apostates. “emigrate in the way of Allah” (Arabic: “yuhajiroo fee sabili Allahi”, transliterated: “make Hijra in the way of Allah”) means; interpreting “hijra” in its spiritual sense, to “become Muslim” and thus people who “turn back” are turning back or away from Islam – i.e. becoming apostate….

In 1400 years, there has never been a system of Islamic law that did not prescribe the death penalty for Muslims choosing to leave Islam. Even in modern, ostensibly secular Islamic countries with constitutions “guaranteeing” freedom of religion (including Bangladesh), there is the enforcement of this law with intimidation and the vigilante murder of apostates.

Hadith and Sira

The most reliable Hadith collection contain numerous accounts of Muhammad and his companions putting people to death for leaving Islam. According to verse 4:80 of the Quran:”Those who obey the Messenger obey Allah.”

Bukhari (52:260)) – “…The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’ ” 

Bukhari (83:37) – “Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.”

Bukhari (84:57) – [In the words of] “Allah’s Apostle, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

Bukhari (89:271)  – A man who embraces Islam, then reverts to Judaism is to be killed according to “the verdict of Allah and his apostle.”

Bukhari (84:58)  – “There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu’adh asked, ‘Who is this (man)?’ Abu Muisa said, ‘He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism.’ Then Abu Muisa requested Mu’adh to sit down but Mu’adh said, ‘I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice.’ Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, ‘Then we discussed the night prayers'” 

Bukhari (84:64-65)  – “Allah’s Apostle: ‘During the last days there will appear some young foolish people who will say the best words but their faith will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have no faith) and will go out from (leave) their religion as an arrow goes out of the game. So, wherever you find them, kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.'”

Bukhari (11:626)  – “The Prophet said, ‘No prayer is harder for the hypocrites than the Fajr and the ‘Isha’ prayers and if they knew the reward for these prayers at their respective times, they would certainly present themselves (in the mosques) even if they had to crawl.’ The Prophet added, ‘Certainly I decided to order the Mu’adh-dhin (call-maker) to pronounce Iqama and order a man to lead the prayer and then take a fire flame to burn all those who had not left their houses so far for the prayer along with their houses’.”

Abu Dawud (4346)  – “Was not there a wise man among you who would stand up to him when he saw that I had withheld my hand from accepting his allegiance, and kill him?” 

Muhammad is chastising his companions for allowing an apostate to “repent” under duress. (The person in question was Muhammad’s former scribe, who left him after doubting the authenticity of divine “revelations” – upon finding out that grammatical changes could be made. He was brought back to Muhammad after having been captured in Medina).

Reliance of the Traveller (Islamic Law) o8. – “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.” (o8.4 affirms that there is no penalty for killing an apostate).


Islamic Law:

There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafii), as well as classical Shiite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. The process of declaring a person to be an apostate is known as takfir and the disbeliever is called a murtad.

Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: “An apostate…is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, ‘Slay those who change their din

[religion]

‘…Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition…prior to his execution.”

The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy endorsed manual of Islamic Law, Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst…. When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory…to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.”



The OIC’s Sharia-based Cairo Declaration is transparent in its rejection of freedom of conscience in Article 10: 



“Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion, or to atheism.” Ominously, articles 19 and 22 reiterate a principle stated elsewhere throughout the document, which clearly applies to the “punishment” of so-called “apostates” from Islam: “[19d] There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Sharia.; [22a]

Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Sharia.; [22b] Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Sharia.; [22c] Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Historical example of apostasy punishment:

Tabari’s History, volume 10, focuses on aftermath of Muhammad’s death and the wars of apostasy that occurred. Muhammad coerced many tribes via threat, or direct war, to convert to Islam. After he died many of these tribes no longer wanted to be ruled by Islam. Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s best friend and father of his child bride Aisha, became the Caliph, and in obedience to Muhammad’s commands he waged war upon the apostates, both near and far. Thousands of people who no longer wanted to be Muslims were killed or returned to Islam under threat of death.

