Featured

RAPE, ISLAM, BANGLADESH

Definition of rape

In common parlance, ‘rape’ is a form of sexual assault. Rape is the act of having sexual intercourse or any other form of sexual intercourse with a person without his or her consent. Rape can be caused by physical force, other forms of coercion, intimidation, blackmailing or abuse of power or authority. Sexual intercourse with a person who is unable to give permission (such as an unconscious, handicapped, mentally handicapped or a minor) is also a form of rape. (RAPE) (RAPE) (Organization)

From the definition of rape we read above, it is clear that two adults can have sex with full consent and consent. Everyone will choose the person of his choice according to his own will, and will have love, affection or sex with him, it is his right. No disciplinary action can be taken against them in this case. In addition, in any case, without the will or consent, any form of intimidation or harm, coercion, blackmail, abuse of power or authority, or unconscious, handicapped, mentally handicapped or minors who are deemed unable to consent If sexual intercourse is done with it, it should be considered as rape.

Change in the definition of rape

In most jurisdictions, rape refers to a person having sex with another person without their consent or in any other way having sexual intercourse with them.There is controversy among government health agencies, law enforcement agencies, health workers and lawyers over the definition of rape. Different historical eras and different cultures also differ in the definition of rape. The definition of rape has also changed over time. Prior to 1979, no man in the United States could be charged with raping his wife. In some states in the United States in the 1950’s, it was considered “rape” for a white woman to voluntarily have sex with a black man. (RAPE) (RAPE) (Organization)

There are many problems in the law of Bangladesh even at this time. Section 155 of the Evidence Act, page 162 of the Evidence Act, edited by Siddiqur Rahman Mia, states, “When a person is handed over to a criminal on charges of attempted rape or indecency, it may be shown that the complainant is generally a ‘bitch woman’.” ‘(When a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to ravish, it may be shown that the prosecutrix was of generally immoral character.). That is, if the accused can prove that the complainant is a prostitute or possesses bad character, he can be acquitted.

But a prostitute can also be sexually abused. If a sex worker also refuses to have sex, no one can have the right to force him to have sex. It is now recognized in all civilized worlds. But the old law is still in force in Bangladesh.

A common definition of rape is now defined in the civilized world, which is consistent with the UN Charter of Human Rights. However, the definition of rape or adultery has not changed in Islam. It is still the same as it was in the early days of Islam, and will remain so until the Day of Resurrection. The fanatical Muslims want to keep the Muslim inhabited areas as the rule of those old days. Statistics from PEW RESEARCH CENTER show that ordinary Muslims in many Muslim-majority countries want Sharia law in the country without knowing anything about Sharia law. (land)

Because they think that any change in the law given by Allah and His Messenger is a kind of distortion. Basically, this is why it is not possible to define rape in fanatical fundamentalist and conservative societies. In this case, it can be seen that many types of rape are not considered as rape at all by the religions. As a result, the number of reported rape crimes is relatively low in fanatical countries. At the same time, women in conservative society are not interested in reporting to the police because of the reality of conservative society. Considering the concept of chastity, respect and descent, most rapes do not reach the courts. After showing those statistics, it is claimed that rape is less in bigoted conservative society, Europe is more in America! However, the truth is that in Western countries where human rights are important, girls can live a relatively independent and self-reliant life. In these countries, girls report sexual harassment to schools, buses, trains, offices, schools. By showing those statistics, the fanatics always claim that there are many more rapes in the western world. This is not correct at all. By saying these things they try to impose more control on the girls and more strictness about their dress. Which is untrue at once, because in conservative religious societies there are very few reports of rape?

Can the death penalty prevent rape?

Being one of the many common myths in our society, crime can be reduced by applying harsh and barbaric punishment! But these words are not true at all. Many studies have shown that in countries where barbaric punishment is imposed, crime rates continue to rise at a compounding rate (ACL15). Capital punishment not only reduces crime, but also increases it. (The National Academics of Sciences Engeneering Medicine) Statistics show that countries that have abolished the practice of corporal punishment and the death penalty have reduced the number of offenders. Even prisons in many countries have to be closed due to lack of criminals.

The death penalty in rape cases creates more horrific situations. When a rapist is raped, it is generally thought that he may not face trial for this act. But if he has this fear in his mind that he is likely to be executed, or that there is a possibility of a very terrible punishment, he kills the rapist very quickly. In the hope that his guilt will no longer be proven. The mentality of a criminal works in such a way that he quickly tries to erase the evidence at hand after committing the crime. Studies in different parts of the world have shown that the opposite is true when it comes to preventing rape. Girls used to be raped and released, but after being sentenced to death or beheading, most rapists no longer live to complain. The rapist kills the rapist very quickly due to the immediate reaction and panic. Because at this point his normal senses do not work, the rapist makes a decision out of fear that he might not have taken under normal circumstances. Will be beheaded or hanged, this panic then affects him. And to avenge all the panic he builds on that rape.

The raped girl could have survived the rape, but if they were killed, there was nothing left to do. It becomes difficult to prove, and the girl’s family collapses. Therefore, the death penalty or beheading is not helpful in preventing rape, but the opinion of criminologists and sociologists that it is an obstacle.

Social ideas about women

Personally, my idea is that rape is more about power than sex. I am male, I am powerful, I am dominant, I am the chief, women are created for my enjoyment, women’s work gives us happiness and comfort, and these ideas play a major role in rape. The biggest reason for rape is the social and religious perception of women. To think of a woman as a consumer product, helpless, incapable, weak, dependent, crooked, imperfect, submissive, submissive. What Islam says about women in Muslim society is extremely humiliating and disrespectful to women. I think this idea is a major factor in the rape of women.

From an early age you will teach your children that women have been created to break men’s loneliness, to entertain men, meaning that she is a recreational object, a toy doll, a crop field, where she can cultivate as she pleases, a production machine, a commodity, a woman’s legs. From head to toe sex and sex-orgasm, a body covered in a forbidden dark robe, with which one cannot befriend, with whom one cannot play cricket, with whom one cannot go for a walk, with whom one cannot walk on the street with one’s hands on one’s shoulders. It is not possible to go by boat, whose place is in the inner court, whose place is in the kitchen, whose place is in the bed, who has the right to beat, who has to be in the regime, who has to hide in the chest veil, who has to always bow in shame, who has to bow his head The number of rapes will continue to increase when you socially establish the idea that you have to live, that you have to control.

A girl has the right to choose the life she wants, the clothes she wants and the people she loves. Whatever dress he wears is his right. If she wears shorts, or a dress that reveals physical beauty, A fanatical man assumes that this girl is a prostitute. So his opinion is unimportant. She can get him if she wants to. That is why this girl was created. If the girl does not respond to his call, her manhood is hurt. He thinks that the girl is wearing such a dress just to show him, so if he wants to get the girl, then the girl should be blessed. But when he doesn’t get a response from the girl, his manhood gets hurt. Throughout her life she has been taught that she is better, stronger than any woman, because she has a penis. He wants to express the pride of this penis! Wants to let you know!

Let’s see how Islam actually treats women. You can see this article to read more about this topic.

Your wives are the fields for you. Use them as you wish.

Verse 223 of Surah Al-Baqara

He is the One who created you from a single being; and he made his pair from it, so that he could get relief from it.

Sura 6 verse 189

Name of the Book: Sahih Muslim

Hadith Number: [3512]

Chapter: 18 / Milking

Publisher: Islamic Foundation Bangladesh

Costume 9. Wills about women

3512. Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Numayr al-Hamdani (R): It is narrated on the authority of Abdullah ibn Amr that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Name of the Book: Sahih Muslim

Hadith Number: [3513]

Chapter: 18 / Milking

Publisher: Islamic Foundation Bangladesh

Costume 9. Wills about women

3513. Haramala Ibn Yahya (R): Narrated from Abu Hurairah (R). He said that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Women are like the bones of a pajar (curved). When you go to straighten it, you will break it, and you will benefit by keeping it curved.

Zuhair Ibn Harb and Abd Ibn Humaid (R)… (Zuhri’s nephew according to his uncle Zuhri) (like the above sanad) Ibn Shihab (R) has narrated exactly the same.

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Name of the book: Sunan Ibn Majah

Hadith Number: [3998] Chapter: 30 / Dispute

Publisher: Tauhid Publication

Costume: 30/19. Disasters caused by women

1/3996. Narrated from Usama bin Zayd. He said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘I will not leave after me anything more disastrous for men than for women.’

Sahihul Bukhari 5098, Muslim 2640, 2641, Tirmidhi 260, Ahmad 21239, 21322, Sahih 2601. Tahkeek Albani: Sahih.

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Name of the Book: Sahih Bukhari (Ifai)

Hadith Number: [28] Chapter: 2 / Iman

Publisher: Islamic Foundation

Cost: 21 / Gratitude towards husband

26. It is narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah ibn Maslama (may Allah be pleased with him) from Ibn’ Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I am shown Hell. (I see), most of its inhabitants are women; (Because) they disbelieve. It was asked, ‘Do they disbelieve in Allah?’ She said: ‘They disobey their husbands and deny Ihsan. ‘If you continue to be kind to one of them for a long time, then when he sees your slightest negligence, he says,‘ I have never been treated well by you. ’

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Women are responsible for rape?

