Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

A must read exposing the silly PR campaign by Muslims in Britain to fool the kufr.

Women’s Rights: Inspired by Muhammad?

Edmund Standing

A new Islamic propaganda campaign called ‘Inspired by Muhammad’ [1] has been launched, and advertising posters are now going up in London featuring slogans such as ‘I believe in social justice. So did Muhammad’ and ‘I believe in women’s rights. So did Muhammad’.[2] It’s hard to tell if this campaign is run by sadly deluded people who actually believe the slogans are accurate or if this is an example of dissimulation for a kufr audience.

Either way, the idea that Muhammad ‘believed in women’s rights’ in the sense in which we in the 21st Century understand that concept is utterly absurd, as anyone who has taken an honest look at the Qur’an should be aware.

The readership of the Qur’an is clearly presupposed to be male, and this is a book for men, by men. We find numerous examples of the audience being given information and instructions about women, in texts that speak of women in the third person.[3] Women are not directly addressed, but rather men are directed as to what they should tell their wives (plural).

While men and women are said to have equal rights in Islam, looking at the Qur’an we find that men are still presented as being superior to them: ‘And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them’ (2:228).

The testimony of a woman is worth only half that of a man: ‘get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women’ (2:282).

Men are in charge of women and women should be ‘obedient’ to men. If they are not, they must be beaten (2:223).

Men may have multiple wives, but women can only marry one man.

Women are ‘as a tilth’ (a piece of land) to men, and husbands may have sex with their ‘wives’ whenever they want to, including on the ‘night of the fasts’, when a man may still have sex with his ‘wives’ (2:187). The only exception is when a woman is menstruating, which is presented as a ‘pollution’. Once menstruation is over, and the woman has ‘purified’ herself, her husband may once again ‘approach [her] in any manner, time, or place’ (2:222-223).

Even women who are not menstruating ritually pollute a man and if men ‘have been in contact with women’ prior to prayer, they must first cleanse themselves (4:43; 5:6).

Women must be veiled and should not ‘display their beauty’ to anyone other than close family members, slaves, ‘or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex’. Women are forbidden to ’strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments’ (24:31). When they leave the house, women ’should cast their outer garments over their persons’ (33:59).

Male children are to receive twice the inheritance of females: ‘to the male, a portion equal to that of two females’ (4:11); ‘if there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female’ (4:176).

Muhammad’s wives are ‘not like any of the (other) women’ and are commanded to ’stay quietly in your houses’ (33:32-33). While there is ‘no blame’ on Muhammad’s wives if they ‘appear before’ close family members (33:55), men from outside the family may only address them ‘before a screen’ (33:53). If a wife of Muhammad is found guilty of ‘lewdness’ or ‘unseemly conduct’, their punishment will be double that of other women (33:30).

Muslim men will be rewarded in heaven by being given female virgins ‘whom no man or Jinn [genie] before them has touched‘ (55:56; 55:71-74). In other words, for men, the afterlife will be a kind of orgy. For women, no equivalent to this male ‘reward’ is offered.

Professor Andrew Rippin accurately sums up the Qur’anic view of male-female relations in this passage from Volume 2 of his Muslims: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices:

The male rules the house in all matters: the religion of the male is presumed to be the religion of the entire household; thus a Muslim male may marry a Jewish or Christian woman, but a Muslim female may marry only another Muslim. A man may marry up to four wives at a time, but a woman may marry only one husband. Discipline and sex are the prerogatives of the male to which the female is subject. There is a sense conveyed in the Qur’anic statements which suggests that women will not wish to cooperate in society and will need to be coerced.[4]

Now, all this is very far from the notion that ‘Muhammad believed in women’s rights’ in any meaningful sense, given the way we in the 21st Century West conceptualise the rights of women. That this is the case should be clear from the fact that non-Muslim feminists do not see any need to turn to the pages of the Qur’an when working for the furtherance of women’s rights. Modern ideas about the rights of women are vastly superior to the primitive ideas found in the Qur’an. Put simply, Muhammad and the Qur’an are of no value in the modern context when looking at women’s rights, or any other social issue for that matter.

