Sunday, 6 November 2016

What were some of the Roman crimes and their punishments?


Nude female doll in kneeling position, bound and pierced with thirteen pins. Found in a terracotta vase with a lead tablet bearing a binding spell (katadesmos). 4th century CE, discovered in Egypt. (The Louvre.)
Roman laws began by banning magic, then refined them to be more specifically against harmful magic.
Many thought that Germanicus, son of the Chrestian, Antonia Minor, was killed by magic.
Below: Bronze statue of Germanicus on display at it:Museo civico di Amelia,Amelia, Umbria, Italy.
...it is a fact that explorations in the floor and walls brought to light the remains of human bodies, spells, curses, leaden tablets engraved with the name Germanicus, charred and blood-smeared ashes,* and others of the implements of witchcraft by which it is believed the living soul can be devoted to the powers of the grave. (Tacitus, Annals, Book II)
"Through his hatred of Germanicus and his zeal for anarchy," so ran the indictment, "Piso had, by relaxing discipline and permitting the maltreatment of the provincials, so far corrupted the common soldiers that among the vilest of them he was known as the Father of the Legions. On the other hand, he had been ruthless to the best men, especially the companions and friends of Germanicus, and at last, with the help of poison and the black arts, had destroyed the prince himself. Then had come the blasphemous rites and sacrifices of Plancina and himself, an armed assault on the commonwealth, and — in order that he might be put on his trial — defeat upon a stricken field." (Tacitus, Annals, Book III)
More on the subject of magic and Roman law:
Apuleius was accused of practicing magic, something outlawed under Roman law. The speech he delivered in his own defense against the charge of magic, in c. 160 CE, remains and it is from this Apologia that we learn how easy it was, at that time, for a philosopher to be accused of magical practices.[58] Perhaps in a turn of irony or even a tacit admission of guilt Apuleius, in his work of fiction Metamorphoses (or The Golden Ass), which perhaps has autobiographical elements, allows the hero, Lucius, to dabble in magic as a young man, get into trouble, be rescued by the goddess Isis, and then finds true knowledge and happiness in her mysteries.[59] Like Plutarch Apuleius seems to take for granted the existence of daemons. They populate the air and seem to, in fact, be formed of air. They experience emotions just like human beings, and despite this their minds are rational.[59] In light of Apuleuis’ experience it is worth noting that when magic is mentioned in Roman laws, it is always discussed in a negative context. A consensus was established quite early in Roman history for the banning of anything viewed as harmful acts of magic. The Laws of the Twelve Tablets(451–450 BCE) for example expressly forbid anyone from enticing his neighbors’ crops into his fields by magic.[60] An actual trial for alleged violation of these laws was held before Spurius Albinus in 157 BCE.[22]:XVIII:41–43 It is also recorded that Cornelius Hispallus expelled the Chaldean astrologers from Rome in 139 BCE – ostensibly on the grounds that they were magicians.[61] In 33 BCE astrologers and magicians are explicitly mentioned as having been driven from Rome.[61] Twenty years later, Augustus ordered all books on the magical arts to be burned. In 16 CE magicians and astrologers were expelled from Italy, and this was reinstated by edicts of Vespasian in 69 CE and Domitian in 89 CE. The emperor Constantine I in the 4th century CE issued a ruling to cover all charges of magic. In it he distinguished between helpful charms, not punishable, and antagonistic spells.[62] In these cases Roman authorities specifically decided what forms of magic were acceptable and which were not. Those that were not acceptable were termed "magic"; those that were acceptable were usually defined as traditions of the state or practices of the state's religions.
The problem in understanding this today is that we have difficulty understanding the characters of magic and religion - they are essentially the same. In Roman times, most practised magic in one religious form or another.
Ancient Greeks and Romans often turned to magic to achieve personal goals. Magical rites were seen as a route for direct access to the gods, for material gains as well as spiritual satisfaction.
And we find curse tablets all over the empire.
Below: Eyguieres curse tablet
These texts were typically scratched on very thin sheets of lead in tiny letters, then often rolled, folded, or pierced with nails. These bound tablets were then usually placed beneath the ground: either buried in graves or tombs, thrown into wells or pools, sequestered in underground sanctuaries, or nailed to the walls of temples. Tablets were also used for love spells and, when used in this manner they were placed inside the home of the desired target.[1] They are sometimes discovered along with small dolls or figurines (sometimes inaccurately referred to as "Voodoo dolls"[2]), which may also be pierced by nails. The figurines resembled the target and often had both their feet and hands bound.[3] Curse tablets also included hair or pieces of clothing. This is especially the case in love spells, which calls for “hair from the head of the love target.” Some love spells have even been discovered “folded around some hair,” probably to bind the spell itself.[4] “Not all tablets included a personal name, but it is clear especially in the Roman period, that tablets were sometimes prepared in advance, with space left for inserting the names provided by paying customers."[5]
Punishments for illegal magic included crucifixion.
By
K.Jagadeesh 

What are the best examples of "Humans will be Humans"?


