Adonis Diaries

Sources of misogyny in Islam: not from the Koran. Though the sex life of the “Prophet” is another issue

Posted on: March 22, 2010

Sources of misogyny in Islam: not from the Prophet at all; (Mar 22, 2010)

Note: Personally, I believe that theology was invented to subdue the minds of the oppressed and downtrodden. When I write on religious matters, it is to correct historical misgiving and stories that are meant to obliterate the thinking minds.

Many misogynistic “disciples” to the Prophet Muhammad tried to calumny women in order to discard them from political and social leadership.

In a previous article we took care of the Hadith ( The sayings of the Prophet that are Not included in the Koran) “No society will witness prosperity if commanded by a woman”.

This Hadith was said by Abu Bakra after the battle of “The camel” that was mainly lead by Aicha (The youngest and most beloved wife of Muhammad).  This battle represents the first instance of “civil war” among the Muslims, 25 years after the death of the Prophet in 633.

Actually, it is relatives to Mohammad of Mecca who lured Aicha to join their crusade against Ali bin Abi Taleb, on account of dragging his feet in investigating the assassination of the third calif Othman.

It is interesting to state that Abu Bakra was sentenced to be whipped by the second caliph Omar bin Khattab for calumny that could have resulted in the lynching of an innocent man.

Another “disciple”, Abu Huraira, contributed to countless misogyny Hadith; he was a slave before submitting to Allah and just followed the Prophet and aided in cleaning the residences of Muhammad’s nine wives.

The prophet’s nickname of Abu Huraira was because this new convert walked with his favorite female kitten. It is interesting to mention that the second Caliph Omar threatened Abu Huraira to be exiled back to Yemen if he resumed cranking Hadith so mindlessly.

Aicha discredited many of Abu Huraira Hadith and mocked him grandly, an attitude that exacerbated Abu Huraira’s misogyny.

Abu Huraira claimed hearing the Prophet saying “Dog, donkey, and women disturb prayer when they cross the praying visual field.”

Aicha replied: “What, Abu Huraira considers women in the same category of dogs and donkeys? I used to be lying down in front of the Prophet when he said his prayers.  I didn’t move in order not to disturb his concentration while praying”

Abu Huraira also claimed that the Prophet said “Three things bring bad luck: the house, the wife, and the horse.”

Again, Aicha mocked Abu Huraira: “He has the tendency not to learn his lessons. Abu Huraira entered as the Prophet was uttering the end part of his long sentence. The prophet was saying “May Allah fights the Jews: They claim that three things bring bad luck (the house, the wife, and the horse).”

Muhammad was fighting the Jewish tribes in Medina because they were complotting with the tribes of Mecca to discredit his message since Muhammad was winning more converts “at the expense of the Jewish prophets which were considered the sole properties of the Jewish sect”.

The Prophet could no longer comprehend the basic misogyny traditions of the Jewish sects in Medina: these Jewish teachings and attitudes toward women were giving arguments to the misogynistic Muslims in Medina who were not ready to abide by the new laws that reformed drastically pre-Islamic desert life-style in customs and traditions.

Abu Huraira cranked many Hadith related to what women in periods of menstruation should not do.

For example, women should not fast the day they forget to wash their genitalia before morning prayers and things like that.

One of the wives of the prophet Umm Maimouna had this to say: “Occasionally, the prophet recited his prayers his head on the knees of one of his wives who was in menstruation. We would spread the Praying Nat in the mosque for the Prophet while we had our periods. The prophet used to do his morning prayers before washing off after a night of intercourse.”

Indeed, for the first 6 years in Medina there were No dividing lines between the public and the private life of Muhamad.  

For examples:

The door of Aicha apartment opened to the mosque; Aicha used to wash Muhammad’s hair at the door while the prophet was in the mosque.

The Muslims used to enter the Prophets residences without invitations and behaved as if they were close relatives and “faite comme chez vous” in the presence of his wives.

Finally, Muhammad had to put a stop to these inconsiderate behaviors and commanded that no one is to enter without invitations and instituted the dividing curtain.

The curtain was to separate between men and him when in his residence. After the Prophet death, the misogynistic Muslims developed the custom of Muhammad’s wives wearing veils when stepping outside their residences and this tradition was extended gradually to all women.

