Exposing Osama’s Smokescreens and Rabbit Trails:

Revisiting the case for the honorific position of women in Holy Bible
in contrast to their degradation in Islam

This is the first part in a series of rebuttals to Osama’s reply to my refutation of his challenge. Lord willing, once I am done with the series I won’t bother wasting anymore time on this issue since the reader will be able to see that Osama’s rebuttals fail to refute the arguments presented throughout our articles. In these series I will omit arguments that were already soundly refuted in my first rebuttal.

Osama falsely accuses me of diverting from the issue of Rev. 14:4 even though I spent a great deal of time refuting his gross errors regarding the passage. It appears that instead of first carefully reading through the article in order to grasp my points, Osama has simply chosen to respond to the article as he goes along reading it.

He takes a stab at 1 Corinthians 7:1-5:

In regards to 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, let us look at the very beginning of the verse:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. IN THE SAME WAY, the husband's body does not belong to him alone BUT ALSO TO HIS WIFE. Do not deprive each other except by MUTUAL consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

Paul in his book clearly discourages men from marrying.  He is clearly saying that if it wasn't for sexual immorality/sinning, he would've commanded/advised his followers to not marry women.  Why is that Paul?  Could it be that Paul considers ALL women as ridiculous and low?  Could it be that Paul considers men higher and better than women?  He obviously does.

A couple of paragraphs later, Osama writes:

Notice also that Paul clearly said "It is good for a man not to marry" in 1 Corinthians 7:1.  His statement was explicitly about men only.  It wasn't about marriage in general.  It was specifically about his personal preference for men to not lower themselves (according to him) and to marry the "transgressing" women.

RESPONSE:

Osama provides further evidence that he is unable to understand and /or interact with the passages in question. He falsely claims that Paul is discouraging men from marrying, ALL THE WHILE FAILING TO NOTE THE CONTEXT:

"NOW FOR THE MATTERS YOU WROTE ABOUT: It is good for a man not to marry ..."

Paul is addressing specific questions and concerns of the Corinthian believers. Paul gives us an idea regarding the nature of these concerns:

"Because of the PRESENT CRISIS, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are." 1 Corinthians 7:26 NIV

Evidently, the circumstances that the Corinthians found themselves in led Paul to conclude that it would be better for individuals to remain unmarried. In other words, Paul was saying that in light of THEIR CRISIS they should remain single. Paul wasn’t the first to make such a suggestion since God told Jeremiah essentially the same thing:

"Then the word of the LORD came to me: ‘You must not marry and have sons or daughters in this place. For this is what the LORD says about the sons and daughters born in this land and about the women who are their mothers and the men who are their fathers: "They will die of deadly diseases. They will not be mourned or buried but will be like refuse lying on the ground. They will perish by sword and famine, and their dead bodies will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth."’" Jeremiah 16:1-4

God forbade Jeremiah from marrying and having children in order to spare them from the impending destruction and judgement.

Returning to Paul, the blessed Apostle wasn’t forbidding marriage IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES just as the following passage clearly proves:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Timothy 4:1-5 NIV

Paul says that those who forbid marriage were actually teaching doctrines of demons!

Furthermore, to show just how ridiculous Osama’s understanding of Paul’s letter truly is, we only need to turn to the context of Paul’s statements. Paul went on to say that it was also better that women should remain unmarried:

... An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world - how she can please her husband ... A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord. In my judgment, she is happier if she stays as she is - and I think that I too have the Spirit of God. 1 Corinthians 7:34b, 39-40 NIV

Applying Osama’s logic here will lead us to conclude that Paul’s suggestion to unmarried women and widows shows that he believed that women were higher and better than men, and that "ALL men were ridiculous and low"!

Finally, Osama failed to interact with the reason why I cited 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and tried to divert his readers attention away from the real issue. But I won’t let him get away with his diversionary tricks and smokescreens so I will repeat my challenge with added emphasis.

PLEASE PRODUCE A QURANIC VERSE PARALLELING PAUL’S STATEMENT THAT THE BODY OF THE HUSBAND DOESN’T BELONG TO HIM ALONE, BUT ALSO TO HIS WIFE.

