Islam, Women and Ali Sina

Islam Introduced Woman Rights in Arabia but West Thinks Islam Subjugates Females

 

    Faith Freedom International is an anti-Islamic foundation – however, the name implies it must be critical of all faiths but it focuses on apostasy from Islam only - of Ali Sina (pseudonym of a Muslim apostate) who claims Iranian descent and is the author of Understanding Islam and Muslims in which he plainly states that all Muslims are intrinsically extremists, a political position for which he is continuously bashed on the Internet by his Muslim adversaries. He has accused the Prophet of Islam of being a misogynist (psychologically hateful of women) and insists that the condition of women was far much better in the Bedouin culture before the advent of Islam. One may argue that if Islam worsened the status women enjoyed in Arabia, doesn’t it show that the Bedouins were already on the verge of misogyny and Muhammad just opened a door that had been unlocked before? Well, Ali Sina claims that women were treated in a fairer way by the pre-Islamic Arabs. As a proof, he calls our attention towards the Prophet’s first consort, Khadijah, who was a wealthy widow before marrying Muhammad. Presence of a woman like Khadijah is a proof that women had a chance to become economically independent if they wanted. Doesn’t it prove that Arabs were feminists until Islam degraded the lofty status of women? Then, again, Arabs used to worship some female deities as well. Doesn’t it show that they had huge respect for women? In the end, he even names a prophetess named Sajjah. Her appearance shows that women could become priestesses in the Bedouin culture as well.

    Ali Sina actually has a habit to pick and choose the parts of history he can use to malign Islam and totally deny the factual statements showing the good side of Mohammedanism. That’s why he doesn’t believe in Meccan persecution of early Muslims because he thinks that the Quraysh were tolerant of alien religions and it was Muhammad who picked up a habit of abusing pagan gods. But Ali Sina has no problem with accepting the boycott of Muslims as a historical fact because he can link it with Gandhi’s boycott of the English (however, Gandhi took a U-Turn on his non-violent ideology and blatantly offered the British Congress' military assistance if Indian independence would be the price). The truth is that Ali Sina is acting like the notorious (and also well-defamed) Holocaust Deniers who reject the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people just because it suits their own alternative history. Ali Sina has also denied the solid truth that the Bedouins were savage barbarians and Muhammad blew the spirit of decency and civilization into their wild-ass worthless bodies after which the camel-herders became key-bearers of the Roman and Persian treasuries.

    I also remember a person with whom I interacted on Facebook and he told me that Muslims lied about the custom of infanticide in pre-Islamic Arabia. “Arabs did not kill their girl-children,” he digitally yelled at me. “If they used to kill their daughters then how do you think Muhammad was born?” I simply buried my head in my hands. I mean when we say that the Arabs were pagans, does it mean that no other religion existed in Arabia during jahiliyah? When we say that communists are atheists, does it mean that not a single communist ever belonged to a religion? Muslims claim that female infanticide was a common practice in Arabia. Not just in Arabia, female infanticide was and still practiced in some places. In Rajasthan, for instance, people have rural background and they bury their daughters out of shame and misery. It does not mean that every single person in Rajasthan does that. Similarly, female infanticide was practiced by some Arabs and only by poor Arabs. Such rituals are never practiced by upper class of a society. It’s just like nudity will cause shame to a poor family if their daughter practices it but, for the daughter of a wealthy industrialist, it will seldom cause public embarrassment. Why? Well, because the father is a rich person and nobody will dare to lift a finger over the character of the daughter of such powerful and influential a guy. So, in Arabia, rich families such as those of Mughirah and Umayyah simply had to need to kill their daughters. Not only they refrained from killing their daughters, they used to grant them authorities. Take Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, as an example. Take Khadijah, the wife of Muhammad, as an example.

    Khadijah belonged to the mighty clan of Quraysh and her tribe was that of Asad (the name of her paternal grandfather). Her father Khuwaylid appreciated her wisdom and let her trade with Arab countries and grow richer. Hind and Khadijah demanded respect because they had powerful background. Why would their parents need to bury their daughters? They had money. Do you think communists ever cry out loud for the rights of rich people? Do you think a rich guy’s daughter need additional support to file against her boss for sexual harassment? Do you think a rich guy’s daughter will ever find it difficult to fulfill her dreams? Mostly, they don’t. But when it comes to poor families, they mostly do. So most tribes in Arabia were poor and their women lacked the additional support a rich guy’s daughter had.