Another misogynistic “disciple” is Ibn Omar (the son of the second caliph Omar) who was a recluse and ascetics:  most of his Hadith were retained as valid since he was the son of a caliph.

For example, Ibn Omar said: “Women were to let down their hair before passing their wet hands over before purification.” Aicha corrected Ibn Omar saying: “How strange! Ibn Omar might as well order women to shave their head.  I used to pass 3 times my wet hands over my unloosened hair before praying with the Prophet. I even used to wash with the Prophet in the same bucket.”

This same Ibn Omar said: “The Prophet said: I had a look into paradise and the majority was of the poor communities. I had a look into hell and it was mostly crowded with women.”

There were so many misogyny pronouncements after the Prophet’s death that Moslems paid visits to Muhammad’s spouses for verifications and clarifications.

The Prophet knew that Muslims would visit his wives for questions that they would not dare ask him directly; Muhammad thus mostly behaved contrary to Jewish daily rituals and customs related to women so that Moslems would learn his behaviors and refrain from misogynistic attitudes.

Politics of interests closed the doors on women after the Prophet’s death, shamelessly and openly.

Note 1: This article is extracted from Fatima Mirnissi “The politics of Harem”

Note 2: Aicha was barely 20 when Muhammad died and lived to be 60. All that period, Aicha made it its responsibility to confront all the patriarchal trends and to teach and educated the women on their rights, such as in writing their own marriage contracts and their share in the inheritance…. In that period women enjoyed vast free expressions and they gathered and invited cultured people and poets…

Note 3: The Jews in Medina did Not appreciate that the Muslims were Not abiding by their Jewish own daily rules and customs, although the verses in the Koran in the 13 early years were almost carbon copy of the Jewish mythical stories.

The first time the Jews allied with the enemies of Muhammad in Mecca, Muhammad was lenient and allowed them to take all the belonging in their transfer to Khaibar. For the second time of their revolt, Muhammad was ruthless and beheaded many of their male leaders and looted their wealth.


33 Responses to "Sources of misogyny in Islam: not from the Koran. Though the sex life of the “Prophet” is another issue"

It is well established that by the time of his death, ‘Allah’ permitted Mohammed to have sex with any woman at all. This probably led to his death due to poisoning by his closest friends. In this, he is no different from many other cult leaders who were promiscuous, stealing the wives of their followers.

Polygamy is misogyny. Sex slavery (which Mohammed practiced and encouraged) is misogyny. Raping captive women is misogyny. Gender apartheid is misogyny. Telling women to breast feed grown men (valid hadiths) is misogyny.

Islam makes women half-human. Islam is pure misogyny through and through.

Most “orthodox” sects in religions are mysogyn: mysigyny is a political trend to rob women from practising politics and be involved in decision making and acquiring power in the structure of society. You have to study the context in every case; that what I am doing and disseminating. Your comments are not within the realm of a reflecting man; a man who reads and continue his education for fairer discussions.

‘Revisionist’ Islam (your preference) is not ‘Islam’. It is ‘deviation’, ‘innovation’ and bida, a mortal sin. The jihadists know you are trying to change Islam. Your life is mubaa.

Women have half the value of men, they are feeble in intellect and unreligious. Their value is to support the ‘honor’ of men (narcissism). They can fly an airplane, but not a car or bicycle.

This cult is insanity, mind-control, and plain silliness. Genital mutilation is still required for women.

Repulsive total misogyny!

Funny. Wish you are a revitionist relative to your own religion and struggling for equal rights to all regardless of gender, race or origin. I doublt the jihadists care for articles published on internet.

Again, Perceptor – you are spreading hate here, inciting anger, and spreading lies. Please stop.

Just because you state that state that the author’s commentary or position is “revisionist Islam” doesn’t make that true, and if it was true, there is nothing wrong with that so long as nobody is being harmed and the author truly believes it is the truth. Humankind has flaws and can possibly misinterpret passages to the Qur’an for whatever reason – if someone today identifies this and provides the true meaning, then in thazt case the ‘revisionist Islam’ is good and true and pure. Since nobody knows, nobody (including you) should pass judgmenet.