Volume 10 is full of the various attacks the Muslims made upon the apostates. The translator of volume 10, Fred Donner, summarizes the situation following Muhammad’s death on page xii. Bold emphasis is mine.

… Even as the core of the Muslim community – the Prophet’s Meccan and Medinan followers – was deciding to remain under united leadership, may other groups whom the Prophet had brought into his community in various parts of Arabia were deciding to end their submission to Medina. Some tribes claimed that they wished to remain Muslims in the religious sense – by performing prayer, for example – but would not send to Abu Bakr the tax payments that Muhammad had requested of them in his last years. Others repudiated both the political and the religious leadership of Medina; they wished simply to go their own way, now that the Prophet was dead, in some cases choosing to follow other figures who claimed, like Muhammad, to be prophets (and whom the Muslim tradition naturally, condemns as “false prophets”).

Still others, it seems hoped simply to take advantage of the turmoil in Medina to raid the town, enriching themselves with plunder and ending what they perhaps felt to be vexations demands for tribute. All of these movements are termed riddah “apostasy” by the Muslim sources, even in cases where the opponents of Medina showed no desire to repudiate the religious aspects of the faith. Abu Bakr vowed to fight them all until they were subdued and dispatched several armies to deal with the main rebellions.

Indeed, the campaigns did not limit themselves to the reconquest of Arabian tribes that had previously had some contract with Muhammad; they spilled over the whole of Arabia, and many tribes and groups that had had no contact with the Prophet at all, and who certainly had not been allied to or subjected by him, were conquered for the first time. The Arabic sources classify these wars, too, as wars against the riddah, even though they involved neither apostasy nor rebellion – only resistance to expansion of the new Islamic state based in Medina. The riddah wars constitute, in effect, the first chapter in the earlyIslamic conquest movement that led to the establishment throughout the Near East of a new imperial state ruled by Arabian Muslims.

Below are quotes from Tabari’s History, volume 10.pages 55-7

Abu Bakr’s letter to the apostates.

… So God guided with the truth whoever responded to Him, and the Apostle of God, with His permission, struck whoever turned his back to Him until he came to Islam, willingly or grudgingly.

… I have learned that some of you have turned back from your religion after you had acknowledged Islam and labored in it, out of negligence of God and ignorance of His command, and in compliance with the devil….

… I have sent you someone at the head of an army of the Muhajirun and the Ansar and those who follow (them) in good works. I ordered him not to fight anyone or to kill anyone until he has called him to the cause of God; so that those who respond to him and acknowledge (Him) and renounce (unbelief) and do good works, (my envoy) shall accept him and help him to (do right), but I have ordered him to fight those who deny (Him) for that reason. 

So he will not spare any one of them he can gain mastery over, (but may) burn them with fire, slaughter them by any means, and take women and children captive; nor shall he accept from anyone anything except Islam.

Page 69: The delegations of Banu Asad and Ghatafan and Hawazin and Tayyi came to him, and the delegations of Quda’ah encountered Usamah b. Zayd, whereupon he led them to Abu Bakr; so they gathered in Medina, staying with the chiefs of the Muslims on the tenth (day) after the death of the Apostle of God. Then they proposed to do the ritual prayer, provided that they be exempted from the zakat. A council of those who were lodging them agreed to accept that, so that they might attain what they desired. Every one of the chiefs of the Muslims lodged someone of them, except al-‘Abbas. Then they came to Abu Bakr to inform him of their tidings and of what their council had agreed on. But Abu Bakr did not (agree), for he refused (to accept) anything except what the Apostle of God had accepted. They refused (these terms), so he sent them back, giving them respite of a day and a night (to leave), whereupon they dispersed to their tribes.

Another volume of Tabari’s History, volume 17, pages 187-88 details the murder of other apostates.

