The friendship between canines and humans is a long and enduring one. A 2015 scientific study showed that dogs descended from wolves between 27,000 and 40,000 years ago. Domestication of wolves through selective breeding for obedience, faithfulness and other desirable traits turned them into the dogs we know and love now. We have been friends for a very long time.
It is easy to see how the dog was awarded the moniker of “Man’s Best Friend.” Dogs naturally guarded property and the family. They could be trained to help with hunting or herding. They were the first animal ever domesticated by human beings and they are still the most popular pets in the world today. Nowadays, many dog owners do not simply view them as pets; they are considered valued family members.
In Nepal, the yearly Kukur Tihar festival celebrates and honours dogs for their protectiveness and devotion. They are decked with flower garlands, anointed with red tika, and fed delicious treats such as meat, milk and eggs. Even strays are included in the celebration. We humans love our dogs!
Dogs were also an integral part of life in ancient Arabia. A 2021 archaeological survey in Saudi Arabia found 6,000-year-old dog bones in a grave alongside the bones of 11 humans. 8000-year-old rock art also found in Arabia in 2017 depicts people using leashes with hunting dogs. Despite the faithfulness and utility Arabian dogs offered their masters, they began to fall out of favour during Mohammed’s lifetime. Why? Consider the following hadiths:
“Abdullah (b. Umar) (Allah be pleased with them) reported:
Allah’s Messenger ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill, so much so that we killed the dog that accompanied the wet she-camel belonging to the people of the desert.” Sahih Muslim 1570c
“Abu Zubair narrated that he heard Jabir bin Abdullah said, Allah’s Apostle ordered us to kill dogs, and we carried out this order so much so that we would also kill the dog coming with a woman from the desert. Then Allah’s Apostle forbade their killing. The Prophet said, you should kill the dark black (dog) with two (white) spots (above its eyes), for it is a devil.” Sahih Muslim 1572
“Maimuna reported that one morning Allah’s Messenger was silent with grief.
Maimuna said:
Allah’s Messenger, I find a change in your mood today. Allah’s Messenger said: Gabriel had promised me that he would meet me tonight, but he did not meet me. By Allah, he never broke his promises, and Allah’s Messenger spent the day in this sad (mood). Then it occurred to him that there had been a puppy under their cot. He commanded and it was turned out. He then took some water in his hand and sprinkled it at that place. When it was evening Gabriel met him and he said to him: you promised me that you would meet me the previous night. He said: Yes, but we do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture. Then on that very morning he commanded the killing of the dogs until he announced that the dog kept for the orchards should also be killed, but he spared the dog meant for the protection of extensive fields (or big gardens).” Sahih Muslim 2105
In addition to keeping angels away, the hadiths also tell us that dogs are unclean both physically and spiritually. Mohammed taught that a dog nullifies prayers if it passes by a praying person and declared that keeping a dog for anything other than hunting animals or guarding livestock results in a daily deduction from the good deeds one needs in order to enter heaven when one dies:
“Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying:
Angels do not accompany the travellers who have with them a dog and a bell.” Sahih Muslim 2113a
“Abu Huraira reported:
The Messenger of Allah said: When a dog drinks out of a vessel belonging to any one of you, he must wash it seven times.” Sahih Muslim 279c
“Narrated `Aisha:
The things which annul the prayers were mentioned before me. They said, ‘Prayer is annulled by a dog, a donkey and a woman (if they pass in front of the praying people).’ I said, ‘You have made us (i.e. women) dogs. I saw the Prophet praying while I used to lie in my bed between him and the Qibla. Whenever I was in need of something, I would slip away. for I disliked to face him.’” Sahih al-Bukhari 511
Narrated `Abdullah bin `Umar:
Allah’s Messenger said, “If someone keeps a dog neither for guarding livestock, nor for hunting, his good deeds will decrease (in reward) by two Qirats a day.’ Sahih al-Bukhari 5482
The Hadiths tell us that Mohammed ordered the indiscriminate slaughter of dogs because Gabriel told him angels don’t enter a house with a dog in it. Why would an angel fear a dog? They also tell us he backtracked on that command (but did not specify why) and allowed dogs to be kept for utility only. This flip-flop has been a source of some confusion for the Islamic world; however, the general scholarly opinion is that keeping dogs as pets is forbidden; dogs should be kept for utility only.