Osama next brings up 1 Timothy 2:11-14, a passage which I have dealt with here:

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/badawi_lies2.htm

This article also deals with passages such as 1 Corinthians 11:4-5, 14:34-35 and several others. Glenn Miller also has an excellent series of articles which deal with the meaning of these citations:

http://christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html, specifically: http://christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html

So I will not respond to them here. I simply refer the readers to the preceding articles.

Osama continues:

In regards to Ephesians 5:25-33, it has nothing to do with lifting the status of women:

"Husbands, love your wives, JUST AS Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church - for we are members of his body. 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' This is a profound mystery - but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife AS HE LOVES HIMSELF, and the wife must respect her husband." Ephesians 5:25-33

Paul again is the author of the book of Ephesians.  We clearly saw Paul's views regarding women in 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 above.   Paul here is not lifting the status of women.  He is simply telling men the following:

"Now that you fell into the trap of marrying a transgressing woman (after I told you that I prefer for you not to get married), then shut up and eat it for the rest of your life!  Just make sure to be kind to her and don't be mean or abusive to her because it is meaningless and pointless, and it wouldn't be pleasing to GOD Almighty."

Notice also Paul said that Jesus cleansed the church and washed it with the word.  

Is Paul suggesting that men's marriage to women actually cleans the women from their defiling conditions/status?

He is apparently suggesting that!

RESPONSE:

Osama tries to divert attention away from my main point since he realizes that he has nothing meaningful to say in response. Osama completely ignores the fact that Paul commands husbands to treat and love their wives AS THEIR OWN BODIES, AS THEY LOVE THEIR OWN PERSONS, paralleling the love Christ has for his Church; a love so great and so strong that it moved him to die for it. But we won’t let him get away with his evasion tactics and so here is our challenge:

PLEASE PRODUCE ONE VERSE FROM THE QURAN WHICH COMMANDS HUSBANDS TO LOVE THEIR WIVES AS THEIR OWN BODIES AND AS THEY LOVE THEMSELVES, A LOVE STRONG ENOUGH TO MOTIVATE THE HUSBAND TO DIE FOR HIS SPOUSE IF HE HAS TO.

Osama realizes that he cannot produce such a passage and it is no wonder why he needs to run from the issue at hand. He is aware that he needs to save himself from embarrassment and hide the fact that the book he considers "scripture" miserably fails to compare with God’s true word, the Holy Bible, as far as treatment of women is concerned. The best he can do in response to this passage is to throw out red herrings since he says later on:

3-  "A husband’s body doesn’t belong to him only, but also belongs to his wife".  Another stupid and irrational statement that is clearly refuted and contradicted by the majority of the Bible followers today with their high divorce rates and cheating on their spouses!  This statement by itself is clearly contradicted in the Old Testament.  The Bible doesn't even prefer for women to be born:

"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days." Leviticus 12:2-5

So much for a husband's body being owned by him and his wife nonsense.

Mr. Shamoun, can you give me the spiritual reason/wisdom behind Leviticus 12:2-5?

In what way do the actions of individuals, some who may even profess to be Christians, refute the Holy Bible’s PLAIN AND EXPLICT COMMANDMENT that husbands are to treat their wives as their own bodies? Osama’s argument only proves that men are failing to live up to God’s ideal standards for marriage. But do notice Osama’s hypocrisy when he also says in the same paper:

I do know that many men in the Muslim world and non-Muslim world such as the Hindus in India and the Budhists in China do practice their old culturs [sic] and dominate and control women.†I know that in Palestine during my grand father's times, men used to do it a lot and men probably still do today.†This is not Islamic, EVEN IF ITíS USED BY MANY MUSLIM MEN.† A mean man to his wife is a violator to Noble Verse 30:21.† An abusive man to his wife is a violator to Noble Verses 2:231 and 4:19.

If the actions of so-called Christians nullify the Holy Bible’s command to treat wives fairly, then the abusive actions of Muslims toward their wives would also nullify the Quran’s alleged commands on the "fair treatment" of women. Their actions would prove that the Quran is both stupid and irrational. The only problem with this analogy is that whereas the Christian who mistreats his wife would be violating the commands of God, a Muslim who beats and abuses his wife would only be carrying out the commands of his god and his prophet. The Muslim would also be perfectly imitating the example of Muhammad’s Companions.