Among them were many Christians who had accepted Islam, but when dissension had developed in Islam had said, “By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.” And they returned to their former religion. Al-Khirrit met them and said to them, “Woe unto you! Do you know the precept (hukm) of ‘Ali regarding any Christian who accepts Islam and then reverts to Christianity? By God he will not hear anything they say, he will not consider any excuse, he will not accept any repentance, and he will not summon them to it. His precept regarding them is immediate cutting off of the head when he gets hold of them.Those of the Banu Najiyah and other who were in that district came to him, and many men joined him.

I was in the army that ‘Ali b. Abi Talib sent against the Banu Najiyah. We came to them and found them split into three groups. Our commander said to one of these groups, “What are you?” and they replied, “We are a Christian people who do not consider any religion to be better than ours, and we hold fast to it. Our commander said to them, “Be off with you (i’tazilu)!” He said to another band, “What are you?” and they said, “We were Christians, but we accepted Islam and we hold fast to our Islam.” He said to them, “Be off with you!”

Then he said to the third group, “What are you?” and they said,We are a people who were Christians. We accepted Islam but we do not think, that any religion is better than our previous one.” He said to them, “Accept Islam!”

but they refused. He said to his men, “When I rub my head three times, attack them and kill the fighting men and make captive the dependants.”

The dependants were brought to Ali, page 191

…But there was an old man among the, a Christian called al-Rumahis b. Mansur, who said, “By God the only error I have made since attaining reason was abandoning my religion, the religion of truth, for your, the religion of wickedness. No by God, I will not leave my religion and I will not accept yours so long as I live.” Ma’qil brought him forward and cut off his head.”

 page 192, Ma’qil wrote a letter to ‘Ali, the Caliph:

… For anyone who had apostatized, we offered return to Islam or else death. As for the Christians, we made them captive and led them off so that they might be a warning for those of the protected people who come after them not to refuse the jizyah and not to make bold against our religion and community, for the protected people are of little account and lowly in status.

The history tells us that the apostates were killed by the various Caliphs following Muhammad’s death for leaving Islam. Christians were of “little account and lowly in status.” That proves that some of the apostates were no threat to the Muslims, and they didn’t fight the Muslims. They were murdered for the only reason of leaving Islam. They realized the evil in Islam and chose to leave it.

 Although the Bangladeshi Constitution and other laws claim to protect religious freedom. Section 295A of the Bangladeshi Penal Code states that anyone who has “deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings” can be imprisoned. The Code of Criminal Procedure includes clauses (99a-f), stating that “the government may confiscate all copies of a newspaper if it publishes anything subversive of the state or provoking an uprising or anything that creates enmity and hated among the citizens or denigrates religious beliefs.” Religious leaders made declarations they described as fatwas and which were used as a tool of extrajudicial punishment. Jamaat-e-Islami, the country’s largest Islamic party, along with other Islamists, have long campaigned for Bangladesh to be renamed the ‘Islamic Republic of Bangladesh’

And adopt a Constitution based on Sharia law. Despite recent electoral rejection of Islamism, Jamaat-e-Islami continue to campaign on the promise of introducing a blasphemy law.Persecutions and arrests on the basis of blasphemy charges continue to be made, despite no enacted blasphemy law in Bangladesh.

Chapter 5

Polygamy in Islam

Quran

Quran (4:3) – “Marry of the women, who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that ye cannot do justice (to so many) then one (only) or (the captives) that your right hands possess.” This verse plainly allows a man to have up to four wives (Allah conveniently granted Muhammad an exception… on the authority of Muhammad, of course). According to the Hadith, the “justice” spoken of merely refers to the dowry provided the bride, not the treatment accorded following the wedding.

Quran (4:129) – “Ye are never able to be fair and just as between women, even if it is your ardent desire” Underscores that a man is not able to treat multiple wives fairly. He would therefore be unable to acquire more than one wife if this were a requirement – which it is not. In fact, Muhammad was not able to treat his own wives fairly (see Additional Notes).

Quran (66:5) – “Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” A disobedient wife can be replaced. A man can only have up to four wives, but he can rotate as many women as he pleases in and out of the lineup.