But even in the Islamic world, as demonstrated by this article from the Halal Times, there are Muslim dog lovers who keep them as pets and not for utilitarian purposes. In Islamic countries with more secular governments and/or populations, dogs are increasing in popularity as companion animals, especially among young people. That being said, there is still significant objection to the presence of canines in general in the Islamic world.
Oftentimes this objection manifests itself in cruel and violent ways. In Morocco, the government has ordered massive culls of stray dogs in preparation for the 2030 FIFA World Cup. The Moroccan government is concerned that the number of stray dogs roaming the streets will make the country look bad, seemingly unaware that the wholesale killing of dogs might make them look even worse in many people’s eyes. There are reports of extreme cruelty during these culls but they continue.
Since the end of 2024, Turkish law has allowed the killing of stray dogs. Turkey’s government says that this measure is meant for vicious and sick animals only, but abuse by enforcers is rampant.
Historically, the Turkish people are animal lovers who care for strays, so until 2024 the law focused on a “catch-neuter-vaccinate-release” program, but it was not adequately funded nor equally applied in all parts of the country. The end result was a failure to reduce the number of strays. Frequency of dog attacks increased along with the homeless canine population, and the people demanded something be done.
“Ibn ‘Umar (Allah be pleased with them) reported Allah’s Messenger as saying:
Five are the beasts for killing which there is no sin for the Muhrim: crows, kites, scorpions, rats and wild dogs.” Sahih Muslim 1199b
Islamic scholars agree that the term, “wild dogs” specifically refers to dogs that are rabid and/or bite or threaten people. Turkey has four million stray dogs and only 110,000 shelter spaces to house them. Because of this, many dogs are being killed not because they are “wild,” but simply because they are homeless. Since there is a doctrinal justification to kill vicious dogs, all the government has to do is claim the dogs they kill are dangerous.
In Iran, it’s not just about the maltreatment of strays. Dogs and their owners, as well as animal rescue workers are the targets of government harassment. Most clerics are of the opinion that keeping pets is an un-Islamic custom that Iranians picked up from the West and they mean to purge it from the country. But this point of view is a blatant rewrite of Iranian history. Perhaps the pet dog is un-Islamic, but it is very Persian.
In Zoroastrian Persia, animals were revered, especially dogs. Not only were dogs valued for their protectiveness and loyalty, they were also regarded as having spiritual gifts. Sag-did, or “gaze of the dog” was a Zoroastrian funerary rite that involved having a dog gaze upon the deceased. While it is mainly thought this was done to ensure the deceased was actually dead (dogs can sense and smell things humans can’t), the Persians believed that a dog’s gaze was purifying and could drive away demonic forces and protect the soul.
For the Zoroastrian, killing a dog is considered just as serious as killing another human being. For Mohammed, the killing of all dogs was a logical and just response to the news that angels won’t enter a house with a dog in it—at least for a while, until he decided to let a few working dogs live. For the ayatollahs, it is the Islamic thing to do.
Many Muslims claim that Mohammed did not sanction the killing or mistreatment of dogs; rather, they insist that Mohammed taught that kindness should be shown to all living creatures. They point to specific hadiths, including one about a man whose sins are forgiven for giving water to a thirsty dog:
Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger as saying:
A person suffered from intense thirst while on a journey, when he found a well. He climbed down into it and drank (water) and then came out and saw a dog lolling its tongue on account of thirst and eating the moistened earth. The person said: This dog has suffered from thirst as I had suffered from it. He climbed down into the well, filled his shoe with water, then caught it in his mouth until he climbed up and made the dog drink it. So Allah appreciated this act of his and pardoned him. Then (the Companions around him) said: Allah’s Messenger, is there for us a reward even for (serving) such animals? He said: Yes, there is a reward for service to every living animal. Sahih Muslim 2244
It’s a nice story, but it doesn’t make the rest of the doctrine go away. It doesn’t bring the dogs Mohammed had slaughtered back to life. It doesn’t change the way Islamic doctrine encourages Muslims to view dogs. And it doesn’t change the fact that when dogs are mistreated in an Islamic society, Mohammed’s example is the justification for doing so.