As far as Osama’s appeal to Leviticus 12 is concerned this only proves that Osama’s "response" is pretty weak since we had already addressed this fully in our initial response. Apparently being unable to give a meaningful answer, Osama is getting so desperate to save face in the eyes of his readers that he resorts to repeating his claims ad naseum ad infinitum without engaging our response. Does he really think his readers will accept a mere repetition of claims as a valid rebuttal? This is further support of our charge that Osama is chanting instead of presenting an argument, and something we called the "mantra syndrome" in earlier rebuttals [cf. *, *, *, etc.]. Osama’s repetitive appeal to Lev. 12 to undermine the Holy Bible also exposes his hypocrisy since later on in defense of the Quran he will claim that the birth of boys is preferred over the birth of girls!

Osama erroneously assumes that Paul was somehow suggesting that Christ’s relationship with the Church is exactly identical to a man’s relationship with his wife. For Osama’s logic to work that the Church being purified and cleansed by Christ implies that women are also made pure from defilement by their spouses, the husband would have to be sinless just as Christ is sinless. Obviously, this is nonsensical since Paul teaches that all men are sinners in need of purification, not just women:

"What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’ ‘Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.’ ‘The poison of vipers is on their lips.’ ‘Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.’ ‘Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.’ ‘There is no fear of God before their eyes.’ Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." Romans 3:9-20 NIV

"In him WE have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on US with all wisdom and understanding." Ephesians 1:7-8 NIV

"As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions-it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus." Ephesians 2:1-7 NIV

Osama’s logic would also imply that Christ will have sex with the Church (God forbid!) since men have sex with their spouses, a completely erroneous idea.

Paul wasn’t claiming that the relationship between a husband and wife is exactly parallel and analogous to Jesus and his Church in every single respect. Rather, Paul was saying that the husband’s relationship to his wife is analogous to Christ’s relationship with his Church in the sense of their love for and unity with their respective spouses. In other words, we mimic Jesus when we love our wives just as much as Christ loved his Church that he died for it. Husbands do not imitate Christ in purifying their spouses, since they are themselves impure and need to be washed in the blood of Christ. That is why husbands form part of that very same body of Christ, the Church, which Jesus came to purify by his death on the cross.

If anything, we can use Osama's logic to prove that the women make the man pure and holy. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 that:

"It is good for A MAN not to marry. But since there is so much IMMORALITY, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband."

Recall what Osama had to say in regard to the above:

Paul in his book clearly discourages men from marrying. He is clearly saying that if it wasn't for sexual immorality/sinning, he would've commanded/advised his followers to not marry women. Why is that Paul? Could it be that Paul considers ALL women as ridiculous and low? Could it be that Paul considers men higher and better than women? He obviously does.

Since Osama assumes that this command refers to the MEN, then he is going to have to also accept that women make the men pure and holy since the women keep men from being immoral. In other words, Osama's logic would lead us to conclude that women must be holy and pure in the sight of God whereas men are not since the women purify men from sexual immorality.

A little later on in our rebuttal we will deal with Osama’s appeal to the quranic verses 2:231 and 4:19, and deal with 30:21 in the following parts to this series.

Osama continues with his mantra syndrome of repeating things which have already been addressed and refuted, such as bringing up Ecclesiastes 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5. So we will simply delete it. Again, I am forced to conclude that Osama didn’t first read my response all the way through, but simply started responding to it as he read it. If he had completely read it before responding, then he would have realized that I already refuted his gross misunderstanding of these passages and would have saved himself the embarrassment of constantly repeating himself.

Osama also seeks to address the Quran’s very degrading and low view of women. He begins with Surah 2:223, and accuses me of mistranslating the text EVEN THOUGH I WAS SIMPLY QUOTING A MUSLIM TRANSLATION! (In this case, it was Yusuf Ali's translation.)

Osama was obviously unable to respond to my arguments and decided to bring up red herrings. He cites hadiths that refer to having intercourse only through the vaginal area, as if this has anything to do with my point. Yet, Osama is forced to candidly admit:

As to the wife being a "tilth" to her husband, the husbands have the authority in the house, and therefore they have the authority over their wives and children. There is nothing degrading to women in this Noble Verse. The only women that take offense of this Noble Verse are YOUR western women who spread their legs 500 times before marriage, and perhaps several times while married (through "one night stands"), and 500 times after marriage.

