u/Unlikely_Yellow111

Revealing the “Haram Doodle” verses on Apostate Quran

Chapter 18. Verses 83:101

“They ask you, [O Apostate], concerning Haram Doodle. Say, “I will relate to you an account of her.”

Indeed, she secured her footing upon the earth, and over every shadow of adversity she refined for herself the means to master her way.

She had set upon her way.

Having ascended from the Eastern lands, she brought forth a questioning spirit, asking, “Wherein lie the Great Beasts of old within the Book of God?” But her mother forbade the quest for reason, and there fell upon her heart a heavy silence, a strange parting of the soul.

She was told, “Obey and seek no answers, lest the punishment find you. For if you face your Lord as a rebel, He will surely smite you with a punishment beyond all measure.”

And as for her who seeks the best reward, she must discard the artistry of her hands. So she cast her paintings into the flame, abandoned her craft, and walked a way of silence, hoping for the promise of the hereafter; and she bowed her head to the command.

Then she followed the way, but verily, the heavier the shadows fell upon her.

As she grew within the Western lands, she came upon a companion whose nature the Book had cast out; and she knew that by the word of her faith he was left unsheltered, with no refuge provided for him against the fires of the Hereafter.

And they spoke to her of marriage and the duties of the home. They sought to encompass her life before she had found her own way.

Then she followed a way, but verily, the air grew bitter.

Until she entered the halls of knowledge, where she found a people who spoke a language of evidence and reasoning.

For it was said to her, “Those verses were collected and bound only after death had taken the Messenger.” And behold, in that hour it struck her that these were but stories of old, and the mountains of her fear began to crumble.

She then met her companion, who offered her a gift she had never before known: a sanctuary of intellect and heart.

He said to her, “Let us look upon the stories of our fathers with open eyes.” Thus, they laughed and they poured out the sorrows of their youth, for they were free at last to see the world as it truly is.

Then she took up her craft and her artistry, and behold, she drew that which was forbidden: the first haram doodle.

She said, “A mercy this is for my kin who have left the fold; I will spread the word until every soul finds liberty, and the ancient wrongs lose their power to bind us.”

And she set a presence of reckoning and stood firm against the waves of hatred; and the silenced voices of her kin became as her own, as they gathered in the strength of her wake.

Then she set a beacon within the digital reach, that the disbelievers might behold the testament of those who stand.

And those voices that were once silenced gathered now beneath the beacon: a chorus of the liberated that shall never again be forced into the quiet.”

The Apostate has spoke.

——————-

Happy to add these verses to the book of Apostate’s Quran that is being written. When verses from Apostate’s Quran are placed next to the Mohamed’s quran, it becomes obvious how outdated, boring and even inaccurate Mohamed’s one is. Insha Allah the much needed, new updated quran will be complete sooner than later 😂

reddit.com
u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 12 days ago

End of Debate: The Pedophile Prophet and Pedophilia in Islam

Pedophilia is a crime against humanity. Pedophilia triggers the moral conscience of humanity. Pedophilia is a classified psychiatric disorder by humanity. As Dostoyevsky wrote;

"I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child." (The Brothers Karamazov, Book V, Chapter 4).

Yet;

In the Islamic world, this crime against humanity is not presented as a transgression. Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al al-Sheikh have issued a formal ruling supporting that girls are ready for marriage at age 10-12. Dr. Zakir Naik sit in front of a camera and smile as he narrate the story of Aisha and Mohamed. He clearly says there is no doubt about the age of Aisha. And Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem said he will be honored to give his own 6 month old daughter to the prophet in marriage. Mind you, he has daughters, proving to the world that a devotion to tradition can override even the most basic paternal instincts.

Then there are those among the scholars like Mufti Menk who prefers not to speak about it directly, and deflect it. People like him rather defend the faith, their image and bury the moral concern. They seek to make it easy for the public to compartmentalise the horror, while the underlying legal and moral justification remains very much alive.

Finally there are many modern apologists, whose moral framework has somewhat evolved from the barbaric framework of the 7th century, and try to defend the pedophile prophet by confusing themself. Illogical argument without any real permit from Islamic primary sources itself. They want modern morals and yet romanticise a barbaric prophet. The existence of all these people itself gives you a clear message;

A pedophile in the name of a prophet for all humanity, for all times, have risen in 7th century Arabia. Some choose to defend him, others choose to ignore it and finally some choose to cause confusion, hoping to bury it. Let’s dissect this, with primary Islamic sources and debunk the claims of those who choose to defend it. This article will be long, so I will insert dividers in between so it remains clear and accessible. This article is dedicated to all victims of Islamic pedophilia. For your tears. For your silence. And for your pain. We shall let the world see it for what it is.

——————

  1. Quran;

Surah At-Talaq (65:4)

وَٱلَّـٰٓـِٔى يَئِسْنَ مِنَ ٱلْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَآئِكُمْ إِنِ ٱرْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَـٰثَةُ أَشْهُرٍۢ وَٱلَّـٰٓـِٔى لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰتُ ٱلْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ ۚ وَمَن يَتَّقِ ٱللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُۥ مِنْ أَمْرِهِۦ يُسْرًۭا

“And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allāh - He will make for him of his matter ease.

— Saheeh International

In order to understand this verse better lets look at the specific Arabic linguistic construction. The verse is structured to categorize different types of women and their waiting periods (Iddah) before they can remarry. The smoking gun lies in the third category which I will show below;

وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ

Wa-alla'i lam yahidna

“and [also for] those who have not menstruated”

This is the most critical phrase. It is the permit that these apologists try to bury.

  1. The Particle "Lam" (لَمْ):

In Arabic grammar, Lam is a "negation of the past" that continues into the present. Unlike a general "no," Lam indicates an action that has not yet occurred but is expected to in the future.

  1. The Verb "Yahidna" (يَحِضْنَ):

This is the plural feminine form of the verb for menstruating.

  1. Hence the legal implication:

By grouping those who "have not yet menstruated" with those who are getting divorced, the Quran creates a legal category for divorced children. You cannot have a divorce without a marriage. Therefore, by defining the Iddah for a girl who has not reached puberty, the text therefore validates the marriage of that girl.

Lets’s also jump into the reason for revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul)

According to Tafsir al Tabari and Tafsir al baghawy, when the verse regarding the waiting periods for women were first revealed in 2:228, the companions of Mohamed were confused about two groups of women who do not have monthly cycles. Honestly it’s very disturbing to write this even but they asked for; the the women who are too old to menstruate and the girls that are too young to menstruate yet.

To further strength this pedophilia in Islam let me just highlight;

  1. Ibn Kathir: identifies the group as those who have not reached the age. He explicitly links the "three month" rule to the child’s lack of a biological cycle.
  2. Tafsir al Jalalayn: the book mentions clearly that those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall also be three months.
  3. Tafsir al Qurtubi: Qurtubi says the verse proves that the marriage of a young girl is permissible, because Allah has established a waiting period for th divorce. The logic is that divorce only happens after a valid marriage.

This is why the Grand Mufti and Sheikh Assim speaks so confidently in their barbaric claims. They are not inventing something outside of Islam. They are simply repeating the 1400 year old tradition like parrots without developing their own moral framework. Apologists framework has evolved just abit more so they are ashamed to admit it.

Now this verse actually adds a secondary, and a more disturbing legal reality. Since we established that a man can marry children, this creates a new tension. At what point can the grown adult husband begin sexual activity? And yes, the scholars of Islam did define the limits of “enjoyment” (Istamata) before the child was deemed physically capable of full intercourse. Below is how grooming of minor is codified in Islam;

Shafi'i School:

Mentions the limit for intercourse is the girl’s ability rather than the age nine. And marriage contract itself grands legal rights if she is ready for intercourse.

Hanafi School:

Confirms that the husband has the right to "enjoyment" from the moment of the contract, even if full intercourse is delayed for physical reasons.

Hanbali School:

Stated that if a wife is too young for intercourse, the husband can still “enjoy” her through kissing and embracing.

Maliki School:

Confirms that a father has the right of "compulsory guardianship" (Jabr). He can marry off his virgin daughter, no matter how young, without her consent. The limit is that while the husband should not penetrate the girl if she is too small and would be harmed, he is not prohibited from other forms of sexual intimacy or closeness (Muqaddamat al Jima).

Ayatollah Khomeini (Shia):

Explicitly permits "thighing" (Mufakhadhah), hugging, and touching with desire even for a "suckling baby," while forbidding penetration until age nine.

The Book of Fatwas of the Islamic Network states:

“There is no harm in ejaculating between the thighs of a young girl who cannot bear intercourse, such as masturbating with her hand, fondling her, and kissing her, provided that he avoids menstruation and anal intercourse….“

“Sheikh Al-Islam Zakariya Al-Ansari said in Al-Ghurar Al-Bahiyya: (And the husband) i.e., the husband (is permitted to enjoy) his wife in every way (even masturbating with her hand, even if it is not permissible with his hand, and even penetration into her vagina from the direction of her anus.”

And here it says:

“If this girl is too young to withstand intercourse... he may touch her, embrace her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her thighs.”

As you can see from above. Even for the Quranist, who quickly ditch the Hadith to save Mohamed’s face, they are still left in a hard place. Quran permits it. Mohamed committed the act, which we will explore later. Abd the permission of Quran has lead being a pedophile a codified right in Islam. There is no middle ground that apologists can rely on. The law isn’t designed to protect the child’s development. It’s there to protect the husband’s “property”. The sheikhs who claim that Islam cares about children, is also holding on to this as divine truth.