When an incident of rape took place somewhere, some old uncles came to the tea shop in the neighbourhood. They are always very keen to give wise opinions on this matter. Usually what is in these wise opinions is, “That stick is also to blame. The movement of the cane is not good. Wright goes out to roam. Polago turns around. ” That is, since the girl’s character is not good, she can be raped! These old uncles, who are neutral in the tea shops of the area, are very popular in the tea shops. In tea shops, on the bus, almost everyone applauds when they hear about it. Now they have come to the talk show on the blog on Facebook. They are called civil. They acquitted both the rapists and raped them. They say, “Why did the rapist hurt his sexual feelings by wearing provocative clothes? There must be rape! ”

A woman is raped in many ways. At first she was raped by a lustful man. Then in his own family he was raped by his parents! When her parents blame her for the rape. Harassment and torture of the parents, on the contrary, trying to convict the girl, raped the girl again. “Why didn’t he wear a burqa?” – “Why didn’t he control himself?” If he is able to go to the police after handling them, he will have to go through more horrible experiences with the law court police. In what way was the rape committed, where did the rapist put his hand during the rape, where did he put his face, how many times did he rape her for how long, did the girl not have fun during the rape or did she get hurt? And if the newspaper gets the news, they serve such hot news to the reader with different kinds of spices. The news contains all the glamorous words like “night”, “day”, “continuous”, “upuryapari”, “in different ways”, “naked” etc., which people read about and start raping the girl in their minds. This means that the whole society keeps on raping the girl.

Men’s mentality is responsible for rape, not women’s dress. Notice that the dolls you buy for your child include guns, cars, planes, and so on. And for the girl child, you have an allocation of pottery, barbidoll, cosmetics. That means you are raising your son from an early age with the idea that he will rule, occupy, rule. And the girl child will take care of the house, cook, raise the child. In other words, you have been instilling these ideas in him since childhood. When you gradually inculcate such social ideas in children, children will naturally grow up with a kind of occupation, a sense of authority when they grow up. They rape, and then the responsibility will be on the woman’s dress.

The Qur’an, the holy book of Muslims, identifies women’s clothing as a cause of harassment. In verse 59 of Surah Al-Ahzab it is said,

O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the wives of the believers to draw their cloaks close to them. This will make it easier to recognize them. As a result, they will not be harassed. GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

This kind of thinking will create a victim blaming environment in society. People will understand, women’s clothing is actually responsible for harassing women, not men! These are old medieval ideas, out of which our society will gradually move towards the Middle Ages.

Halal rapes in Islam

Islam has legalized several types of rape. As the modern definition of rape is outlined above, readers should read the definition and compare it with the following sections-

Marital rape is halal

Marital rape is the forced sexual intercourse of a partner with the consent or unwillingness of the husband or wife. In today’s civilized world, it is considered rape to force a partner to have sex even after marriage. Even so, you cannot have sex with your mate without his or her consent. Your marital partner is not your sexual object, he should be forced to give you sexual pleasure as soon as he wants it. You can try to persuade him if he is not reluctant or in the mood, but you cannot do this because of his reluctance or disapproval. This is a human rights violation. In December 1993, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a declaration explicitly stating that marital rape was a violation of human rights. (Wiki) (Kersti Yllo, M Gabriela Torres)

Article Two:

Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but not be limited to, the following:

  • Physical, sexual and psychological violence occurring in the family, including battering, sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and other traditional practices harmful to women, non-spousal violence and violence related to exploitation;

But in Islam, marital rape is not considered rape. Rather, Islam puts pressure on the wife in this case, intimidating her and forcing her to do so, citing the possibility of harm in the Hereafter. As soon as the husband asks, Islam instructs the wife to satisfy her husband’s sexual needs, or else she will be threatened with the punishment of the Hereafter. In this case, any excuse, objection or disagreement of the wife is not acceptable. He threatens to curse her if she disagrees.

Book: Sahih Muslim (H Academy)

Chapter: 16. Marriage

Hadith number: 3433

20. Avoiding the husband’s bed is forbidden for the wife

3433- (122/7) Narrated from Abu Bakr Ibn Shaybah, Abu Qurayb, Abu Saeed Al Ashajj and Zuhair Ibn Harb (may Allah have mercy on him). He said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: When the husband calls his wife to bed and she does not come, her husband spends the night displeased with her, and the angels curse her until dawn. (Islamic Foundation 3408, Islamic Centre 3405)

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Book: Sahih Muslim (H Academy)

Chapter: 16. Marriage

Hadith number: 3432

20. Avoiding the husband’s bed is forbidden for the wife

3432- (121/6) Ibn Abu Umar (R) 6 .. Narrated from Abu Hurairah (Razi). He said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘By the One in Whose hand is my life.’ When a man calls his wife to bed, but she denies it, surely the heavenly beings are displeased with her until he is pleased with her. (Islamic Foundation 3405, Islamic Centre 3404)

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Book: Mishkatul Masabih (Mishkat)

Chapter: Episode-13: Marriage

Hadith Number: 3257

3257- [20] Narrated from Tablaq Ibn ‘Ali (R). He said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: If a husband calls his wife out of necessity, she should respond to his call immediately, even if she is busy by the stove. (Tirmidhi)

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Publisher: Tauhid Publication

Book: Sunan Ibn Majah

Chapter 9 / Marriage

Hadith Number: 1853

It was narrated that: Abdullah bin Abu Awfa said “When Muadh bin Jabal came from Sham, he prostrated to the Prophet who said: ‘What is this, O Muadh?’ He said: ‘I went to Sham and saw them prostrating to their bishops and patricians and I wanted to do that for you.’ The messenger of Allah said: ‘Do not do that. If I were to command anyone to prostrate to anyone other than Allah, I would have commanded women to prostrate to their husbands. By the One in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad! No woman can fulfill her duty towards Allah until she fulfills her duty towards her husband. If he asks her (for intimacy) even if she is on her camel saddle, she should not refuse.’

The bigger problem is that Islam gives men the responsibility of supporting the family and earning an income. It is not mandatory for women. For this reason, most Islamist parents are reluctant to educate women in higher education or to make them financially self-sufficient. Because tomorrow the girl will go to the next house! For this reason, in Islamic societies, a married woman is often financially dependent on her husband. As a result, even if she is a victim of marital rape, she cannot protest against it, nor does she want to go to court. Because at the end of the day, he has built an Islamic society as a parasite! He was not given a chance to become self-reliant.

Islamists will thicken their throats and say, what is the need for girls to work? Eat up on your feet! Poor husband will suffer! Look at how much Islam has benefited women! But the truth is, this is an ominous plan for a long life of slavery for women. The trick behind all this is to try to prevent girls from becoming self-reliant. As long as girls are not financially self-sufficient, they have to stay on their feet.

Rape of child girls

Under civilized law around the world, even if a minor girl gives consent, since she has not yet reached the age of consent; her consent is not considered consent for sex. Consent or disagreement, in any case, having sex with a minor is considered a forbidden and punishable crime in the entire civilized world. On the contrary, Islam has not only made it permissible to marry underage girls, but also to have sex with them. Read this article to know more about this.

Title of the book: Sahih Muslim (Hadith Academy)

Chapter: 16. Marriage

Chapter 10. The father may marry the underage virgin daughter

3370- (69/1422) Narrated by Abu Qurayb Muhammad ibn ‘Ala and Abu Bakr ibn Abu Shaybahu (may Allah have mercy on him)… Aisha (Razih). He said, “The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, married me when I was six years old.” He took me to the living room, when I was nine years old. Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) said: After we migrated and reached Madinah, I had a fever for a month and the hair on my head fell out and remained near my ears. (My mother) Umm Ruman came to me, I was on a swing then and I also had my playmates. He called me out loud, I went to him.

I did not understand what he would do to me. He took my hand and led me to the door. I was saying then, ah, ah. Eventually my worries subsided. He took me to a room. Ansar women were present there. They all prayed for my welfare and mercy and wished me good luck. She (mother) handed me over to them. They washed my head and groomed me. I was not afraid of anything. The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, came at dawn and they handed me over to him. (Islamic Foundation 3344, Islamic Center 3343)

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Narrator: Aisha (R)

Rape of women prisoners of war is halal

Slavery is forbidden in all civilized worlds, and the rape of women prisoners of war is also prohibited in the Geneva Conventions. But in the eyes of Islam, there is a provision for women prisoners of war to enjoy the spoils of war till the Day of Resurrection. Islam has made it permissible to have sex with women prisoners of war or slave girls, and in this case no consent is required for the sex work of women prisoners of war or slaves. You can read this article for details.

Title of the book: Sahih Bukhari (Islamic Foundation)

Chapter 51 / Maghazi (War Campaign)

Chapter 2196. Battle of Banu Mustaliq. Banu Mustaliq is a branch of Khuza’ar. This battle is also called the battle of Muraysi. Ibn Ishaq (may Allah be pleased with him) said: This battle took place in the year 6 AH. Musa ibn Uqba (may Allah be pleased with him) said: In the year 4 AH. Numan ibn Rashid narrates from Zuhri that the incident of Ifak took place in the battle of Muraysi.

3632. Qutaybah Ibn Saeed (R): Narrated Ibn Muhairiyya (R), he said, “Once I entered the mosque and saw Abu Saeed Khudri (R) and sat down with him and asked him about Azal. Abu Sa’eed Khudri said, “We took part in the battle of Banu Mustaliq with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” In this war we captured many Arab prisoners. We were attracted to women and it became difficult for us to get married and without a wife. So we chose to do it and decided to do it. Then we began to say that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) existed among us. We are going to do Azal without asking him about it. When we asked him about it, he said, “What is the harm if you do not do so?” Know that all the souls that are to come till the Day of Resurrection will come.