Such women need serious discipline, and I don't expect them to appreciate a Noble Verse such as 2:223. In any how, you need to know that they are YOUR women and not ours. So therefore, I don't really care about how offensive the Noble Quran is to your women, because to our standards, more than 90% of your women are whores, while more than 90% of our women remain virgins and pure until marriage.

Several responses are in order. First, it is one thing for the husband to have authority in the house. It is quite another thing altogether for the wife to be called a tilth since this reduces her to the status of property and not a coequal partner. Note how the word is used in the Quran in reference to property or land:

Musa said: He says, Surely she is a cow not made submissive that she should plough the land, nor does she irrigate the tilth (alhartha); sound, without a blemish in her. They said: Now you have brought the truth; so they sacrificed her, though they had not the mind to do (it). S. 2:71 Shakir

And when he turns back, he runs along in the land that he may cause mischief in it and destroy the tilth (alhartha) and the stock, and Allah does not love mischief-making. S. 2:205 Shakir

Seemly unto men is a life of lusts, of women, and children, and hoarded talents of gold and silver, and of horses well-bred, and cattle, and tilth (waalharthi);- that is the provision for the life of this world; but God, with Him is the best resort. S. 3:14 Palmer; see also 3:117

And they set apart a portion for Allah out of what He has created of tilth (alharthi) and cattle, and say: This is for Allah -- so they assert -- and this for our associates; then what is for their associates, it reaches not to Allah, and whatever is (set apart) for Allah, it reaches to their associates; evil is that which they judge. S. 6:136 Shakir; see also 6:138

To any that desires the tilth (hartha) of the Hereafter, We give increase in his tilth (harthihi), and to any that desires the tilth (hartha) of this world, We grant somewhat thereof, but he has no share or lot in the Hereafter. S. 42:20 Yusuf Ali

"Go ye to your tilth (harthikum) (betimes) in the morning, if ye would gather the fruits." S. 68:22 Yusuf Ali

Some argue that the use of tilth for women refers to the place of sexual contact, i.e. that only vaginal intercourse is permissible just as Osama suggested. They base this on the fact that this is the only area where the husband’s seed can fertilize the ovum and produce children. In other words, the analogy with an actual tilth relates to seed and fertilization, i.e. a husband planting seed in his wife is similar to a man planting seed in his tilth in order to produce crops.

Although this explanation is possible, it still does not justify calling women a man’s tilth since the term carries with it very negative connotations. As we had noted the term implies that much like an actual tilth is only property which a person owns, and is not equal in value to a human being in the eyes of God, wives also are simply the property of their husbands and are not equal to them in worth. In other words, the language of Surah 2:223 implies that women are on the same level of material possessions such as cattle, homes etc., something clearly taught by the following Muslim sources:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, "Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practice coitus interruptus?" Zayd ibn Thabit said, "Give an opinion, Hajjaj!" "I said, 'May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!' He said, 'Give an opinion!' I said, 'She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.' Zayd said, 'He has spoken the truth.'" (Malik's Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.99)

Here we find a Muslim likening a female slave to a field in the context of sexual pleasure. Since a female slave is a man’s field, a man’s property, the man can sleep with her and refrain from spilling his seed in her if he so chooses.

These next citations are taken and adapted from M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton's The Place of Women in Pure Islam:

Muhammad stated:

"The woman IS A TOY, whoever takes her let him care for her (or do not lose her)." (Ahmad Zaky Tuffaha, Al-Mar'ah wal- Islam [Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani, Beirut, first edition, 1985], p. 180)

Umar Ibn al-Khattab once told his wife:

"You are a toy, if you are needed we will call you." (Abu Bakr Ahmad Ibn 'Abd Allah Ibn Mousa Al-Kanadi, Al-Musanaf, Vol. 1 pt. 2, p. 263- see also Al-Ghazali, Ihy'a 'Uloum ed-Din, Vol. II, Kitab Adab al-Nikah [Dar al-Kotob al-'Elmeyah, Beirut], p. 52)

The Caliph 'Amru Bin al-'Aas said:

"Women are toys, so choose." (Kanz-el-'Ummal, Vol. 21, Hadith No. 919)

(For more quotes and info regarding men and women, we highly recommend that our readers consult Haqq’s and Newton’s booklet: The Place of Women in Pure Islam)

And:

Narrated Abdullah bin 'Umar:
Allah's Apostle said, "Evil omen is in the women, the house and the horse." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 30; see also Numbers 31 and 32)