But still, perhaps Muhammad was a revolutionary in his time? This is an argument also put forward by the ‘Inspired by Muhammad’ campaign, which speaks of the ‘controversial and groundbreaking ideas that Muhammad promoted for women in a seventh century society that regarded women as mere possessions’. Such an argument strikes me as being similar to that put forward by some ‘Christian feminists’ who play highly dubious hermeneutical games in order to ‘prove’ that Jesus and early Christianity were somehow radical in their approach to women.[5] In both cases, even if the claims are true – that Jesus and/or Muhammad had revolutionary ideas about the status of women in their time – so what? We do not live in their time, but rather centuries ahead of their time, in a world that has very little in common with the worlds they lived in.

Looking at the history of ideas regarding the status and rights of women, to fetishize the views of a seventh century man as opposed to looking at more recent icons of women’s rights for inspiration seems arbitrary and bizarre. The only reason Muslim women insist on claiming that Muhammad has some relevance to the debate is because of their a priori belief in his status as the final messenger of the creator of the universe. Otherwise – if we’re delving way back into history for inspiration – why pick Muhammad, instead of, for example, Musonius Rufus?

Rufus (30-101 CE) was a First Century Roman Stoic philosopher who argued that ‘Women have received from the gods the same ability to reason that men have’ and believed that both men and women should engage in the practice of philosophy.[6] Rufus argued:

We men employ reasoning in our relations with others and so far as possible in everything we do, whether it is good or bad, or noble or shameful. Likewise women have the same senses as men, sight, hearing, smell, and all the rest. Likewise each has the same parts of the body, and neither sex has more than the other. In addition, it is not men alone who possess eagerness and a natural inclination towards virtue, but women also. Women are pleased no less than men by noble and just deeds, and reject the opposite of such actions.

Consequently, women should be educated, just as men are:

Surely it follows that an educated woman would be more courageous than an uneducated woman and a woman who practises philosophy than a woman who is self-taught, since neither fear of death nor any apprehension about suffering would lead her to endure a disgrace, nor would she be afraid of anyone because he was well born or powerful or rich or indeed because he was – by Zeus – a tyrant.
[…]

Female dogs are trained to hunt just like male dogs, and if you expect female horses to carry out a horse’s job effectively, you must see that they have the same training as the male horses.

In the case of human beings it would seem that males should have something in their education and upbringing distinctive in contrast to the females, as if a man and a woman were not required to have the same virtues, or as if they could aspire to the same virtues through different rather than similar educations.
But it is easy to apprehend that there are not different sets of virtues for men and women.

While, unsurprisingly given the historical period in question, Rufus saw men and women as having different roles in life, he was nonetheless open to the view that ‘nothing is necessarily prescribed for one sex or the other’.

Women were not seen to be men’s intellectual or social inferior, but rather, for Rufus, there are practical reasons for their different roles:

Gymnastics are more appropriate for men than for women, and outdoor work likewise. Nonetheless, some men might appropriately undertake some of the lighter work and work thought more appropriate to women, when the conditions of their body or necessity or time demand it. For all human work is a common responsibility for men and women, and nothing is necessarily prescribed for one sex or the other. Some tasks are more appropriate for one nature, others for the other. For that reason some jobs are called men’s work, and others women’s.

On marriage, Rufus again espoused a practical and rational view, which strongly emphasised equality:

He said that a husband and wife come together in order to lead their lives in common and to produce children, and that they should consider all their property to be common, and nothing private, not even their bodies. For the birth of a human being that such a union produces is a significant event, but it is not sufficient for the husband, because it could have come about without marriage, from some other conjunction, as in the case of animals. In marriage there must be complete companionship and concern for each other on the part of both husband and wife, in health and in sickness and at all times, because they entered upon the marriage for this reason as well as to produce offspring.

How does this rational philosophical outlook, which is based on reason and argument, as opposed to supposed divine revelation, compare with the writings on women found in the Qur’an, a book written 500 years later? Clearly, in terms of holding enlightened views on male-female relations, Rufus was far more progressive and was a far better thinker and writer than Muhammad, despite the fact he lived centuries before Muhammad.