This is a story told by my mother when I was very little but it left a lasting impression on me.





Once there was an old Pandit (Brahmin,Priest). He was very poor. So much so that he had to go door to door to ask for Alms.

People used to bang their doors on him. Because he was poor, he wore very worn out clothes and he was very ill looking. People never liked him around their house.

One day, a merchant from another village was travelling and he came across this Pandit. Pandit asked him for alms. Seeing a Pandit as a good omen he gave him food and also a new dhoti (a traditional cloth for men).

The Pandit had a very peaceful night sleep under the tree after a good meal.

The next day, he took bath in the river and wore the new dhoti. He went again to the village for alms.

The first door he knocked on was of the man who shunned him away 2 days ago. That man, seeing the Pandit in an improved look, welcomed him and made him sit with himself to eat.

When the meal was served, Pandit made a thanking prayer to the God. Then he took the sweet and started to tell his dhoti "Eat, please! Dhoti Eat! ".

That man was shocked to see this and asked the Pandit  "what are you doing?"

Pandit answered "you closed your door on me that day but today you invited me in here with so much of warmth, all because of this dhoti so I am thanking it by offering the sweet".

The man became ashamed of himself and immediately realized his mistake.


don't tell you the morals of this story.

But I think we observe the human nature here really well.

Like the man, don't we all judge people on the basis of their appearance?

Analysing a person's personality and property (clothes, mobiles, cars) and then forming an opinion is something that is common among us all.

And thus , we all Humans will be Humans!
By
K.Jagadeesh 

Tuesday, 1 November 2016

Sharia Court Accused of Protecting Wife-Beating Men

Sharia Court Accused of Protecting Wife-Beating Men



muslimmen
The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, has been placed in the cross-hairs of humanitarian and legal groups after case after case of domestic violence involving the man as the aggressor and the woman as the victim seemed to have been decided along the lines of Sharia law – the part that gives Muslim husbands the right to beat their wives.
Sharia-670888
The Express has the news:
“The Nuneaton Mat is one of the most influential Sharia courts in Britain, ruling on disputes between members of Muslim communities. On the tribunal’s website it states that it can make submissions to ask the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to reconsider criminal charges brought against men accused of domestic violence.
“The Mat says it aims to provide reconciliation between parties where charges for criminal assaults relating to domestic violence have been brought forward.”
The terms of the agreed-upon reconciliation measures are supposed to flow from MAT to the Crown Prosecution Service via the local Police Domestic Violence Liaison Office, the last of which maintains the legal authority to bring back the case for criminal charge, if perceived as necessary.
But legal watchers say the Sharia court hasn’t exactly been following protocol with domestic violence cases and has simply been encouraging women to “reconcile with abusive partners,” the Express reported.
More from the newspaper:
“Earlier this year the Government launched an inquiry into Sharia Courts in Britain over their treatment of women.
“A statement by women’s rights group Southall Black Sisters submitted as part of written evidence said: ‘The Mat, for example, actively involves itself in criminal proceedings on domestic violence, despite stating that it is unable to deal with criminal offences.
“‘It uses its position of power to persuade the CPS to drop charges and to encourage women to reconcile with abusive partners without reference to court orders they may already have or to risk assessments and safety planning.’
“The group said Sharia councils are ‘highly arbitrary decision making forums that use dominant, patriarchal and authoritarian interpretations of Muslim codes.’
“Sharia, the Islamic legal system based on the Koran, is equivalent to state laws in some Middle Eastern countries. In Britain Sharia law does no supersede UK law.”
In fact, Sharia councils operating in the United Kingdom are only allowed to exist on a voluntary basis, not as a sponsored entity of the government.
But these panels and tribunals have been growing in influence of late. Several have been accused of bias against women, as based on Sharia.
Critics outright charge the panels actually endorse marriages that have been forced, and in divorce proceedings, always issue decisions that fall on the favorable side of the man.
At least Britain’s taking a second look at these panels.
As the Express noted:
“The parliamentary inquiry was launched by previous Home Secretary -now Prime Minister- Theresa May.
“She said: ‘There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen.
“‘This review will help us better understand whether, and the extent to which, sharia is being misused or exploited, and make recommendations to the Government on how to address this.'”
The inquiry is scheduled to hear from witnesses over the next several days.
One more bit from the Express:
“Former director of prosecutions Lord Macdonald has expressed concern over the dangers of allowing Sharia councils to deal with cases of domestic violence. …
“‘Women have been struggling for justice in domestic violence cases for decades. We need to support them rather than trapping them in blind alleys designed to contain them.'”
by
k.jagadeesh 