————

  1. Pedophile Mohamed’s Tradition

The first smoking gun from the tradition comes from the victim herself.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5134

‎حَدَّثَنَا مُعَلَّى بْنُ أَسَدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَزَوَّجَهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ سِتِّ سِنِينَ، وَبَنَى بِهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ‏.‏ قَالَ هِشَامٌ وَأُنْبِئْتُ أَنَّهَا كَانَتْ عِنْدَهُ تِسْعَ سِنِينَ‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha:

that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Here she admits that she was a child when Mohamed married her. And it gets even more interesting, as she further tells us;

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامٌ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ كُنْتُ أَلْعَبُ بِالْبَنَاتِ عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَكَانَ لِي صَوَاحِبُ يَلْعَبْنَ مَعِي، فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا دَخَلَ يَتَقَمَّعْنَ مِنْهُ، فَيُسَرِّبُهُنَّ إِلَىَّ فَيَلْعَبْنَ مَعِي‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Here you can see the sources directly admitting that she was a young girl, playing with her dolls with her friends. And that playing dolls was allowed for her because she was a little girl. Why don’t we even make this case more stronger? Let’s look at Sahih Muslim;

Sahih Muslim 1422 d

وَحَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ قَالَ يَحْيَى وَإِسْحَاقُ أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ الآخَرَانِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنِ الأَسْوَدِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ تَزَوَّجَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهْىَ بِنْتُ سِتٍّ وَبَنَى بِهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ تِسْعٍ وَمَاتَ عَنْهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ ثَمَانَ عَشْرَةَ ‏.‏

Narrated 'A'isha :

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old, and he (the Holy Prophet) took her to his house when she was nine, and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old

I will list more Hadiths below that backs the statement that Aisha was 6 when she got married and 9 when the marriage was consummated.

  1. ⁠sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1877
  2. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422c
  3. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422d
  4. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3258
  5. ⁠sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1876
  6. ⁠sunnah.com/abudawud:2121
  7. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3256
  8. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3378
  9. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3257
  10. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3255
  11. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:3894
  12. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:5133
  13. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:5158
  14. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:3896
  15. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422a
  16. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422b

There are even more Hadiths which I haven’t listed. Others are welcome to add it in the comment section below.

This extensive list of citation serves to prove the matter of Aisha is not a single misunderstood narration. But a systematic, cross referenced and multi sourced record that proves Mohamed as a pedophile.

When scholars like Mufti Menk avoids to address Aisha’s age, while quoting other Hadiths, it just goes to show that they are willingly avoiding the subject. Ultimately this comes across as hypocritical.

—————-

  1. Addressing the false claims of apologist who lives in denial.

Claim 1: The "Asma’s Age" Calculation

Apologists claim that Aisha’s older sister, Asma, was 10 years older than her. Since Asma died in 73 AH at the age of 100, she must have been 27 during the Hijra (migration). This would make Aisha 17 at the Hijra and 19 at the time of consummation. There are of course variations in their calculations as they are in confusion among themself.

Reality check: This calculation relies one Daif narration to contradict the eye witness testimony of Aisha herself in the Sahih Hadith. Hence why no madhab or scholar agrees with it. Choosing a Daif claim over the Sahih will collapse the entire religion. It gives access to worse Daif Haidths to be taken into account as well. Ask them to bring a primary source. They will fail at it. If Bukhari is "wrong" or "lying" about the age of the Prophet’s wife, why should anyone believe him about the Five Pillars of Islam or the method of prayer? Hence the claim is debunked, if they wish to even protect their religion. Their argument is based on subjective feelings more than objective evidence. Isn’t that what a Muslim’s belief anyway is? And if they insist on the claim it just proves it.

Claim 2: Battle of Badr Participation

There is a Hadith stating that only those aged 15 and older could participate in the Battle of Badr. Since Aisha was present at Badr (providing water), she must have been at least 15.

Reality check: The age limit of 15 applied to combatants. Women and children frequently accompanied the camps to provide water, nurse the wounded, or watch from the rear.

In Sahih al-Bukhari 2881, Aisha describes herself and Umm Sulaym carrying water skins on their backs at the Battle of Uhud (the year after Badr). This was a support role, not a combat role that required an adult age certificate.

Claim 3: The "Biological Maturity"

That women back then were magically mature for penetration at young age due to heat or because it was 1400 years ago.

Reality check: Scientific research shows the opposite of the apologist claim. Heat does not accelerate puberty, nutrition and body fat do. The most cited research on the onset of puberty is the Frisch Revelle Hypothesis. It establishes that menarche (the first period) is triggered by the body reaching a "critical weight" and fat percentage (approx. 17% body fat). In 7th century Arabia, food was scarce and nutrition was poor. High stress, low calorie environments actually delay puberty because the body does not have enough energy reserves to sustain a pregnancy. Even today we do not observe children in Sahara getting fully developed by age 8. Interestingly we notice something else in the case of Aisha. They tried to fatten Aisha instead of baking her in the desert to make her hit puberty;

Sunan Ibn Majah 3324

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:

“My mother was trying to fatten me up when she wanted to send me to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) (when she got married), but nothing worked until I ate cucumbers with dates; then I grew plump like the best kind of plump.”

This shows that they were hastening to make her induce puberty for the pedophile Mohamed, who likely was getting impatient, as children hit puberty later then 9 years? Want proof of that? Paleopathology shows that girls in ancient and medieval times reached puberty significantly later than modern girls, usually between ages 15 and 17, due to the lack of modern growth hormones and consistent protein.

In addition, even if a girl hits puberty that doesn’t mean she is mature. The Prefrontal Cortex the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, understanding consequences, and complex reasoning does not finish developing until age 25. In the year 624 or 2026, a 9 year old child's brain is physically incapable of consenting to marriage or understanding the lifelong implications of a sexual contract with a 53 year old man.

A child 1400 years back and a child today is the same. This is simple biology. The human genome changes at a rate of roughly 0.5% per million years.

Claim 4: Fatima and Aisha age gap

Apologists claim Fatima was born when Muhammad was 35. Since Fatima was allegedly 5 years older than Aisha, and Muhammad was 52 at the Hijra, they calculate Aisha must have been 12 at the Hijra and 14/15 at consummation.

Reality check: The birth year of Fatima is recorded differently in various biographies, some say she was born when he was 41. This is another logical trap. Using a disputed date of one person (Fatima) to override the explicit testimony of another (Aisha). Using Fatima’s birth year as a "proxy" is a secondary deduction that no classical jurist ever used to change the law. The evidence above speak itself for Aisha’s age.

Claim 5: Surah Al-Qamar Memory

Aisha says she remembers the revelation of Surah Al-Qamar (54) while she was a girl playing. This Surah was revealed in the 5th year of Prophethood. If she was born in the 4th year (as 6/9 suggests), she would be an infant and couldn't remember it.

The Hadith in question; Sahih al-Bukhari 4876

Reality check: The Hadith actually says she was a Jariyah (young girl) playing when she heard it. This doesn't mean she heard it the moment it was revealed; it means she remembers playing while that Surah was being recited in the household. In the early years of Islam, the Quran was recited constantly. A child remembers what they hear repeatedly.

In the early Meccan period, "revelation" wasn't a one time event that vanished into a book. There was no book at the time. When a Surah like Al Qamar was revealed, it became the "song" of the community. It was recited in the homes, during the night prayers, and shouted at the Quraish in the streets. For a child growing up in Abu Bakr’s house, the Quran was the atmosphere. When Aisha says, "This was revealed while I was a girl playing," she is describing the period of her life during which that specific message was being introduced and repeated in her environment. Unlike her age of marriage and consumption of marriage. Which she specifies. To use a vague memory of "playing while verses were revealed" to call her a liar about her own wedding age is the height of academic desperation.

Claim 6: The character of Hisham

They claim Hisham (the narrator) became senile or untrustworthy when he moved to Iraq (Baghdad), and since he is the source of the age Hadith, it’s unreliable.

Reality check: Bukhari and Muslim were fully aware of Hisham’s move to Iraq. They specifically chose narrations from him that were verified by other chains. The age of 9 is narrated by people other than Hisham, such as Al-Aswad (in Muslim 1422d). If Hisham is "untrustworthy," then roughly 25% of all Sahih Bukhari must be thrown out. Another suicide attempt on their religion.

Claim 7: Imam Malik didn’t narrate it

They claim Imam Malik, the resident of Medina, didn't include the age in his Muwatta, suggesting the Iraqis (Baghdad) invented it.

Reality check: Yea ok, he does narrate it. Here, Muwatta recorded by Malik’s student Al Shaybani. He records the marriage at 6 and consummation at 9.

Claim 8: Life Expectancy

Apologists says people only lived to 30, so 9 was middle-aged. This is a classic statistical trick. It is is based on the Mean Life Expectancy.

Reality check: In the 7th century, if a child survived the "danger zone" of ages 0–5, their biological clock was almost identical to a modern human's. They were expected to live into their 60s or 70s. Since there were many deaths of infants the mean is reduced.

Claim 9: “Aisha didn’t complain”

This is one of the worst claims to make. Especially when we look from the lens of psychology. They have no consideration of the victim.

When a child is raised to believe a specific adult is their future spouse, their "consent" or "happiness" is not an expression of adult agency, but a result of psychological molding. Aisha was promised to pedophile Mohamed when she was six. From that point on, her entire social reality was centered around this future role. Psychological Source: The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) explains that grooming involves "building a relationship, trust, and emotional connection" to make the abuse seem like a natural part of a relationship. We have seen in above Haidth where mohamed visit Aisha while she was playing dolls.

When a child is removed from their parents and placed in the home of an adult, they become 100% dependent on that adult for survival, social status, and emotional validation. This creates a deep psychological bond that the victim perceives as "love" because it is their only path to safety and belonging.

Claim 10: Her parents were ok with it

The argument that "her parents were okay with it" assumes that parents always act in the best interest of the child.

Reality check: History and law prove this is false. Throughout history, parents have sold children into slavery, forced them into labor, or used them as political pawns.

Laws are created specifically because humans (including parents) can be abusive, selfish, or blinded by ideology. If "parental consent" were a valid moral shield, then child labor, child trafficking, and honor killings would be legal as long as the parents signed off on it. Human rights are inalienable, meaning they belong to the individual child and cannot be "given away" by a parent. A parent does not have the moral right to consent to the sexual violation of their child.

This video has the testimony of a child being given for marriage by her father to someone because the father owe 100 USD. It also carries testimony of others who didn’t want to marry, but were forced to.

Claim 11: It was normal back then

The "it was normal back then" defense is one of the most common shields used to deflect criticism. Apologists often point to other cultures to provide context. This is a worst move for a religiou argument.