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Narrated by: Abdullah Ibn Muhairij (R)

Name of the Book: Sahih Bukhari (Tawheed)

Hadith Number: [7409]

Chapter 96 / Tauhid

Publisher: Tauhid Publication

Cost: 96/18. God’s Word: He is the Creator, the Inventor, the Shaper. (Surah Al-Hashr 59/24)

6409. Narrated from Abu Saeed Khudri. He narrates about the battle of Bani Mustaliq that the Muslims got some prisoners in the battle. Then they wanted to enjoy them. They also wanted her not to get pregnant again. So they asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about Azal. The Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, “It is of no use to you.” Because God has written down all the life He will create until the Day of Resurrection. Mujahid (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated from Abu Saeed Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him) through Qaya (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Allah must create as many lives as it has been decided. [2229] (Modern Publications – 6993, Islamic Foundation – 6905)

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Rape of child boys

We often hear that such and such child has been raped in the madrasa today, such and such child has been raped tomorrow. Everyday newspapers are full of this kind of news. What is the rule of Islam in this matter that children are being raped in madrassas, showing greed, or intimidation to get higher marks? Islam prescribes the punishment for homosexuality or homosexuality, which means that both those who do it and those with whom it is done will be killed. Although there is no provision in Islam for menstruation of children, these hadiths are used to cover the mouths of children. So that the children do not complain to anyone for fear of death.

Publisher: Islamic Foundation

Book: Sunan Abu Dawood (Ifa)

Chapter 33 / Provision of punishment

Hadith Number: 4403

4403. Narrated from Abdullah Ibn Muhammad (R): Ibn Abbas (R). He said: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: When you see someone engaged in homosexual acts like the people of Lot, you will kill both its owner and the one with whom it is done.

Hadith Man: Hasan

Rape fornication or fitna facade?

There is no such thing as rape or rape in Arabic, the holy book of Muslims. Nowhere in the Qur’an is anything said about this. There is an incident of rape in the hadith, which has been termed as forcible adultery. Most of the eminent scholars of Islam have said that rape should be included in adultery and that the punishment of Hadr should be applied for it. In this case, the punishment is to throw stones at the married, and to beat the unmarried with 100 lashes or to deport them. In the hadith of forced adultery in the time of Muhammad, rape is pardoned and its rapist (who was married) was stoned to death. They refer to this hadith and consider rape to be adultery. (Law)

The jurists of the Maliki School have described rape as an act of robbery. Some eminent jurists and scholars of Islam, such as Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, and Egypt’s Supreme Sharia Council, have included rape not as a subclass of adultery, but as a fitna fasad (Fight). In this context, they referred to the fade in verse 33 of Surah Ma’ida in the Qur’an and said that this verse would apply to rape. Since Islam treats women as a commodity [16], they refer to rape as a form of looting or intimidation. [17]

The punishment for those who fight with Allah and His Messenger and try to create chaos in the land is that they will be killed or crucified or their limbs will be cut off from the opposite side or they will be expelled from the land. This is a disgrace for them in this world, and for them in the Hereafter is a severe punishment.

But the problem that arises in this case is that in the next verse of this verse it is said that if the accused repent before they are arrested, Allah will forgive them.

But those who repent before you are arrested; Know that God is Forgiving, Merciful.

What is adultery?

The word zina (زِنَاء) or zina (زِنًى or زِنًا) means sexual intercourse between two unmarried people. In Islamic law, adultery is an illicit sexual relationship between two people without a wife or a slave, which is strictly forbidden and punishable in Islam. In Islam, adultery is a poetic sin that cannot be forgiven without repentance. But if you repent, you will be forgiven. It is narrated in the Sahih Hadith that if the adulterer believes in Allah in his mind, he will surely enter Paradise.

Mishkatul Masabih (Mishkat)

Episode 1: Faith

Paragraph: The first paragraph

26- [25] It is narrated from Abu Jarr Ghiffari (R). He said, “I (once) came to the service of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) slept in a white robe. I went back. Then I went to him again. Then he (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was awake. He (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) (looking at me) said, “Whoever says (with heart)’ la-ila-ha illallah-ha ‘and dies on this belief, he will surely enter Paradise.” I said, he still commits theft and adultery (such a big sin)? He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Even if he steals and commits adultery. I asked again, even after stealing and committing adultery? He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: Yes, even if you commit sins like stealing and adultery. Although Abu Jarr’s nose was dirty with dust. The narrator said that whenever Abu Jarr (R) narrated this hadith (with pride) he would narrate this last sentence ‘even if Abu Jarr’s nose is dirty with dust’. (Bukhari, Muslim) [1]

[1] Sahih: Bukhari 5728, Muslim 94, Ahmad 2148, Sahih Al Jami ‘5733.

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

What is adultery in Islam?

Aisha’s character was once questioned during Muhammad’s lifetime. Some of the Companions claimed that Aisha was immoral and that she was in an extramarital affair with one of Muhammad’s Companions. Even Hazrat Ali went against Aisha. Later, Muhammad proved the sanctity of Aisha by revealing the holy verses of Allah. At this time, in order to charge someone with adultery, provision was made to bring four Muslim truthful male witnesses who had witnessed the incident. According to the hadith, they saw the man’s genitals inserted into his wife’s genitals in the same way as the surma shalaka is inserted into the surmadani.

Verses 15-16 of Surah An-Nisa ‘speak of adultery,

“And call four of you men as witnesses against the adulteress among the women. But if they testify, then confine them to their homes until death overtakes them or Allah guides them to another way. Punish the two of you who engage in that evil (adultery), then if they both repent (repent, repent) and correct themselves, then withdraw from them. Surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

Verses 12-17 of Surah Noor say,

When you heard this, why did not the believing men and women have a good idea of ​​their own people and say, “This is a blasphemy?”

Why they did not present four witnesses in the matter; But when they do not bring witnesses, then they are liars to Allah.

Had it not been for the grace and mercy of Allah upon you in this world and the Hereafter, a severe punishment would have touched you for what you used to do.

When you were spreading it with your mouths and uttering words of which you had no knowledge. You thought it was trivial, but it was a serious matter with God.

When you heard this, why didn’t you say that we shouldn’t talk about it? Glory be to God! This is a serious slander.

It is further stated in Surah Noor verse 2,

“Give a hundred lashes each to the men and women accused of adultery, so that mercy may not weaken you on what God has ordained for you, if you believe in God and the Day of Judgment.” Be a witness. ”

In Surah Noor verses 4-5 it is further stated,

“And those who accuse innocent women and then cannot produce four witnesses, whip them, whip them, and then never take any evidence from them; And that’s because they’re transgressors. Except those who repent and amend, for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Does rape include adultery?

In Arabic, the word igtisab (extortion) or jina-al-jibar is used in the sense of rape. Islamic it belongs to the hirabah or bandit class. Islam does not condone rape or forced sexual harassment. An incident from the time of Muhammad is mentioned in Abu Dawood

Sunan Abu Dawood (Islamic Foundation)

33 / Provision of punishment

Chapter 6. About admitting one’s guilt in front of the judge.

4327. Muhammad ibn Yahya (R) 8. Alkama narrates from her father Wa’il (R) that in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when a woman met a man on the way to perform the prayer, the man forcibly raped her. When the woman yells, a man walks past her and wants to know why. Then the woman said: Such and such a person has committed such misdeeds with me. Later, when a group of emigrants passed by her, she said to them: Such a person has done such a thing to me. Then they went and caught a man they thought he had done. Then when they present the man to the woman, she also says: Yes. This person has committed this misdeed.

Then they took the man to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) intended to impose the Shari’ah on that person, the person who committed the misdeed with the woman stood up and said: O Messenger of Allaah! I have done wrong. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the woman: Go away, Allaah has forgiven you. Then he got on well with the man. When the Companions asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to order him to be stoned to death, he said: The man has repented in such a way that if all the people of Madinah had repented in this way, it would have been accepted.

Imam Abu Dawood (R) said: This hadith has also been narrated by Astar Ibn Nasr (R) from Simak (R).

Hadith Man: Hasan

Narrated by: Alkamah

The scholars of Islam all agree that the rapist should be punished under the Hudud Act, if clear evidence is found against him or if he confesses to the crime and the raped woman is not punished . In a rape case, four eyewitnesses are required, unless the accused pleads guilty. Eyewitnesses will not be required in that case. In the above hadith, the culprit has confessed to the crime and the limit has been imposed on him. If the rapist fails to prove the allegation, it will be treated as a false allegation, punishable by flogging. (proven)

To Prove Rape Islam needs four male witnesses

Evidence of adultery requires either of the two tores in Islam.

A. Confession of the rapist

B. 4 Muslim truthful righteous male witnesses

According to Islamic law, adultery is punishable by flogging if the perpetrator is unmarried and by stoning if married. However, this punishment can be applied only when four male witnesses testify that they have witnessed this adultery directly.

Sunan Abu Dawood (Tahaqiq)

33 / Crime and its punishment

Chapter 27 The incident of raping two Jews

4452. Narrated by Jabir Ibn Abdullah (R). He said that a group of Jews came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with men and women among them. He said: Bring two of you the wisest. So they brought to him the two sons of Surya.

He swears to them by Allah: What do you see in the Torah about them? They said, “We see in the Torah that if four witnesses testify that they saw the man’s genitals inserted into the genitals in the same way as the surma shalaka is inserted into the surmadani.” Then both of them will be stoned.

He asked: So what is stopping you from satisfying them? They both said, “We have lost our power.” So we don’t allow killing.