    We all agree that Jews were killed during the Holocaust. But aren’t some Jews still living in Germany? Why were they spared the dreadful end their brethren had met? Does it prove that Holocaust never happened? No, generally, Jews were executed by the Nazis. But there were some exceptions. Muslims voted in 1945-46 General Elections held in Hindustan in favor of All India Muslim League. Does it show that all Indian Muslims supported separation? No, half of them never did and they still live in India. There are always some exceptions. Women were treated savagely in Europe. They weren’t given freedom, enough rights or the permission to escape their trial as witches. What about Joan of Arc? She was an exception. So, Hind, Khadijah and the prophetesses who were referred to by the Bedouins during the pre-Islamic Arabia (for instance, the one whom Muhammad's own grandfather referred to in order to save Abdullah's - Muhammad's dad - life) were all exceptions. The fact remains bold and solid: Women were "generally" mistreated in the pre-Islamic Arabia.

    Then what about the females worshiped by the Bedouins? There were Lat, Uzza and Manat, the three goddesses who were considered to be the daughters of Allah (m'adh-Allah!). Doesn’t it show that Arabs had deep respect for women? Well, Greeks had female deities too but they believed that women were incomplete men or lacked souls. Christians call Mary the Mother of God but that didn’t stop them from trying women for sleeping with the Devil by pinching the most intimate parts of their body or by drowning them in the water for being practitioners of the black magic (the plight of women accused of witchcraft and other diabolic activities is the second most shameful part of the European history after their disrespect of scientists and philosophers). Hindus have always been great admirers of Kali but they still deemed widows as the accursed one and seldom allowed them right to remarry (salute to Arya and Brahmo Samaj for their jihad against these superstitions). Ali Sina calls Muhammad a misogynist however he had always shown deep respect for his mother Aminah, his wife Khadijah, his daughter Fatimah, Jesus’ mother, Moses’ foster mom other great female religious personalities. As for Sajjah, she appeared after the advent of Islam. So, doesn’t her arrival show how feminist people had become after the appearance of Islam?

    Ali Sina, at one place, quotes a hadith which states that when Muhammad arrived at Medina, he saw women quarreling with their husbands. They had much freedom than the women at Mecca. So Muhammad disapproved of that. Ali Sina is trying to show that the Medinian women had more rights but the Arabian Prophet was against that. Ali Sina alleges that Muhammad and his comrade Umar were the most hated opponents of woman rights however Muhammad had only raised concerns over the female bullying of their husbands and the lack of control males had over their household women.

    Islam surely had elevated the status of women while the Europeans treated them like animals. The most noteworthy of all accomplishments of the Prophet of Islam is that he introduced animal rights, slavery reforms, women rights, judicial authority, military principles and a concept of piety into the backward Bedouin society. These are his heroic activities no historican can deny. Was he not the man who stopped his companions from stealing eggs off a mother bird's nest, setting ant-hills on fire, leaving their animals starved and chained, virtue of animal care (even of stray dogs), and kindness with camels? Was he not the man who taught masters to treat their slaves as they would treat any member of their family? Was he not the man who allowed women to refuse to marry the guy they were engaged to in their childhood? Was he not the man who obligated the accusers to bring four witnesses to prove adultery and forbade a man to murder his wife along with her lover even if he'd found both of them lying together? Was he not the man who instructed his followers not to harm non-combatants during a battle, refrain from killing non-combatant women, children, old people and priests, and never mutilate a corpse? Was he not the man who could make thousands of savage barbarians cry like little children with his motivational speech about God, His judgement, the Armagaddon, the Afterlife and piety?

    Then why do Muslims suffer? People ask this question frequently on the Internet. "If your faith is do damn good and your Messenger was the best guy who ever lived on earth, why do we see Muslim countries struck with poverty, terrorism, corruption, lack of education, void of human rights and totally backward?" They try to make the point. "If Islam is such a nice faith then why hasn't it benefitted you yet?" First of all, Muslims once were the most powerful people on earth. If not the most powerful then they made one of the most powerful nations on earth after China probably. After some centuries, they began to fall. This question has always baffled Muslims what the hell happened with them? "Where did we go wrong?" They began to ask God. "Everything was alright. We were ruling the world. Then suddenly the tragedy struck us, the Mongols destroyed Baghdad and we became the most-hated people on earth? How did these goddamned Europeans take over the world that was rightfully ours?!" During the nineteenth century, Indian Muslims finally realized why it all happened. The answer was quite simple enough: "As long as Muslims kept following Qur'an and Sunnah, everything went their way. But the moment they started to deviate from the Sirat-e-Mustaqim (Right Path), God removed His favor from them and Muslims became weaker by the century. In the end, they were totally wiped out like the Jews." Muhammad had warned Muslims that they would imitate the Jews and the Christians and, in the end, they would be treated by nature the same was their predecessors were treated i.e. by downfall. So Muslims are struck with poverty, terrorism and corruption because of this one simple reason: They stopped following the commands of Allah and His Apostle - peace and blessings be upon him and his pure descendants. S