Schools in England currently find themselves in a serious mess when it comes to religious, physical, sex, and fine arts education—all because of Political Islam.
A new booklet of guidance for schools and teachers, called Sharing the Journey, has been issued by a number of Labour-run city councils for teachers and schools. In it is a warning that children’s drawings may be considered blasphemous under Sharia law and that classes in music and/or dancing may also go against Islam’s teachings.
While several other groups are mentioned, the booklet pays particular attention to Muslims and Islam. It advises permitting changes to the school uniform for Muslim girls so that they will be able to conform with hijab (Islamic dress code); allowing older boys time off on Fridays to attend compulsory prayers either at a mosque or in a designated space in the school; and providing halal lunch options in the cafeteria.
During the month of Ramadan fasting and the accompanying three-day feast of Eid-al-Fitr, teachers and schools are encouraged to show flexibility and make allowances such as extra prayer times (if prayer is allowed in school), less strenuous activities during gym class, and days off during Ramadan and Eid. Schools are also advised to avoid scheduling parent-teacher conferences and important exams during this time.
In the section subtitled “Opportunities for Prayer and Reflection,” Sharing the Journey highly recommends providing a space for prayer and reflection for all students. It goes into some detail regarding Islamic prayer requirements and encourages allowing Muslim students the opportunity to pray at school.
The purpose of all of this appeasement is to promote integration and social cohesion, but the Michaela school in Wembley, Greater London discovered that allowing Islamic prayer rituals during the school day had the opposite effect, prompting prayer to be banned on school property. This action was met with threats to the school and its staff as well as a lawsuit from one student and her family. British law, which does not require secular schools to allow prayer, was upheld and the ban was made permanent.
Uniform requirements, cafeteria food, daily and Friday prayers, and Ramadan and Eid are just the beginning of how schools are expected to cater to Islamic demands. Physical education is problematic because of the gym uniform; because some schools have coed classes; because of the actual class content (such as swimming); and because of the change rooms, which carry a full list of grievances on their own.
And then there are the arts. Sharing the Journey claims that:
“Islamic culture and civilization include a rich artistic tradition, particularly in relation to order and pattern, geometry, calligraphy and the natural world. However, three-dimensional figurative imagery of humans is considered idolatrous by some Muslims. It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.”
The “rich” Islamic arts scene has no Van Goghs, Michelangelos, or Rembrandts:
“Narrated Abu Talha:
The Prophet said, “Angels do not enter a house that has either a dog or a picture in it.” Sahih al-Bukhari 3322
It also has no Mozarts, Chopins, or Beethovens:
“Narrated Abu ‘Amir or Abu Malik Al-Ash’ari:
that he heard the Prophet saying, “From among my followers there will be some people who will consider illegal sexual intercourse, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcoholic drinks and the use of musical instruments, as lawful…” Sahih al-Bukhari 5590
Many Muslims eschew European music, embracing only that which Mohammed allowed, which wasn’t much. According to Sharing the Journey:
“…In Islam, music is traditionally limited to the human voice and non-tuneable percussion instruments as in the days of the Prophet, when they were only used in marriage ceremonies and on the battlefield…”
Dance class is also part of exposing students to the arts, but maybe not if you’re a Muslim kid. Neither the Koran nor the Sunna outright prohibit dancing, but the scholarly position is that any activity that can lead to sin should be avoided. Scholars cite dancing as such an activity, since among other things, it often requires males and females to engage in physical contact with one another, which is not allowed in Islam.