Then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called for the witnesses. They brought four witnesses. They testified that they saw the man’s genitals inserting into the man’s genitals just as the surma shalaka penetrated into the man’s genitals. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) ordered them to fast. [1]

Sahih.

[1]. Ibn Majah, Darakutni.

The value of hadith: Pure/Highly Trusted

Narrated by: Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari (R)

DNA testing is not acceptable

Audio, video, DNA or any medical test, these are not acceptable in Islamic law. Only those matters which the Islamic Shari’ah considers as evidence will be considered as evidence. Besides, everything else will be annulled in the Islamic Sharia court. [23]

Q:

I know that in the past, if someone was to be charged with adultery, they had to bring four witnesses. My question is, instead of bringing 4 witnesses at present, can we use scientific methods – such as DNA tests to prove it?

Answer:

All praise is due to Allah.

According to Islamic Sharia, adultery can only be proven by clear evidence, such as four credible witnesses who saw it directly, or if the accused pleads guilty or if the woman is pregnant. This cannot be proved by DNA testing or by camera and video evidence instead of the evidence mentioned above. God knows best.

Source: Muhammad Salih Al Munajjid

Question

I know that in the past if someone has committed adultery, they had to bring 4 witnesses.

My question is can we prove that today by using latest scientific methods as the DNA test, instead of bringing 4 witnesses.

Answer

Praise is to Allah.

According to Islamic sharee’ah, zinaa can only be proven by clear evidence, namely the testimony of four trustworthy and sound witnesses who saw it actually happen, or by confession of guilt, or by the woman becoming pregnant. It cannot be proven by DNA testing or by use of cameras and videos in place of the things mentioned above. And Allaah knows best.

Source: Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Failure to prove adultery is the opposite punishment

If someone accuses someone of adultery, and fails to provide witnesses or provides any other evidence (remember, DNA testing is not acceptable in Islamic law), then the complainant must be punished. This is stated in the Sahih Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari (Islamic Foundation)

44 / Martyrdom

Chapter 183. If someone makes a claim or tells a lie, he has to prove it and go out to look for evidence.

2493. Muhammad ibn Bashar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) that when Hilal ibn Umayyah accused the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) of committing adultery against his wife with Sharik ibn Sahma, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) testified. No, the rod will fall on your back. He said, “O Allah’s Apostle, will any of us see another man on his wife and run to collect evidence?” But the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) kept saying the same thing (over and over again), either you will present evidence or you will be flogged. Then he narrated a hadith about Li’an (لعان).

The value of hadith: Sahih

Narrated by: Abdullah bin Abbas (R)

There was a law in Pakistan based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, now that law has been reformed. The law stated, (15ht)

“The Offense of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance of 1979”. It described the offense of false accusation of Zina (fornication and adultery) either written, verbal or “by visible representations”, with intent to cause harm, and without producing four witnesses in support of the accusation before the Court, or who “according to the finding of the Court ”, a witness has given false evidence of the commission of adultery or rape, or when a complainant has made a false accusation of rape;

– Proof of “qazf liable to hadd” includes the accused confessing to it in court, the accused committing qazf in court, or if two Muslim adult male witnesses (other than the victim of the qazf) testify that the defendant committed qazf. (If the accused is a non-Muslim, the witnesses may be non-Muslims.)

– Punishment of “qazf liable to hadd” will be a whipping numbering 80 stripes.

– “Qazf liable to Tazir” applies whenever

– proof in any of the forms mentioned above is not available,

– or when the perpetrator has committed ‘qazf’ against any of his descendant- or when the victim of qazf has died during the “pendency of the proceedings”;

– punishment of “qazf liable to tazir” shall be imprisonment for up to two years, a whipping of up to 40 stripes, and may also include a fine.

Conclusion

Naturally any sane person would understand that rape can never be committed with four male witnesses. And even if four male witnesses had witnessed the incident at that time, it is clear that all four were accomplices to the rapist. Otherwise, why were they doing nothing? And it is not clear why the accomplices of the rapist will testify in favour of the rape. Even if they testify, it is almost impossible for any human being to meet the conditions that are required for a witness to be truthful and just, a Muslim man. So in reality in most cases the evidence of rape is not possible. And most rapists do not sue, nor do they seek refuge in the media, if there are obstacles to proving rape.

That’s why in a conservative society, women have to deal with many obstacles.

Works Cited

[Online]. – 2015. – https://web.archive.org/web/20141129080538/http://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce5220,50ffbce524a,4db99a162,0,,DECREEES,.html.

A CLEAR SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS THAT THE DEATH PENALTY DOES NOT DETER [Online]. – 2015. – https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-scientific-consensus-that-the-death-penalty-does-not-deter/.

Kersti Yllo, M Gabriela Torres [Online]. – https://www.shongshoy.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Marital-rape-by-Carter-Robert-Allan-z-lib.org_.pdf.

land Sharia as the official law of [Online]. – https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape.

Law Rape: A problem of Crime Classification in Islamic [Online]. – https://brill.com/view/journals/alq/24/4/article-p417_4.xml.

Organization World Health [Online]. – https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf;jsessionid=0105556496273738DAE96C0A0263A13F?sequence=1.

proven How can zinaa be [Online]. – 2015. – https://islamqa.info/en/answers/6926/how-can-zinaa-be-proven.

RAPE [Online]. – 2015. – https://www.dictionary.com/browse/rape.

RAPE [Online]. – https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape.

The National Academics of Sciences Engeneering Medicine [Online]. – 2015. – https://www.shongshoy.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Deterrence-and-the-Death-Penalty-2012-Consensus-Study-Report.pdf.

Wiki Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women – [Online]. – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Elimination_of_Violence_Against_Women.

Featured

The Journey

Despite being born in a family of freedom fighters, I have always been a peace lover. I believed anything can be achieved through love and peaceful protest.

As an avid reader as a kid I found it, quite frankly very shocking and upsetting that most of the religious scriptures refer to wars more than peace. How so called God has punished non-believers by flooding, fire and by even using birds. Any religious books such as Bible, Quran, and Ramayana, war are part of Gods plan. This hunger for violence continues even now by modern terrorism. Take ISIS, Saffron Movement, Ku Klux Klan as example.

I also found religion has almost always fallen short to be on the right side of History. We are aware of Church’s domination on every aspect of life during Middle Age, Life as a religious Muslim, Hindu or Jews it isn’t any different even now.  Slavery, Racism, The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Middle East (A country is being taken over by using some sentences from a book!) are sub product of religious ideas and are still being defended by the name of religion.

The idea of religion is completely opposite than the idea of peace. As we know the world today would have been far more tolerant and less divided if religions were kept away in private lives or didn’t even exists.

I couldn’t agree more with evolutionary biologist E. O. Wilson, “for the sake of human progress, the best thing we could possibly do is be to diminish, to the point of eliminating, religious faiths.”

As I grew up studied, learned history and kept eyes on the world events, my mind started asking so many questions about God, Religion. Every time I wanted an answer I was being shut down, threatened with the fear of Gods prosecution, were told not to think but blindly follow a book which I found contradictory or at some point just fictional.

That brings my doubt on Gods Existence.

I always simply asked this to my religious friend, “How could God possibly allow the horror show that is being run in the World? Kids are being brutally murdered; Young girls are being raped, Modern day slavery, the dreadfulness of war, don’t you think victims of the vindictiveness are asking God for help? What does he do then? Wait and watches?”

It has been over 20 years since I first asked this question, I am yet to receive an answer apart from various verses from religious books, which is almost always self-contradictory or makes no sense.

It has been 200,000 years since modern human have been around. Different religious books tell us about the events, war that has happened in the world. But it seems those significant event has left no archaeological proof (which is impossible) or scientifically unattainable. Does it mean the so called God is lying! Or don’t exist?! Is religion and God is actually a mythology? Why all religious population fell threatened when one raises question about the God or anything the challenges there ideas of God?

There is no anthropological evidence of the famous flood, a journey to the Sky on the back a fictional animal! , The moon was divided by using a finger! How to you prove or claim such things happened without any scientific or archaeological evidence? In terms of archaeological evidence current world goes back to as far as Theopetra Cave which was built 21000 BCE. But to proof such thing happened, God (!) said has happened in various Abrahamic religious books in near zero.  Any Historian during the time of Jesus failed to mention anything about such Prophet! All three books describe the similar events. So much of inconsistency when it comes to revelation of Abrahamic God. Hindu sculpture is also follows the same trajectory of discrimination, dehumanising of woman, cast system, war and violence.

The description of hell, the punishment for not praising, not praying to the God sound very psychotic, needy, cruel and certainly human like. It gives away the fact that the idea of GOD is human created in order to control the mass!

The more I studied I was intrigue by the lack of evidence both scientific and rational in support of Gods existence. Not to mention inconsistency on the scriptures. Bangladeshi culture is driven by religious sensitivity. The worst problem of living in a society as such is anything said which isn’t ideal with the religious views is deemed wrong and punishable, it doesn’t matter how coherent the question is. Instead of being answered one becomes subject of violence

This thinking of fake God in me became deeply rooted. Driven by my curiosity I didn’t stop asking question. As an introvert I had to come out my shell and chase my inquisitiveness on the subject of God’s non-existences. The more I read, followed the experts from both sides of the subject I found it fascinating that my core question remained unanswered from the religious point of view. I was always referred to some vogue sentences from the religious sculptures which made no or very little sense to me. Instead of my question being answered I myself became a subject of interest!