Hadith and Sira

Bukhari (62:2) – Provides the context for verse 4:3 of the Quran. “Dealing justly” is defined within a financial context. It refers to providing a fair dowry to secure marriage – not to the equal or fair treatment of wives (which is impossible according to verse 4:129).

Bukhari (5:268)  – “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty men.” Muhammad had a “special rule” that allowed him to have at least eleven wives. (His successors had more than four wives at a time as well.)

Bukhari (62:6)- “The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.”

Bukhari (77:598) – “Allah’s Apostle said, “No woman should ask for the divorce of her sister (Muslim) so as to take her place, but she should marry the man (without compelling him to divorce his other wife)” Polygamy is firmly established in the Islamic tradition.

 I will add an example from Malaysia ! where sharia law the law of the country so we can see the truth of polygamy no matter what Islamists claims. Malaysian women’s rights organisation sisters in islam (SIS) did an research on polygamous family, the research found that the Religious Department’s records for 1993-2006 are very uneven. Whether or not actual numbers of polygamous marriages have increased in recent decades, there has been a noticeable normalising of the practice. Many conservative Malay-Muslim politicians ironically claim they have women’s needs at heart, saying: “In the modern context, there are more and more educated, professional women who remain unmarried so we should encourage polygamy”.

Preliminary findings from the SIS research show that many children of first wives report a strong negative emotional impact.

Most reported neglect from the father once he got a second wife and more so when he started having children from her. Especially where fathers had more than two wives or more than 10 children, daughters and sons often claim their father can hardly recognise them. When they went to ask for pocket money or school fees, their father would look at them clueless and say “Which mother are you from?”. This happened across the classes.

Polygamy also negatively affects the relationship between children and their mothers, with the former resenting the mother for being unable to make sure the father does not neglect them or for becoming depressed and also neglecting their emotional needs.

Regardless of gender, they lack of confidence in their own ability to have stable relationships because they have only experienced a family life filled with traumatic quarrels and resentment.

The children of second wives usually cope better because from birth they know their father has another family. But the children from the first family can see the comparison: the lack of time, lack of resources, their father’s absence when they needed him. Some of the children insisted SIS help them set up a support group to help them cope with feelings of isolation; at school they cannot relate their problems to anyone as they feel embarrassed about the situation.

The findings about the impact on children may offer an important opening for advocacy and change that can ultimately benefit women. Historically, changes to patriarchal interpretations of Muslim laws have often come in an effort to protect children’s rights. For instance, many Muslim countries now follow the principle of the best interests of the child when deciding custody, rather than rigidly applying traditionalist interpretations which deny mothers custody.

The impact of polygamy on women has both economic and emotional aspects. The research has found that many men in both lower and middle economic groups marry second wives so that they will contribute to the economic maintenance of their polygamous families. Women contribute to the nafaqa (the Muslim husband’s responsibility for maintenance) which polygamous husbands tend not to fulfil. Thinking through the last month’s expenditures, one second wife discovered for herself that the husband only provides one-third of the family’s basic needs: rice, sugar, coffee, vegetables, school fees, expenditure for school books, etc. The social reality is that most Malaysian women are breadwinners for their families, but women in polygamous families even more so. Many have some cottage business such as catering or making snacks without which there won’t be food on the table. A number of polygamous wives reported “I might as well be a single mother.” Under current government welfare policy, a single mother (divorced or widowed) can apply for welfare support but a polygamous wife, at least on paper, has a husband and

cannot get that support. The interviews have challenged the traditional perception that second wives are ‘husband stealers’ who will benefit from the marriage as they reveal that most, even in the middle classes, live a hard life.

SIS’ research also looks at nafkah batin, a Malay term referring to sexual and emotional support. Those who support polygamy invariably claim that polygamy works if the husband properly follows the practice of giliran, or ‘turn-taking’: dividing time between the wives. All polygamous men claim they practice giliran,perhaps reflecting a subconscious recognition that the Qur’an enjoins equal treatment of multiple wives.