Once children reach puberty, Islamic doctrine makes girls and women invisible by covering them up and segregating the sexes instead of requiring boys and men to learn self-control. Some scholars say it is permissible for men or women to dance with one another as long as no one of the opposite sex is present; some maintain that for women—and by extension, girls—dancing is offensive and is therefore discouraged. Still others ban dancing for women altogether, citing sexual attraction and temptation—even if only women are present—as the reason for doing so.
“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.” Koran 24:31
Drama may also contravene Islamic principles, especially for girls, since all eyes are on the person on stage. Schools in England have to walk a precarious tightrope since physical, fine arts, religious, and sex education classes are all mandated by law to be provided for each student while at the same time, parents have the legal right to withdraw their children from most classes they are uncomfortable or disagree with.
The idea of sex education in schools can send any parent or guardian into paroxysms of fear and loathing depending upon the subject matter being discussed in a given lesson. It’s normal for parents to be concerned about this aspect of the school curriculum because it broaches sensitive subject matter that many of them feel should be discussed at home and in a way that reflects their values. What is not normal is for the debate to escalate into violence or threats of violence.
Religious education is another sore spot, but not just for Muslims. The national curriculum is meant to expose students to a wide variety of religious and philosophical world views, as well as inculcate within students the necessary values to get along well in British society.
Despite claims of neutrality, there are parents who fear Islamic indoctrination. Recently, during a lesson on Islam in a Church of England School, seven-year-old students were shown a video of Muslims praying to Allah and were then encouraged to “give it a go.” Non-Muslim (Kafir) parents who don’t want their children to attend RE classes that focus on Islam are called out as racists and bigots, but is this fair? Muslim parents who withdraw children from RE classes teaching about other religions are not called bigoted despite the fact that Islam’s political side encourages its followers to see themselves as superior, leading to an “us and them” mentality:
“Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.” Koran 3:110
“He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.” Koran 9:33
“I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.” Sahih Muslim 22
The religion that people have the most objections over being taught in RE is Islam. Over two-thirds of withdrawal requests are made by people who do not want their children to learn about Islam. They do not have to explain themselves to the school, but according to teachers about 10% of people who request withdrawals are not shy about giving their reasons. Indignant teachers claim that these parents are Islamophobic bigots. Can fear and dislike of Islam really be classified as a phobia? Or is people’s ambivalence justified?
Britain (Rotherham) was the location of a grooming gang scandal that rocked the nation and victimized about 1400 underage girls between 1997–2013 while the police did nothing since taking action would be “bigoted” because the vast majority of perpetrators were Muslim men of Pakistani origin. The media simply refers to them as “Asian,” but Britons are not fooled by this obfuscation. They know who the culprits are.
UK citizens—especially Jews—were silenced and sidelined for raising any objection while their streets and public spaces were taken over for pro-Palestine demonstrations that were decidedly pro-Hamas in flavour because they were organized by a senior Hamas figure. They are subjected to public Islamic prayers that are meant to intimidate Britons and make it clear that their country belongs to Allah now.
For years there have been stories about Islamic no-go zones in the UK which have been largely “debunked” by media fact checkers, but a new book written by Ed Husain, an academic of Muslim heritage, challenges the assertion that they are a myth.
The British have suffered jihad attacks on their own soil. They see their culture being disregarded, disrespected and displaced because it is deemed unacceptable and un-Islamic. The NEU, the largest and most influential teachers’ union in Britain has been infiltrated by the Palestinian Solidarity Committee and as a result, classrooms have become places of political indoctrination instead of education.
All of these things—the indoctrination, the grooming gangs, the demonstrations, the acts of violence and the rejection of British culture—are manifestations of Political Islam.
Is it any wonder that people are traumatized and dead-set against any more exposure to this ideology, especially in regard to their children? Today’s children are tomorrow’s leaders and giving Britain’s future leaders incomplete and misleading information about Islam is worse than giving them none at all. It will ensure that the leaders of the future continue on the current path of appeasement until their British society has been turned into an Islamic one.