Religious sensitivity has a deep toxic route in our societies in very many ways. God and religion took a place in “No question asked” shelf of the social order. One is hated by all religious groups if they are to ask question about the God and his/her silence on all the wrongdoings.

Those irrational feelings of hostility towards me from the society, extreme religious warriors didn’t help me either to find my answers. Suddenly my curiosity made me isolated from all aspect of the society. It didn’t matter which religion one followed I was hated anyway. My writings certainly triggered unwanted attention from the religious fanatic.

Belief and disbelief of the righteous!

The biggest question I have to face is – “Don’t you believe in God?”

In fact, you know, the word faith is relative to me. Then if it is creation then there is no question. But at this time, living in this society, standing under the haystack of the Religious goons, who has so many heads on their necks?

I am not going to all that today. Let’s make it a little clearer when it comes to my beliefs and disbeliefs. You know what; my beliefs also depend on logic. This means that it does not last as long as it lasts. However, if you want to argue with your traditional religious superstition, you have to accept the full description of the power of God given in your religious book.

Suppose, for example, that “the leaf of a tree does not move without his will.” this kind of thing. With all this, it has been made clear that everything that has happened, is happening and will happen in this world is in God’s will. Well, come on, I accept that everything is done according to God’s wishes – but the rape of a 3-year-old child, the burning of people, the murder-looting-rape in the name of religion are all happening according to his wishes?

The thief is stealing at his will; People are corrupted in his will; Rape-murder is at his will; Violent beasts are killing innocent animals at His will; Weapons are being made to kill people in arms factories at his will; In his will all the irregularities and tortures are happening  since the beginning.  So the fact that I don’t believe in him is definitely in his will; Not only me, but all the gods of this world, the unbelievers who are disbelieving in Him – all this is happening according to His will.

Let’s tell you a story, the story is – old, so the whole thing is not so clear anymore. A gentleman planted a flower garden right in front of the house, with many colorful flowers. One day when the garden gate was opened, a cow entered and started eating the trees. The gentleman came and saw all this. He hit the cow with a stick – diameter, the cow died. This time the gentleman was scared. Alas, the cow died, this time it will be my great sin. Suddenly it came to his head; Hey, I have read in the scriptures that the eyes see the power of the sun, the ears hear the power of the wind, the hands work in the power of Indra, and so on and so forth. Then he remembered the gentleman’s words and thought, “I don’t do anything, God does everything; then I have no more faults. Besides, it is Devraj Indra who has done all this. ” As soon as he thinks these things, his sins are deposited in the book of Indra instead of his sins. Indra was immediately given the message. Anyway, Devraj is talking. Indra fell into great anxiety – this guy is a big mule! I was trapped in the last century. Indra is not the one to leave either, he came down from the temple to the mortal to solve it. He took the form of a Brahmin and started walking in front of the gentleman’s house. After a while, he hurried inside and came to the side of the garden and said, “Wow, what a beautiful flower-decorated pallab, who did this garden?” The gentleman was beside him, he said with so much admiration that I did it.

This time Indra came a little further and saw the dead cow. This time he said, “Hey, who killed this cow?” The gentleman stopped and ate Vyabachaka and said, “I am not in command, Devraj has killed Indra!” Indra came back in his own form and said to the gentleman with a rebuke, “Hey son, all the good deeds are yours and the bad ones are mine. The gentleman’s condition is bad, Archie escapes to scratch! In conclusion – if you believe that everything is happening at the will of the cat; But all but nothing. The better – the worse. Since He exists in all things, He is formless, He is also in form. He is also in the seed, he is also in the excrement.

When giving food and offerings, you should not only eat latex and yogurt, but it’s not how it works, chicken fry and mutton is in demand too. He who is in honey is also in wine. He is also the one who sends sacrifices to cows and pigs. If the illness is to be cured, then the death of the child in the mother’s womb, the death of the child in the father’s lap, the rape of the daughter in front of the mother is also happening at his will.

Do you obey in mind-soul-thought and action, God and its omnipresence? If you have to obey, then obey the whole – he is good and he is bad; who? I don’t believe in this being – expressionless, feeling less, shapeless, tasteless, odourless, senseless, and violent. This being has never been a creation to me.

To please the Creator, one must not eat for days, never for months. He who is satisfied with the blood of an innocent creature is no longer the Creator. How he wishes you well! And how do you believe all these ridiculous things?

Truth be told- faith never wanted to accept logic; Didn’t teach to think and ask any more questions. As if accepting everything like a blind man and telling him to follow the darkness.

Is God omnipotent???

Two men in my local pub seemed to be arguing about something. As I approached, I realized that they were arguing about God. One man says that God is omnipotent and that He can do everything. Another man says that it is not possible at all, that there must be a limit to his power, and if it does not exist then why he is not removing all the bad people in the world. This is how their argument with logical irrationality was going on. As I stood there for a while listening to them, the question arose in my mind, if there really is such a thing as God, is that God omnipotent as claimed in the scriptures?

If you search the internet for a little bit about the “almighty paradox”, which I think will help us in this discussion. But before we begin, we must assume for the sake of writing that there really is something called God (for those who do not believe in God). But before you can understand the paradox, you need to know what a paradox really is.

Paradoxes are usually sentences or statements from which no conclusion can be drawn. Conflicting itself with its own statement, this is the paradox. Giving an example will make the matter a little easier to understand.

For Example,  the following two sentences –

1. The bottom line is true.

2. The top line is false.

Which of the above lines is true? If the first sentence is true then the second sentence is false; Again if the second sentence is true then the first sentence is false. At first glance it may seem simple, but in reality it is like an endless cycle. If you think with a little emphasis on the head, you will see that the hair of the head will be torn. Many people compare the paradox to a puzzle but I don’t think it’s exactly a puzzle.

Hopefully, I’ve been able to explain what a paradox is, so let’s get back to the main paradox.

We are accustomed to hearing all the scriptures even in public that God is present and that He is omnipotent, He can do everything. Well if that is true can God create a heavy stone that He Himself is unable to lift? Think for yourself.

This is the God Paradox or the God Paradox or the Almighty Paradox. Imagine if God could create a heavy stone that He could not lift by Himself, then I found a job that God cannot do.

Again if he is unable to make such a stone then simply we find another work that God cannot do.

If the above statement is also true, then it can be said that God is not omnipotent.

To solve a complex problem in logic, it is divided into many small pieces, let’s try that too –

The basic question in the paradox of the Almighty is – if God is able to do everything, can He create a heavy stone that He Himself is unable to lift?

If we put the question into one sentence, it would be something like this – God can do everything, that is, He can create a heavy stone that He Himself is unable to lift.

If we break the sentence into a few sentences –

1. God can do everything.

2. God can lift everything. (Because 1st sentence)

3. God can create a heavy stone that he is unable to lift. (Because 1st sentence)

4. God cannot lift the stone he has made. (Because he made a heavy stone that he was unable to lift)

The 1st, 2nd and 3rd sentences must always be true. Now we have to see if the 4th sentence is true?

If the 4th sentence is true then the 2nd sentence will be proved false i.e. the 1st sentence will also be proved false.

If the 4th sentence is true (which must be true if the 3rd sentence is true) then the basic argument “God can do everything” on the way to God’s omnipotence will be false Now it is naturally clear that God can never do two contradictory things, 2nd and 4th respectively. That is, God cannot do everything, so God is not omnipotent.

Again the believers will say that all these discussions are attacked by Straman fallacy, so we should also listen to the arguments of the believers before coming to any conclusion.

The first thing that atheists will say is that the almighty paradox is an argument of atheists and the question of its main statement is the wrong question. For example, they would say that if a person accused of a theft is asked, “Why did you steal?” No matter what the person says in answer to this question, he will be convicted of theft. If the person is not guilty, the only reasonable answer may be to hand over the question to the questioner.

Believers will also say that when they say that God is omnipotent, they do not mean it literally, but that God is considered to be the source of the infinite power that is needed to create and manage the universe.

They say that both God and power are infinite. He cannot be thrown into any fixed boundaries. If he wishes to make such a heavy stone, he will be able to lift both the strong and the weak at the same time. Believers say that God and the power of God are beyond the comprehension of ordinary people like us, because the process of reasoning by ordinary people is the creation of God Himself.

From the above discussion we understand that the almighty paradox is not entirely flawless. Again, the irrational arguments of the believers cannot be accepted. To refute the believers’ argument, we must first decide whether or not there is a God, but I do not want to bother my readers by increasing the size of my discussion by adding that subject. Moreover, there are many articles, essays and books already available on the internet, including Prabir Ghosh’s book ‘Why Don’t I Believe in God?’ In this book the author has logically refuted the various doctrines of the believers.

Again, if we come to the conclusion of our main discussion, I have to say that the final decision depends entirely on your personal beliefs and doctrines, because the doctrines and beliefs of believers and the omnipotent paradox of atheists are not one hundred percent flawless. If you believe in God then God is present to you and He is omnipotent and if you do not believe in God then you have no such thing as God so there is no question of being omnipotent.

But my personal opinion should not be radical in favor of any belief or doctrine. We should be as flexible as science. For example, until a few years ago, science used to say that the nucleus is the smallest part of matter, but if it is later proved wrong, science has never hesitated to correct it. We should be like that. If one’s own doctrine or belief is proved wrong, one should not hesitate to correct it, otherwise a beautiful healthy world will not be built.

Is religion source of our morality?

There is a story of Satyajit Ray, the name of the story is ‘Asmanj Babu’s dog’. He worked in the registry department of Lajpat Roy Post Office. He bought a dog from a Bhutanese gentleman at 7:30 one day. A special feature of that dog was that he could smile.