But the in-depth interviews show thatgiliranis in fact unworkable: unplanned domestic crises such as a child falling sick or work crises all intervene to derail any giliran. Some polygamous men even seem to be trapped in the fable of masculine prowess.

Taxi drivers with wives in two different states, or those who lose time travelling between families, say they are sometimes simply too tired to give time to their other family. When asked “Would you recommend polygamy to your children, your son?” a number of the better educated, professional middle class men said, “Seriously, I have to admit I wouldn’t. It’s quite stressful.”

Not just unworkable, the giliran ‘roster’ in fact seems to be largely a myth. When husbands were asked “So who’s turn is it today?” they were unable to answer, while wives simply said “Oh my husband keeps track of that.” Thus expected to follow the husband’s lead, women have evolved strategies for keeping their man. Interviews with rural women found widespread reliance on black magic to make sure the first husband does not forget her or to hex the second family. But the rural women also said “Don’t underestimate this. Even women in the Klang Valley area

[where the capital Kuala Lumpur is situated]

resort to this. They come back home to Kelantan and Terengganu, and consult the local bomoh.”

Husbands also report that the first wife becomes sexually competitive and manipulative. One said, “Before I took another wife, our sexual relations had waned a bit but as soon as I got married she is making more demands and I’m getting exhausted and I think it’s affecting my heart problem.” A second wife in Kelantan said “He asked me to give him a massage in order to ‘revive’ him. Hell, I gave him such a good massage and he fell asleep and started snoring and that ‘thing’ would not even go up!” The women quite openly discuss these problems. Although some of the interviews verge on the farcical, this should not detract from the fact that polygamous wives clearly suffer profound emotional and economic harm, two powerful grounds for future campaigning. But Malaysia may not yet be ready for a public discussion about the right to a satisfying sexual relationship, clearly also an issue in polygamous situations.

Far from the traditional Muslim ideal of a harmonious family with a male breadwinner providing all the family’s needs, the SIS research is revealing how polygamy leads to unstable and dysfunctional families and how the possibility of being just between wives and avoiding economic harm is a myth !!!

Chapter 6

Inheritance Discrimination in Islam

Women discrimination is evident in Islamic laws of inheritance:

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children’s (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; if only one, her share is a half. For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; if no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased Left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases (‘s) after the payment of bequests and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah. and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. In what your wives leave, your share is a half, if they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of bequests and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eighth; after payment of bequests and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of bequests and debts; so that no loss is caused (to any one). Thus is it ordained by Allah,. and Allah is All-knowing, Most Forbearing. (Quran 4: 11,12)

Some scholars quote a few instances where women are not discriminated. However, as a general principle the women discrimination is clear in this Ayah. Furthermore, exceptions don’t make a rule.

Women discrimination in Islamic laws of inheritance is criticized as ‘unequal rights’ for women. Some criticize that these rights do not meet modern standards of civilization.

However, most of the critics ignore another vital factor. Quran gives a system of life to be implemented in a human society. It is law of God enunciated for the societies who want to follow it. The basic rung of this social system is a family unit. Even the philosophy of marriage revolves around this first brick of the system.

Within a family, the whole responsibility to feed, dress and provide shelter to a family lies with the husband. The wife may make money but she are not bound to spend even a single penny on the family for which she is a part and parcel.

Whatever share of inheritance a husband gets, he is bound to spend on the welfare of the family. However, whatever share a wife gets is purely owned by the woman without any responsibility to spend it on the family. It is natural to conclude that man needs more resources within a family than a wife may need.

Most of the Islamic scholars agree that Islam does not treat women with discrimination in most of the affairs. However, when it is issue of a family benevolence the men are given preference for their responsibilities.

There is a lot of discrimination in Islam towards woman. A full book can be written on this subject. Women are not just degraded in every part of their social life in Islam. They are also unequally treated.