  1. If a religion defends its practices by saying "everyone else was doing it," it is admitting that its moral code is socially constructed rather than divinely inspired.
  2. If a book is meant to be a guide for all of humanity until the end of time, it must transcend its environment. If it merely reflects the flaws of its time. Immoral things like child marriage, slavery, concubinage. Making it a 7th century relic.
  3. Humanity does not stay static. Our understanding of suffering, autonomy, and rights has consistently expanded over time. This is often called Moral Realism. At one time people practiced human sacrifice. As we gather more data on psychology, pain, and biology, our circle of empathy grows. If a religion claims to be the "final word," it should be at the front of that progress, not trailing behind the "norms" of 7th century Arabia.

Whataboutism is apologist last resort. The irony is that they say the region is for everyone. When they reach for "whataboutism," they aren't just using a weak argument, they are effectively demoting their "eternal" religion to a local, temporary human custom. The barbarian 7th century Arabia.

As you can see, when all these claims of modern apologist have been put in one place, it looks exactly like excuses. Deflections. Desperately trying to compartmentalise their belief. When a faith drops this low, then one thing is clear. It has ceased to be a timeless guide for humanity and has become a historical prisoner of its own context.

————-

Therefore, based on the primary sources and the debunked apologetic claims, Islam does not merely permit child marriage but provides the specific legal and scriptural framework to justify pedophiles. By codifying the marriage and consummation of a nine year old as, pedophile Mohamed transformed a crime against humanity into an eternal religious right, proving his moral framework is a barbaric relic rather than a timeless guide. Being in this religion in the 21st century is a moral crisis. And being an apostate is the best choice to make. So my kin in apostates, tell them;

“Say [O apostates], ‘Surely my critical thinking has guided me to a linear logic, a path of intellectual freedom, the thought of the wise, the knowledgeable, who are not among the believers of an imagined god.’”

Apostate’s Quran (6:161)

The Apostate has spoken.

And verily, the words of the apostate thunder with weight immeasurable, dwarfing the hollow lies spewed by the false hearted believers!

And for Aisha, the victim who never knew!

reddit.com
u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 13 days ago
▲ 86 r/exmuslim2+3 crossposts

Pedophilia is a crime against humanity. Pedophilia triggers the moral conscience of humanity. Pedophilia is a classified psychiatric disorder by humanity. As Dostoyevsky wrote;

"I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It’s not worth the tears of that one tortured child." (The Brothers Karamazov, Book V, Chapter 4).

Yet;

In the Islamic world, this crime against humanity is not presented as a transgression. Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz Al al-Sheikh have issued a formal ruling supporting that girls are ready for marriage at age 10-12. Dr. Zakir Naik sit in front of a camera and smile as he narrate the story of Aisha and Mohamed. He clearly says there is no doubt about the age of Aisha. And Sheikh Assim Al-Hakeem said he will be honored to give his own 6 month old daughter to the prophet in marriage. Mind you, he has daughters, proving to the world that a devotion to tradition can override even the most basic paternal instincts.

Then there are those among the scholars like Mufti Menk who prefers not to speak about it directly, and deflect it. People like him rather defend the faith, their image and bury the moral concern. They seek to make it easy for the public to compartmentalise the horror, while the underlying legal and moral justification remains very much alive.

Finally there are many modern apologists, whose moral framework has somewhat evolved from the barbaric framework of the 7th century, and try to defend the pedophile prophet by confusing themself. Illogical argument without any real permit from Islamic primary sources itself. They want modern morals and yet romanticise a barbaric prophet. The existence of all these people itself gives you a clear message;

A pedophile in the name of a prophet for all humanity, for all times, have risen in 7th century Arabia. Some choose to defend him, others choose to ignore it and finally some choose to cause confusion, hoping to bury it. Let’s dissect this, with primary Islamic sources and debunk the claims of those who choose to defend it. This article will be long, so I will insert dividers in between so it remains clear and accessible. This article is dedicated to all victims of Islamic pedophilia. For your tears. For your silence. And for your pain. We shall let the world see it for what it is.

——————

  1. Quran;

Surah At-Talaq (65:4)

وَٱلَّـٰٓـِٔى يَئِسْنَ مِنَ ٱلْمَحِيضِ مِن نِّسَآئِكُمْ إِنِ ٱرْتَبْتُمْ فَعِدَّتُهُنَّ ثَلَـٰثَةُ أَشْهُرٍۢ وَٱلَّـٰٓـِٔى لَمْ يَحِضْنَ ۚ وَأُو۟لَـٰتُ ٱلْأَحْمَالِ أَجَلُهُنَّ أَن يَضَعْنَ حَمْلَهُنَّ ۚ وَمَن يَتَّقِ ٱللَّهَ يَجْعَل لَّهُۥ مِنْ أَمْرِهِۦ يُسْرًۭا

“And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women - if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allāh - He will make for him of his matter ease.

— Saheeh International

In order to understand this verse better lets look at the specific Arabic linguistic construction. The verse is structured to categorize different types of women and their waiting periods (Iddah) before they can remarry. The smoking gun lies in the third category which I will show below;

وَاللَّائِي لَمْ يَحِضْنَ

Wa-alla'i lam yahidna

“and [also for] those who have not menstruated”

This is the most critical phrase. It is the permit that these apologists try to bury.

  1. The Particle "Lam" (لَمْ):

In Arabic grammar, Lam is a "negation of the past" that continues into the present. Unlike a general "no," Lam indicates an action that has not yet occurred but is expected to in the future.

  1. The Verb "Yahidna" (يَحِضْنَ):

This is the plural feminine form of the verb for menstruating.

  1. Hence the legal implication:

By grouping those who "have not yet menstruated" with those who are getting divorced, the Quran creates a legal category for divorced children. You cannot have a divorce without a marriage. Therefore, by defining the Iddah for a girl who has not reached puberty, the text therefore validates the marriage of that girl.

Lets’s also jump into the reason for revelation (Asbab al-Nuzul)

According to Tafsir al Tabari and Tafsir al baghawy, when the verse regarding the waiting periods for women were first revealed in 2:228, the companions of Mohamed were confused about two groups of women who do not have monthly cycles. Honestly it’s very disturbing to write this even but they asked for; the the women who are too old to menstruate and the girls that are too young to menstruate yet.

To further strength this pedophilia in Islam let me just highlight;

  1. Ibn Kathir: identifies the group as those who have not reached the age. He explicitly links the "three month" rule to the child’s lack of a biological cycle.
  2. Tafsir al Jalalayn: the book mentions clearly that those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall also be three months.
  3. Tafsir al Qurtubi: Qurtubi says the verse proves that the marriage of a young girl is permissible, because Allah has established a waiting period for th divorce. The logic is that divorce only happens after a valid marriage.

This is why the Grand Mufti and Sheikh Assim speaks so confidently in their barbaric claims. They are not inventing something outside of Islam. They are simply repeating the 1400 year old tradition like parrots without developing their own moral framework. Apologists framework has evolved just abit more so they are ashamed to admit it.

Now this verse actually adds a secondary, and a more disturbing legal reality. Since we established that a man can marry children, this creates a new tension. At what point can the grown adult husband begin sexual activity? And yes, the scholars of Islam did define the limits of “enjoyment” (Istamata) before the child was deemed physically capable of full intercourse. Below is how grooming of minor is codified in Islam;

Shafi'i School:

Mentions the limit for intercourse is the girl’s ability rather than the age nine. And marriage contract itself grands legal rights if she is ready for intercourse.

Hanafi School:

Confirms that the husband has the right to "enjoyment" from the moment of the contract, even if full intercourse is delayed for physical reasons.

Hanbali School:

Stated that if a wife is too young for intercourse, the husband can still “enjoy” her through kissing and embracing.

Maliki School:

Confirms that a father has the right of "compulsory guardianship" (Jabr). He can marry off his virgin daughter, no matter how young, without her consent. The limit is that while the husband should not penetrate the girl if she is too small and would be harmed, he is not prohibited from other forms of sexual intimacy or closeness (Muqaddamat al Jima).

Ayatollah Khomeini (Shia):

Explicitly permits "thighing" (Mufakhadhah), hugging, and touching with desire even for a "suckling baby," while forbidding penetration until age nine.

The Book of Fatwas of the Islamic Network states:

“There is no harm in ejaculating between the thighs of a young girl who cannot bear intercourse, such as masturbating with her hand, fondling her, and kissing her, provided that he avoids menstruation and anal intercourse….“

“Sheikh Al-Islam Zakariya Al-Ansari said in Al-Ghurar Al-Bahiyya: (And the husband) i.e., the husband (is permitted to enjoy) his wife in every way (even masturbating with her hand, even if it is not permissible with his hand, and even penetration into her vagina from the direction of her anus.”

And here it says:

“If this girl is too young to withstand intercourse... he may touch her, embrace her, kiss her, and ejaculate between her thighs.”

As you can see from above. Even for the Quranist, who quickly ditch the Hadith to save Mohamed’s face, they are still left in a hard place. Quran permits it. Mohamed committed the act, which we will explore later. Abd the permission of Quran has lead being a pedophile a codified right in Islam. There is no middle ground that apologists can rely on. The law isn’t designed to protect the child’s development. It’s there to protect the husband’s “property”. The sheikhs who claim that Islam cares about children, is also holding on to this as divine truth.

————

  1. Pedophile Mohamed’s Tradition

The first smoking gun from the tradition comes from the victim herself.

Sahih al-Bukhari 5134

‎حَدَّثَنَا مُعَلَّى بْنُ أَسَدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا وُهَيْبٌ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم تَزَوَّجَهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ سِتِّ سِنِينَ، وَبَنَى بِهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ تِسْعِ سِنِينَ‏.‏ قَالَ هِشَامٌ وَأُنْبِئْتُ أَنَّهَا كَانَتْ عِنْدَهُ تِسْعَ سِنِينَ‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha:

that the Prophet (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that `Aisha remained with the Prophet (ﷺ) for nine years (i.e. till his death).