Seeing this, Asmanj Babu got into a terrible conflict. How can a dog laugh? Unable to decide what to do, he went to a professor and told him about this strange incident. The name of this professor is Rajini Chaturjee. Rajini Chatterjee did not believe him at all. Once he thought that Asmanj Babu broke his intoxication.

Then when he did not see any such signs, Asmanj Babu said to him, “You probably do not know a single piece of information; Know that! Of all the creatures created by God in the world, no one but man laughs, knows how to laugh, cannot laugh. This is the main difference between humans and other animals. ”

The story is very beautiful. You can read what happened in the end. But there is a mistake here. Why only humans, other animals can also laugh. I will come to that later. And we need to say a few words first.

There are many people like Professor Rajini Babu who think that the best creatures created by God are human beings. And they also think that what these people have learned is that God has taught them through religion.

People love to think that they are the only creatures on earth who have feelings, morality, culture and civilization. But as time goes on, as we experiment with other animals, with animals, we begin to dispel this misconception. Many scientists now believe that traits that were once thought to exist only in humans also exist in other animals.

And isn’t that very normal? People have not fallen from the sky! From the theory of evolution, it is clear that all the living things on this earth are related to each other, and that human are not extraterrestrial beings.

The conflict of religion with the theory of evolution

Man once boasted that God created him specially. God has given him morality, the ability to distinguish between good and evil, judgment and intellect; Which he did not give to any other creature on this earth. But Darwin, in his theory of evolution, showed that man is not such a special animal.

There is another human species like the other five animals on this earth. And if human beings are to be taken as a special species, then by definition, all the animals, birds, plants and other living beings on this earth have some or other unique characteristics. And accordingly, they also claim to be considered as ‘special’. The theory of evolution showed people that reality with a finger in the eye. It became clear that they were never the best creatures in creation; They were not made specifically.

Evidence from various sources suggests that humans originated from some of these apes. And that ancient notion of religion was shattered and shattered.

A common feature of all religions is that an excellent description can be found by looking at the scriptures of any religion. And that description is a detailed description of how man was created. There is a lot of bragging about how God created man in a special way, how God created man in a special way after making everything; He gave him knowledge, intellect, etc., etc., etc.

That’s a huge story. But evolution has shattered that notion. The idea that man is God’s favorite is no longer in the wash.

And there is a conflict with religion. Religion, in order to maintain its importance, has always preached that the morality and values that God has imparted to man through religion. Because God created man specifically, man is the best creature of creation. But Darwin first spoke out against the idea. In his book, The Descent of Man, he wrote:

There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.

He added that the apparent difference between humans and other higher animals was “certainly one of degree and not of kind.” The flag bearers of religion counted mistakes. What does this gentleman say? He rose and fell to prove the theory of evolution wrong.

Any religion promotes the creation of man by God. The theory of evolution has watered down that idea. The saying, ‘Man is another species just like any other species on this earth’, meant that man is bound by natural laws just like any other animal. People thought that this evolution might lead to the degradation of human society, morality, judgment.Because religion has taught us for so long that it is through this religion that the great God has filled us with morality and justice. Without religion, human society is useless. But the theory of evolution proved one of the basic tenets of religion wrong. And by doing so, it is as if he has proved religion as a kind of mistake.

But man never once thought that if man is really the best creature of creation, then why should he be taught ethics through religion separately? This quality should be innate in him.

Now the question is, what is the morality of human beings, the judgment of good and evil? Is this instinct human? I will go to that answer, but before that let us see what similarities there are between humans and other animals, especially our close ‘Great Apes’.

The resemblance of humans to other animals

Rene Descartes wrote in the early sixteenth century,animals are mere machines but man stands alone. His idea that this is not true has come to our notice through many experiments.

Chimpanzees can laugh

In The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, Darwin wrote,

If a young chimpanzee be tickled—and the armpits are particularly sensitive to tickling, as in the case of our children,—a more decided chuckling or laughing sound is uttered; though the laughter is sometimes noiseless. The corners of the mouth are then drawn backwards; and this sometimes causes the lower eyelids to be slightly wrinkled. But this wrinkling, which is so characteristic of our own laughter, is more plainly seen in some other monkeys. The teeth in the upper jaw in the chimpanzee are not exposed when they utter their laughing noise, in which respect they differ from us.

Just in the chimpanzee? No. He further observed,

Young Orangs, when tickled, likewise grin and make a chuckling sound; and Mr. Martin says that their eyes grow brighter. As soon as their laughter ceases, an expression may be detected passing over their faces, which, as Mr. Wallace remarked to me, may be called a smile.

A study published in the journal PLoS One in 2015 found that chimpanzees use the same muscles that humans use when they smile. [2]

There is also an account of time among animals

How do we keep track of time? The answer is very simple. With the help of the clock. But animals? Can they also keep track of time? If the answer is not known, then everyone remembers Pavlov’s famous test.

Seth Roberts (University of California, Berkeley) in his book entitled Animal Cognition and Behavior [3] says in an article entitled “Properties and Function of an Internal Clock”,

A figure in Skinner (1956) showed three cumulative records with fixed-interval scallops, one record from a rat, one from a pigeon, and one from a monkey. The three records were similar, and Skinner stated, “Pigeon, rat, monkey, which is which? It doesn’t matter” (Skinner, 1956, p. 40). He was right–the ability to discriminate time is possessed by a wide range of vertebrates, and the accuracy of discrimination does not vary substantially. Not only dogs, pigeons, rats, and monkeys, but also mice (Sprott and Symons, 1974) , opossums (Cone and Cone, 1970), rabbits (Rubin and Brown, 1969), racoons (King, Schaeffer and Pierson, 1974) , bats (Schumake and Caudill, 1974), crows (Powell, 1973), and goldfish (Rozin, 1965) have discriminated time, usually with a fixed-interval schedule.

Here he is talking about circadian rhythms in animals. The Circadian Rhythm Hole is an innate natural timing system that helps animals keep track of time with sunrise and sunset. And in this article it is mentioned that there is no difference in the effectiveness of this system between pigeons, monkeys or rats. This circadian rhythm is present in animals, [4], [5], [6]

Even the microscopic bacteria in the gut are driven by this circadian rhythm. [7]

This clearly means that the circadian rhythm observed in humans did not come from another planet, but was inherited from their predecessors in the course of evolution. [8]

Non-human species also have emotions

Needless to say, there is a feeling in non-human beings as well. Those who have domestic dogs, cats or any other animal can testify to this. Although it was once thought that human beings do not have the same emotions as other animals.

Jane Goodall began researching wild chimpanzees in the 1960s. The purpose was to shed some light on the behavior of the ancient men. In his book, The Chimpanzees of Gombe: PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR, he mentions his experimental results and observations. Notice the striking similarities between the behavior and use of these wild chimpanzees with humans.

He was so surprised to see this resemblance that he started calling them by name. He noticed that these wild chimpanzees could use different tools to facilitate their daily work.

More new information emerges from subsequent studies. It is understood that chimpanzees have human-like emotions. Like humans, they can express their emotions and feelings through facial expressions. Maybe this expression is not very familiar to humans, but it is not difficult to identify this expression if you observe these chimpanzees very closely for some time. Like humans, chimpanzees can easily understand each other’s expressions and are very good at it. [9]

The chimpanzee’s sense of morality

If we mean neutrality, fairness, selfish inferiority and empathy, then these qualities are seen not only in humans, but also in chimpanzees. For centuries, people have come to think that ethics, empathy, reason, and intelligence are the only characteristics of human beings and that they are the only characteristics that distinguish human beings from animals. And this concept became an important pillar of what we mean by ‘humanity’.

In the case of human children, they have a sense of neutrality, honesty and justice from a very young age. They are sympathetic, altruistic and kind from a very young age. Many times they help each other, without expecting anything in return. They do not have to give any religious education for this. [10]

This nature of neutrality, honesty and sense of fairness is also seen in non-human beings. A study of how many monkeys found that when they received equal rewards for the same work, all the monkeys were happy. But if one is given something good or more, then others do not want to accept that reward as before. [11]

This means that chimpanzees understand their own well-being. But just so? Are they just selfish? Another study published in 2013 found that they extended a helping hand to each other. If a chimpanzee sees a member of their group lacking food, they share their food. Their behavior is just like human behavior. [12]

Another study, published in 2006, found that chimpanzees help each other, just like a human baby, and that this is their instinct. [13] In doing so, they do not care about any profit or loss. [14] Some studies have shown that not only chimpanzees but also rats show similar empathy and sympathy for other members of the group. [15]

The culture of the civilization of non-human animals

We do not observe that way, but various studies suggest that chimpanzees also have civilizations, and many examples of this have come to light through various studies. [16]

Among the chimpanzees of different regions, differences in customs and manners can be noticed. Different types of chimpanzees are used in different groups, they use different types of tools, their love is different in the manner of dedication, their customs are different. Although there are examples of civilization and culture among other animals, the difference in culture between chimpanzees by group is only noticeable in human society. [17]

One study found that chimpanzees differed in their interpretation of the word apple, just as there are differences in the language of people from different parts of the world. [18]

Conclusion

Then it was seen that not only human beings, but also different non-human beings live in a complex social structure, where they depend on each other for help. Man once thought that the knowledge of judgment, morality, judgment, and intellect which he possesses is a distinctive feature, and that is what distinguishes man from the beast. But now it is seen that features like judgment-intellect-consideration-principle-morality have not fallen from the sky.