One of the most important things schools do is pass a society’s culture on to its children. Emphasis on moral relativism and sparing everyone’s feelings is hampering dissemination of English culture because it allows people to opt out. Allowing British culture to be spurned while simultaneously teaching children about foreign cultures—especially one of conquest and dominance—sends a dangerous and destabilizing message to British children that their culture and way of life don’t count. They deserve better.
According to Sam Westrop’s article in the March 6, 2026 edition of Focus on Western Islamism:
“Following the Middle East Forum’s January report on Islamist efforts to secure public funding in Texas, a new investigation indicates that a private Islamist-run school and radical curricula provider in the Dallas suburbs, previously established and staffed by Hamas-aligned operatives, are today teaching children hatred of “disbelievers” and lauding the work of banned terror charities.
Previous school staff appear to have included two close relatives of the Doha-based Hamas leader Khaled Mishal, family members of convicted terrorists, a deported Hamas operative, and an unindicted co-conspirator in America’s largest terror financing trial.”
According to the article, the Brighter Horizons Academy is a subsidiary of and uses educational materials and textbooks from the Islamic Services Foundation (ISF). In addition to presenting terrorist organizations as charities doing good works and Muslim Brotherhood clerics as mainstream Islamic scholars, these books inculcate children from kindergarten to grade 12 with hatred for American society. By high school graduation, they are perfect instruments of dawah and jihad.
The preface of the grade 12 textbook, Living Islam—Islam in America: Part 7 says:
“…The American Muslim can contribute greatly to the restoration of the spiritual and moral core of this modern civilization which has been profoundly shaken by the advancement of materialistic social norms. North American Muslims can restore the spiritual and moral dimensions of modern life while continuing to be faithful to the true spirit of the modern American society…”
How would this be accomplished? By spreading Islam, of course.
Two paragraphs later, the preface frames the 9/11 jihad attacks on the US as an event that victimized Muslims and vilified Islam:
“…The story of American Muslims is not free of difficulties, challenges or even sacrifices. Although the Muslim community lost tens of their dear ones in the tragic events of September 11 in New York and Washington, they paid dearly out of their very existence and livelihood during the years after. The tragedy was brought upon them as it was brought upon their countrymen and women. What shook Muslim Americans even more, the fact that the image of Islam and the Muslim was severely challenged and scrutinized…”
Not counting the hijackers, 32 Muslims were killed in that act of jihad versus over 2900 non-Muslims (Kafirs). The last thing heard from the cockpit of Flight 93 was someone shouting, “Allahu akbar!” (God is the greatest!) But according to Nabil Sadoun, a man who was deported for having undisclosed ties to Hamas and author of the preface as well as many ISF textbooks, Muslims are hurt and upset about what they perceive as an image problem. Image problem? What kind of image do they expect people to have of Islam when violent jihadis kill thousands of innocent, defenceless people in the name of Allah?
In the section of Living Islam that talks about the first Muslims in America (slaves), there is a bullet point that reads:
“The repressive nature of slavery made it virtually impossible for any form of institutional Islam to develop.”
The repressive nature of slavery didn’t stop Islam from becoming an institution in Arabia and spreading throughout the Middle East and Africa. It is a fact that slavery and Islam go hand in hand and they spread together, resulting in oppression wherever they went:
“Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Verse:–“You (true Muslims) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind.” means, the best of peoples for the people, as you bring them with chains on their necks till they embrace Islam.” Sahih al-Bukhari 4557
Private Islamic schools established by jihadis using textbooks published by people who promote jihad in the US, as bad as they are, may not be as dangerous as the Muslim Student Association. The MSA is a Muslim Brotherhood-linked organization that began with infiltrating places of higher education in the US and Canada. It has branched out to include high schools and now has many chapters in Texas.
Recently, their chapter at Wylie East High School invited the ICNA-sponsored group Why Islam? to the school for World Hijab Day. (The ICNA itself is an offshoot of the MSA.)
At the event, four women set up a table with items such as free Korans and hijabs, and booklets about sharia for students. They also gave candy to students who stopped by to chat. (Didn’t we tell our children not to accept candy from strangers because their intentions could be dubious?)