Rufus is interesting as a figure to study as part of the history of philosophical ideas regarding men and women. He is not, however, a man whose writings are of any practical importance to the issues facing men and women today. And if Rufus is not in any way essential to modern conceptualizations and actualizations of women’s rights, then the ‘argument’ that Muhammad is is patently absurd.

I believe in women’s rights. Muhammad is irrelevant.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/pu ... detail.asp

Yawn.

I'm still waiting for you to address at least 6 questions in the threads below.

Let's see:
1 & 2 - questions in the 'eh - Fact check' thread relating to evolution and confirmation of the historical accuracy of Islamic scientific achievement
3. 'dhimmi' thread - confirmation that Spencer has been truly punked (refutation of the TP Hughes quote)
4. In 'When Moors ruled in Europe' thread - question about what was not factual in the documentary (i.e. back up your claim it contained historically inaccurate facts)
5. Bible and Science - eh's defence: Waiting for a scientific explanation for earth stopping rotating for a day
6. Doctrine of Witness - does the doctrine apply today?
7. Most Extreme Religious fanatic here - waiting to hear whether you are proud of this title (given you don't dispute the facts)
8. Biblical War Crimes - question about whether Al Qaeda is too soft.
9. Rapture thread - do you believe in Rapture
10. Baruch Goldstein - is it only Jewish religious terrorists that you refuse to condemn?

Wow - I thought it was only about 6 questions (and I probably have missed a few others).

All Mouth, No trousers - indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

1) I am not Muslim, so I have no problem accepting evolution and all that it entails - including the belief that humans descended from lower primates

2) Your intention was pointed so I chose to ignore it - I corrected your misunderstandings on the other thread, if you want me to elaborate then I'll be happy to correct your mistakes.

3) Spencer's explanation stands for itself and we now learn that Danios has decided to not publish a lengthy response on his own website. 'nuff said, as they say. (BTW, still arguing that Islam=peace because of the meaning of the root word S-L-M ???)

4) I already discussed the factually incorrect statements the 'historian' made. Historians, for one, do not use the term 'dark' ages as it applied to a time when historians had little historical record of the period. They do now. Her other claims are simply misleading and are addressed in the thread I linked to.

5) Still waiting for a defense on what the Koran says about the Sun revolving around the earth, the moon splitting in half and other Koranic absurdities.

6) I doubt it, but Koranic abrogation is still relevant as always.

7) Despite the posturing, a single post was never produced showing that I support something that I was called a religious fanatic for. Unlike the unanimous agreement amongst the non-Muslim members of this forum that *YOU* are (one of) the biggest religious fanatics here.

Ironically, I didn't condone Koranic war crimes in the Koranic war crimes thread.

9) Stick to stalking your bff, FD.

10) I actually condemn Middle-Eastern terrorists, including ones who forcefully cleared entire villages and beheaded hundreds of unarmed men and boys. Do you ?

Wow - I take it you can't address the misogynist passages in the thread and have to resort to the tried and true method of thread diversion.

Good play (typically I ignore it, but sometimes I have to play around with the troll).

Yawn ^2

Fascinating how you're demonstrating that you haven't answered questions and that they therefore are still waiting for your attention.

eg:

1 & 2 - questions in the 'eh - Fact check' thread relating to evolution and confirmation of the historical accuracy of Islamic scientific achievement

reply (I paraphrase)
1. "I do believe in evolution, but won't admit I disagree with the Bible literalists in the thread"
2. I can't bring myself to admit that my expert says Muslims did indeed transmit scientific knowledge (for this is 'pointed fact')


(So, questions 1 and 2 NOT answered in the fact check thread - confirmed)


3. 'dhimmi' thread - confirmation that Spencer has been truly punked (refutation of the TP Hughes quote)

reply

No, Spencer hasn't been punked and I won't actually refer to the fact that Danios has indeed replied and at length, but will imagine that Spencer hasn't been punked.. mummy, help!