These are human instincts. Empathy, compassion, the tendency to help each other, these traits are seen in the animal kingdom. [15] This implies that traits such as cooperation, empathy, and justice are very useful traits in the animal kingdom and these traits have helped animals to survive in nature. And man has inherited those instincts through evolution.

In the course of evolution, those animals have survived in nature, who have extended a helping hand to other members of their species, and who have found a way to coexist with this nature.

In his book The Bonobo and the Atheist, Fran Fois de Waal (primatologist) says that ethics is innate in us. This is an instinct. Morality did not reach man from God through religion from heaven. Rather this morality is born out of our feelings, the urge to survive in our society. And it has evolved from the social structure of non-human animals. He adds,

“It wasn’t God who introduced us to morality; rather, it was the other way around. God was put into place to help us live the way we felt we ought to. ” (The idea that God has introduced human society to morality through religion is wrong. The opposite is true. Man has put God in the place by introducing the idea that he should live according to his instincts.)

That is to say, this power of judging good and evil, this empathy for one another, this empathy, all these qualities were not taught by religion. ‘Always speak the truth’, ‘always walk in the right path’ or ‘Love thy neighbor’ – such moral teachings are present in all religions. And all of these words fit our common sense. So we think religion is not a good thing.

But if it were otherwise, if religion says to harm each other or to steal the next thing at every opportunity, we would understand from our common sense that these words are wrong. And so whenever we find a statement against this in any religion, we try our best to somehow adapt it to our instinctive judgment, to “defend” some argument, or to say “not in religion”. To give.

The answer to the question we often face, “Who will teach morality without religion?”, Is very simple. Religion does not teach us morality or ethics. We have carried on in the name of religion all the rules and regulations that we think are right with our judgment. So if there is no religion, man himself can get the idea of what is right and what is wrong based on reason, intellect, consideration, information and evidence. There is no need for religion for this, what is needed is education.

Reference :

1.            http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1871_Descent_F937/1871_Descent_F937.1.html%5B↑%5D

2.            Davila-Ross M, Jesus G, Osborne J, Bard KA. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) Produce the Same Types of ‘Laugh Faces’ when They Emit Laughter and when They Are Silent. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0127337. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127337. PMID: 26061420; PMCID: PMC4465483.[↑]

3.            Mellgren, Roger L, Animal Cognition and Behavior, North Holland Publishing company, 1983, Page 347[↑]

4.            Bloch, Guy et al. “Animal activity around the clock with no overt circadian rhythms: patterns, mechanisms and adaptive value.” Proceedings. Biological sciences vol. 280,1765 20130019. 3 Jul. 2013, doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.0019[↑]

5.            Patke, A., Young, M.W. & Axelrod, S. Molecular mechanisms and physiological importance of circadian rhythms. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 21, 67–84 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-019-0179-2%5B↑%5D

6.            Jürgen Aschoff, Temporal orientation: circadian clocks in animals and humans, Animal Behaviour, Volume 37, Part 6, 1989, Pages 881-896, ISSN 0003-3472, https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(89)90132-2.%5B↑%5D

7.            Voigt RM, Forsyth CB, Green SJ, Engen PA, Keshavarzian A. Circadian Rhythm and the Gut Microbiome. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2016;131:193-205. doi: 10.1016/bs.irn.2016.07.002. Epub 2016 Sep 6. PMID: 27793218.[↑]

8.            Jindrich Katia, Roper Kathrein E., Lemon Sussan, Degnan Bernard M., Reitzel Adam M., Degnan Sandie M. Origin of the Animal Circadian Clock: Diurnal and Light-Entrained Gene Expression in the Sponge Amphimedon queenslandica, Frontiers in Marine Science, VOLUME 4, 2017, 327, https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fmars.2017.00327, DOI=10.3389/fmars.2017.00327,ISSN=2296-7745[↑]

9.            Lisa A. Parr, Bridget M. Waller, Understanding chimpanzee facial expression: insights into the evolution of communication, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, Volume 1, Issue 3, December 2006, Pages 221–228, https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl031%5B↑%5D

10.         Moore, Chris. “Fairness in Children’s Resource Allocation Depends on the Recipient.” Psychological Science, vol. 20, no. 8, Aug. 2009, pp. 944–948, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02378.x.[↑]

11.         Brosnan, S., de Waal, F. Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature 425, 297–299 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01963%5B↑%5D

12.         Darby Proctor, Rebecca A. Williamson, Frans B. M. de Waal, Sarah F. Brosnan, Chimpanzees play the ultimatum game, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Feb 2013, 110 (6) 2070-2075; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1220806110[↑]

13.         Warneken F, Tomasello M. Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees. Science. 2006 Mar 3;311(5765):1301-3. doi: 10.1126/science.1121448. PMID: 16513986.[↑]

14.         Warneken F, Hare B, Melis AP, Hanus D, Tomasello M. Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children. PLoS Biol. 2007 Jul;5(7):e184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050184. Epub 2007 Jun 26. PMID: 17594177; PMCID: PMC1896184.[↑]

15.         Sato, N., Tan, L., Tate, K. et al. Rats demonstrate helping behavior toward a soaked conspecific. Anim Cogn 18, 1039–1047 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-015-0872-2%5B↑%5D%5B↑%5D

16.         Whiten A. The scope of culture in chimpanzees, humans and ancestral apes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2011 Apr 12;366(1567):997-1007. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0334. PMID: 21357222; PMCID: PMC3049095.[↑]

17.         Whiten, A., Goodall, J., McGrew, W. et al. Cultures in chimpanzees. Nature 399, 682–685 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/21415%5B↑%5D

Watson SK, Townsend SW, Schel AM, Wilke C, Wallace EK, Cheng L, West V, Slocombe KE. Vocal learning in the functionally referential food grunts of chimpanzees. Curr Biol. 2015 Feb 16;25(4):495-9. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.12.032. Epub 2015 Feb 5. PMID: 25660548.

Materialist analysis of the origin of religion

Many people write a lot against religion, but most of the time the same thing is repeated. In fact, if we cannot find the cause of the origin of religion, then it is not possible to win the fight against religion even if we write hundreds of pages explaining the scriptures by simply lifting the lines of the scriptures. Hence the need for a materialist analysis of religion.

Materialism is to look at the world realistically, not to analyze the world with any kind of miraculous and unrealistic thing. And idealism is a distorted representation of reality. Different scriptures look at the world through the eyes of prophecy.

Religion emerged in historical development in the opposite direction from thematic or realist knowledge. Religion was an impossible, absurd and distorted reflection of reality, a distorted interpretation of reality. Despite such great advances in science, that religion has survived for the time being.

To understand the meaning of religion, it is necessary to clarify why religion originated, and what is its role in the development of society and life.


Religion does not originate from any divine revelation, nor is it a reflection of a miraculous world. People have different kinds of consciousness, religion is also a reflection of reality in the consciousness of social people, and religion is not a heavenly but an earthly object. In no sense is religion innate. Primitive man never had any inherent religious consciousness or religious or spiritual attitude. Gabriel Motirle, a leading French scholar of primitive history in the last century, proved that there were no religious elements at all in the early Paleolithic age. (Mortillet, 1883)

Some materialists before Karl Marx have said very simply, that a handful of deceivers, in order to deceive ignorant and naive people, have cleverly erected religion, which is partially true but not entirely true. Ignorance is an ally of religion and deception is an important element of religion, but the real origin of religion is elsewhere.

Religion came into being when man became detached from the external nature through labour but still relied on the natural physical forces for a total of about sixteen years.

Religion occurs at a lower stage in the development of the productive forces – religion cannot originate at any other stage, including the lowest stage of the development of the productive forces. The productive forces are directly related to the origin of religion. The level of development of productive forces at any given time indicates not only the extent of human domination over nature, but also the degree of human dependence on nature. Karl Marx wrote: ‘Technology reveals the way man deals with nature – the process of production. People make their living through this process of production, and thus the process of production opens up the social structure of man. ‘(Marx, 1965)

Engels says, “All religions are nothing but bizarre reflections of the external forces that control the way people think in their daily lives – the earthly forces in the human mind take the form of miraculous powers” (Engels, 1969).

In the beginning, people did not think of natural forces as miracles. Natural things, especially those that are especially important in human life, were imagined to have a conscious effect on human life.

The mysterious natural forces that man could not comprehend, against which man was utterly helpless, were transformed in his imagination by man into good or evil, ghosts, demons, gods, angels, devils, and so on.

So primitive religious consciousness is a reflection of the barbaric man’s inability to fight against nature.

Basically, the dominance of natural and social forces was the main source of religion at that time. People choose religion to deal with the social forces that stand against them. Religion is a reflection of the incapacity of hardworking people.

Religion regulates human behaviour and actions in society, family, etc. by various laws and restrictions such as taboos, religious fatwas and sharia, scriptural provisions, etc., and these are presented by the God, so they are considered inviolable.

The exploiting classes use this religious system to secure their dominance over human activities.

Many materialist writers of the past have written many militant and talented atheist works in the fight against religion, but due to their prophetic views on history, they have not seen the social origins of religion, so they have not shown any way to defeat religion.

Reference:

Mortillet, G. (1883). Le Prehistorique. Paris.
Marx, K. (1965). Capital (p. 372). Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Engels, F. (1969). Anti-Duhring (p. 374). Moscow: Progress Publishers.

This is OUR sin

In Burimari, Lalmonirhat, Bangladesh, a man named Shahidunnabi Jewel, a mentally ill person, was beaten to death by several thousand people. His body was thrown into the fire and burnt. What is the crime of Jewel?