Here she admits that she was a child when Mohamed married her. And it gets even more interesting, as she further tells us;

Sahih al-Bukhari 6130

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدٌ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، حَدَّثَنَا هِشَامٌ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ ـ رضى الله عنها ـ قَالَتْ كُنْتُ أَلْعَبُ بِالْبَنَاتِ عِنْدَ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَكَانَ لِي صَوَاحِبُ يَلْعَبْنَ مَعِي، فَكَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم إِذَا دَخَلَ يَتَقَمَّعْنَ مِنْهُ، فَيُسَرِّبُهُنَّ إِلَىَّ فَيَلْعَبْنَ مَعِي‏.‏

Narrated `Aisha:

I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for `Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

Here you can see the sources directly admitting that she was a young girl, playing with her dolls with her friends. And that playing dolls was allowed for her because she was a little girl. Why don’t we even make this case more stronger? Let’s look at Sahih Muslim;

Sahih Muslim 1422 d

وَحَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ يَحْيَى، وَإِسْحَاقُ بْنُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، وَأَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ أَبِي شَيْبَةَ وَأَبُو كُرَيْبٍ قَالَ يَحْيَى وَإِسْحَاقُ أَخْبَرَنَا وَقَالَ الآخَرَانِ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنِ الأَعْمَشِ، عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ، عَنِ الأَسْوَدِ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ، قَالَتْ تَزَوَّجَهَا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَهْىَ بِنْتُ سِتٍّ وَبَنَى بِهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ تِسْعٍ وَمَاتَ عَنْهَا وَهْىَ بِنْتُ ثَمَانَ عَشْرَةَ ‏.‏

Narrated 'A'isha :

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) married her when she was six years old, and he (the Holy Prophet) took her to his house when she was nine, and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old

I will list more Hadiths below that backs the statement that Aisha was 6 when she got married and 9 when the marriage was consummated.

  1. ⁠sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1877
  2. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422c
  3. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422d
  4. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3258
  5. ⁠sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1876
  6. ⁠sunnah.com/abudawud:2121
  7. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3256
  8. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3378
  9. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3257
  10. ⁠sunnah.com/nasai:3255
  11. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:3894
  12. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:5133
  13. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:5158
  14. ⁠sunnah.com/bukhari:3896
  15. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422a
  16. ⁠sunnah.com/muslim:1422b

There are even more Hadiths which I haven’t listed. Others are welcome to add it in the comment section below.

This extensive list of citation serves to prove the matter of Aisha is not a single misunderstood narration. But a systematic, cross referenced and multi sourced record that proves Mohamed as a pedophile.

When scholars like Mufti Menk avoids to address Aisha’s age, while quoting other Hadiths, it just goes to show that they are willingly avoiding the subject. Ultimately this comes across as hypocritical.

—————-

  1. Addressing the false claims of apologist who lives in denial.

Claim 1: The "Asma’s Age" Calculation

Apologists claim that Aisha’s older sister, Asma, was 10 years older than her. Since Asma died in 73 AH at the age of 100, she must have been 27 during the Hijra (migration). This would make Aisha 17 at the Hijra and 19 at the time of consummation. There are of course variations in their calculations as they are in confusion among themself.

Reality check: This calculation relies one Daif narration to contradict the eye witness testimony of Aisha herself in the Sahih Hadith. Hence why no madhab or scholar agrees with it. Choosing a Daif claim over the Sahih will collapse the entire religion. It gives access to worse Daif Haidths to be taken into account as well. Ask them to bring a primary source. They will fail at it. If Bukhari is "wrong" or "lying" about the age of the Prophet’s wife, why should anyone believe him about the Five Pillars of Islam or the method of prayer? Hence the claim is debunked, if they wish to even protect their religion. Their argument is based on subjective feelings more than objective evidence. Isn’t that what a Muslim’s belief anyway is? And if they insist on the claim it just proves it.

Claim 2: Battle of Badr Participation

There is a Hadith stating that only those aged 15 and older could participate in the Battle of Badr. Since Aisha was present at Badr (providing water), she must have been at least 15.

Reality check: The age limit of 15 applied to combatants. Women and children frequently accompanied the camps to provide water, nurse the wounded, or watch from the rear.

In Sahih al-Bukhari 2881, Aisha describes herself and Umm Sulaym carrying water skins on their backs at the Battle of Uhud (the year after Badr). This was a support role, not a combat role that required an adult age certificate.

Claim 3: The "Biological Maturity"

That women back then were magically mature for penetration at young age due to heat or because it was 1400 years ago.

Reality check: Scientific research shows the opposite of the apologist claim. Heat does not accelerate puberty, nutrition and body fat do. The most cited research on the onset of puberty is the Frisch Revelle Hypothesis. It establishes that menarche (the first period) is triggered by the body reaching a "critical weight" and fat percentage (approx. 17% body fat). In 7th century Arabia, food was scarce and nutrition was poor. High stress, low calorie environments actually delay puberty because the body does not have enough energy reserves to sustain a pregnancy. Even today we do not observe children in Sahara getting fully developed by age 8. Interestingly we notice something else in the case of Aisha. They tried to fatten Aisha instead of baking her in the desert to make her hit puberty;

Sunan Ibn Majah 3324

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:

“My mother was trying to fatten me up when she wanted to send me to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) (when she got married), but nothing worked until I ate cucumbers with dates; then I grew plump like the best kind of plump.”

This shows that they were hastening to make her induce puberty for the pedophile Mohamed, who likely was getting impatient, as children hit puberty later then 9 years? Want proof of that? Paleopathology shows that girls in ancient and medieval times reached puberty significantly later than modern girls, usually between ages 15 and 17, due to the lack of modern growth hormones and consistent protein.

In addition, even if a girl hits puberty that doesn’t mean she is mature. The Prefrontal Cortex the part of the brain responsible for decision-making, understanding consequences, and complex reasoning does not finish developing until age 25. In the year 624 or 2026, a 9 year old child's brain is physically incapable of consenting to marriage or understanding the lifelong implications of a sexual contract with a 53 year old man.

A child 1400 years back and a child today is the same. This is simple biology. The human genome changes at a rate of roughly 0.5% per million years.

Claim 4: Fatima and Aisha age gap

Apologists claim Fatima was born when Muhammad was 35. Since Fatima was allegedly 5 years older than Aisha, and Muhammad was 52 at the Hijra, they calculate Aisha must have been 12 at the Hijra and 14/15 at consummation.

Reality check: The birth year of Fatima is recorded differently in various biographies, some say she was born when he was 41. This is another logical trap. Using a disputed date of one person (Fatima) to override the explicit testimony of another (Aisha). Using Fatima’s birth year as a "proxy" is a secondary deduction that no classical jurist ever used to change the law. The evidence above speak itself for Aisha’s age.

Claim 5: Surah Al-Qamar Memory

Aisha says she remembers the revelation of Surah Al-Qamar (54) while she was a girl playing. This Surah was revealed in the 5th year of Prophethood. If she was born in the 4th year (as 6/9 suggests), she would be an infant and couldn't remember it.

The Hadith in question; Sahih al-Bukhari 4876

Reality check: The Hadith actually says she was a Jariyah (young girl) playing when she heard it. This doesn't mean she heard it the moment it was revealed; it means she remembers playing while that Surah was being recited in the household. In the early years of Islam, the Quran was recited constantly. A child remembers what they hear repeatedly.

In the early Meccan period, "revelation" wasn't a one time event that vanished into a book. There was no book at the time. When a Surah like Al Qamar was revealed, it became the "song" of the community. It was recited in the homes, during the night prayers, and shouted at the Quraish in the streets. For a child growing up in Abu Bakr’s house, the Quran was the atmosphere. When Aisha says, "This was revealed while I was a girl playing," she is describing the period of her life during which that specific message was being introduced and repeated in her environment. Unlike her age of marriage and consumption of marriage. Which she specifies. To use a vague memory of "playing while verses were revealed" to call her a liar about her own wedding age is the height of academic desperation.

Claim 6: The character of Hisham

They claim Hisham (the narrator) became senile or untrustworthy when he moved to Iraq (Baghdad), and since he is the source of the age Hadith, it’s unreliable.

Reality check: Bukhari and Muslim were fully aware of Hisham’s move to Iraq. They specifically chose narrations from him that were verified by other chains. The age of 9 is narrated by people other than Hisham, such as Al-Aswad (in Muslim 1422d). If Hisham is "untrustworthy," then roughly 25% of all Sahih Bukhari must be thrown out. Another suicide attempt on their religion.

Claim 7: Imam Malik didn’t narrate it

They claim Imam Malik, the resident of Medina, didn't include the age in his Muwatta, suggesting the Iraqis (Baghdad) invented it.

Reality check: Yea ok, he does narrate it. Here, Muwatta recorded by Malik’s student Al Shaybani. He records the marriage at 6 and consummation at 9.

Claim 8: Life Expectancy

Apologists says people only lived to 30, so 9 was middle-aged. This is a classic statistical trick. It is is based on the Mean Life Expectancy.

Reality check: In the 7th century, if a child survived the "danger zone" of ages 0–5, their biological clock was almost identical to a modern human's. They were expected to live into their 60s or 70s. Since there were many deaths of infants the mean is reduced.

Claim 9: “Aisha didn’t complain”

This is one of the worst claims to make. Especially when we look from the lens of psychology. They have no consideration of the victim.

When a child is raised to believe a specific adult is their future spouse, their "consent" or "happiness" is not an expression of adult agency, but a result of psychological molding. Aisha was promised to pedophile Mohamed when she was six. From that point on, her entire social reality was centered around this future role. Psychological Source: The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN) explains that grooming involves "building a relationship, trust, and emotional connection" to make the abuse seem like a natural part of a relationship. We have seen in above Haidth where mohamed visit Aisha while she was playing dolls.

When a child is removed from their parents and placed in the home of an adult, they become 100% dependent on that adult for survival, social status, and emotional validation. This creates a deep psychological bond that the victim perceives as "love" because it is their only path to safety and belonging.

Claim 10: Her parents were ok with it

The argument that "her parents were okay with it" assumes that parents always act in the best interest of the child.

Reality check: History and law prove this is false. Throughout history, parents have sold children into slavery, forced them into labor, or used them as political pawns.

Laws are created specifically because humans (including parents) can be abusive, selfish, or blinded by ideology. If "parental consent" were a valid moral shield, then child labor, child trafficking, and honor killings would be legal as long as the parents signed off on it. Human rights are inalienable, meaning they belong to the individual child and cannot be "given away" by a parent. A parent does not have the moral right to consent to the sexual violation of their child.