Muhammad also claimed that women were the most harmful and evil trial for men:

Usama b. Zaid reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I have not left after me any (chance) of turmoil more injurious to men than the harm done to the men because OF WOMEN. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6603)

Usama b. Zaid b. Harith and Sa'id b. Zaid b. 'Amr b. Naufal both reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I have not left after me turmoil for the people but the harm done to men BY WOMEN. (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6604)

Abu Sa'id Khudri reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: The world is sweet and green (alluring) and verily Allah is going to install you as vicegerent in it in order to see how you act. So avoid the allurement of women: verily, the first trial for the people of Isri'll was caused by women. And in the hadith transmitted on the authority of Ibn Bashshar the words are:" So that He should see how you act." (Sahih Muslim, Book 036, Number 6606)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al-'As:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If one of you marries a woman or buys a slave, he should say: "O Allah, I ask Thee for the good in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her; I take refuge in Thee from the evil in her, and in the disposition Thou hast given her." When he buys a camel, he should take hold of the top of its hump and say the same kind of thing. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume II, Book 11, Number 2155)

As was mentioned in my first response, in applying the teachings of Muhammad the first Muslims wouldn’t even give women the privilege of shaking their hands, especially in the case of young women:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Wahb ibn Kaysan that Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Ata said, "I was sitting with Abdullah ibn Abbas when a Yemeni man came in. He said, 'Peace be upon you, and the mercy of Allah and His blessing' (as-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu), and then he added something more to that. Ibn Abbas said (and at that time his eyesight had gone), 'Who is this?' People said, 'This is a Yemeni who has come to see you,' and they introduced him. Ibn Abbas said, 'The greeting ends with the word blessing.' "

Yahya said that Malik was asked, "Does one greet a woman?" He said, "As for an old woman, I do not disapprove of it. As for a young woman, I do not like it." (Malik's Muwatta, Book 53, Number 53.1.2)

As we see, Muhammad’s followers continued exactly in what Muhammad said. In fact, to this day, the more pious/orthodox Muslim leaders will never shake hands with women. Muhammad’s followers evidently felt that women weren’t good enough to shake hands with but were good enough to sleep with! It seems that they failed to appreciate the dignity and honor the Quran gave to women!

Third, the following tradition provides the reason why S. 2:223 was "sent down":

"Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Ibn Umar misunderstood (the Qur'anic verse, "So come to your tilth however you will")--may Allah forgive him. The fact is that this clan of the Ansar, who were idolaters, lived in the company of the Jews who were the people of the Book. They (the Ansar) accepted their superiority over themselves in respect of knowledge, and they followed most of their actions. The people of the Book (i.e. the Jews) used to have intercourse with their women on one side alone (i.e. lying on their backs). This was the most concealing position for (the vagina of) the women. This clan of the Ansar adopted this practice from them. But this tribe of the Quraysh used to uncover their women completely, and seek pleasure with them from in front and behind and laying them on their backs.

When the muhajirun (the immigrants) came to Medina, a man married a woman of the Ansar. He began to do the same kind of action with her, BUT SHE DISLIKED IT, AND SAID TO HIM: We were approached on one side (i.e. lying on the back); DO IT SO, OTHERWISE KEEP AWAY FROM ME. This matter of theirs spread widely, and it reached the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him).

So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur'anic verse: 'Your wives are a tilth to you, so come to your tilth however you will,' i.e. from in front, from behind or lying on the back. But this verse meant the place of the delivery of the child, i.e. the vagina. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume II, Book 11, Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah), Number 2159)"

Instead of respecting the woman's refusal to engage in a particular sexual position, Allah sends down the command permitting men to enter women anyway they see fit! It is up to the men to decide what they want, and the women have to comply. Contrast this degrading view of women with the very Pauline passage which Osama failed to properly deal with:

"Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband SHOULD FULFILL HIS MARITAL DUTY TO HIS WIFE, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. IN THE SAME WAY, THE HUSBAND’S BODY DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM BUT ALSO TO HIS WIFE. Do not deprive each other except by MUTUAL consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." 1 Corinthians 7:1-5

The most amazing thing about this is that Osama quoted this hadith apparently without realizing how this provides further evidence that the Quran degrades women.

The foregoing makes it clear that by calling a wife a tilth the Quran both degrades women and reduces them to the level of property. In fact, Osama essentially concedes this when he writes later on:

1-Women are AS men's tilth, because men in Islam do have the authority of the house over the wives and children.

Osama would have been more correct in stating that women are tilth because men own women, women being their property. It is not simply an issue of authority; it is an issue of ownership.

Fourth, Osama fails to inform his readers that the particular hadiths that he appeals to in condemnation of anal sex are all weak narrations according to Muslims. In response to a question regarding sex, Moiz Amjad, a.k.a. the Learner, honestly admits:

Anal sex, in my opinion, is against the natural make-up and physiological structure of the human body. It is, therefore, that I believe that EVEN THOUGH THE SHARI‘AH DOES NOT EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT IT, yet it would be in accordance with the teachings of the Shari`ah to consider it prohibited. Source; bold and capital emphasis ours)

After demonstrating why the narrations condemning anal sex are weak, Mr. Amjad writes:

Keeping in view the condition of these narratives, it should be quite obvious why I have not based my argument on these narratives. Though the referred narratives have been reported in some of the collections of hadith, yet I cannot call the contents of these narratives "directives of the Shari`ah". There are two reasons for this. Firstly because, as is pretty obvious from the discussion above that the sanad (chain of narrators) of these narratives IS NOT RELIABLE to qualify for ascription of the saying to the Prophet (pbuh). This weakness in sanad is actually a hindrance for me in ascribing something to the Prophet (pbuh), which has not reached us through reliable sources. Secondly, because in my opinion, the nature of Khabr-e-wahid (hadith) is such that it does not allow us to base the directives of Shari`ah on it alone. It seems that even if the Prophet (pbuh) had said something about the prohibition of anal sex, it should be placed as a natural prohibition (as I have done in my referred answer) rather than a prohibition of the Shari`ah. Prohibitions mentioned in khabr-e-wahid (hadith) are those that are either natural prohibitions or clear corollories of prohibitions mentioned in the Qur'an (Shari`ah). Unless a prohibition mentioned in a khabr-e-wahid (hadith) clearly relates to a natural prohibition or is clearly related to a prohibition mentioned in the Qur'an, the ascription of such khabr-e-wahid (hadith) to the Prophet (pbuh) becomes quite questionable.

In the referred case, although it is quite clear that the prohibition of anal sex is a natural prohibition but the reason that I avoided quoting these narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) was that, in my opinion, the sanad of these narratives IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH to ascribe these narratives to the Prophet (pbuh).

Moreover, we see that none of the three most accepted collections of the sayings ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), that is the Sahih Bukhari, the Sahih Muslim and the "Mu'atta" of Imaam Malik contain any of these narratives ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh). This fact obviously, creates serious doubts regarding the ascription of such narratives to the Prophet (pbuh). (Source; bold and underlined emphasis ours)

You can also read his views here: [1], [2].

Ibn Kathir, while claiming that anal sex is forbidden, refers to certain Muslims who wrote hadiths permitting this practice:

"Quoting his father, from his grand father, Amru Ibn Shu'aib narrated that the Prophet said: 'Having sex with one's wife in the anus is minor sodomy.' On the authority of Ali Ibn Talq, Imam Ahmad narrated: 'The Prophet has forbidden sexual intercourse with one's wife in the anus, for Allah is not ashamed of the truth.' Quoting Abu Hurayrah: The Prophet said: 'Allah will not look at whoever has sex with his wife in the anus.' Also, it was narrated on the authority of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said: 'Cursed is he who has sex with his wife in the anus.' Any Ahadith which allow such act are considered incorrect and they were all examined by our Sheikh al-Hafidh Abu Abdullah adh-Dhahabi in a volume which he compiled, and proved weak and false.

"It was narrated on the authority of IBN UMAR, Malik, ash-Shafi'i and at-Tahawi THAT IT IS LAWFUL but it is untrue. An-Nasr as-Sabbagh said: Ar-Rabi' used to swear by Allah that Ibn Abdul Hakam had lied, when he had made allegations against ash-Shafi'i concerning the lawfulness of having sex with one's wife in the anus. On the contrary, ash-Shafi'i mentioned the unlawfulness of having sex with one's wife in the anus in six of his books, and Allah knows best. Also, Ibn Umar forbade it. On the authority of Sa'id Ibn Yasar abu al-Habbab, ad-Darami narrated: 'I said to Ibn Umar: "What do you think of having sex with one's wife in the anus?" Ibn Umar said: "Does anyone of the Muslims do that?"' This is a good Isnad, and explicitly reveals the unlawfulness of such act, and anything attributed to him is rejected on the ground of the above Hadith.