fuck the muhammad

Muhammad Was ‘History’s First Feminist’



taxi-hellfire

FACT #1: The Qur’an allows (or, perhaps, commands) men to beat their wives into subservience. If a wife doesn’t listen to her husband, the husband should admonish her. If that doesn’t work, he is to make her sleep in a separate bed. However, if the wife still doesn’t respect her husband’s authority, even after she has been banished to another bed, the husband is told to physically punish her. Consider three translations of the following verse:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.[7]
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.[8]
Men are the protectors And maintainers of women, Because Allah has given The one more (strength) Than the other, and because They support them From their means. 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 ye fear Disloyalty and ill-conduct, Admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); But if they return to obedience, Seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).[9]
Muslim translators have struggled with this passage and have sought ways to water down its clear meaning. For instance, Ali adds the word “lightly” to his translation, which doesn’t occur in the original Arabic. However, even if we allow Ali to tone down the parts of the Qur’an he finds offensive, the verse still allows husbands to beat their wives. Hence, according to God’s last and greatest prophet, spousal abuse is permissible, and perhaps even required. Modern nations that have established laws against spousal abuse are therefore in direct violation of Allah’s command in the Qur’an.
FACT #2: According to Muhammad, women lack common sense because their minds are deficient. Of course, this declaration didn’t go unchallenged. To his credit, Muhammad allowed women to question him about their intellectual deficiencies. His response to these questions was illuminating:
[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense.[10]
The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) 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 her mind.”[11]
Notice here that, in the first passage, Muhammad justifies his claim that women lack common sense by stating that their testimony is worth half that of a man. Yet, in the second passage, Muhammad justifies his claim that the testimony of women is half as good as men’s testimony by stating that women have deficient minds. This is a classic example of circular reasoning. We can imagine a conversation between Muhammad and a more critical questioner:
Questioner:“O Muhammad! Why is Hell full of women?”
Muhammad:“Because they lack common sense!”
Questioner:“How do you know they lack common sense?”
Muhammad:“Their lack of common sense can be seen from the fact that their testimony is only half as good as a man’s testimony.”
Questioner:“But why is their testimony half as good as a man’s?”
Muhammad:“Because of the deficiency of their minds!”
Questioner:“How do you know that their minds are deficient?”
Muhammad:“The deficiency of their minds can be seen from the fact that their testimony is worth half the testimony of a man.”
Questioner:“Again, why is their testimony half as good?”
Muhammad:“Because their minds are deficient!”
Questioner:“Maybe the only thing deficient here is your argument.”
Notice also that Muhammad’s claims here are falsifiable. That is, they can be tested and, in theory, disproved. We could easily set up an experiment to see whether Muhammad’s statements about the inferiority of a woman’s intellect are correct. We could also set up an experiment in which a group of men and a group of women each witness the same accident. If the testimonies gathered from the male group are twice as accurate as the testimonies taken from the female group, Muhammad’s statements will have been vindicated. On the other hand, if the reports from the two groups are similar, we can dismiss Muhammad’s ideas as the sexist comments of a man affected by cultural biases.
FACT #3: Muhammad offered women little hope for the afterlife. Indeed, he clearly states that most of the inhabitants of hell are women who were ungrateful to their husbands (though he never suggests that ungrateful husbands will receive similar punishment[12]). This means that, after being admonished, banished to a separate bed, and beaten by her husband, a willful woman can look forward to an eternity in hell:
The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I saw paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked: “O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?” The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds.”[13]
[Muhammad said], “O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He said: “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray.”[14]
However, even if these women were to stop cursing and to start thanking their husbands, their prospects for the afterlife would still leave much to be desired. According to Muhammad, Muslim women can look forward to an eternity of standing in corners, waiting for men to come and have sex with them:
Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.”[15]
Hence, good Muslim women who respect their husbands in this life will have the opportunity to continue their sexual service to their husbands in “Paradise.” Apparently, Muhammad considered this to be an appropriate view of Paradise; many women would rightly disagree.
FACT #4: The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those “whom their right hands possess”). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives:
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.[16]
Not so those devoted To Prayer—Those who remain steadfast To their prayer; And those in whose wealth Is a recognized right For the (needy) who asks And him who is prevented (For some reason from asking); And those who hold To the truth of the Day Of Judgement; And those who fear The displeasure of their Lord—For their Lord’s displeasure Is the opposite of Peace And Tranquility—And those who guard Their chastity, Except with their wives And the (captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (then) they are not To be blamed.[17]
The Muslim practice of having sex with captured women is reported often in the Hadith, where we find Muslims perplexed about what to do with their captives. It wasn’t long before Allah sent a revelation allowing the confused soldiers to sleep with the women:
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (4:24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda period came to an end).[18]
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.[19]
We went out with Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl” above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: “How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: “It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist.”[2[20]sup>
Jabir bin Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.[2[21]sup>
The Muslims had originally refrained from having sex with their captives because they were the wives of polytheists; nevertheless, God sent a message saying that they were free to have sex with the women. Modern Muslims believe that this sexual intercourse would only have occurred after marriage, but this view is clearly false. Muhammad’s followers said that they wanted to have sex with the women but that they still wanted to sell them. They asked Muhammad about performing coitus interruptus, but Muhammad answered that it doesn’t really matter. All children who are destined to be born will be born, so it doesn’t matter if a man practices coitus interruptus or not.
Thus, the Qur’an permits men to have sex with their female captives (whose husbands were sometimes still alive[, and the Hadith provides examples of when this was practiced. Yet we must follow this fact through to its











logical conclusion. The Muslims decided to have sex with their captives, whom they were later going to sell. These captives wer








e women whose husbands and families had been exterminated by the Muslims. Would these women gladly


 consent to sexua
\




l intercourse with the men who had killed their families? Probably not.
burka

In an astonishing feat of mental legerdemain, the Huffington Post has made the claim that the prophet Muhammad—who married 13 wives and taught that women have an intellect inferior to men’s—was actually an active promotor of women’s rights, the world’s “first feminist.”
Of all the founders of the great religions, argues Banafsheh Sayyad in the Post, “Muhammad was easily the most radical and empowering in his treatment of women. Arguably he was history’s first feminist.”
Sayyad writes that the prophet Muhammad would be “appalled” by how current Islamic radicals are treating women, which “is certainly not consistent with anything we know about what Muhammad taught or how he treated women.”
Yet Muhammad married a six-year-old girl named Aisha when he was in his fifties. According to the authoritative Sahih Bukhari, the consummation of their marriage occurred three years later. “The Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.”
The Qur’an also permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves, a disposition regularly exploited by fighters of the Islamic State. The Qur’an praises those men who abstain from sex “except from their wives or what their right hands possess (captives), for then they are not to be blamed.”
Undaunted, Ms. Sayyad contends that Muhammad was “fundamentally different” from the founders of Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism and Christianity, because he “explicitly taught the radical equality of women and men” and took “numerous concrete measures” to improve the status of women during his own lifetime.
In point of fact, Muhammad taught that in the absence of a male witness, two women had to be brought to testify. The witness of a woman is equal to half of that of a man, he taught, “because of the deficiency of her mind.”
He also taught that women make up the majority of the damned in Hell because of their “lack of common sense” and their “failings in religion.”
Sayyad claims that Muhammad was “sensitized to the plight of women” because he was born poor, orphaned at a very early age, and illiterate. There is little historical evidence, however, that poor, orphaned, illiterate men tend to be especially respectful of women. In fact, in many cases the contrary would seem to hold true.
To his credit, Muhammad did apparently abolish female infanticide in Arabia, which was undoubtedly a good thing. Nonetheless, this hardly establishes him as a champion of women’s rights.
Ms. Sayyad says that it “is time for Islam to liberate women fully and do so upon the example of Muhammad and the authority of the Quran.”
If that’s the kind of liberation Muslim women are looking for, heaven help them.
by
K.jagadeesh  

: According to Muhammad, women lack common sense because their minds are deficient.



Muhammad Was ‘History’s First Feminist’



taxi-hellfire


FACT #1: The Qur’an allows (or, perhaps, commands) men to beat their wives into subservience. If a wife doesn’t listen to her husband, the husband should admonish her. If that doesn’t work, he is to make her sleep in a separate bed. However, if the wife still doesn’t respect her husband’s authority, even after she has been banished to another bed, the husband is told to physically punish her. Consider three translations of the following verse:
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret what Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great.[7]
Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.[8]
Men are the protectors And maintainers of women, Because Allah has given The one more (strength) Than the other, and because They support them From their means. 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 ye fear Disloyalty and ill-conduct, Admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); But if they return to obedience, Seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, Great (above you all).[9]
Muslim translators have struggled with this passage and have sought ways to water down its clear meaning. For instance, Ali adds the word “lightly” to his translation, which doesn’t occur in the original Arabic. However, even if we allow Ali to tone down the parts of the Qur’an he finds offensive, the verse still allows husbands to beat their wives. Hence, according to God’s last and greatest prophet, spousal abuse is permissible, and perhaps even required. Modern nations that have established laws against spousal abuse are therefore in direct violation of Allah’s command in the Qur’an.
FACT #2: According to Muhammad, women lack common sense because their minds are deficient. Of course, this declaration didn’t go unchallenged. To his credit, Muhammad allowed women to question him about their intellectual deficiencies. His response to these questions was illuminating:
[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense.[10]
The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) 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 her mind.”[11]
Notice here that, in the first passage, Muhammad justifies his claim that women lack common sense by stating that their testimony is worth half that of a man. Yet, in the second passage, Muhammad justifies his claim that the testimony of women is half as good as men’s testimony by stating that women have deficient minds. This is a classic example of circular reasoning. We can imagine a conversation between Muhammad and a more critical questioner:
Questioner:“O Muhammad! Why is Hell full of women?”
Muhammad:“Because they lack common sense!”
Questioner:“How do you know they lack common sense?”
Muhammad:“Their lack of common sense can be seen from the fact that their testimony is only half as good as a man’s testimony.”
Questioner:“But why is their testimony half as good as a man’s?”
Muhammad:“Because of the deficiency of their minds!”
Questioner:“How do you know that their minds are deficient?”
Muhammad:“The deficiency of their minds can be seen from the fact that their testimony is worth half the testimony of a man.”
Questioner:“Again, why is their testimony half as good?”
Muhammad:“Because their minds are deficient!”
Questioner:“Maybe the only thing deficient here is your argument.”
Notice also that Muhammad’s claims here are falsifiable. That is, they can be tested and, in theory, disproved. We could easily set up an experiment to see whether Muhammad’s statements about the inferiority of a woman’s intellect are correct. We could also set up an experiment in which a group of men and a group of women each witness the same accident. If the testimonies gathered from the male group are twice as accurate as the testimonies taken from the female group, Muhammad’s statements will have been vindicated. On the other hand, if the reports from the two groups are similar, we can dismiss Muhammad’s ideas as the sexist comments of a man affected by cultural biases.
FACT #3: Muhammad offered women little hope for the afterlife. Indeed, he clearly states that most of the inhabitants of hell are women who were ungrateful to their husbands (though he never suggests that ungrateful husbands will receive similar punishment[12]). This means that, after being admonished, banished to a separate bed, and beaten by her husband, a willful woman can look forward to an eternity in hell:
The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I saw paradise and stretched my hands towards a bunch (of its fruits) and had I taken it, you would have eaten from it as long as the world remains. I also saw the Hell-fire and I had never seen such a horrible sight. I saw that most of the inhabitants were women.” The people asked: “O Allah’s Apostle! Why is it so?” The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Because of their ungratefulness.” It was asked whether they are ungrateful to Allah. The Prophet (the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “They are ungrateful to their companions of life (husbands) and ungrateful to good deeds.”[13]
[Muhammad said], “O women! Give to charity, for I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-Fire were women.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What is the reason for it?” He said: “O women! You curse frequently, and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. O women, some of you can lead a cautious man astray.”[14]
However, even if these women were to stop cursing and to start thanking their husbands, their prospects for the afterlife would still leave much to be desired. According to Muhammad, Muslim women can look forward to an eternity of standing in corners, waiting for men to come and have sex with them:
Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “In Paradise there is a pavilion made of a single hollow pearl sixty miles wide, in each corner of which there are wives who will not see those in the other corners; and the believers will visit and enjoy them.”[15]
Hence, good Muslim women who respect their husbands in this life will have the opportunity to continue their sexual service to their husbands in “Paradise.” Apparently, Muhammad considered this to be an appropriate view of Paradise; many women would rightly disagree.
FACT #4: The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those “whom their right hands possess”). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives:
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.[16]
Not so those devoted To Prayer—Those who remain steadfast To their prayer; And those in whose wealth Is a recognized right For the (needy) who asks And him who is prevented (For some reason from asking); And those who hold To the truth of the Day Of Judgement; And those who fear The displeasure of their Lord—For their Lord’s displeasure Is the opposite of Peace And Tranquility—And those who guard Their chastity, Except with their wives And the (captives) whom Their right hands possess—For (then) they are not To be blamed.[17]
The Muslim practice of having sex with captured women is reported often in the Hadith, where we find Muslims perplexed about what to do with their captives. It wasn’t long before Allah sent a revelation allowing the confused soldiers to sleep with the women:
Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: “And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (4:24)” (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda period came to an end).[18]
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.[19]
We went out with Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) for the invasion of Bun Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus [same as "azl” above]. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said: “How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle (The blessing and peace of Allah be upon him) who is present among us? We asked (him) about it and he said: “It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul till the Day of Resurrection is predestined to exist, it will exist.”[2[20]sup>
Jabir bin Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practice azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.[2[21]sup>
The Muslims had originally refrained from having sex with their captives because they were the wives of polytheists; nevertheless, God sent a message saying that they were free to have sex with the women. Modern Muslims believe that this sexual intercourse would only have occurred after marriage, but this view is clearly false. Muhammad’s followers said that they wanted to have sex with the women but that they still wanted to sell them. They asked Muhammad about performing coitus interruptus, but Muhammad answered that it doesn’t really matter. All children who are destined to be born will be born, so it doesn’t matter if a man practices coitus interruptus or not.
Thus, the Qur’an permits men to have sex with their female captives (whose husbands were sometimes still alive[, and the Hadith provides examples of when this was practiced. Yet we must follow this fact through to its











logical conclusion. The Muslims decided to have sex with their captives, whom they were later going to sell. These captives wer








e women whose husbands and families had been exterminated by the Muslims. Would these women gladly


 consent to sexua
\





l intercourse with the men who had killed their families? Probably not.
burka

In an astonishing feat of mental legerdemain, the Huffington Post has made the claim that the prophet Muhammad—who married 13 wives and taught that women have an intellect inferior to men’s—was actually an active promotor of women’s rights, the world’s “first feminist.”
Of all the founders of the great religions, argues Banafsheh Sayyad in the Post, “Muhammad was easily the most radical and empowering in his treatment of women. Arguably he was history’s first feminist.”
Sayyad writes that the prophet Muhammad would be “appalled” by how current Islamic radicals are treating women, which “is certainly not consistent with anything we know about what Muhammad taught or how he treated women.”
Yet Muhammad married a six-year-old girl named Aisha when he was in his fifties. According to the authoritative Sahih Bukhari, the consummation of their marriage occurred three years later. “The Prophet wrote the marriage contract with her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old.”
The Qur’an also permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves, a disposition regularly exploited by fighters of the Islamic State. The Qur’an praises those men who abstain from sex “except from their wives or what their right hands possess (captives), for then they are not to be blamed.”
Undaunted, Ms. Sayyad contends that Muhammad was “fundamentally different” from the founders of Buddhism, Judaism, Confucianism and Christianity, because he “explicitly taught the radical equality of women and men” and took “numerous concrete measures” to improve the status of women during his own lifetime.
In point of fact, Muhammad taught that in the absence of a male witness, two women had to be brought to testify. The witness of a woman is equal to half of that of a man, he taught, “because of the deficiency of her mind.”
He also taught that women make up the majority of the damned in Hell because of their “lack of common sense” and their “failings in religion.”
Sayyad claims that Muhammad was “sensitized to the plight of women” because he was born poor, orphaned at a very early age, and illiterate. There is little historical evidence, however, that poor, orphaned, illiterate men tend to be especially respectful of women. In fact, in many cases the contrary would seem to hold true.
To his credit, Muhammad did apparently abolish female infanticide in Arabia, which was undoubtedly a good thing. Nonetheless, this hardly establishes him as a champion of women’s rights.
Ms. Sayyad says that it “is time for Islam to liberate women fully and do so upon the example of Muhammad and the authority of the Quran.”
If that’s the kind of liberation Muslim women are looking for, heaven help them.
by
K.jagadeesh