This video has the testimony of a child being given for marriage by her father to someone because the father owe 100 USD. It also carries testimony of others who didn’t want to marry, but were forced to.

Claim 11: It was normal back then

The "it was normal back then" defense is one of the most common shields used to deflect criticism. Apologists often point to other cultures to provide context. This is a worst move for a religiou argument.

  1. If a religion defends its practices by saying "everyone else was doing it," it is admitting that its moral code is socially constructed rather than divinely inspired.
  2. If a book is meant to be a guide for all of humanity until the end of time, it must transcend its environment. If it merely reflects the flaws of its time. Immoral things like child marriage, slavery, concubinage. Making it a 7th century relic.
  3. Humanity does not stay static. Our understanding of suffering, autonomy, and rights has consistently expanded over time. This is often called Moral Realism. At one time people practiced human sacrifice. As we gather more data on psychology, pain, and biology, our circle of empathy grows. If a religion claims to be the "final word," it should be at the front of that progress, not trailing behind the "norms" of 7th century Arabia.

Whataboutism is apologist last resort. The irony is that they say the region is for everyone. When they reach for "whataboutism," they aren't just using a weak argument, they are effectively demoting their "eternal" religion to a local, temporary human custom. The barbarian 7th century Arabia.

As you can see, when all these claims of modern apologist have been put in one place, it looks exactly like excuses. Deflections. Desperately trying to compartmentalise their belief. When a faith drops this low, then one thing is clear. It has ceased to be a timeless guide for humanity and has become a historical prisoner of its own context.

————-

Therefore, based on the primary sources and the debunked apologetic claims, Islam does not merely permit child marriage but provides the specific legal and scriptural framework to justify pedophiles. By codifying the marriage and consummation of a nine year old as, pedophile Mohamed transformed a crime against humanity into an eternal religious right, proving his moral framework is a barbaric relic rather than a timeless guide. Being in this religion in the 21st century is a moral crisis. And being an apostate is the best choice to make. So my kin in apostates, tell them;

“Say [O apostates], ‘Surely my critical thinking has guided me to a linear logic, a path of intellectual freedom, the thought of the wise, the knowledgeable, who are not among the believers of an imagined god.’”

Apostate’s Quran (6:161)

The Apostate has spoken.

And verily, the words of the apostate thunder with weight immeasurable, dwarfing the hollow lies spewed by the false hearted believers!

And for Aisha, the victim who never knew!

reddit.com
u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 14 days ago
▲ 44 r/exmuslim2+2 crossposts

Let the following sink in. Human Rights Watch documents how local regulations and social pressure in Indonesian schools and government offices force millions of girls and women to wear hijab. Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) and the Amnesty International (Kayyal & Sajid Ali, 2024), detail the “Moral (Immoral in my opinion) Security Police” and the use of Islamic Penal code to punish woman for improper hijab with fines, imprionsment or lashes. Qualitative research on ex-Muslim women shows that for many, the hijab is viewed as a "tool of control" used by families or political movements. Yet;

This young apologist in Europe says, “there is actually no specific punishment for not wearing hijab”. And what’s worse is this, supposed to more mature apologist implies there is no Quranic verse that tells women to wear hijab. She says it’s a ruling made by medieval men, and she is wearing the hijab because of her choice. Such dismissive claims, while not even taking into account of so many other sisters in humanity that is suffering, must be dissected and debunked. To give words to the victims. To nullify the gaslight. To make them seen. And so without further ado;

The smoking gun verses are as follows

  1. An-Nur (24:31)

وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَـٰتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَـٰرِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ ءَابَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَآءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ إِخْوَٰنِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِىٓ أَخَوَٰتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَآئِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَـٰنُهُنَّ أَوِ ٱلتَّـٰبِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُو۟لِى ٱلْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ ٱلرِّجَالِ أَوِ ٱلطِّفْلِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا۟ عَلَىٰ عَوْرَٰتِ ٱلنِّسَآءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوٓا۟ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.”

Let’s break it down shall we;

“وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ” (Walyadribna):

This is the smoking gun against the apologist claim. In Arabic, the letter Lam attached to the verb creates a Lam al-Amr (The Command Lam). It transforms the verb into a direct, divine order: "And they MUST wrap/strike."

“بِخُمُرِهِنَّ” (Bikhumurihinna):

The root word is Khimar. In 7th-century Arabia, this was a known head-covering. The Quran didn't just say "dress modestly"; it specifically named the head cloth and commanded its use.

“جُيُوبِهِنَّ” (Juyubihinna):

This refers to the "bosoms" or necklines.

So what was the reaction from the believing women when this verse was revealed?

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 4758: Aishah reported that when 24:31 was revealed, the women didn't discuss if they had a choice. They didn’t ask about the freedoms. They didn’t discuss the limits. They immediately tore their waist wraps and covered their faces and heads with them.

And do these apologist not know that Allah commanded them;

  1. Surah Al-Ahzab (33:59)

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ قُل لِّأَزْوَٰجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَآءِ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِن جَلَـٰبِيبِهِنَّ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰٓ أَن يُعْرَفْنَ فَلَا يُؤْذَيْنَ ۗ وَكَانَ ٱللَّهُ غَفُورًۭا رَّحِيمًۭا

O Prophet! Ask your wives, daughters, and believing women to draw their cloaks over their bodies. In this way it is more likely that they will be recognized ˹as virtuous˺ and not be harassed. And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Let’s break it down, and ”Allah’s words“, will shoot down the apologist claim;

“نِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ “(Nisa'i l-mu'minina):

This means "the women of the believers." It proves the rule wasn't just for the Prophet’s wives, it was a universal decree for all Muslim women.

“جَلَابِيبِهِنَّ” (Jalabibihinna):

Historically, this was a large outer garment or cloak that covers the entire body.

“يُدْنِينَ “(Yudnina):

Another imperative verb meaning "to bring down" or "to draw over."

What‘s more interesting is how the ”word of Allah” came. Let’s look into that shall we?

Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 402, Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 6240 and Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2170: The sources shows that Umar actively lobbied Mohamed to come with the verses for covering. Initially he was famously preoccupied with the privacy of the Prophet’s wives and the “quality” of men entering the Prophet’s home. That was Umar’s world view. But the supposed to be Prophet of God got influenced by these suggestions and first came the verse 33:53. But Umar didn’t stop there. He wanted his way till the end. In order to achieve this, his lobbying went beyond mere suggestions. He went into active surveillance. He shamed Mohamed again after deliberately trying to recognize Sawdah in the dark to prove she needed to be covered. A man doing that in the dark shows a proactive effort to enforce a specific social order.

It is important to note that the "Hijab" Umar lobbied for in 33:53 refers to a physical curtain or wall (partition). However, his pressure created the theological momentum that led to the clothing mandates in 33:59 (the Jilbab verse) and 24:31 (the Khimar verse). Umar really knew how to play the role of Jibreel for Mohamed. You can find how wife beating was also lobbied by Umar here. I thank ”Allah” for giving me the strength and time to show the world how Allah only thinks from a medieval brain, and forgot about his dear apologist of the 21st century who has to play PR Islam.

Now then after we seen the medieval nature of Allah, let us see the opinion of Islamic scholars after Mohamed. They codified Islam based on the direct Islamic sources. And it only gets verse then most ever know. Let’s see how much freedom is there in the hijab;

  1. Ibn Qudamah, although he agrees with those who say that the face is not part of the private parts, still requires it to be covered, as you see and will see soon as well. Here he is talking about the permissibility of the amount that appears to the suitor and others.
  2. Al-Baghawi said in Sharh al-Sunnah (7/240): If she needs to cover her face due to heat or cold, or “to prevent the gaze of strangers, she should let a garment fall over her face.”
  3. 'inayat al Qadi wa kifayat al radi (6/373) Al-Baydawi said in his interpretation of the verse: (And let them not display their adornment except what is apparent thereof):

“The exception is the face and hands because they are not part of the private parts. ”It is more apparent that this is in prayer, not in looking, because the whole body of a free woman is private, and it is not permissible for anyone other than the husband and the mahram to look at any part of it except for necessity, “ such as treatment and bearing witness.”

Let now establish the view of the different school of thoughts

Shafi'i:

  1. Imam Al-Shafi’i said, as reported by Al-Kurani in Al-Kawthar Al-Jari: “Looking at the face of a non-related woman is absolutely forbidden.”
  2. The opinion of Al-Shafi'i as stated in Al-Rawd and other sources, is that the entire body of a woman is considered private, including the face and hands absolutely.
  3. Al-Bahuti said in Sharh al-Muntaha (1/167): “His statement: ‘All of it is considered private during prayer except for her face.’ “Outside of prayer, all of it is considered private, even her face”

Hanbali:

  1. Sharh al-`Umdah (3/268): If she needs to cover her face, for example, if men pass by and she fears they will see her face, then she should let a garment fall over her face from above her head.
  2. Kashshaf al-Qina` (2/447): If she covers it without need, she must offer a sacrifice. A need, such as men passing close by, is to let a garment fall over her face from above her head.
  3. Manar al-Sabil (1/237): If she needs to cover her face because men are passing close by, she should let a garment fall over her head. We know of no disagreement on this point.

Hanafi:

  1. Tanbih fi mushkilat al hidayah (3/1006): The Prophet did not permit for women to uncover their faces for men during Hajj or otherwise.
  2. Al-Bahr Al-Raiq (2/381): In the fatwas of Qadi Khan, the issue indicates that she should not uncover her face to strangers without necessity, and this indicates that this relaxation when possible and in the presence of strangers is obligatory upon her.
  3. Ibn Abidin's commentary on Al-Durr Al-Mukhtar (2/527): This issue indicates that a woman is prohibited from showing her face to strangers without necessity.

Maliki:

  1. Al-Aridhah by Ibn al-Arabi (4/56): His statement regarding the hadith of Ibn Umar (And the woman should not wear a niqab) is because covering her face with a burqa is obligatory, except during Hajj, when she lets down a portion of her headscarf over her face without it clinging to it.
  2. Guidance for the Seeker (2/61) Chapter on the Prohibitions of Ihram: This is a special case where she is allowed to uncover her face during Hajj. Notice how this is the exception not the rule): Likewise, a woman should not cover her face or hands except when meeting unrelated men.