Women don’t have half the value of men in Islam. I encourage you to read and understand the full narrations to realize this. Genital mutilation is in absolutely no way required in Islam. It was a cultural practice that is not forbidden (similarly to how slavery is mentioned in the Bible but not forbidden but not noted as required), and has one hadith (not a Qur’an reference, note you) stating how to do it humanely if it is done (not requiring it). Please stop spreading lies and hatred.

hi Kelly, I liked your replies to Perceptor. I have no idea from where Perceptor fetched this name Leyla as the writer of the article. I replied very often to Perceptor to stick to the content of a post, but he tends to go on tangents. Yes, you don’t need Hadith to practice Islam: There were no Hadith when the Prophet led the prayers, 5 times a day, for over 8 years in Yathreb (Medina).

Adonis (the most beautiful man? or 49th most beautiful),

Thank you for resonding.

Criticism of Islam can get you firebombed because that is the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet. (Forget that the jihadists and I have a different idea of holiness…they think holiness lies in violence.)

The first jihad in Islam is against women. Beat them up and you control half the population. Throw acid in their face or let them burn to death and the other will women will get the message to cover up. This proves the cover is intimidation and repression.

Many jihadists get all their info on the Internet, because it is hard to track them.

You cannot change Islam, because it is a horrible sin to add or subtract from the eternally valid words of repression and cruelty, thus revising Islam to fit with modernity is impossible.

Dear Adonis,
My main reaction is that removing verses from the Hadiths and Sira is based on subjectivity, because the originals were burned or otherwise destroyed in the broad rivers of blood that flowed out of Arabia during the first 200 years of Islam. Competing dynasties all tried to create Allah, Mohammed and Sharia in their own image. They were all heartless assassins. They constantly fought and murdered one another. These were the founders of Islam. This is not my idea of holiness, but depravity and greed.

There is no way to discern what is authentic. Textual analysis casts doubt over most of the hadiths. Bukhari could not possibly have analysed more than half a million hadiths in the time he claimed. Humanly impossible. It is mythology. Anyone who accepts such myths is gullible.

By promoting the Golden Rule you have joined most of humanity and left Islam.

I don’t care about religion and i never tell anyone what is my religion. It is important that comments do not englobe over one billion people as trash. If you are a Moslem, then pick up the verses of forgiving and empathy which are the essence of islam is the first 13 years of proselitizing before moving to medina. Let us make a difference between Islam history and whatever religious sects are preponderant nowadays.

Personally, I believe theology of all religions were invented to restrict the thinking minds of the oppressed and downtrodden in order to allow the ruling class to control the questioning of the people on their nonsense behaviors and activities.
All religions have set up rules and restrictions on the daily life that turned customs and traditions that do Not fit changes in society development.

The one billion are mostly non-practicing, cultural Moslems. They have almost no interest in religion per se. They are earning a living, paying taxes and trying to send their children to college. They are not the problem, because they don’t create doctrine or policy. The mullahs do. The problem is a desert, tribal culture imposed onto an advanced technological society.

Misogyny is from Mohammed, so is a flat earth belief and drinking camel’s urine for health. Most of Islam is similarly absurd and contradicts reason.

I repeat what I said above: Polygamy is misogyny. Sex slavery (which Mohammed practiced and encouraged) is misogyny. Raping captive women is misogyny. Gender apartheid is misogyny. Telling women to breast feed grown men (valid hadiths) is misogyny.

Mohammed did the above and it can never be changed.

When non-Muslims read in mainstream Islamic books that stoning of adulterous women is acceptable in our modern times, and that it is permissible for a man to beat his wife to discipline her, and that polygamy is permissible for men up to four wives ……..Do you expect that the world will tell you that Islam is the religion that gave women their rights?

When non-Muslims read in some Hadith books (sayings of prophet Mohamed) that prophet have said that if the wife licked a wound pouring pus from her husband she would (still) not have fulfilled his right (as a husband) …

What do you expect their reaction to this form of teaching? Do you expect words of admiration or criticism?

Reported by Ahmad (3/159) and others. It’s of narration is declared to be good by al-Mundhiree in at-Targheeb wat-Tarheeb (3/75): The Messanger of Allaah (S.A.W.) said, “It is not right that any human being should prostrate to another human being I would have ordered the woman to prostrate to her husband due to the greatness of his rights upon her. By Him in whose Hand is my soul, if from his foot to the crown of his head there was a wound pouring forth pus, and she (the wife) came and licked that, then she would (still) not have fulfilled his right.”