Or has he insulted religion? Jewel, a teacher at Rangpur Cant Public School, was mentally exhausted. The so-called healthy religious people of the society have saved the value of religion in Bangladesh by showing the ultimate signs of brutality to this mentally exhausted teacher! Can you imagine what a barbaric country we are living in?

If a mentally ill person – whom we mistakenly call insane – is in danger of being insulted by the religion of 1.6 billion people and the owner of that religion aka the Creator, is he in need of a weak religion and an almighty Creator?

Those who pray for the power of the unseen Almighty every moment of every day, please think a little. And if you can, apologize to the family of this mentally unbalanced man named Jewel. Because, “This is our sin.

Tithi Sarkar, a student of Jagannath University in Dhaka, could not be found. Tithi was accused of insulting religion on Facebook. There have been procession-meetings-human chains against her in the university. I don’t know whether to save her life the girl has disappeared or she has been killed and told as disappearance.

I never understood, I still don’t understand; Is God, whom people call God or Jesus or Buddha, so sensitive to him or his existence? Can’t punish for? And those of who have infinite faith in the Creator, can’t even see,  wait with a little patience to see the judgements of their own God ?

What will Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury, the composer of our Ekushey February song, say now? A French school teacher did a heinous injustice by showing cartoons. And the 16-year-old Chechen Nadan boy has “blown his throat” for not being able to stop the rage of insulting religion. The French police have done wrong by not keeping the boy alive!

Mr. Gaffar, I accepted all your arguments after reading your column that day. You were saddened to see death in France teacher but why not be saddened by extrajudicial killings in Bangladesh? You have written numerous columns in favor of the death penalty in Bangladesh.

Nadan, another devout Tunisian, killed three people at a church in France last week. An 80-year-old woman was slaughtered.  What was the fault of that old woman, Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury, can you answer?

In the name of religion, in the name of nationalism, there is no need to directly or indirectly support all these barbarisms. Violence-hate-atrocity is not justified anywhere on any pretext. If you supported communalism in many places, including the Chinese Uyghurs or religious racism India-Bosnia, it means you also supported Hitler’s Nazism.

The situation now is that if religious extremism arises in all parts of Europe-America, including France, then where will you and I go and hide, Brother Gaffar? You are not a religious person, but for believing in your same nationalism, I don’t believe in religion or deeds, even if  it means I have to “put my neck to be slaughtered”, brother Gaffar!

Actually , many of us are tired-exhausted-depressed now. I do not know, where is the end of this barbarism? Or just the beginning? Bangladesh has not changed. Gradually, Bangladesh has seen the indulgence of religious fundamentalism and communalism under the patronage of the government and the state. There is so much division in the society with race-religion-caste-community. I have written numerous articles about this. There has been few book about those writings. A decade from today. Many like minded people are dead or slaughtered by Islamist, but for those for whom the writing did not change at all.

How proud I am to say that the influence of the writings of any other writer in the world has had such an impact on the life of an ethnic group as it did on the lives of Rabindranath and the Bengalis. Rabindranath Tagore is the progenitor of Bengali life. Is that really so? These are biblical words.

Bangladesh of Bengalis today is intoxicated with the madness of religion. Where is Kazi Nazrul’s communism, where is Lalon Sanji’s ease? In fact, what happens with literature-poetry-song? I want a change of politics to change the society. Our politics today is fascinated by religion.

The situation in Bangladesh today is like burring forest. Burning in the fire of religious extremism and racism.

Tribute to Samuel Patty

#JeSuisSamuel #JeSuisCharlie

Samuel Patty. A civics teacher in France. Classes were held on freedom of speech. He also believed in freedom of expression. So before talking about the cartoons on Muslim fundamentalism drawn by Charlie Hebdo and the infernal massacre of 2015, he asked Muslim students to leave the class. Because he knew watching cartoons could be a problem for them. Unable to bear the teacher’s arrogance, he was strangled and killed.

Those who were in the class that day and their parents said that Samuel did not speak in the name of Islam or Muhammad that day. He spoke only in favour of freedom of speech and against religious violence. The main panda in the murder was a 16-year-old Chechen youth. It is also known that there was a minor in that group. What is this killing intoxication? Why are young people leaving school and college and getting involved in religious violence?

The twenty-first century. Where space science has come so far, a new generation of fresh blood merchants has been subjected to hellish carnage. The whole world is enjoying the fruits of Muslim fundamentalism.

Muslims using fear, panic to prove one’s superiority. The weapons are being handed over to the children. The school is being demolished. Teachers are being killed. Freedom of expression is far away, killing is only possible by speaking with one’s head held high. Education is being enslaved by strangling religion. The law, the courts, the judiciary are all regulated by the religious organizations there.

And ordinary people? They can’t sleep without the sound of bombs. Where to flee? The roar of fundamentalism is everywhere. There is no limit to proving yourself the greatest. So the war has started in the country between the religious organizations or the leaders themselves. Sometimes ordinary people are breathing. We are going back to the Middle Ages. Where your breathing will be controlled by religious leaders or cleric militants. They will survive, you can’t.

There is no language of condemnation for those who have turned the world into a slaughterhouse for the sake of religion. But even those who are mentally supporting Samuel’s murder will not be able to escape the flames. Fundamentalism spreads like wildfire. And don’t see how loyal you were to religion. Attacks or explosions do not choose people or religion. So protest against any kind of religious fundamentalism.

Otherwise new generations will not be able to breathe in this grey world one day.

Here is the translated version of the cartoon:

Science and Deshi Flim Maker.

Science is the name given to the systematic study of all things that can be observed, tested and verified in the physical world. In a word, special knowledge is science. The first task of science is to observe, the second task is to collect data, and finally to explain and solve problems on the basis of that data.

Science always criticizes its own discovered theories, trying to prove them wrong. The person who gave the theory will try to prove the theory wrong so that there is no mistake. If the theory is correct, that data will be in the prediction theory. Scientists will test whether the data is available at all. If it is found, the reliability of the theory will increase. And if someone tests and gets the opposite result, then that theory will be proved wrong.

Religion is just the opposite. Religion does not borrow any evidence. Religion depends entirely on faith, which has no basis. The pious will only try to glorify and appreciate the religion. If you want to prove something wrong about religion, the pious can’t stand it, it hurts their feelings, and their faith becomes shaky. If a person wants to become an apostate by proving the religion to be false, then the pious attack him in various ways, and jump into jihad.

So there is a huge difference between science and religion in terms of type and methodology. That is why with the advent of modern science, religion will gradually become extinct, and science will continue to improve

2500 years ago today when wise men like Enaku Sigmund and Pythagoras first said that the earth is just a planet of the sun, and this earth revolves around the centre of the sun. Because of telling this extreme truth, they had to endure various tortures at that time. Because their theory was the opposite of religion.

About 2,000 years later, Giordano Bruno was burned to death by the righteous for the same reason. At the same time, Galileo Galilei and Nicolas Copernicus, who published this doctrine in the form of a book, said that the earth revolves around the sun, not the sun, according to God’s word. They were sent to prison for denying the word of God.

In his old age, the astronomer Galileo Galilei was kept under house arrest until his death. But today that word of God has been proved wrong. Today, everyone knows that our planet Earth revolves around the sun, not the sun.

Thousands of years of history have been spent trying to erase all the bloody histories of this clash of science with religion. It is not only foolish to compare all the doctrines written in books thousands of years ago with modern science today, but also to express the limitations of one’s own knowledge.

Mostafa Sarwar Farooqi, a famous Bangladeshi film director, recently went viral on his own Facebook timeline–

“If you survive time like this

Survived the fear of death

Know that science fought alone

Neither temple nor the mosque “…. wrote criticizing this rhyme

Neither temple nor the mosque “…. wrote criticizing this rhyme”…. I see in the preaching of some Hujur and  I wonder when did the Football game started between Religion and Science, that As if religion will eradicate disease and science will teach spirituality-morality!

From what I saw and heard, from the day I started trying to make religion into science and the attempt to make religion into science, the world was in turmoil! I was thinking that this unnecessary fight will be stopped by the corona, people will be humble!!! What’s in it for us!!! “

Mr. Farooqi does not know the difference between religion and science! He can’t even think when and how the clash of religion with science started! If he had read the scriptures, he would have read science; Then he could understand the difference between the two.

If he had read the scriptures, he would have understood that the lords were not playing the game of Football by drawing science, but that religion and the founder of religion himself had already tied the game, what the religion was teaching, the lords were saying. If he had read science, he would have understood that there is no place in science for the bizarre miracle of the fairy tale.

According to the religion, the earth is equal, the earth is stable, the creation of the universe is in 7/8 days, Meraj’s Kechcha, man-made with soil, germs on one wing of the fly and antidote on the other wing, cause of meteor / storm, origin of sperm / semen, splitting of moon There are thousands of things that are directly related to science, including determining the sex of the fetus, the seven heavens, the seven earths, the sunrise-sunset, the contagious disease, the jinn-fairy-ghost, the demon-devil, the earth-watering, the amulet-charm, etc.

Where religion directly denies established scientific theory and fact like evolution, he cannot capture the conflict between the two!!! Just hilarious.

I didn’t say anything about the world of his movies!!

He is such a famous director-art, literature-culture-minded person of the country, but he thinks that religion is necessary for teaching morality!!! When one atheist blogger after another was being killed in the country, he posted on his own timeline, “… atheists should cultivate potato without the practice of childish knowledge!!!”

What kind of movie do you expect from such a potato scientist brand director?

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.