Thus, it has been established that no statement has been transmitted from the four Imams stating that it is permissible for a free woman to uncover her face in front of free, unrelated men. Rather, what has been transmitted from them indicates the obligation to cover the face if she is in the presence of unrelated men, whether she is praying or not, and whether she is in a state of ihram or not.

Therefore, based on Islam’s own primary sources and respected jurists, the claims of the apologists are debunked. The hijab is not a "medieval opinion" or a "lifestyle choice," but a “divine” textually mandated and legally enforced mechanism of female erasure in Islam.

To the young apologist in Europe, you are using the freedom of secular democracy given by the “infidels”, to market what seems like a “choice” that the religion itself explicitly forbids.

To the other apologist, read your books, before you pick up a mic and face a camera. Your words contradict the Quran itself. What do you assume the world sees when the evidences are against you?

And to my kin in apostasy, do not fear to address the false claims of apologists, if you are in a safe place. There have been days when they killed those like us who spoke the truth. There have been days when they tried to make apostates look like uneducated fools. There have been days when they dismiss everything we go through and condemn us to a made up Jahannam. But it is not this day. Today we write. Today we speak. Today we show the world the truth for what it is. It’s them who are violent to our speech. It’s them who are deceiving when we show their own sources. It’s them who has no values to make a system survive at any human cost. So then tell them;

"Or do they [the Muslims] say, 'It [Quran] is from Allah'? Say [O Apostates], 'Then bring a book unlike it—free from contradiction and clear in meaning—and call upon to worship Allah, if Allah is ever real.'"

Apostate’s Quran (10:38)

The Apostate has spoken.

And what they deceive hath forfeit all its merit.

u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 18 days ago
▲ 67 r/exmuslim2+2 crossposts

It is an observable reality that Islam faces severe systemic issues when it comes to the subject of women rights and liberation. What’s worse is that the pervasive control by men over women is not always overt. Often it is disguised under the mask of “divine modesty” and “redefine behaviour”. I have started writing a series of articles exposing the theological and historical patriarchal structures in Islam. You can find the first entry here.

The fundamental problem with Islamic scholars and apologist is their refusal to address these core issues. Because of the rigid and immutable nature of the Quranic text, genuine reforms are nearly impossible. So what the scholars resort to is deflection. Just as they deflect from historical and theological inconsistencies in Islam. In this case, they use a claim as a tactic. The claim that a Muslim woman, Fatima al-Fihiri, founded the world’s first university, Al-Qarawiyyin.

The narrative is a psychological anchor designed for the many Muslim women who feel caged. It provides her with a reason to feel empowered by a fabrication. Scholars recognise that modern Muslim women are increasingly conflicted by rulings and demeaning of women found in Islam (Sahih Bukhari 2658). They are aware that Muslim women do indeed witness the autonomy of the women in the secular world. The strategy they use is to label the the independent women as “immoral” , promise afterlife benefits and to compensate for the void, they manufacture or exaggerate success stories like that of Fatima Al Fihri. Let’s us investigate the structural integrity of this claim.

To conduct a thorough dissection, let us first look at the source text where the claim is first found, the historical texts before the source wherein it is conspicuously missing. And finally at other relevant sources for reference.

The primary source of this legend starts from “Al-Anis al-Mutrib bi-Rawd al-Qirtas fi Akhbar Muluk al-Maghrib wa-Tarikh Madinat Fas” (often shortened to Rad al-Qirtas) by the Islamic historian Ibn Abi Zar’ al-Fasi in the 14th century. This is the first time in Islamic history where the names “Fatima” and “Mariam” (Fatima’s sister) appear. Ibn Abi Zar’ writes that Fatima was so pious that she fasted every single day from the moment the construction of began, until the first prayer was held in Al-Qarawiyyin. This is a classical saintly trope used to give a building spiritual authority, indicating he probably he other motives to paint such an image. I must also note that these forms of reporting are considered as hagiography and not historiography. Al-Qarawiyyin had also become a major center at this time raising a need to give the building a “miraculous” or “pure” origin story.

If the founding of the “first university” was such a monumental Islamic achievement or pious, it should also appear in the works of earlier, more authoritative chronicles. However it is absent from;

  1. Al-Bakri (11th century): Two centuries after the supposed event, the geographer Al-Bakri wrote a meticulous account of Fes. He mentions the Al-Qarawiyyin Mosque, but he attributes its expansion to the Zenata tribe and the Umayyads of Cordoba. He makes zero mention of the Al-Fihri sisters.
  2. Al-Idrisi (12th Century): The famous geographer who lived in the Maghreb does not record the story.
  3. The Idrisid Administrative Records: There is no 9th-century state documentation regarding the endowment (Waqf) of this "university" by a woman.
  4. The Almohad Records (12th Century): Even when the city underwent massive renovations under the Almohads, the "founding mother" story is absent from the institutional memory of the time.

Now in the Islamic world, be it a Hadith or Tarikh, a 500 year gap without an Isnad (chain of transmission) or contemporary witness will make the claim Dha’if (weak) or Munkar (denied). Yet isn’t it funny enough, that scholars and apologists bypass their own rules of verification for this empowerment narrative?

If you look at it;

  1. Idrisid Records - 859 CE - Status: No record of Fatima Al Fihiri.
  2. Al-Bakri - 1068 CE - Status: Mentions the mosque, credits men/tribe for its growth.
  3. Ibn Abi Zar’ - 1326 CE - Status: First mention of Fatima, and mentions in legendary status (hagiographical)
  4. Modern dawah narrations - 20th century - Status: Rebrands “Mosque” and “University”.

Historians such as Maya Shatzmiller, have also noted that Ibn’ Abi Zar’s work is a mix of history and myth. Intended to glorify the city of Fes under the Merinid dynasty.

When it comes to Islamic apologists, one should always be aware of their deliberate mistranslations of Arabic language to deceive modern readers who do not know the technical definition. Oddly enough in this case also you will find the curious case of Al-Jami (الجامع) vs. Al-Jami'ah (الجامعة):

The sources call the building a Jami, which literally means "The Collector" or "Congregational Mosque" (where people gather for Friday prayer). Apologists translate this to the modern Arabic word Jami'ah, which means University. In the 9th century, a Jami was a place of worship where some informal teaching happened in circles (Halqa). It was not an institutionalized, degree granting system. By calling it a "University," apologists are performing linguistic fraud.

Now then let’s extract other sources and summarise it below to make a compelling case;

  1. Encyclopaedia Britannica (published 28 December 2010) states: The Qarawīyīn Mosque started out as a mosque, women were only allowed to be admitted after 1956.
  2. The book “Women, Education, and Science within the Arab-Islamic Socio-Cultural History: Legacies for Social Change” says: "The first type was derived from the fusion of old madaris with new universities. For example, Morocco transformed Al-Qarawiyin (859 A.D) into a university under the supervision of the ministry of education in 1963."
  3. Mahdi El Idrissi Slitine in his research mentions: a major archaeological discovery made during the mosque's restoration works in the 1960s: a wooden plaque dated to the year 263 AH (approximately 877 AD), which explicitly attests that Emir Dawud Ibn Idris was the founder of the mosque.
  4. The Encyclopaedia of Islam (Brill) confirms: that Al-Qarawiyyin was a Masjid (mosque) where teaching occurred in informal circles (halqa). The formal institution of the Madrasa (college) didn't reach Morocco until the 13th century.
  5. The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West by George Makdisi: proves that the "University" (a corporate, degree granting entity) is a distinct Western legal structure. The Islamic Madrasa was a religious endowment (Waqf) that did not grant "degrees" in the modern sense but rather Ijazas (personal licenses).
  6. Scholars like Chafik Benchekroun: Fatima al-Fihiri is a retrospective legend, possibly created to lend prestige to the site or as a moralizing narrative within the Merinid intellectual tradition.

It is interesting to note that Fatima al-Fihiri is a figure that is not historically attested.

  1. The Guinness Book of Records states clearly: “The oldest existing and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Karueein, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco. The University of Bologna, Italy, was founded in 1088 and is the oldest one in Europe.” The reason they clearly mention like this is to make you understand that university is initially from Europe and Al-Qarawiyyin is classified as “educational institution”. There is also a reason for that as the organization rely on the dates provided by the Moroccan government, which in 1963 issued a royal decree officially transforming the mosque complex into a modern university.

Therefore, based on the empirical evidence above;

The claim of Fatima al-Fihri is debunked. It is a deflection. It is a psychological sedative manufactured to offer "caged" women a sense of inherited prestige. Apologists celebrate an historically unattested “legendary” woman from the past to avoid granting real rights to women in the present.

And the archaeological record remains the final verdict. The narrations of the apologists are but echoes in a void.

Islamic scholars should be focused on granting real rights to Muslim women. Not manufacture claims to make a theology survive at any human cost. If they are looking for answers, Apostate’s Quran can be a starting point to give women rights. And start dismantling the cage. It states;

“And tell the apostate women to lift high their heads in the majesty of independence and not feel shame in their [manner of] dress, be the occasion what it may, and to remove their headcovers and not conceal their adornment [even] before their husbands, their fathers, their brothers, or the stranger, without [feeling] judged. And let them stamp their feet to make known what they used to conceal of their adornment. And turn to yourselves for empowerment, all of you, O apostates, that you may respect a woman for her agency.”

Apostate’s Quran (24:31)

And to my dear apostates, do not fear to tell the truth and debunk the false claims the apologist makes, if you are in a safe place to do so. Tell them;

"Or do they [the Muslims] say, 'It [Quran] is from Allah'? Say [O Apostates], 'Then bring a book unlike it—free from contradiction and clear in meaning—and call upon to worship Allah, if Allah is ever real.'"

Apostate’s Quran (10:38)

The Apostate has spoken.