Quran {4:34}: Men are superior to women because Allah has given them more preference to women, and because they financially support them. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband’s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you fear that they do not obey you, admonish them, avoid making sex with them (as a form of punishment), and beat them; but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

By the way, Adonis, if you don’t care about religion (as you claim) why are you writing about it and defending Mohammed?

You are contradicting yourself. You are a pious ‘Koran-only’ Moslem and you are trying to pretend you are dispassionate.

Without the Hadiths and Sira, there can be no Islam, only a jumble of incoherent hate rants by a sock puppet called ‘Allah’ who hates kafirs and women and wants to torture them.

You cannot use the Hadiths and Sira to prove your case and then demolish them saying they are not authentic. You climb up be the ladder and then chop it out from under you.

Your arguments are incoherent as is the totality of Islam, which is a jumble put together by warring dynasties.


@perceptor, you are writing distracting information.

first of all, adonis is not “changing” and “revisioning” islam or comitting bidaa. he may do so in the eyes of some but actually he is only applying forms of exegesis and criticism that were known in islamic traditions for centuries.
i can give you loads of examples from renowned islamic scholars of medieval times etc. whose opinions and ways of criticism were not less “deviant” than adonis´.

then, on to your distracting information:
i am not sure where you get your material from but it does definitely not look up to the standard of traditional islamic scholarship. Quoting ahadith that are only deemed “hasan” (good) from limited and open to critique sources to make your point does not suffice. If you would be able to quote ahadith that are deemed “sahih” (sound) and maybe even mutawattir (reportedd by several narrators) from a certain range of established sources and not in contradiction to the Quran, then we can start a serious discussion.

Do you even know what a “hasan” (good) hadith is and which place it has in Muslim lawmaking and what the difference is to sahih or mutawattir ahadith?

The prophet most definitely forbade raping captive women and he did not practice sex slavery.
Firebombing critics of Islam is definitely not the sunnah of the prophet. When Muhammad (s.a.s.) was once forced out of a small town by people throwing stones he only prayed for mercy and guidance for this town. Finally triumphing after years of defensive war against his most bitter enemies, the elite of Makkah, and establishing peace in the Hijaz, he declared a general amnesty against all of his former enemies and in tha hadith and the quran there are numerous verses and reports that tell us that forgiving is better than revenge.

Once there was a poetess who was supporting Muhammad´s enemies, writing ugly verses against the prophet, probably much uglier than todays caricatures. When a Muslim warrior finally fought these enemies and captured the woman he punished her. But Muhammad severely rebuked this warrior, told him that punishing this woman was wrong and that her tongue was her lawful weapon just as the swords were lawful weapons of the warriors.

I know that now you might try, again by quoting single and open to critique sources, to give me counterexamples to this.
But I can assure you that I, a believing, thinking and free Muslim woman, will be able to deconstruct everything you have to say because Muslim tradition has always had the goal and the means to identify the true and positiv and to discard the false and misleading from our own ummah.

You are saying, ‘My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.’

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to invent your own facts.

Hearsay of hearsay of hearsay is not ‘fact’…it is hearsay. All hearsay must be corroborated. The hadiths are extremely contradictory. Which one is authentic. Pick according to your taste. This is called subjectivity.

The internal evidence in the hadiths that contradict orthodox views such as yours will not go away by wishing, so you are retreating into obscurantism, aren’t you?

Have you ever drunk camel’s urine? Why not? Is it too insulting to your intellect? Such hadiths undermine the credibility of the rest.

Bukhari was a political hack who worked for Caliph Abul Abbas ‘The Butcher’. The Butcher murdered 90 members of the Umayad royal family after promising them safety. Do you believe a single word from a psychopath like this? Do you think Bukhari put anything in that The Butcher disliked? I doubt it, because Bukhari had a long life.

The hadiths are politically motivated hearsay.

There is no way to ‘identify the true’ because the source texts were all destroyed. What remains is politically correct propaganda of the day.

A woman who accepts the hadiths must have real self-hatred, enjoy being repressed and being a second-class citizen.


“Men are superior to women because Allah has given them more preference to women … etc.”

You chose a highy biased translation of this verse which will not seem obvious to anyone speaking Arabic.
These first words alone…there is no word for “superior” in it and also none for “more preference”.
Yes, there is a certain range available in which these words can be translated but “superior” and “more preference” are very farfetched.