Although the MSA had not submitted the proper request forms, the women were allowed into the school and given a place to set up. Parents were livid when they found out what happened, which they did via a video posted on social media later that day. The school went into full damage control mode, calling the incident a “procedural breakdown.”
Although claiming to be primarily a religious organization, the MSA has been establishing Political Islam on every school campus in which it operates via protests and social justice activism. In 2022, the head of the MSA chapter of the University of Saskatchewan in Canada accused the school of “Islamophobia” because the school would not change its exam schedule for Ramadan.
In the same year, the American University MSA chapter withdrew from co-hosting an interfaith Seder event with the Hillel group because of their support for Israel.
The political activism of this group goes way back. In 2015 their chapter at the University of California, Irvine was suspended for an entire year because 11 of its members were arrested for disrupting a speech given at the school by former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren. Many well-known jihadis and activists for Political Islam were educated in North America and were members of the MSA.
The danger the MSA poses to Texas, indeed to all of North America cannot be overstated. The web that connects them to the Muslim Brotherhood is pervasive, running through many educational institutions and Islamic organizations whose intentions are questionable at best and their reach is vast.
The groups often proselytize through field trips to Islamic centres, where students are misinformed by Islamized history and distorted facts.
One example of this is a recent MSA-sponsored visit to the Islam In Spanish Centro Islámico in Houston, where Latino students were told “Your roots are in Muslim Spain.” They were given a sanitized, romanticized, less-than-factual version of the brutal Islamic conquest of Spain that lasted from 711 until 1492. This period of time is often referred to as the “Islamic Golden Age,” because it is said that Islamic culture and knowledge flourished during that period and Islamic Spain was a model of diversity and integration. The reality is that “Islamic knowledge” is not Islamic at all; it came from Persia, Greece and India. While there was some cooperation and integration, the so-called Islamic Golden Age was also a time of great conflict, persecution and murder.
Mohammed himself once said, “War is deception.” And it is a weapon that the MSA knows how to wield.
Texas may appear to have the most MSA saturation, but it is not the only US state being infiltrated by Political Islam in schools. Last year, it was discovered that videos produced by students at two Virginia schools for the purpose of recruiting members for their MSAs show students being kidnapped for not wanting to join the MSA, mimicking abductions that occurred on October 7, 2023, when Hamas attacked Israelis. After the abduction, bystanders are asked if they would like to join now that they know the consequences of not doing so. Their attempt at humour fell flat.
Fairfax County Public Schools were mortified, saying they had not approved and do not approve of the videos, and that students violating the code of conduct would be held accountable.
Political Islam presents danger everywhere it is allowed to flourish. If you need an example, look at Iran. Students were a large part of the 1979 revolution that ousted the shah and installed Ayatollah Khomeini in the seat of power as Supreme Leader.
America, don’t be foolish enough to think it can’t happen in your country. Look at Dearborn, Hamtramck, Minneapolis, and now, New York. It is already happening. And students are leading the way.
Political Islam’s version of the story of women’s rights in Arabia is that: before Islam, women had no legal rights or any standing in society; that they had neither property nor inheritance rights because they themselves were considered property; that they were bought and sold into marriage and their male relatives kept the money. Muslims claim that all changed with Mohammed and Islam. Not only do they assert that Islam granted women rights and made them equal with men, they even go so far as to call Mohammed the first feminist. What does the historical record say, and more importantly, what does Islamic doctrine say? How did the advent of Islam ultimately affect the status of women?
In the tribal society of pre-Islamic Arabia, your social status depended not only on your sex, but also on your tribe, and your family’s status within your tribe. While some tribes were arranged according to a patriarchal hierarchy, women had the power in others. In those tribes it was the men who were deprived of property and other rights. They were not bought and sold like women in patriarchal tribes, but they were politically irrelevant. Perhaps a more honest assessment of Arabian society in Mohammed’s day is that it was not in any way egalitarian. Your position in society was determined by a confluence of factors.