"Ma'mar Ibn 'Isa narrated that Malik considered having sex with one's wife in the anus is unlawful. Quoting Israel Ibn Rawh, Abu Bakr Ibn Zayyad an-Nisaburi narrated: 'I asked Malik Ibn Anas's opinion on having sex with one's wife from the back, he said: "You are but Arabs, and can sowing be in a place other than that which has been ploughed? Do not go beyond the vagina." I said: "People claim that you say that?" He said: "It is a lie, it is a lie."' Thus, this is what has been attributed to them, and it involved Abu Hanifa, ash-Shafi'i, Ahmed Ibn Hanbal and their companions, followers and other scholars from the Salaf. They entirely denied the allegation and some of them even believed that having sex with one's wife in the anus is Kufr." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Part 2 Surah Al-Baqarah, ayat 142 to 252, Abridged by Sheikh Muhammad Nasi Ar-Rifa‘i [Al-Firdous Ltd, London; 1998, first edition], pp. 191-192; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir acknowledges that Muslims were circulating hadiths which permitted anal sex, even basing them on the authority of Ibn Umar!

In light of the foregoing we present this challenge to Osama:

SINCE MUSLIMS WERE DISHONEST ENOUGH TO FORGE HADITHS PERMITTING ANAL SEX, AND SINCE THE HADITHS WHICH CONDEMN THIS PRACTICE ARE DEEMED WEAK BY OTHER MUSLIMS, CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A SINGLE QURANIC STATEMENT WHICH EXPLICITLY CONDEMNS SUCH A PRACTICE? DOESN’T THE FACT THAT SOME MUSLIMS FORGED HADITHS CONDONING ANAL SEX PROVE THAT THE QURAN DOESN’T EXPLICITLY FORBID SUCH A PRACTICE?

Since Osama brought up the issue of anal sex (which wasn’t at all a relevant issue to our initial response to him), we would like to see Osama defend his case against this sexual practice.

Osama tries to address S. 3:14 which places women on the level of covetous possessions of men:

Where is Allah Almighty in error here?  The birth of males is more preferred, even in many parts of the Western world today, than females.  And men are generally more sexually active in appearance than women.  We don't see many women look at men lustfully in the public, while we do see many men look at women lustfully in the public, especially during the summer when women's bodies are more exposed from wearing shorter and more revealing cloths.  So, the Statement that Allah Almighty made in Noble Verse 3:14 is very accurate.

RESPONSE:

Let me highlight one specific part of Osama’s statement:

... The birth of males IS MORE PREFERRED, even in many parts of the Western world today, than females ...

This is the same gent who attacked the Holy Bible on the difference in time given in Lev. 12 for the purification of the birth of a male in contrast with a female.

More importantly, how does Osama know that women do not look at men lustfully? Does he claim to know what is in women’s hearts? And who said that women do not look lustfully at men in public? Osama’s response simply demonstrates the desperate lengths some Muslims will go in defending their book’s very degrading view of women.

Third, Osama again seeks to divert his reader’s attention from the real issue. The issue wasn’t whether men are more sexually driven then women. The issue centered on women being placed on the same level of children, horses, silver, gold and land implying that women are not equal to men.

The degradation of women in this passage is rather clear, but since Osama doesn’t see it we need to spell it out for him. Just as children are not on the same level of authority with their parents, neither are women on the same level of men. Just as horses, gold and land are items which men own and possess, so do men own women. In other words, women are the property of men and were made for the pleasures of man.

In light of the foregoing, here is another challenge to Osama issued in the hope that he will get the point and not evade it:

SHOW US A SINGLE VERSE IN THE QURAN WHERE IT IS SAID THAT MEN WERE CREATED FOR THE PLEASURES OF WOMEN. SHOW US A VERSE WHERE MEN ARE PLACED ON THE LEVEL OF CHILDREN, LAND, HORSES, SILVER AND GOLD IN THE SAME WAY THAT WOMEN ARE.

This concludes our first part. Please continue with Part 2.


Sam Shamoun


Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page