A standard translation would be: “Men are responsible for women because Allah has given them more provision and physical strength….” And even this translation would be eloquently challenged by some contemporrary female Muslim scholars (yes, there have always been female scholars in Islam!) .

I think we agree. Could you re-read the article once more? Is your comment supporting this post? Thanks for further examples and clarifications Leyla.

I agree that Islam is a misogynist system through and through. The system was finalized by the Abbasid family which successfully led the Islamic world from 750 to the 1200’s. They created the Koran and collected the Hadiths…this period of Islamic history was a river of blood in which the borders of the empire expanded to Spain and the borders of China. The first Abbasid Caliph was nicknamed ‘The Butcher’. Charming! The Abbasids were reknowned for their large harems…proof of their misogyny. The hadiths collected by Bukhari, Muslim and others can be given only the smallest credence, since they were politically motivated to support the Abbasid claim and life-style. There is no saying who is the source of the Koran…the Koran is a jumble of texts, devoid of context. The voice is constantly changing so we have no idea who is speaking. Certain things are approved, then disapproved in another part. Without the politically motivated hadiths and Sira, the Koran has no chronology or context whatsoever, except that of the religions of Syria. The earliest Korans are written in the scripts found in Syria and Iraq in the 750’s. Women do not exist in the Koran except for the pure Virgin Mary. Apart from her, the women in the Hadiths and Sira are mostly appendages and toys of men. I doubt they can rehabilitate Islam. By removing all the hadiths you personally don’t like, you bring all the other hadiths into doubt as well. Well that happens, there is no Sunnah and no Mohammed. Just a rambling, confused Koran devoid of context.

There are incorrect statesmans. First, the Koran was officially assembled during the third Caliph Othman ben Affan before the Omayyad dynasty. Second, Bukhari was one of the late scholars to review the thousands of Hadith for investigation. Third, if you read many of my articles you will discover that the spouses of Mohammad brought out the problem that the Koran didn’t mention women and the prophet complied by a special sourat on women and other sourats. Fourth, what makes the Koran so troublesome is that the contexts are not described for each sourat; that would be the best endeavor that Islam could do to give meaning to sourats. Passing judgement out of ignorance is sinful to your individuality.

Dear Leyla,
You are climbing up to your position by the ladder of the Hadiths and Sira, but then once you get there, you chop out the ladder!

This is inconsistent.

Either the Hadiths and Sira are historically trustworthy, or they are not. I am convinced that scholarly research has poked so many holes in their reliability, that we can no longer accept the ‘orthodox view’ that they are valid history.

My point is that these documents were obviously of very late composition. The events declared in them actually took place in Syria or Palestine (or even in northern Arabia)…then they were transposed backwards in time to the ‘golden age’ of a mythical personnage…someone like ‘Robin Hood’. An industry of hadith writing suddenly appeared during the wars between the Umayyads and Abbasids. They were fighting literally for their lives and the documents we have today prove this. The wild contradictions in these texts show that no one knew what had occurred 150 years earlier. They were making it up to support their own dynasties…for political reasons.

On what basis do you claim the right to remove a hadith you think is unauthentic? Taste? Subjectivity?

Forensic scholarship attempts to be OBJECTIVE. Unless we put our prejudices aside, we cannot reach valid, scientific conclusions about anything, can we?

Subjectivity in selecting mushrooms is VERY dangerous! So too in what you are doing!

The misogyny of Islam is incontrovertible and it is in Islam’s DNA.

It can never be removed.

Bukhari took less than 2 minutes per each hadith. Some scholarship! That is merely subjective, whimsical, spontaneous. There is no scholarship in Bukhari whatsoever! Scholarship takes time and effort. What Bukhari did was based on criteria other than real scholarship. Why did such a huge number of hadiths claim Abu Abbas (Mohammed’s uncle) as their source. Obviously, to support the Abbasid dynasty.

Forensic does not mean ‘orthodox’…it means scientific. First throw away your orthodox PREJUDICE and FOREGONE CONCLUSIONS, then look at every detail with scepticism…then you will start to be scientific.

A fanatic refuses to be confused with facts, because his/her mind is made up.

Another word for this is ‘obscurantism’.

Are you an obscurantist?

Islam is the only religion that has rules for rape.