The Quran in Sura 4:24 says:

And forbidden to you are wedded wives of other people except those who have fallen in your hands [as prisoners of war] . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 319).

Sayyid Maududi (d. 1979), a highly respected traditional commentator and scholar, says in his comment on the verse that is it lawful for Muslim holy warriors to marry women prisoners of war even when their husbands are still alive. But what happens if the husbands are captured with their wives? Maududi cites a school of law that says Muslims may not marry them, but two other schools say that the marriage between the captive husbands and wives is broken (note 44). But why would a debate over this cruelty emerge in the first place?

No marriage should take place between prisoners of war and their captives, married or not. In fact, no sex should take place between women captives and their Muslim overlords. 

Islam allows deep immorality with women who are in their most helpless condition. This crime is reprehensible, but Allah wills it nonetheless—the Quran says so. For more information on this Quran—inspired immorality. also Suras 4:3; 23:5-6; 33:50; 70:22-30, all of which permit male slave-owners to have sex with their slave—girls. Suras 23:5-6 and 70:22-230 allow men to have sex with them in the Meccan period, during times of peace before Muhammad initiated his skirmishes and wars in Medina.

The hadith demonstrate that Muslims jihadists actually have sex with the captured women, whether or not they are married. In the following hadith passage, Khumus is one—fifth of the spoils of war.

Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son—in—law, had just finished a relaxing bath. Why?

The Prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus [of the booty] and . . . Ali had taken a bath [after a sexual act with a slave—girl from the Khumus].

What was Muhammad’s response to the person who hated Ali for this sexual act?

Do you hate Ali for this? . . . Don’t hate him, for he deserves more that that from [the] Khumus. (Bukhari)

Moreover, jihadists may not practice coitus interruptus with the women they capture, but not for the reason that the reader may expect. While on a military campaign and away from their wives, Muslim jihadists ‘received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus.’ They asked the Prophet about this, and it is important to note what he did not say. He did not scold them or prohibit any kind of sex whatsoever. Rather, he invoked the murky, quirky doctrine of fate:

That is, these enquiring Muslims should stop doing coitus interruptus, but instead go all the way with the enslaved sex objects. Fate controls who should be born.

It is one thing for some soldiers in any army to strike out on their own and rape women. All armies have criminal soldiers who commit this wrong act. But it is quite another to codify rape in a sacred text.

There is more evidence about the treatment of women prisoners of war in Islam.

The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general.

The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk;

who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)

The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)

It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Koran 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her.

She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Conclusion

I spent countless night and days studying the truth of Islam so I can educate myself, what I learnt is incredible. A completely different Islam that I have been told and preached since my childhood. I do not have any issues about people being religious, but this truth has to come forward. People should know Islam is not what we have been told for years. It’s a lot different than it seems. Understanding Quran and Hadith and using your common sense can help anyone to see the real religion of Islam.

Anyone standing out on the street preaching hate speech against woman, non-believers, child, LGBT and accepting slavery as from of lifestyle would be treated as filth. But when it comes to religion we blindly accept everything!

In our Bangladeshi society everything goes we hate woman, we hate our homemakers who works all day long for us, we hate Gay, Lesbians, Hijras (transgender) at same time we claim to be the best human beings in the world cause we are Muslims !!! Hypocrisy!!!

Humayun Azad was not wrong about Bangladeshis at all. Only great writer like him can picture our hypocrisy.

It’s time to wake up. Bombing and discriminating against human being will never make a religion or a nation great. But a true understanding of Humanity can change us as a nation. We have a great history of rebellion and standing up for the truth. I am waiting for that time when Bangladeshis will come out of the delude of religion and start loving people and freedom again.

References:

Verious sourecs of Quran,Hadith,News Articles and my own writing in other books and printed blogs.

Verious sourecs of Quran,Hadith,News Articles and my own writing in other books and printed blogs.

Published by Sultan Tipu

An independent writer.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: