There's new accusation from none other than a non-Muslim authors that Muhammad had imposed head-to-toe veil upon Muslim women, because they were being molested/persecuted by his opponents, purportedly the Jews of Medina. How true is this never-heard accusation, which even Muslims, masters of making all kinds of unfounded accusations against Muhammad's infidel opponents of Arabia, never make...
While growing up as a young boy, I was told (as do all Muslims) of how horribly the kafirs (idol-worshipper) of Mecca persecuted our beloved Prophet and his disciples. As an example, Abu Shujaah, an Islamic propagandist, writes of the persecution suffered by Muhammad at Mecca: "You’re dealing with a dictatorial society. Muhammad (saw) and the followers of Islam were shunned, closed off, hounded by the polytheist Pagan Quraysh leaders, who had the money and manpower to provoke, threaten and at one point completely lock of the Muslims to the extent they were starved for several months."
Another Muslim once wrote to me that "many Muslims perished, died under torture, in many horrific ways for 13 years."
While Muslim minds are loaded with such propaganda in most emotive language from early age, Islamic literature records no overt persecution of the Muslims by Meccan kafirs. The verses of the Quran and Muhammad’s utterances intensely condemned the religious practices, customs and ancestors of Meccan idolaters. In response, the kafirs only restricted Muhammad’s preaching, but some 5-6 years later. When his attack on the Meccan religion continued, they sanctioned boycott of Muhammad’s community for two years (617–619) in order to discipline him, albeit unsuccessfully. While it caused hardship to Muslims, it can be considered a civilized measure even today. North Korea has been under U.N. sanctions for many decades now.
Besides this, there were no overt incidents of violence against Muslims: there was no death, no Muslim died during Muhammad’s 13-year stay and preaching in Mecca, before he willingly relocated in 622 CE to Medina, where his religion was making converts. He had tried to relocate to Taif three years earlier (619), but was not welcomed there. He returned to Mecca and lived another three years, facing no violence at all.
The Meccan kafirs’ treatment of Muhammad can be summed up in this way: If someone pretends to be a prophet in exactly the same way as did Muhammad and try to preach a new religion in Mecca, that person would not remain alive for an hour; Muslims would murder him forthwith. (Readers may consult my book, Islamic Jihad, which deals with the exemplary tolerance shown to Muhammad by the much-maligned kafirs of Arabia.)
When confronted with Muhammad’s horrendous violence against the Jews of Medina and elsewhere in Arabia, Muslims offer similar justification that the Jews had horribly persecuted Muhammad, forcing him to take the just defensive measures: evictions, slaughter en masse and enslavement of the Jews.
But Islamic literature clearly shows that the Jews never harmed Muhammad; their only fault was their criticism of Muhammad’s religious doctrines, as well as his barbaric violence and cruelty (by poets Asma, Kaab and Abu Afak etc). Such criticisms are considered one’s human rights today. The civility of a society is determined by its culture of criticism and its tolerance, not its suppression.
Many kafir scholars have joined the tune of Muslims to condemn the innocent kafirs of Arabia—who were treated most cruelly by Muhammad—labeling unfounded accusations against them.
James Lennard’s recent essays on Islamic veil are one such effort. His accusation is grotesque, because even no Muslim ever made the same accusation. It's totally new. It relates to verse 33:59 that commands for head-to-toe veiling of Muslim women:
O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (jalabib) close around themselves; that is better that they are recognized and not annoyed. And God is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
Allah command Muslim women to be veiled when go out so that they can be recognized as Muslims and be “not annoyed”.
“Not annoyed” by who?
Lennard tells us that it was Muhammad’s opponents, i.e. the kafirs of Medina (must be the Jews), as he wrote:
An early Arabian historian explains that Muhammad’s wives had been bothered by his opponents in Medina, when they left the house at night to ‘relieve themselves’, because they took unveiled women for slaves…
It is well-known that when Muhammad’s wives were going out to relieve themselves, it was the prophet’s distinguished sahaba, Umar, later the 2nd caliph, who was acting as a “peeping tom”. He later felt guilty about it and asked Muhammad to sanction veil for the Muslim women. Mr. Lennard mentions this fact at end of the same paragraph:
Umar used to watch these ladies in the open and requested Muhammad to cover his wives with veils whenever they went out to do their business in the open fields at night. At first, Muhammad ignored Umar’s plea, but when Umar kept pestering, Muhammad turned to Allah for His suggestions, resulting in Surah 33:59.
To sharpen his accusation against the kafirs of Medina, Lennard adds:
It appears that during the time in Madinah, when Muslims were being persecuted (as mentioned in Surah al-Ahzab ayat 57–61), it was fard for all Muslim women to draw their jilbabs over their faces. …Persecution is a valid reason for concealment…
Let us see what Maududi says in explanation of this section of the verse (his translation: “It is likelier that they will be recognized and not molested”):
"...will thus be recognized": will be recognized to be noble and chaste women from their simple and modest dress, and not women of ill repute from whom some wicked person could cherish evil hopes. ''...are not molested": will not be teased, but let alone.
Maududi does not say who those purported molesters (persecutors) were.
Now first, if persecution of Muslims and their women by Muhammad’s enemies was the issue here, it must have been a situation that Muhammad was weak at the time and could not defend himself. At such a time, imposing the veil on pious women, which would’ve made them easily recognizable as Muslim, and, therefore, easier target for molestation. We know that some Muslims in the U.S. were advising their women not to wear the veil for some time after the 9/11 attacks, fearing that it will make them targets of molestation or attacks. So, it must have been silly on the part of Muhammad to advise the Muslim women to do something, which would increase chances of their falling pray to persecution (molestation). Therefore, it was not the kafirs, who were molesting, but likely some wayward Muslims, who were picking believing women for molestation.
The time-frame of verse’s revelation may give a clue as to who were those molesters. This verse was revealed after Muhammad’s marriage to his daughter-in-law Zainab that occurred in 629 CE, which can be deduced from the fact that verse 33:53 were revealed on the occasion of Muhammad’s marriage to Zainab (see tafsirs by Ibn Kathir and Maududi).
And we know that non-Muslims were not living in Medina at that time: Medina became purely Islamic after Muhammad exterminated the Banu Quraiza Jews in 627. If at all some rare pieces of kafirs were living in Medina at this time, they must’ve been trembling with fear of Muhammad, given the fire of terror that he had ignited around Arabia by this time. It’s impossible that the kafirs were the ones, who were molesting the Muslim women as mentioned in verse 33:59.
So, one can be certain that it was some rowdy Muslims, who were the molesters mentioned in the veiling verse 33:59. We know that Muslims were on an orgasmic enthusiasm at this time going around Arabia, raiding non-Muslim communities, and enslaving hundreds of women to use as sex-slaves. They had become the master-molester of women in Arabia, unprecedented in those times.
It is perfectly possible that some amongst such as barbarous band of Muhammad’s followers—who were so inspired to waging wars for capturing booty, prominently women, to rape them keeping as sex-slaves—would misbehave even with Muslim women that come along their way as long as she was attractive. In fact even today, even a veiled Muslim woman, if walking alone at 12 at night in the streets of Cairo, Islamabad, Riyadh or Mecca, she is unlikely to escape molestation from their own Muslim brethren; she would, most likely, be raped by Muslim men.
The veiling was imposed to create a barrier, so that the rowdy followers of Muhammad (males) cannot know who the woman was (could be the molester’s own mother or sister) or see how attractive she was. This would reduce the chances of their molestation by their coreligionists.
In sum, it is obvious that the purported molesters/persecutors, mentioned in Quran 33:59, were not the kafir opponents of Muhammad. It could be only be Muslims themselves. It is, therefore, gross injustice to accuse that Muhammad’s opponents, who could be none other than the Jews, were molesting the Muslim women as mentioned in this verse.
Indeed, this accusation constitutes injustice of the highest degree, given that those unfortunate innocent Jews suffered most horribly at Muhammad’s hand, and that it was Muhammad and his followers, who were the violators of the Jewish women, of the worst kind, as they were engaging in mass-slaughter of the Jewish men, and enslaving and raping their women.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Mumin Salih , July 14, 2009
It always amazes me that Muslims believe it as a fact that Mohammed was oppressed by the Meccans, but when you ask for the evidence you only get dead silence, even from scholars.
I do not think the subject of Muslims and sexulality has been adequately addressed. As far as I see, when sheikh Hilali made his infamous comments about the uncovered meat, he actually expressed what all Muslims already believed. I heard that expression hundreds of times in Muslim counties. Male Muslims are wild animals who are always hungry for meat (because they rarely see it) at the same time they are proud of their sexual potency (Mohammed was proud to have the potency of thirty men). The only way to solve this problem is to keep the meat locked away (don’t see it, don’t even smell it).
Just think of this behaviour: a man sitting with his friends, he sees a woman in the street( must have been the wife or daughter of one of his companions) he becomes sexually aroused that he feels the urge to leave his friends, go inside and have sex with one of his wives. Then a quick wash and comes out to tell his friends of the wisdom of what he done “if a woman comes, she comes with an image of the Satan. If this happens to you, do what I did” that sort of man Mohammed was.
We do not accept such sick behaviour from sex maniacs, but when it comes from Mohammed it becomes a religious obligation.
I hate to cause any offence but Islam does make Muslims wild animals.
written by vbv , July 14, 2009
The french president was right in asking for the ban of burqas/niqabs,as it demeans womenhood and reduces them to a humiliating status: if they are seen without that hideious 'tent',they are game for any man to rape them. This is the mentality of muslim men and their mullahs/imams/khameinis/muftis,etc. Islam can never be a true religion : it is just a barbarian arabic cult trying to justify itself by usurping the patriarchs/prophets from the bible to lend some credibility to a purely arabian barbarism with its sole founder being an arab. Islam has no other prophet or patriarch other than this mad perverted bedouin Muhamad,the rest being all jews borrowed from the bible ;and jews are hated the most by the self-same usurpers to camouflage their frauds. With such a degenerated beginning you cannot expect it to really honour the better half of humanity. These barbaric zombies clearly stand exposed!
written by Muhamed , July 14, 2009
I guess you still can not get over the humiliating defeat you suffered at the hands of Abu Shujaah.
written by duh_swami , July 14, 2009
From post above addressing Mr Khan...I guess you still can not get over the humiliating defeat you suffered at the hands of Abu Shujaah.
Hmmm...I read some of that...I don't have a lot of interest in reading a whole lot of hair splitting, taqiyya, and misunderstandings of Islam...BS is BS no matter how well it is presented. Reading Abu's stuff was like reading dissertations from the man in the moon, about how fish really do need bicycles...It was I that suffered, trying to read through Abu's word trickery...not bad for a seventeen year old...but I would advise him to stay in school, learn something useful, get a good job, marry some nice women, have 27 children, and 200 grand children...
written by John , July 14, 2009
Ideologies in close proximity to competing cultures uniformly take steps to control reproductive purity, and to defile the reproductive purity of competitors.
"Victorian ethics" corresponds to Britain's era of greatest expansion. American puritanism can be reasonably associated with America's expansionism.
I would like to remention that the most promiscuous human societies live in relative isolation.
That it is outdated, inhumane and incompatible with modern living in undeniable, but from the perspective of reproductive purity, this may be the first factual reporting on the issue of controlling women I have heard from an islamic source.
written by Shafee al-Zindig , July 14, 2009
When the early Muslims lived in Mecca, veils were never needed although, according to their very own sources, they were being severely persecuted by the Meccan non-Muslims. On the other hand, they were never persecuted in Medina and this is why they emigrated and even thrived there. On the contrary, all the persecution there was now being done by Muslims themselves.
Although Jews, Christians, Polytheists and others in Medina disputed Muhammad’s claims of prophethood, you could hardly call this persecution. In fact all the Islamic sources claim persecution in Mecca but never in Medina. So it stands to reason that if veils were imposed because of molestation by non-Muslims this would have been necessary in Mecca and certainly not in Medina.
In Medina, in sharp contrast to Mecca, Muhammad and his warriors took up the sword to impose Islam on everybody and they grew rich and powerful by looting, extorting tribute and enslaving all others. The veiling verse was therefore imposed in Medina on Muslimas only to separate them from non-Muslim women who were now considered fair game. Therefore all women who were not veiled were seen by Muslims as infidels and were enslaved as concubines for their harems.
You can still see this behavior by Muslim men even today, where unveiled women are merely regarded as raw meat to be raped. Even full veiling is still no guarantee for the safety of Muslimas from predatory Muslim males.
written by rationalist , July 14, 2009
written by Arvind Raje , July 15, 2009
Well, Ayesha Ahmed had written piquantly about the winning ways of the Muslims when it comes to win an argument. I wonder if the article was lost when the site was sabotaged by IX hosting - don't know if he was persuaded in a typically Muslim fashion to do so.
written by Yoka , July 20, 2009
Arabia was highly dangerous for women:
* they could be kidnapped: by enemiy tribes 'Muhammed was at war';
* By nomads who wanted new women - stealing these.
* By caravans of camels 'passing like ships in the night' that vanished with a woman stolen, gagged, packed covered up on the back of a camel.
* Kidnapped for the Slave Market, where women were sold: 'Muhammed had slave women'.
* Raped by whoever man felt like it.
* Robbed if they were SEEN to be well off/rich
HIGHLY DANGEROUS FOR ALL WOMEN - who could not "go out alone, nor travel unaccompanied by family" = WHY Koran says this.
More so for the women of 'important men' as these would have been special targets - as were Muhammed's women who 'had enemies" confirmed by Muslims.
Muhammed's women were subject to all points mentioned above, Koran says 'cover up your women or else they will be made into slaves, raped .... and DISHONOUR Muhammed - an Arab - and Arabs have a high sense of 'honor'.
The proof is that well to do/rich BYZANTINE CHRISTIAN WOMEN - before Muhammed - also wore 'PURDA' - only went out 'accompanied by trustworthy 'family' - never alone as too dangerous.
BUT Christian women are NOT ordered 'cover yourself up'; the head scarf/burka/niqaab version PURDA worn by Byzantine Christian women only a PRACTICAL SOLUTION - a security measure taken for that specific time.
As it was for Muslim women at the time'; and nothing to do with 'Allah' as such.
Arabs still regard their women as part of their possesions, in the same category as their horses, why with the protection of their women 'cover up' they made sure THEIR (!) posession was not stolen, robbed, raped, sold on the slave market, stolen by enemies ....not so much concerned about their women - but as their posessions.
Almost in TOTAL PARALLEL with that ARABIA of Muhammed is AFGHANISTAN, where tribes and families have been at war for centuries, still are. Where women are but chattel, but posessions of Afghan men, but who (like the Arabs) have a high sense of 'Honor' that can be 'Shamed' certainly if one of their women gets raped, or made into a slave in an enemy tribe.
'The enemy is around' and that were the Russians, why Koran Afghan men covered their women up in Burkas. Then the gruesome Talibans made these compulsory for all Afghan women - 'according to Koran' - the same Arab Koran 'written' in a highly dangerous time for women - as is tribal Afghanistan.
Why Headscarf: 'to protect my secret' (her vagina) is correct in terms of rape by Arab men at the time of Muhammed.
written by Apostate , July 20, 2009
But, for raping in 629 CE when purda was imposed on women, Muhammad and his brigand were the only ones terrorising the kafirs all over Arabia, enslaving their women in hundreds on occasions.
Arabs, indeed all Muslims everywhere, are still honor-consious, commit honor-killing, because of Muhammad's teachings.
written by Toula , July 21, 2009
Actually, from the perspective of reproductive purity, there is a higher rate of children born to Muslim women in parts of the Arab world (and parts of India) that are not the biological children of her husband than in countries such as Canada, the USA, and parts of Western Europe. The rates go as high as 30-35% in some communities (i.e. the husband is not the father of these children).
This generally occurs wherever women marry men to provide for them, rather than for other qualities.
Furthermore, the abortion rate is higher in these countries than in the "West" (whatever that means).
I'll look up some relevant research on the topic, if you are interested.
written by A muslim , July 22, 2009
You and the so called Muslim fanatics are 2 faces to the same coin. you preach intolerance and encourage hatred.
Whatever you reasons are i doubt they are worth the hatred you generate by spreading lies and misguide people in thinking you know true Islam.
As a true Muslim I believe 100% in Quran but have my doubts about most of stories circulating in the muslim world. I challenge you to quote from the quran a description of veil (btw the word veil means layer and nothing more). the word in arabic is used to indicate any layer between one person and another and it can be a person in the case of kings who have a veil and it can be logical (something you lack).
a women can be covered from head to tow but her actions are worst than a naked lady. a veil should be in behavior before anything else. That is what true islam thought me, and this is how we understand islam where i come from.
written by Yusuf Ginnah , August 13, 2009
Before you scuttle off to drag out the thesaurus, dictionary or whatever else you use to compile barely legible communication such as displayed above, think about this...
if you deny being INtolerant of my religion and deny purporting and encouraging hatred.... Why does this site exist??
ALLAH-HU-AKBAR!!
What does that say about Islam?
Hiding their women behind these proposterous garments is a gross injustice and MUST be banned.
To all muslims reading this:
"try living in the 21st century for once, and let your women enjoy sunlight and Vitamin D for their complexion" Morons!