Tabari IX:
22 “The Prophet continued to besiege the town, fighting them bitterly.”
25 “By Allah, I (Mohammed, the prophet of Islam) did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over Ta’if so that I might obtain a slave girl from them and make her pregnant.”

How soon may a captive woman be raped? On the same day according to the Sira: Ishaq 758 – Dihya had asked Mohammed for Safiya, and when he chose her for himself Mohammed gave Safiya’s two cousins to Dihya in exchange. The women of Khaybar were distributed among the Muslims. Ishaq 759 A man said, ‘Let me tell you what I heard the apostle say on the day of Khaybar. He got up among us and said: “It is not lawful for a Muslim to mingle his seed with another man’s [meaning to have sex with a pregnant woman among the captives], nor is it lawful for him to take her until he has made sure that she is in a state of cleanness [not having her period].

As long as the kafir woman was not pregnant or having her period, the Muslim can rape her. Of course, a kafir should not even see the Muslim woman, hence, the veil, but a Muslim can have sex with a captured kafir woman. This is as good an illustration of Islam’s dual ethics as any other.

Islam is the only religion that has rules governing rape. The fact of the existence of rules for “correct” rape shows that rape has Islam’s full sanction, a sanction given by Allah’s Messenger in Koran and Hadiths.

“Islam ensured that the slave girl’s duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.”

How can a modern woman defend an inherently misogynistic system like this?

Official Approval for Raping Kafirs

Muslims jihadists are encouraged by Mohammed to have sex with the captured women, whether they are married or not. In the following passage, Ali, Mohammed’s cousin and son-in-law, 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 Muhammed’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 than that from [the] Khumus.’ (Bukhari59.59.637)
In this passage, Mohammed agrees that captive women are part of the one-fifth of the spoils of war and can be used as sexual property. Ali is a Moslem hero. He is Mohammed’s cousin and the husband of Fatima, Mohammed’s daughter by his first wife Khadija. The perfect prophet does not scold his son-in-law for having sex with a slave-girl…he approves and says Ali ‘deserves’ more sex slaves than this!
Mohammed gives his full blessing to the rape of kafir women as a well-deserved reward for jihadists.

There is no doubt about the validity of this hadith.

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”

Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432

The concern here was not to lower the price of the human property by inseminating it. Pregnant slaves were a liability. Mohammed says nothing against rape, thus approving it. He launches into a confusing discussion of fatalism, instead.

Rape of captive women is accepted as normative Islam.

hi perceptor1
Thanks for the many comments. You may send me as many comments as you like and I will read them. As I told you before, I am not that interested in religions or what Abbass did or what Mohammad said or about hadith. I report what I read in well research books and try to disseminate alternative viewpoints. I main purpose is open minddedness and compassion. We are after all just a spec in this vast universe and all that we have is our individuality to develop and the power to reflect.

Dear Adonis, I thoroughly endorse and second your comments! I endorse any philosophy that recommends and promotes the use of Golden Rule. It is the only solution for bringing world peace and universal prosperity. Unfortunately, Islam does not anywhere contain the Golden Rule and is inherently misogynistic.

My point in referring to history is that real people created Islam. It is a human product based on the folk religions of Arabia and how Arabs saw the religions of their neighbours. We cannot know anything about Mohammed for sure. ‘Mohammed’ is a title, not a personal name. ‘Mohammed’ is like ‘Robin Hood’…there was no doubt a person who began the Holy Arab Empire that conquered from Spain to China, but his real identity is lost and buried by the Abbasid propaganda machine. The original source texts of Islam were mostly destroyed, but there are enough scraps of contradictory evidence remaining that we can say for certain, there was a coverup or several that occurred in the early Islamic era.

Likely, Mohammed was the founder of the empire, but his erstwhile friends murdered him and buried the evidence.

This is group of people that thought little of raping captive women, enslaving them, even though their husbands were alive and reducing women to half the value of a man in their laws. The Islamic system from its outset is EXTREMELY misogynisitc all the while denying the fact. The evidence is very strong that misogyny is the normative Islam of the original political movement that swept out of Arabia.