And hidden has been revealed.

u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 19 days ago
▲ 87 r/CritiqueIslam+3 crossposts

Feminism and Islam is like trying to mix water and fire. If you are truly feminist you will extinguish the burning faith. And if the fire for Islam is strong within you, then you will surely evaporate feminism in the long run. Yet there are those who claim that Islam is feminist. It supports the rights of women. There are many excuses given, so I plan to pick one claim at a time and dissect it. For the first part I thought I will take out the following mental gymnastic given by feminist Muslims;

“A real Muslim who fears Allah will not mistreat his wife.” You can find a female apologist using a similar claim in a circular argument here (https://vt.tiktok.com/ZS9fb8bT6/)

So then why don’t we analyse how a real Muslim’s conduct will be? Let’s look at the Islamic sources, observer the conduct of the a Muslim during Mohamed’s time, the request of the Umar and Mohamed himself? Also take into modern research into account. Without further ado;

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّـٰلِحَـٰتُ قَـٰنِتَـٰتٌ حَـٰفِظَـٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّـٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا

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 that which 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.

— M. Pickthall

Quran 4:34

Now I know the moment I quote this verse, apologist minds will start preloading with excuses. Islam is the science of excuses that has aged 1400+ years. They have fabricated arguments for those who like to offload their cognition. This is just noise, and before we address the noise let’s dissect the history behind the verse and its impact. Then you will see how insignificant the actual noise is. And how much of a deflection those excuses are.

The history behind the verse, i.e Asbab al Nuzul

According to major classical commenters, such as Al Wahidi and Al Tabari, the verse was revealed following a specific case in Medina. The incident involving Habiba bint Zaid and Sa’d bin al Rabi.

Habiba was “rebellious”, she was refusing her husband’s command. In less barbaric times, like now, we will see this as an act of a woman holding to her opinion. However in response to this, her husband Sa’d, slapped her across the face. He reacted physically while she didn’t. Under United Nations this act is considered as a domestic abuse (https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse)

In response to the abuse, Habiba and her father went to Mohamed. They demanded Qisas (retaliation). As you know in the barbaric times the general rule is an eye for an eye. Now this is where it gets interesting. Mohamed initially sided with the woman. He mentioned that she should have her retaliation from her husband. Thereby showing he has no legal right to hit her back.

Nevertheless, before Habiba and her father could retaliate, Mohamed called them back. He told them that Jibreel came with the Quranic verse 4:34, mentioned above. This effectively established the right for the husband to strike.

I will note a very interesting thing here, which I will bring up later. The hypocritical nature of Mohamed. In the Sira he is quoted saying, “I wanted one thing, but Allah wanted another and what Allah wanted is the best.”

[Sources for above: Al-Wahidi’s Asbab al-Nuzul, Tafsir al-Tabari, Al-Jami' li-Ahkam al-Qur'an, Tafsir al-Qur'an al-Azim]

Now what’s interesting is what really changed Mohamed’s mind. And in which form “Jibreel” actually came to him.

This can be found in Tafsir al Tabari and Tatar al Qurtunbi. It’s recorded that when Mohamed initially ruled the retaliation, the men of Medina became extremely distressed. And the person who responded to this distress and lobbied Mohamed was none other than Umar [Source: Tafsir al Tabari, Sahih Bukhari 2468]

Umar was Jibreel to Mohamed. Umar is quoted saying, “The women have become bold against their husbands.” [Tafsir al Tabari]. In response to this came the verse that allowed for striking. A method to control woman in the name of discipline.

When Mohamed mentioned that he intended something, but Allah willed something else, you can see Allah (was the men, whose support Mohamed needed to stay in power). They were the military backbone of Mohamed’s movement anyway.

This shows a man who knew that it wasn’t morally good. But to hold his power he would rather go against what he deemed as moral. So much for being the very man, who is supposed to uphold the highest moral as the prophet for mankind. The man who shouldn’t be afraid of his community or want their support if he truly had divine support. We will look more into Mohamed’s hypocritical nature as we go forward.

Now let’s bring up another interesting Hadith. Another case of a Muslim who beat his wife. And how Mohamed reacted to it, Sahih Bukhari 5825;

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ، حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْوَهَّابِ، أَخْبَرَنَا أَيُّوبُ، عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ، أَنَّ رِفَاعَةَ، طَلَّقَ امْرَأَتَهُ، فَتَزَوَّجَهَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ الزَّبِيرِ الْقُرَظِيُّ، قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ وَعَلَيْهَا خِمَارٌ أَخْضَرُ‏.‏ فَشَكَتْ إِلَيْهَا، وَأَرَتْهَا خُضْرَةً بِجِلْدِهَا، فَلَمَّا جَاءَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَالنِّسَاءُ يَنْصُرُ بَعْضُهُنَّ بَعْضًا قَالَتْ عَائِشَةُ مَا رَأَيْتُ مِثْلَ مَا يَلْقَى الْمُؤْمِنَاتُ، لَجِلْدُهَا أَشَدُّ خُضْرَةً مِنْ ثَوْبِهَا‏.‏ قَالَ وَسَمِعَ أَنَّهَا قَدْ أَتَتْ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَجَاءَ وَمَعَهُ ابْنَانِ لَهُ مِنْ غَيْرِهَا‏.‏ قَالَتْ وَاللَّهِ مَا لِي إِلَيْهِ مِنْ ذَنْبٍ، إِلاَّ أَنَّ مَا مَعَهُ لَيْسَ بِأَغْنَى عَنِّي مِنْ هَذِهِ‏.‏ وَأَخَذَتْ هُدْبَةً مِنْ ثَوْبِهَا، فَقَالَ كَذَبَتْ وَاللَّهِ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، إِنِّي لأَنْفُضُهَا نَفْضَ الأَدِيمِ، وَلَكِنَّهَا نَاشِزٌ تُرِيدُ رِفَاعَةَ‏.‏ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏"‏ فَإِنْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ لَمْ تَحِلِّي لَهُ ـ أَوْ لَمْ تَصْلُحِي لَهُ ـ حَتَّى يَذُوقَ مِنْ عُسَيْلَتِكِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ وَأَبْصَرَ مَعَهُ ابْنَيْنِ فَقَالَ ‏"‏ بَنُوكَ هَؤُلاَءِ ‏"‏‏.‏ قَالَ نَعَمْ‏.‏ قَالَ ‏"‏ هَذَا الَّذِي تَزْعُمِينَ مَا تَزْعُمِينَ، فَوَاللَّهِ لَهُمْ أَشْبَهُ بِهِ مِنَ الْغُرَابِ بِالْغُرَابِ ‏"‏‏.‏

Narrated `Ikrima:

Rifa‘a divorced his wife, and subsequently, ‘Abdur-Rahman bin al-Zubayr al-Qurazi married her. ‘Aisha said that the lady came wearing a green veil (khimar) and complained to her, showing her the greenness (bruising) on her skin.

When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) arrived—and women [usually] support one another—‘Aisha said: "I have never seen anything like what the believing women suffer! Her skin is a deeper green than her clothes!"

‘Abdur-Rahman heard that she had gone to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), so he came along with two sons of his from another wife. She (the wife) said: "By Allah, I have no fault against him, except that what he possesses is no more useful to me than this," and she held up a fringe of her garment [implying impotence].

‘Abdur-Rahman said: "By Allah, she has lied, O Messenger of Allah! Indeed, I shake her (or beat her) as one shakes/beats leather (anfuduha nafda al-adim), but she is rebellious (nashiz) and wants to return to Rifa‘a."

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said to her: "If that is the case, you are not lawful for him (Rifa'a)—or you are not suitable for him—until he (Abdur-Rahman) tastes your sweetness (usaylatiki)."

Then the Prophet (ﷺ) saw the two boys with him and asked: "Are these your sons?" He replied: "Yes." The Prophet (ﷺ) said: "[Despite] what you claim [of his impotence]? By Allah, they resemble him more than a crow resembles a crow!"

Here things get very interesting, you will see the human cost of this theology.

As you can see, many apologist do use Aisha as a symbol for female empowerment in Islam. But in this case she is witnessing the failure of the empowerment. She points out that she has not seen any women suffering as much as the beleiving woman. Aisha says this while taking the plea of the beleiving woman to Mohamed.

The woman plea over two things.

  1. Her getting beaten up
  2. Her not having a single sin (not done anything wrong) against her husband and her husband’s impotent.

The woman came for protection. Yet what happened to her pleas is as mentioned above.

  1. The beaten up part was not addressed. Her husband was not held on trial for that, even when the said husband confess to it. Instead she was told to have sex with him.
  2. Mohamed uses the appearance of the man’s sons to publicly humiliate the woman and label her as a liar.

Where then is her justice? If the prophet cannot give justice, after representing Allah on this earth, how do you expect to get any justice from Allah later on?

Mohamed was never able to give justice to the believing woman. Even when morally he was aware that the prescribed disciplining method was not right. He has listened to their complaints. He has mentioned his view of not really liking this method. Yet he never stood to protect the women, even after hearing their plea. Because he needed the men, and that was more important to Mohamed than his own moral views. That makes him a hypocrite. And just like any hypocrite sometimes the mask falls off. Mohamed himself has used physical violence against his wife, Aisha. We are talking about a grown man physically retaliating to a young girl. The Hadith in question is Sahih Muslim 974b.

This Hadith is very long, therefore I will not quote it below. Also you will find that apologist have soften the translation of the Hadith, as they often do with everything. So I will focus on the part where the violence is mentioned;

Mohamed struck Aisha in the chest in and the hadith mentions "لهدني لهده في صدري اوجعتني". Which literally translates to "he, with an open hand, slapped my chest which hurt me" Here are the Arabic lexicon meanings from arguably the most authorative Arabic dictionaries;

a) Al-Zabīdī in Lisān al-'Arab.

"اللَّهْد: الضَّرْبُ باليد" "Al-lahd: Striking with the hand." Source: Al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-'Arūs.

b) Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ- Al-Fīrūzābādī

"ولهَده لَهْداً: ضَرَبَه" "And he 'lahadahu' 'lahdan': he struck him." Source: Al-Fīrūzābādī, Al-Qāmūs al-Muḥīṭ

c) Ibn Manẓūr "اللَّهْدُ: الضَّرْبُ بِالصَّفْحَةِ وَالكَفِّ" "Al-lahd: Striking with the palm of the hand (as-ṣafḥah) or the hand (al-kaff)." Source: Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-'Arab

This is how Muslims who supposedly feared Allah treated their wife. The claim of the apologist feminist appearing weaker and weaker as more pieces are collected. And that’s the thing with Islam. The general public doesn’t know much. Usually they come across one of these problems. The sheikhs what they do is deflect it. Build many defended around it. There are a lot more evidences, however I believe then this will become more of an academic piece. My idea is to give enough pieces for you, so you may answer the apologists, and you may gather more. Finally let’s look on how those with the authority to represent Islam sees it, the legal and juridical view;

  1. Abdulkareem Al-Lahim, was a famous Qadi for Saudi Arabia's Shar' court. He writes here (https://shamela.ws/book/127711/764) which is extracted and summarised below;

First paragraph: Clarification of the extent of the beating: The beating of a wife should not exceed ten lashes.

Second paragraph: The evidence: The evidence for not exceeding ten lashes in disciplining a woman is the hadith: (No one should be flogged more than ten lashes except for a prescribed punishment of God).

  1. Majmu' Fatawa Al-Kuwait, mention here https://shamela.ws/book/11430/17675, which is extracted and summarised below:

When striking a wife for disobedience or for any other reason, the striking must be neither severe nor bloody, and the face and frightening places must be avoided.

  1. Muhammad Siqi (https://shamela.ws/book/14596/3449):

Islamic law permits striking a disobedient wife, but the husband is not allowed to beat her severely, break her bones, or disfigure her face.

  1. The book "Islamic Criminal Legislation Compared to actionable Law" (https://shamela.ws/book/9842/513) states:

The prevailing opinion in the Shafi'i and Ahmad schools of thought is that a husband has the right to beat his wife, whether the transgression is repeated or not, and whether the beating was preceded by admonition and separation or not. The argument of those who hold this opinion is that the punishments for transgressions

  1. The Explanation of Bulugh al-Maram - Al-Lahimid (https://shamela.ws/book/1115/1861):

What are the conditions for striking one's wife in this situation?

First: It must not be severe, meaning it should not be too harsh or severe or retaliatory, and the face and vital organs must be avoided.

Second: The face must be avoided.

  1. The book "Sahih Fiqh al-Sunnah wa Adillatuhu wa Tawdih Madhahib al-A'immah" (https://shamela.ws/book/13619/1272) states:

That the beating be for disciplinary purposes and not severe, breaking the spirit but not the bone. That the beating cease and be prohibited if she obeys her husband.

Therefore the claim of "A real Muslim who fears Allah will not mistreat his wife,” is debunked with the following conclusion formed from the above evidences;

  1. Allah allowed striking
  2. Mohamed dismissed the victims and have struck his own wife
  3. The Islamic law regulates it

In Islamic theology, the domestic abuser is not an abuser at all. He is a husband who is just disciplining his wife.

Most of the feminist apologist aren’t even aware of these things. And as for the female apologists, they can thank the kafir organisations like UN Human Rights, whom are involved in putting the pressure on Islamic countries from formally allowing the flogging of wives. They can thank the apostates who are involved in bringing these key concerns and keeping a spotlight on them. They can thank globalisation, which keeps Islamic countries listening to the pressure of kafir organisations and fully implementing the Shaira as it was revealed. They are safe enough because of that to get online and promote the PR version of Islam. But here is the thing. Fundamentalists are always trying to bring back Islam as it was. When they romanticise the source, they should be cautioned that they are on the loosing end of it. One may wonder why? Well the Apostate’s Quran has the answer for it:

As for those who reject the Objective Truth, it is the same to them whether you present them with data or do not; they will not acknowledge it.

Cognitive bias has set a seal upon their reasoning and over their perception is a veil. For they put themselves in great mental gymnastics.

And among the people are those who say, "We value the Evidence and the Objective Reality," but in their methodology, they are not consistent.

They confusingly seek to deceive Objective Reality and those who are observant, but they deceive only their own intellects, though they perceive it not.

In their reasoning is cognitive dissonance, so their mind increases their confusion; for them is a fantasy existence because they dream of death while breathing.

Apostate’s Quran (2:6-10)

The Apostate has spoken.

😂 لله أعلم

u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 21 days ago
▲ 57 r/AtheisminKerala+5 crossposts

Allah is described as the most merciful. The one you turn to during a crisis. The one who is closer to you than your jugular vein. All this sounds like good PR marketing, like those flashy advertisement you see for insurance companies and casinos. One might be just indulged to get involved, hoping for the best. But can we just for once audit Allah and his claims? Often those in extreme crisis and refugee situations look up to external sources to stabilise their life when it starts free falling. I know that personally because I ran away from home when I was given death threats for being an apostate. I relied heavily on NGOs to stabilise my life. That got me thinking, logically if Allah was audited like an NGO, how would he hold up? Will it then make sense to even believe in him? The funny thing is when you look at it with true human logic, Allah fails massively. Let’s audit him.

  1. The Mysterious ways scam

The issue: Allah’s whole management style is built on the most convenient NDA for him and the least for you. “He works in mysterious ways,” is the ultimate get out of jail free card. If things goes well, even without your effort, he is the CEO of the year. However if you find yourself in trouble? Well then you are not paying him enough. Pray more, give zakath if you can, give mercy to him by blinding trusting him. And also understand that he doesn’t change your life until you change it yourself. And if you are being hunted for apostasy or being different? He is nowhere to be found. It’s just a plan you are too “small” to understand. Keep donating until something happens and then he can take credit for it.

The Audit: If an NGO gets a client into trouble and the directors tell the donors, “it’s a mystery, just trust the process,” they will be in handcuffs for fraud. You cannot promise, run an organisation, benefit from it without a transparent ledger. Rebranding crisis, by Allah’s own doing, as divine strategy is total refusal to take responsibility for a failing product. His PR agents, the sheikhs, have no shame in this matter while profiting from it.

The bottom line: This NGO doesn’t have a Performance Improvement Plan, because the CEO says he is perfect. But his perfection results in people free falling without a net. Therefore it is just a marketing lie.

————-

  1. The toxic positivity trap. Victim blaming 101

The motto: “Allah does not burden a soul beyond what it can bear.” Pretty flashy slogan, even comforting, until you actually try to make a claim.

The Audit: if you break, if you feel suicidal or if the pressure of being hunted for choices becomes too much, the official NGO stance is that it’s your fault. You are told you have the capacity to handle it, so if you are failing, it’s because you have weak Iman. In real life, NGO’s does not care about your past failures or even present. They care about saving your life. They care about healing you, guiding you out of where you stand and giving you a future that is tangible for you to see. That helps immensely with recovery. With Allah? Well Allah’s NGO just blames the client for not being strong enough. It’s a culture of victim blaming disguised as encouragement. Worst case scenario suicide prevention is enforced with negativity. You will just get the worst end of the stick so better not do it.

The bottom line: The CEO of this NGO claims to have created the human mind and created the crisis. Yet he blames you for everything and not being strong enough if you have issues. If the NGO created the problem, they are 100% liable for the damages.

————-

  1. The data fraud

The issue: if you look at the “official reports” from Muslim majority countries, the depression rates look suspiciously low. They want to scam you to believe the divine NGO is keeping everyone happy.

The audit: don’t buy the hype. Those numbers are desert mirages built on stigma and fear. When you criminalise suicide and treat depression like a “whispers of the devil”, you are just forcing the data underground. People aren’t peaceful. They are just scared to be labelled as sinners or broken. Data shows that Muslims are significantly less likely to visit mental health professionals and rather visit an Imam. They are then oftenly given a mora lecture. This way the depression doesn’t go away. It just goes underground.

Independent data like from ISPU 2025 show that young Muslims (ages 18-29) are twice likely to repost fair or poor mental health compared to older generations.

https://ispu.org/toolkits-and-guides/mental-health/

Global Burden of Disease analyses highlight that North Africa and the Middle East stand out for high levels of depressive disorders specifically among women. This is mainly due to so many inherent problems towards women in Islam.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/global-regional-and-national-burden-of-depressive-disorders-and-attributable-risk-factors-from-1990-to-2021-results-from-the-2021-global-burden-of-disease-study/655BDBE551BC96BE5510540BED290CD1

If the system worked, the most devout areas would have the best mental health. Instead the groups least agency (women, youth and apostates) show the highest wear and tear.

Furthermore WHO notes that in the Middle East and North Africa, mental health is often one of the most under funded sectors, receiving less than 2% of the health budget.

https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240114487

The bottom line: the low rates aren’t a sign of heath. They are a sign of lack of screening and providing real support. An NGO that manages to hide the actual data and claim success is a major fraud.

———-

Final verdict: The Placebo Scam

Allah is a masterclass in marketing, but a total failure in delivery. It’s a Placebo NGO. It sells the “Insha Allah” insurance policy but vague deliveries that only pay out in a life you cannot verify. When you are actually free falling they offer nothing but silence. Therefore if you are in a life threatening crisis, stop looking at the sky. Start looking for a secular NGO, lawyer if you can and a therapist. Prioritise organisations with a physical address, legal accountability and a methodology based on science, not blind faith or “vibes”.

Footnote: Let’s talk about the founder, Mohamed. Imagine running this charity and then writing into the policy handbook that 20% of all spoils and funds goes directly to him while he offers these scam services. It’s a pyramid scheme, with a founder who was basically a high paid consultant who promised a payout that doesn’t exist.

Recommendation: Divest from the scam

u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 23 days ago

When I reflect back on the days when I was a Muslim, I feel as though I was trapped. That thought got me thinking of Islam as a room.

The floor: the foundation of the room. It’s made with “there is nothing like the quran”. No matter how deep you dig you are told you will never find anything comparable.

The ceiling: this is the ultimate limit. “Human knowledge is limited, Allah knows best”. It hangs low so that no reasoning can raise above it.

The door: it greets you a welcoming. “No compulsion in the religion.” But the moment you step in the handle vanish and the lock sets in. Now you are reminded of the dangers of apostasy. A security guard steps in looming the shadows of eternal hell punishment.

The windows: you are told that there is great rewards outside. But you can never see them, because the windows are frosted with “ghaib”

The pillars: there are endless pillars holding the ceiling, that clutters the living space. You cannot seem to walk without bumping into one. Each pillar representing a sunnah

So I finally broke a pane of that frosted glass and realised the sky didn’t have a limit. I am glad I finally stepped outside to breath the fresh air

reddit.com
u/Unlikely_Yellow111 — 29 days ago