(Again, confirmed you haven't replied in that thread where the evidence has been given)


4. In 'When Moors ruled in Europe' thread - question about what was not factual in the documentary (i.e. back up your claim it contained historically inaccurate facts)

reply
4. I already discussed the factually incorrect statements the 'historian' made. Historians, for one, do not use the term 'dark' ages

LOL - this strawman was addressed when I quoted Hughes verbatim. She was accurate when she said the words. Ergo, you haven't/can't actually produce a factually incorrect quote. QED.


5. Bible and Science - eh's defence: Waiting for a scientific explanation for earth stopping rotating for a day
Reply:
5) Still waiting for a defense on what the Koran says about the Sun revolving around the earth, the moon splitting in half and other Koranic absurdities.

So, in your reality I haven't answered your questions in the relevant thread? LOL (So haven't answered the question)

6. Doctrine of Witness - does the doctrine apply today?

Kudos - you seem to have answered this one when you say 'you doubt it'. I have to say, your conviction is over-powering.

7. Most Extreme Religious fanatic here - waiting to hear whether you are proud of this title (given you don't dispute the facts)

reply:
"no you're the worst fanatic here, despite the fact that I'm the only one that refuses to condemn enslavement of 32000 virgins and the slaughter of babies - because God ordered it... but if I continue to insist there's no evidence for my fanatacism perhaps I'll be able to convince others I'm not more extreme than the mooslims" (Oh, and let me use the word 'pontificate' and 'posturing' for good measure )

8. Biblical War Crimes - question about whether Al Qaeda is too soft.
Reply
8. Ironically, I didn't condone Koranic war crimes in the Koranic war crimes thread.

So, asked about the Bible and your answer is 'let's talk about a different thread'!

9. Rapture thread - do you believe in Rapture
Reply
"pllleeeeasse don't ask me difficult questions... mummy, help."


10. Baruch Goldstein - is it only Jewish religious terrorists that you refuse to condemn?
reply
10. I actually condemn Middle-Eastern terrorists, including ones who forcefully cleared entire villages and beheaded hundreds of unarmed men and boys. Do you ?

(Yes, I condemn all terrorists - including Muslim ones. The question was whether it was only Jewish American terrorists YOU don't condemn?)


Cheers,
Shafique

Glad we cleared that up. The dark ages isn't a term that modern historians use anymore, repeating yourself that the lady was right in using the term (as well as other absurdities in the documentary which impress misleading conclusions for the viewer) only highlights that she was not aware of the beliefs of modern historians.

Which one person critiqued the program by saying:

To set up a cartoon golden age of islam in the middle ages contrasted to a cartoon evil and repressive society of christians only begs the question of what happened to the golden age...and make people feel cheated when they realize that the truth, of course, is more complex and more grey than black and white. It is quite possible to find contemporary muslims with attitudes that blend well with the mindset of a modern western public. One does not need to create fictional medieval ones.

Which ties in perfectly to the point of this thread and the slick PR blitz that British Muslims are operating (possibly on the taxpayers' expense) - the revisionist view that Muhammad was a feminist in line with feminist beliefs of today.

Sahih Bukhari 4.54.460

If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning.

Muhammad, the feminist - believe it, kufr, or else

I'm glad we cleared it up too - 1 (well, really 1/2, but I'm being generous) out of 10 questions answered is an improvement for you.

(BTW, you do realise that your quote of a review does not actually answer the question about a specific item that is not factual in the documentary - I was asking for evidence to back up these 'beliefs'. Restating the beliefs without quotes makes my point for me!)

As for the quotes on Islam and Women - I looked at the references and didn't actually find one quote/argument that hasn't already been covered multiple times in previous threads. Tut tut.

Last few times you put lipstick on this particular pig of an argument, we patiently pointed out that it was still a pig. Now you are going the Mossad route and sticking false moustaches and a wig on the pig and trying to pass it off as Einstein.

News flash - it still is a pig.

Cheers,
Shafique

(BTW, you do realise that your quote of a review does not actually answer the question about a specific item that is not factual in the documentary - I was asking for evidence to back up these 'beliefs'. Restating the beliefs without quotes makes my point for me!)

Here's the link to the thread, snowball:

http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index. ... thread=612

I'm sure the members there would love to read your pearls of wisdom on the topic. After all, you are an expert and qualified theologian and historian - you came to the conclusion that no other expert on the New Testament has before, that Jesus was the author of the epistle of James.

As for the quotes on Islam and Women - I looked at the references and didn't actually find one quote/argument that hasn't already been covered multiple times in previous threads. Tut tut.

I agree - you, as a Muslim nutter, don't see anything wrong with polygamy, statutory rape, marital rape, wife beating, and other misogynist statements that the Koran is filled to the brim with.

No argument there.

I was actually half-expecting one of the female posters (bora bora anyone ?) to swoop down and comment on the article.

We can see who she agrees more with - the author or our resident religious fanatic.

Last few times you put lipstick on this particular pig of an argument, we patiently pointed out that it was still a pig. Now you are going the Mossad route and sticking false moustaches and a wig on the pig and trying to pass it off as Einstein.

News flash - it still is a pig.

Snowball !!!

You so funny...

LOL




As for the article, may I just quote from the comments to the article:

I think that the sad, deluded morons are the unfortunate people who write and read stupid unscholarly conspiracy hatemongering websites like this one.


posted by : Justin
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 01:44 AM

The Koran says men and women should live together in love and mercy:

"And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquillity in them; and He placed between you love and mercy." (30:21)

Prophet Muhammad said in his farewell sermon: "Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."

There are plenty of positive Islamic teachings about women. So how do these evil Islamic teachings fit into your conspiratorial "Islam is all evil, all the time" theory?

posted by : Justin
Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 01:52 AM

'sad deluded morons'

Apparently the person you quoted is another Muslim who believes in abrogation.

The neutral or lukewarm passages towards women cancel out the blatantly misogynistic ones !

(Oh, and I like the personal slurs and accusations: hate mongering, blah, blah, blah, blah, and Muslims complain about the Israelis using the Antisemitism card too often)

And thank you for alerting me to the comments section. I liked this one:

"[Aisha said to Muhammad:] You have made us (i.e. women) dogs."--Sahih Bukhari 1:9:490

"[Aisha said to Muhammad:] You have compared us (women) to donkeys and dogs."--Sahih Bukhari 1:9:493

"Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: 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.""--Sahih Bukhari 3:48:826

"Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said: "I was shown the fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.""--Sahih Bukhari 1:2:28

"Omar [one of the Khalifs] was once talking when his wife interjected, so he said to her: 'You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you.'"--Al-Musanaf Vol. 1 Part 2, p. 263

"Ali reported the Prophet saying: 'Women have ten ('awrat). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten.'"--Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 22, Hadith No. 858

"Had I ordered anybody to prostrate before any one, I would have ordered women to prostrate before their husbands on account of men's rights over the women ordained by Allah."--Mishkat al-Masabih Section 'Duties of husband and wife', Hadith No. 70

"Women's rights", bah humbug!

posted by : Mohareb
Tuesday, June 15, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Love and mercy!

Funny how a campaign to show the true teachings of Islam about women is causing the loons so much consternation. Repetition of the quaint beliefs that the campaign demolishes demonstrates why the campaign is required - and that loons can't handle the truth.





http://inspiredbymuhammad.com/

Repetition of the quaint beliefs that the campaign demolishes demonstrates why the campaign is required - and that loons can't handle the truth.

Actually, the author of the piece saw it as exactly the opposite way around.

But then again, who is running PR campaigns on Islam ?

That should answer your question on who is trying to propagate beliefs.

I refer you to my previous comment about loons and quaint beliefs. Whilst you're at it, you can look up the word 'irony' too.

Cheers,
Shafique

Yes, the campaign is just another PR/campaign blitz by Muslims.

Thank you for admitting as such.

You're quite welcome. I see nothing wrong in spreading a bit of truth.

As your previous thread showed, 60% of Brits admitted not knowing much about Islam - hence why there is so much need for these types of campaign.

(BTW you say it as if a campaign is somehow wrong.. perhaps you should write to the Israelis and tell them they could save money on their PR - or at least ask for their money back. )

Cheers,
Shafique