Low status members of high status families were not necessarily stuck in lives deprived of all rights and privileges. They often had access to wealth, allowing them to bend or even break with tribal norms. Khadijah, Mohammed’s first wife, was one such person. As a member of one of the more powerful families in the patriarchal Quraysh tribe, she became a wealthy, powerful and well-respected businesswoman in her own right. That is how she met Mohammed. She hired him to run a caravan and trade merchandise on her behalf. She was impressed with his business acumen and honesty and proposed marriage to him. They were married for about 15 years before he started to preach Islam.
Khadijah supported Mohammed and Islam unconditionally. This ultimately cost her not only her fortune, but her life. Years of privation during the boycott of Banu Hashim caused her illness and death in 619 CE. Before Mohammed and Islam, she was powerful, wealthy and respected. Then she lost everything. Mohammed acknowledged all the years of unwavering emotional and financial support Khadijah gave him. He never forgot her after she died and often spoke highly of her. And yet, it is this view of women that is eternally enshrined in the Islamic doctrine:
“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.” Koran, 4:34
Allah says men are in charge because they are the providers. A woman’s right is to be supported financially by her husband. (What did Mohammed ever provide for Khadijah?) A woman’s responsibility is to obey her husband. In fact, her right to be provided for is contingent upon her obedience. (Did Allah “reveal” this verse to ensure Mohammed could control the wives he married after Khadijah’s death?) If a man even suspects or “fears” any rebellious behaviour from his wife, he can take “disciplinary action” just as he would with a slave or a child. Mohammed physically “disciplined” his wife, Aisha at least once that we know of:
“…Narrated Aisha…He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?…” Sahih Muslim, Book 4, Hadith 2127
Of course, Mohammed’s example was followed by others:
“…`Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah’s Messenger came, `Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!’…” Sahih al-Bukhari 5825
It’s not certain what dictionary Islamic apologists use to define the word “equality,” but it can’t be Oxford or Merriam-Webster. Women are expected to serve and obey and be grateful for the opportunity to do so. If a woman finds this difficult, she is probably going to Hell:
“Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas:
The Prophet said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.” It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.” Sahih al-Bukhari 29
Here are more details about women and hell:
“Narrated Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri:
Once Allah’s Messenger went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of `Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, “O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women).” They asked, “Why is it so, O Allah’s Messenger?” He replied, “You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.” The women asked, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?” He said, “Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?” They replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn’t it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?” The women replied in the affirmative. He said, “This is the deficiency in her religion.” Sahih al-Bukhari 304
How can anyone claim that Islam honours women and keep a straight face?
Mohammed did occasionally say something in praise of women, mostly as mothers. Most of the time, though, his rhetoric made it clear that a woman’s status in Islamic society is considerably lower than a man’s—even in the case of slaves.
Islamic doctrine says that freeing slaves is a good deed:
“Narrated Asma’ bint Abu Bakr:
The Prophet ordered us to free slaves at the time of solar eclipses.” Sahih al-Bukhari 2519
“Narrated Asma’ bint Abu Bakr:
We were ordered to free slaves at the time of lunar eclipses.” Sahih al-Bukhari 2520
Unless it is a female slave who is freed:
“Narrated Maimuna, the wife of the Prophet that she manumitted her slave-girl and the Prophet said to her, ‘You would have got more reward if you had given the slave-girl to one of your maternal uncles.’” Sahih al-Bukhari 2594
Ok, so maybe female slaves didn’t count for much, but Islam gave free women choice in regard to when and who they married, right? Not always. This freedom was denied to Aisha, who was given in marriage to Mohammed by her father Abu Bakr when she was only six years old:
“Narrated By ‘Aisha :
The Prophet engaged me when I was a girl of six (years). We went to Medina and stayed at the home of Bani-al-Harith bin Khazraj. Then I got ill and my hair fell down. Later on my hair grew (again) and my mother, Um Ruman, came to me while I was playing in a swing with some of my girl friends. She called me, and I went to her, not knowing what she wanted to do to me. She caught me by the hand and made me stand at the door of the house. I was breathless then, and when my breathing became alright, she took some water and rubbed my face and head with it. Then she took me into the house. There in the house I saw some Ansari women who said, “Best wishes and Allah’s Blessing and a good luck.” Then she entrusted me to them and they prepared me (for the marriage). Unexpectedly Allah’s Apostle came to me in the forenoon and my mother handed me over to him, and at that time I was a girl of nine years of age.” Sahih al-Bukhari 5:58:234
“’A’isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Allah’s Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and she was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he (the Holy Prophet) died she was eighteen years old.” Sahih Muslim 1422c
“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 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.)” Sahih al-Bukhari 6130
Not only was Aisha denied the right to a husband of her own choosing in adulthood, she was married off and then sent to live in a marital home and perform wifely duties while still a child. It cannot be stressed enough that Islamic societies are still practicing child and forced marriage today because Mohammed did it and they are still following his example. The Koran, which declares itself to be perfect, states 89 times that Mohammed set the perfect example for all people to follow for all time. Things have not changed for women in 1400 years of Islam and they are not going to change, ever, because you cannot improve on perfection.
Aisha wasn’t the only female who was robbed of her supposed marriage rights under Islam by its founder. Mohammed forced his cousin, Zainab to marry his adopted son, Zayd, an ex-slave who Zainab felt was beneath her. Her objection prompted Allah (Or, was it really just Mohammed?) to reveal this highly convenient verse:
“And it becometh not a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His messenger have decided an affair (for them), that they should (after that) claim any say in their affair; and whoso is rebellious to Allah and His messenger, he verily goeth astray in error manifest.” Koran 33:36
Because she was a very pious woman who wholeheartedly believed in Islam, she acquiesced to the union. A couple of years later, the story goes that Mohammed stopped by Zayd’s house to visit him, and caught a glimpse of Zainab in scant dress and began to lust after her. Zayd subsequently divorced Zainab when he heard Mohammed wanted her. Mohammed knew if he married her it would not go down well with his fellow Arabs because it was incestuous according to the morality of the Arab society. But Mohammed was ready with another highly convenient verse from Allah to justify his actions:
“And when thou saidst unto him on whom Allah hath conferred favour and thou hast conferred favour: Keep thy wife to thyself, and fear Allah. And thou didst hide in thy mind that which Allah was to bring to light, and thou didst fear mankind whereas Allah hath a better right that thou shouldst fear Him. So when Zeyd had performed that necessary formality (of divorce) from her, We gave her unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons, when the latter have performed the necessary formality (of release) from them. The commandment of Allah must be fulfilled.” Koran 33:37
Mohammed’s revelation of a new verse from Allah to justify his actions or achieve desired outcomes was a tactic that he used effectively on a number of occasions, especially in his dealings with women. Mohammed told men that they could marry up to four wives each, provided they could treat them all equally. Mohammed himself married far more, up to 11 or 13, depending on the source. Allah told Mohammed he did not have to limit himself to only four wives, and he also gave Mohammed some wiggle room in regards to equal treatment of his wives. Aisha, the clever girl, took notice:
“Narrated Aisha:
I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah’s Messenger and I used to say, “Can a lady give herself (to a man)?” But when Allah revealed: “You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).’ (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), “I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires.” Sahih al-Bukhari 4788
Aisha had a valid point. Allah often “sent verses” that made life easier for Mohammed or that gave him something he wanted that was forbidden, or that backed up his “authority.” How can this behaviour be considered anything other than self-serving? How could outright lying and manipulation be a good example for anyone to follow?
So, how did Islam impact the lives of Arabian women? Well, it did give them some pocket money since Mohammed declared that women should have inheritance rights as well as the right to be paid their dowries. But it also made women permanently the wards of men. To be the ward of someone else is not freedom or equality. It is control. And because Islamic doctrine is timeless, the control is eternal and complete.
So, what do you think? Was Mohammed a feminist?