[…] Sources of misogyny in Islam: not from t […]

A sincere difference of opinion is not a lie or ‘hate’, but a sincere attempt to discover the truth. The search for truth must be rigorous, or what you are promoting is weak and fragile and not worthy of anyone’s attention. Since Islam is allegedly ‘perfect’ it can never be improved…so you resort to ‘revisionism’. You overthrow the writings of the consensus of Islam and proclaim that now only in the 20th and 21st century have we ‘rediscovered’ the ‘real’ Islam. All previous generations were ‘misunderstanders of Islam’. Only you have a clear understanding that was not available before. This is called revisionism.

Revise this: ‘Women are domestic animals.’ – Mohammed’s last sermon

Mohammed was the hadiths while he was alive…Mohammed was the Koran when he was alive. He did not write down the whole Koran because he needed constantly to revise it in light of new political needs. His socket puppet said whatever was required at the moment and then claimed it was ‘abrogation’.

The most repeated phrase in the Koran is ‘obey the prophet’…is though he were merely a general or a warlord. The Koran has virtually nothing of the biography of Mohammed. You cannot ‘obey’ or ‘imitate’ Mohammed without the hadiths, most of which are extremely suspect. Moslems are hoisted on their own petard, looking for certainties and finding myriad textual contradictions, troublesome misogyny, xenophobia, racism and savage cruelty in the hadiths.

Revisionism is the only way out.

My coder is trying to persuade me to move to .
net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of
the expenses. But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using
WordPress on a number of websites for about a
year and am concerned about switching to another platform.
I have heard great things about Is there a
way I can transfer all my wordpress content into it?
Any kind of help would be greatly appreciated!

I’ am not the right person for technical matters. Ask support and they do help.

“Sources of misogyny in Islam: not from the Prophet at all | Adonis Diaries”
was in fact a beneficial blog. If merely there was more blogs similar to this
one in the world wide web. Anyway, thanks for your personal time,

Literally translated, it means “placing between the thighs”

Imagine a 50 year old Arab stripping a 6 year old child naked and putting his “willie” between her thighs and wanking himself off; squirting his cum all over the child’s naked body!

Imagine this now 53 year old Arab having full, penetrative sexual intercourse with the 9 year old child and shooting his “load” of cum into her small vagina, shouting, “Allah Akbar”!

Allah says in the Quran:
(Sura 33:21).
You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah an excellent example for him who hopes in Allah and the Last Day, and who remembers Allah much.

In this verse Allah instructs Muslims to follow Prophet Muhammad who was an embodiment of the great values and manners of the Quran. He gave the best example for mankind in human history. Many Muslim writers bear witness that Prophet Muhammad is the greatest man in human history.

Sura 68:05
And thou dost, surely, possess sublime moral excellencies.

There is no “broad” or “narrow” reading of the Quran, as The New York Times and countless other organs of Western Islamophilia would have us believe. A Muslim is not free to believe or do what he wishes. The basis of the social and legal order and obligation in Islam is the Quran, the final and perfect revelation of Allah’s will that is to be obeyed by all creation. (Surah 4:105)

The Islamic law, the Shari’a, is not a supplement to the “secular” legal code, it is the only such code and the only basis of obligation, because a
Muslim’s only true allegiance is to Allah, and to Muhammad:

“He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah.” (Quran 4:8)
Islam is a revealed religion, strongly focused on its grounding in history, in the historical person of Muhammad, his revelation and his example. Events as they happened, with all recorded or alleged words and deeds of the Prophet, are the foundation of the faith, law, and social convention. Even his apparently trivial actions and utterances were passed on as rules and mode of conduct, in accordance with the Quranic statement that Muhammad is “a beautiful pattern (of conduct).” (Quran 33:21)

His sayings and acts guide the lives of all true Muslims to this day, including his rape of enslaved girls and women and his rape of a prepubescent “wife.” Muhammad offers the eternal model of behavior for every little detail of everyday life for all time.

That Muhammad’s actions and words, as immortalized in the Quran and recorded in the Traditions, are frankly shocking by the standards of our time and punishable by its laws goes without saying. There are hundreds of contemporary Western apologists, however, who argue that we must not extend the judgmental yardstick of our own culture to the members of other cultures who have lived in other eras.

Even in the context of seventh century Arabia, however, Muhammad had to resort to divine revelations as a means of suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own milieu. Indulging with considerable abandon one’s sensual passions was so fundamentally at odds with the moral standards of his own Arab contemporaries that only the ultimate authority could, and did, sanction it.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s




March 2010

Blog Stats

  • 1,519,211 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 764 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: