₦airaland Forum

QuinQ:
Yiu didn't know that Arabs enslaved Africans, raped black women and castrated black men??

QuinQ:
Yiu didn't know that Arabs enslaved Africans, raped black women and castrated black men??

AntiChristian:
✓ if you can join historical Arabia to Islam can we join historical Israel to Christianity too? Read well before you answer!

Kobojunkie:
Historical Arabia? Islam enslaved black Africans for over 1000 years...We are talking to this very day, Islam continues to colonize and rape African women in the name of the religion. (The Islamic slave laws allow men to rape women whom their right hands possess, continuing to this day.) Islamic conquest and colonization are behind the reason why there are so many Islamic countries in Africa today. Islam colonized and destroyed— did not build or modernize— the cultures of so many African nations, including parts of Nigeria. Islam did not come shaking hands and offering gifts. That much is documented in history. 🥱🥱

Even though in the late 20th century, some Islamic nations chose to embrace Western ideals leading to the abolition of slavery, there remain many Islamic nations, including Nigeria were such problems persist,s and many of those involved run their practices under the banner of Islam. 🥱🥱

AntiChristian:
✓ You said to this very day, how is that? You are the ones going to meet them! And the slavery you were talking about earlier, it was actually your community heads and leaders that sold you out themselves.
✓ All this your theory are well grounded from Deuteronomy 20 from your YHWH. Even if Christians are no more following it, we know Israel (and by extension USA) are still towing that part!
✓ Islam met slavery and Islam is the only religion that makes freeing slaves a good deed!
✓ Nowhere in the Bible will you see "masters free your slaves" but it is always "Slaves obey your masters" everywhere!
✓ That's why there was the slaves Bible!
✓ Talking about inheriting and raping women you can check Numbers 31 and see how all men were killed and virgin-girls spared for the warriors and for YHWH.
✓ Hypocrisy and bigotry!

10 “You might fight against your enemies, and the Lord your God might let you defeat them and take them as captives.
11 You might see a beautiful woman among the captives who you want to be your wife.
12 You must then bring her into your house where she will shave her head and cut her nails.
13 She must change her clothes and take off the clothes she was wearing when she was captured in war. She will stay in your house and be sad about losing her father and her mother for a full month. After that you may go to her to be her husband, and she will be your wife.
14 If you are not pleased with her and choose to divorce her, set her free. You cannot sell her. You had sexual relations with her, so you must not treat her like a slave. - Deuteronomy 21 vs 10 - 14

Kobojunkie:
1. Libya, an Islamic country, still trades in slaves. And those are purchased, not only by those in Libya but others. The reports are not hidden. 🥱🥱

2. Towing what part? I don't follow at all. 🥱🥱

3. Nonsense! Freeing slaves is a good deed. You would need to explain this to us because from what I have read from the Quran, Islam's idea of good is nothing like any other standard of goodness that I know of. 🥱🥱

4. That's because you have never actually taken time to read the book itself. The constitutional law of the nation of Israel in the land of Canaan which defines the executive, legislative and administrative aspects of life and living in the nation also included stipulations regarding how slaves and their freedom should be handled. 🥱🥱

---

By the way, the statement, slaves obey your masters comes from the opinions of Paul, not the Law of Moses or from Jesus Christ of Israel, the law and the Kingdom if God -- YHWH. It was an opinion given by a man. Those who obey Paul are not that much different from those who obey Mohammed's opinion, you see. 🥱🥱

---

5. Wrong! Slavery was instead defined as part of the nation of Israel in the Law of Moses. Jesus Christ of Israel instead insisted that in the Kingdom of God which He was King over, His followers would be the slaves/servants to do the bidding of YHWH, not men's.

So, unless Paul, for instance, referring to slaves in the Kingdom of God --- followers of Jesus Christ -- then he was definitely speaking of that which is not of Jesus Christ of Israel. 🥱🥱

6. Numbers 31 does not include any information on the inheriting or raping of women. It does describe the events that took place when the Israelites retaliated against the Midianites, killing men as many as they could and taking virgin women as prisoners. It does not state that any of the women were raped or inherited as you claimed. 🥱🥱

The closest to what you present of raping of women is found in Deuteronomy 20 - 22, where the laws about the treatment of women captured in Warare is recorded.

7. Hypocrisy and bigotry are big words you don't seem to understand the meaning of. 😁😁😁

AntiChristian:
1. This is why i said you are ignorantly biased. The slave trade in Libya is not legalised. In fact it is prohibited under the Libyan and international laws. What is happening there is mainly due to the political chaos since 2011. But you'll always give it an Islamic coloration!
2. God said he wanted to give some people land. A land that is inhabited by people. And those people claimed the land. Don't you know that Biblical story?
3. When you do good you earn positive reward and when you do evil you earn negative rewards. Islam does legislate freeing slaves as a means of earning immense positive reward.
4. Show us what Christianity ever offered slaves if not only total submission to their masters? Once again, no texts of the Qur'an or hadiths enjoins taking others as slaves. And Islam met slavery and promoted freeing them, preserving their dignity, treating them kindly, feeding them, fair treatment and even the slave can buy him/herself off slavery!

Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was not strictly ruled by traditional Sharia law, although it was legally designated as a source of legislation. Instead, Gaddafi applied a unique, self-styled interpretation of Islamic principles merged with socialism and Arab nationalism—the "Third International Theory"—where secular, state-controlled policies often overruled religious law in practice.

92. It is not lawful for a believer to kill another except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer unintentionally must free a believing slave and pay blood-money to the victim’s family—unless they waive it charitably. But if the victim is a believer from a hostile people, then a believing slave must be freed. And if the victim is from a people bound with you in a treaty, then blood-money must be paid to the family along with freeing a believing slave. Those who are unable, let them fast two consecutive months—as a means of repentance to Allah. And Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. - Quran 4 vs 92

89 Allah will not call you to account for your thoughtless oaths, but He will hold you accountable for deliberate oaths. The penalty for a broken oath is to feed ten poor people from what you normally feed your own family, or to clothe them, or to free a bondsperson. But if none of this is affordable, then you must fast three days. This is the penalty for breaking your oaths. So be mindful of your oaths. This is how Allah makes things clear to you, so perhaps you will be grateful. - Quran 5 vs 89

2. Those of you who ˹sinfully˺ divorce their wives by comparing them to their mothers ˹should know that˺ their wives are in no way their mothers. None can be their mothers except those who gave birth to them. What they say is certainly detestable and false. Yet Allah is truly Ever-Pardoning, All-Forgiving.
3. Those who divorce their wives in this manner, then ˹wish to˺ retract what they said, must free a slave before they touch each other. [/b]This ˹penalty˺ is meant to deter you. And Allah is All-Aware of what you do.
[b]4. But if the husband cannot afford this, let him then fast two consecutive months before the couple touch each other. But if he is unable ˹to fast˺, then let him feed sixty poor people. This is to re-affirm your faith in Allah and His Messenger. These are the limits set by Allah. And the disbelievers will suffer a painful punishment. - Quran 58 vs 2 -3

1. I do swear by this city ˹of Mecca˺—
2. even though you ˹O Prophet˺ are subject to abuse in this city—
3. and by every parent and ˹their˺ child!
4. Indeed, We have created humankind in ˹constant˺ struggle.
5. Do they think that no one has power over them,
6. boasting, “I have wasted enormous wealth!”?
7. Do they think that no one sees them?
8. Have We not given them two eyes,
9. a tongue, and two lips;
10. and shown them the two ways ˹of right and wrong˺?
11. If only they had attempted the challenging path ˹of goodness instead˺!
12. And what will make you realize what ˹attempting˺ the challenging path is?
13. It is to free a slave,
14. or to give food in times of famine
15. to an orphaned relative
16. or to a poor person in distress,
17. and—above all—to be one of those who have faith and urge each other to perseverance and urge each other to compassion.
18. These are the people of the right.- Quran 90 vs 1 - 18

AntiChristian:
➜Gustave le Bon says in Hadarat al-‘Arab (Arab Civilization) (p. 459-460):
“What I sincerely believe is that slavery among the Muslims is better than slavery among any other people, and that the situation of slaves in the east is better than that of servants in Europe, and that slaves in the east are part of the family. Slaves who wanted to be free could attain freedom by expressing their wish. But despite that, they did not resort to exercising this right.”
➜ Paul on the other hand advised that slaves should be loyal to their masters, as he says in his Epistle to the Ephesians, where he enjoins slaves to obey their masters as they would obey the Messiah:
“5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men,
8 because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.” (Ephesians 6:5-9).
Yeah we know how slaves are to be treated from the Biblical YHWH! Slavery was condoned period!
➜ It is none of my own business if it is the opinions of Paul. It is part of your scripture
➜ and same Paul says in 2 Timothy 3;16 - All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. So Paul's word are included as your Biblical scripture and his words are "God-breathed"! You can't claim it is useless.
I have quoted one of the verses of submission to slavery above!
➜ Of cos, it gave a hint which was explained in the Deuteronomy 20-22 you mentioned. The virgin girls who never knew any man were spared for the warriors. And even YHWH has a fixed %age as His share of the entire war booty of livestocks and virgins. You can read the entire chapter to confirm!
➜ It sure well qualifies you entirely though! The more you appear to know the less it seems you know!

TV01:
...3 bans . Na wah 0! Let me rebut this balderdash na, wetin.


TV

Thank you for your submission. Not least because it demonstrate the pathologically evil nature of the ROP

You see, a principled and successful defence of the ROP is simply not possible. Indeed, even the most trivial, the most basic championing of the ROP, invariably comes with lies - wrapped up, covered in, packaged and labelled with half-truths, false claims, baseless assertions, riddled with deceptions and lies .

A shallow admission of the ROPs slavery holocaust, is immediately followed by an exaggeration (apologies lie ), about the trans-atlantic slave trade. Please quantify the scope of this "gradual & extensive" damage by the ROP slave trade, relative to your "most significant overall harm" claims against the TATS.

The ROP-ST is actually still a thing - slavery is not haram, and, the ROP is not abolitionist. Manumission where it existed, was nothing more than a false piety, not widespread, and not designed to end the practice of chattel slavery. Unlike Christianity and the historical Christian nations which are, and ultimately did.

After existing for over 13 centuries, the ROPST was only "legally" ended in most of the Arab world as recently as last century. And, that end, came under threat - primarily by the British. I say "legally", because chattel slavery is still practised in parts of the ROP world today. Yes, there are ROPers alive today who lived in an era when slavery was considered slavery as normal, and some who still do! Think about that.

Yes 0! you can still "purchase" black people in places like Tripoli. I believe cessation never really happened in Mauritania. And, the cherry on the cake, in the true letter of the the ROP texts and the spirit of the ROP law and belief, Afghanistan recently reprised chattel slavery. Go the ROP!!!

Although I focus on the African aspect, the ROPST was global. Comprising trans-saharan, red-sea, indian-ocean and mediterranean routes. No region, ethnicity or non-rop religion was spared. Africa bore the brunt of it, but it was in the tens of millions worldwide.

The TATS, heinous as it was, lastd around 3 centuries. There are large extant populations of African descent as testimony to that fact. The nations involved have recanted, mostly apologised and, afforded the descendants of slaves essentially equal opportunity, if not wholesale reparations, as some demand.

The ROPST has never been admitted or in anyway addressed by the perpetrators or the ROP more generally. Where they exist, black people are routinely and customarily the subject of slurs, casual bigotry and discrimination in the nations that perpetrated it. And, as I said, it's still a thing.

Estimates put the number of victims of the ROPST trans-saharan edition as anywhere from 9 - 18 million. Captured male slaves where routinely castrated, with as many as half succumbing to the procedure - that's right, it was so bloody and brutal it often proved fatal. And some broda is here waving it through. Sad !

The brutality of slavery aside, castration invariably meant mutilation, and short, illness-prone lives. In contrast to the TATS where family ties were permitted - some, even if scant relief, from the horrors of slavery, and serves to contrast the mindset behind the ROPST and the TAST.

Be verbose, prosaic, poetic even, there is no dressing up the sheer evil that is the ROP. There was, is and never will be anything good come out of the ROP.

Please, show us one thing, just one, that advanced or progressed humanity, that emanated from nativist the ROP. Only one innovation, that didn't, wouldn't or couldn't exist if not for the ROP. Not holding my breath.

TV

AntiChristian:
If you can join historical Arabia to Islam can we join historical Israel to Christianity too?
Read well before you answer!

AbuTwins:
Islam is the Only Religion That Gave Women Identity
Islam uniquely honors and grants women a clear, dignified identity rooted in divine guidance, setting it apart from Christianity and other faiths.

Islam’s Affirmation of Women’s Identity:
#The Qur'an explicitly recognizes women as full moral and spiritual beings with rights and responsibilities. Allah says:
“And for women are rights over men similar to those of men over women...” (Qur’an 2:228)

#The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasized respect and kindness toward women, stating:
“The best of you are those who are best to their women.” (Tirmidhi)

#Islam grants women rights to inheritance, education, marriage consent, and economic independence—rights that were revolutionary at the time of revelation.

Comparison with Christianity:
#While Christianity preaches spiritual equality, traditional interpretations often placed women in subordinate roles, sometimes limiting their public religious participation. For example, 1 Corinthians 14:34 instructs women to be silent in churches, which has historically been used to restrict women’s roles.

#The Bible’s creation narrative (Genesis 2) has been interpreted by some to imply woman’s secondary status, created from man’s rib, whereas Islam teaches that men and women were created from a single soul:
“O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul...” (Qur’an 4:1)

#Islam’s legal and social framework actively protects women’s rights and identity, while Christianity’s historical practices often reflected patriarchal cultural norms.

Checking the Christian scriptures you'll never see the input of any woman in the compilation of the Bible! They were all men - Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc! This is too loud!

Islam is the only religion that gave women a clear, honored identity with comprehensive rights and dignity from its inception, supported by divine scripture and prophetic teachings. It elevated women’s status spiritually, socially, and legally, ensuring their full humanity and individuality, unlike Christianity’s historical approach which often subordinated women under cultural interpretations.

“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh...” (Genesis 2:23)

honesttalk21:
Three bans indicate a pattern of behavior rather than moderator bias. Every platform has its rules, and repeated violations lead to consequences. Harshness does not equal censorship; it reflects the enforcement of standards in this space that everyone has agreed upon directly or covertly by continuous use of the platform.

If you feel the moderation is unfair; review the actual rules, compare your posts with the standards or appeal through the appropriate channels should you so strongly feel violated.

TV01:
For fulll disclosure, why not reveal your moderator status? ROPers want to play and ref - yet they still lose . How were you able to quote a post hidden 2 days ago? It's actually 8 bans


TV

ChristCee:
Stop trying to rewrite history with half-truths. Let us open the books and see who really values women.

You made a lot of claims, but you conveniently left out the parts of your own books (Quran and Hadith) that contradict your "women's rights" narrative. You claim Christianity subordinates women while Islam honors them? Let's check the receipts.

1. The "Rib" Argument vs. Creation You claimed the Bible's "rib" account implies secondary status while Islam's "single soul" implies equality. This is a massive distortion.

The Bible: Genesis 1:27 explicitly states: “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” From day one, women bear the Image of God just as men do. The "rib" in Genesis 2 signifies they are of the same substance—bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh.

Islam: You forgot to mention that your own Prophet explicitly used the "rib" to describe women as "crooked." “Treat women well, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its upper portion... if you try to straighten it, you will break it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 3331) So the Bible uses the rib to show unity of substance, while your Hadith uses it to say women are inherently crooked and cannot be fully straightened.

2. Spiritual Equality vs "Deficiency" You claimed Islam regards women as full moral beings with equal standing.

The Bible: The New Testament introduced radical equality that didn't exist in the culture at the time. Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile... nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

3. Treatment: Sacrificial Love vs Beating You quoted Quran 2:228 about rights, but you ignored Surah 4:34 which serves as the legal framework for domestic discipline.

The Bible: Ephesians 5:25 sets an impossible standard for men: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” The Christian command is for a man to DIE for his wife.

Islam: The Quran explicitly gives men the authority to beat their wives. “...But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance... forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them.” (Quran 4:34) Please tell me how "striking them" is an honor?

4. Women in Scripture and Witness You shouted that there are no women authors in the Bible. This is a weak argument that backfires on you.

The validity of the Christian faith rests entirely on the testimony of WOMEN. In the 1st century, a woman's testimony was not accepted in Jewish or Roman court. Yet, God chose Mary Magdalene and other women to be the first witnesses to the Resurrection. If the Bible were a "patriarchal fabrication," the men would have written themselves as the first witnesses to be credible. God honored women by making them the first preachers of the Gospel.

Compare this to Islam: [list] []In Islamic law, a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man (Quran 2:282). []In Inheritance, the male gets the portion of two females (Quran 4:11). [*]Your Prophet said: "I was shown Hell and I saw that the majority of its dwellers were women." (Sahih al-Bukhari 3241) [/list]

Christianity liberated women from being property and made them joint-heirs with Christ (1 Peter 3:7). Islam codified their inequality in inheritance, witness, and legal rights.

Next time, quote the whole book, not just the parts that sound nice to Westerners.

Correction: You are Misquoting the Bible to Suit Your Narrative

You have picked verses out of context to claim Christianity subordinates women. This is a common tactic, but it falls apart when you actually study the text. Let us correct these wrong notions with the proper context.

1. The Myth of "Silence" (1 Corinthians 14:34) Claim: You said this verse commands women to be silent and restricts their public participation.

The Context: You are quoting verse 34 but ignoring chapter 11. In 1 Corinthians 11:5, the same Apostle Paul gives instructions on how women should pray and prophesy in the church. How can a woman "prophesy" (speak divine truth) if she is completely silent?

The Reality: The instruction in 1 Corinthians 14 was addressing disruptive chatter and disorder in a specific church service in Corinth, not a universal command for all women to shut up for all time. [list] []The Bible records women leading and speaking: Deborah was a Judge and Ruler over all Israel (Judges 4). [] Huldah was a Prophetess whom the King consulted to validate Scripture (2 Kings 22). [*] Priscilla taught and corrected Apollos, a male preacher (Acts 18:26). [/list] If Christianity wanted women silent, these women would not be celebrated as leaders in the Bible.

2. The Myth of "Secondary Status" (The Rib Narrative) Claim: You said being created from the rib implies secondary status.

The Context: The Hebrew word used for "helper" to describe Eve is Ezer. This is not a word for a servant or a subordinate. In fact, God refers to Himself as "Ezer" (Helper) of Israel multiple times (Psalm 121:1-2). Does God being a "Helper" make Him inferior to humans? No!

The Reality: Being created from the rib signifies unity, not rank. Adam recognized her as his equal counterpart. Matthew Henry, a famous Christian commentator, put it perfectly: "She was not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved."

3. The Myth of "No Women's Input" in the Bible Claim: You said because men wrote the books, women had no input.

The Context: The Bible is unique in ancient literature because it preserves the voices and songs of women as Scripture. [list] []The Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55), spoken by Mary, is one of the most powerful theological passages in the New Testament. []The testimony of the Samaritan Woman (John 4) sparked the first revival in Samaria. [*]The Resurrection Account the very core of Christianity relies entirely on the word of women. [/list]

Conclusion Christianity was the first faith to declare that "There is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:28). While society at that time treated women as property, Jesus treated them as disciples. He taught them theology (Mary and Martha), he defended them (the woman caught in adultery), and he entrusted them with the Gospel message first.

Do not mistake "cultural traditions" for Biblical Truth. The Bible liberated women long before modern rights existed.

AbuTwins:
This is false. It was when man was lonely that the woman was created. Genesis 2:18 - Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. [b]So a woman is basically a man's helper from your God and Bible. Paul also said: Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for man 1 Corinthians 11:9

Alhamdulillah, you admitted here that Islam enjoins treating women well. Women includes our mother, daughter, sisters and wives! No Bible verse can equal this!

Same Paul said: For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. 1 Corinthians 11:7 What more slavery verses do you need?

While you already agreed in 1b above that Islam encourages us to treat women well, how do we strike someone we are to treat well? That means the striking should be from the place of correction and not to harm. You quoted it yourself! "Treat women well" - (Sahih al-Bukhari 3331) And it not true that the Christian command is for a man to die for his wife! Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife is what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-23. What does it mean for a gender to submit to another? Can you show us where a man is to submit to a woman in the Bible?

You still haven't shown which of the Bible part was written by a woman! How many women were among the 12 disciples of Jesus? How many early Church mothers do you know and why are they at the very back seat if truly there's equality in Christianity?

Despite a woman's testimony as a witness being as such, there are still women who narrated the texts of Islam from the Prophet. Aisha bint Abu Bakr, Hafsa bint Umar, Umm Salama (Hind bint Abi Umayya), Umm Habiba (Ramlah bint Abi Sufyan) and Maymuna bint al-Harith! Those close to the Prophet and witnessed his traditions!

And women are more in hell is justifiable as there are more women than men even on earth! The inheritance of woman is also justified since she inherits from her father, husband and children! A woman may inherit from her father and then her husband!

Christianity didn't liberate any women from anywhere! Paul messed everything up after Jesus. Tell us why a woman should cover and not a man? Why is a woman the glory of man? Why is a woman created for man, all according to Paul?

You are quoting Deborah and Huldah who appeared long before Jesus to justify Christianity? No be deceit be that? Priscilla can correct but she is to cover head and keep quiet. Why are men not adviced to stop the same disruptive chatter by keeping silent?

God in the Bible can be qualified any how the writer intends! Sometimes God is called a man warrior in Exodus 15:3. Sometimes God is qualified as a drunk in Psalms 78:65. So using such word for God does not suprise me. But on a lighter mode, the context is different. God helps His creation while Eve was created as a helper to Adam when he was alone!

Once again, by creation they were not equal in the Bible. God created Adam. He made Eve from Adam when he was alone!

Those were the narrations of men allegedly called Luke, John, etc. No women exists physically as an author of the Bible or even as a narrator from Jesus.

When you say Christianity above do you mean Paul? Jesus didn't say "There's neither male or female" but Paul. And why encourage the adultery of the adultrous woman instead of punishing her and the culprit man according to the law?

Even checking the New testament you'll see where Jesus called his mum "Woman.... before the wine miracle at the wedding in Cana" and idiomatically called the Canaanite woman dog!
I agree he called Peter Satan and some others snakes, etc.

But it is false that Christianity made such declaration!

AbuTwins:
REPLY TO YOUR POINTS SINCE YOU CAME WITH CONFIDENCE, LET’S GO SMALL SMALL 😄

1️⃣ “Woman is basically man's helper”

You quoted Genesis 2:18 but conveniently avoided what the Hebrew actually means.

The word translated “helper” is ezer the same word repeatedly used for God helping humans (e.g., Psalm 33:20). Unless you want to argue God is subordinate to man, your point already collapses.

Helper ≠ inferior.
It means suitable partner or strong support.

Also, Paul saying woman was created “for man” in 1 Corinthians 11:9 does NOT stand alone because two verses later Paul balances it:

“Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor man of woman.” — 1 Corinthians 11:11

You quoted half; I brought the full context. 👍

2️⃣ “You admitted Islam treats women well”

😂😂 My brother, do you understand English?

Saying Islam claims to treat women well is not the same as saying the system actually does.

Even the hadith you quoted contains the famous “crooked rib” statement. When someone describes an entire gender as inherently crooked, that is not exactly a glowing anthropology.

So please don’t build mansion on misunderstanding.

3️⃣ “How do we strike someone we are to treat well?”

This is exactly the tension critics point out.

Because the text (Qur’an 4:34) explicitly permits striking after admonition and bed-separation. You are now doing interpretive gymnastics to soften what the plain reading allows.

Meanwhile, in Christianity:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” — Ephesians 5:25

Not “strike her lightly.”
Not “correct her physically.”
But self-sacrificial love.

You quoted submission but skipped the heavier burden placed on husbands. That selective reading again.

4️⃣ “Show where a man submits to a woman”

Easy.

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” — Ephesians 5:21

Mutual submission is the governing principle before Paul even begins household instructions.

Also:

• Husbands must love sacrificially
• Must not be harsh (Colossians 3:19)
• Must honor wives (1 Peter 3:7)

Submission in Christian teaching is not one-sided domination it is structured mutual responsibility.

5️⃣ “No women authored the Bible”

This is a weak argument historically.

Ancient Near Eastern literature in general rarely preserved female authorship including early Islamic written transmission, which was also overwhelmingly male-recorded.

Yet women in the New Testament are:

• first witnesses of the resurrection
• leaders of house churches (e.g., Lydia)
• teachers alongside apostles (Priscilla)

If Christianity were trying to erase women, making them the first resurrection witnesses (in a culture where female testimony was discounted) would be a very strange strategy.

6️⃣ “Women are more in hell because they are more in number”

This is not what the hadith itself gives as the primary reason.

The narration explicitly mentions:

• ingratitude to husbands
• frequent cursing

So bringing population statistics after the fact is an attempted rationalization, not what the text itself says.

7️⃣ “Paul messed everything up”

This one always makes me smile.

Because historically, even secular scholars agree Paul’s letters are among the earliest Christian documents we possess decades before later theological developments.

If you reject Paul entirely, you are essentially proposing a version of Christianity that did not historically exist in the first century.

That is your right but let’s at least be historically honest.

8️⃣ “Jesus called his mother ‘woman’”

This is a classic misunderstanding of Greek idiom.

In Koine Greek, “Woman” (gynai) was a respectful form of address closer to “Ma’am,” not an insult.

Same way Jesus used strong language for men too:

• called Peter “Satan”
• called Pharisees “whitewashed tombs”
• called Herod “that fox”

So portraying this as misogyny is selective outrage.

9️⃣ “Deborah and Huldah were before Jesus”

You asked for evidence that the Bible contains female leadership you were given it now you are moving goalposts.

Deborah was:

• a prophet
• a judge over Israel
• a national leader

That already disproves the claim that the biblical tradition universally sidelines women.

🔟 Final point about equality at creation

Genesis actually presents something deeper than the oversimplification you gave.

Yes, Eve was formed from Adam but the narrative conclusion is:

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife…” — Genesis 2:24

In ancient patriarchal culture, the man leaving his household to cleave to his wife was radically counter-cultural.

The text is describing interdependence, not disposable subordination.

BOTTOM LINE

Your arguments rely heavily on:

• selective quotation
• ignoring immediate context
• and reading modern assumptions into ancient texts

If we are going to have this debate, let’s have it with the full texts on the table not half-verses and vibes.



Permission to Strike Wives — Plain Text

You tried to soften this, but the verse is still there:

“…As for those from whom you fear disobedience admonish them, abandon them in bed, and strike them…” — Qur’an 4:34

Key issue:

• No equivalent verse allowing women to strike husbands
• Classical tafsir (e.g., Ibn Kathir) affirms physical hitting
• Only later apologetics try to redefine it as “symbolic”

If a book explicitly permits one gender to physically discipline the other, calling that equality is… ambitious.

Child Marriage Precedent

This is one of the most uncomfortable areas many people avoid.

Authentic hadith:

The Prophet married Aisha when she was six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. Sahih al-Bukhari 5134, 5158

Whether one defends it historically or not, the fact remains:

• It establishes a prophetic precedent
• It has been used in fiqh to permit child marriage
• It raises serious ethical concerns in modern analysis

This is why the issue keeps coming up globally.

Women’s Testimony Worth Half

The Qur’an states:

“…Call upon two of your men as witnesses. And if two men are not available, then a man and two women…” — Qur’an 2:282

The text itself gives the reason:

“…so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her…”

Implication:

• Built-in assumption of female unreliability
• Legal inequality explicitly codified
• Not merely cultural it is textual

You cannot shout “honour” while ignoring this structural difference.

Majority of Hell Inhabitants

You tried to explain this away, but the hadith is explicit:

“I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women.” — Sahih al-Bukhari 3241; Sahih Muslim 2737

And the stated reasons include:

• ingratitude to husbands
• frequent cursing

Notice:

This is not presented as a demographic accident but as a moral pattern.

That raises theological questions you have not resolved.

Angels Curse the Wife at Night

Another uncomfortable text:

“If a husband calls his wife to his bed and she refuses… the angels curse her until morning.” — Sahih al-Bukhari 3237; Sahih Muslim 1436

Serious concerns here:

• Sexual availability framed as near-obligation
• Supernatural punishment attached
• No parallel hadith about husbands being cursed for neglect

Again where is the symmetrical accountability?

Marriage Without Explicit Verbal Consent (Classical Fiqh Issue)

Hadith often cited:

“A previously married woman has more right to her person than her guardian, and a virgin’s consent is her silence.” — Sahih Muslim 1421

Scholars debated this heavily because:

• Silence ≠ enthusiastic consent
• It opened doors historically to guardian pressure
• It shows the legal framework was not built around modern consent standards

Even many Muslim reformers today acknowledge this tension.

8️⃣ Women as “Deficient in Intelligence and Religion”

This one is very direct:

“I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you (women).” — Sahih al-Bukhari 304; Sahih Muslim 80

Before you rush to reinterpret note:

• This is sahih
• It is widely cited in classical literature
• It has shaped centuries of jurisprudential attitudes

Calling women “deficient” and then saying the system fully honours them is… difficult to reconcile.

9️⃣ The Concubine Issue (Often Avoided)

The Qur’an repeatedly permits relations with:

“…those whom your right hands possess…” — Qur’an 23:5-6; 4:24

Historically understood as female captives/slaves.

Questions this raises:

• No requirement of formal marriage
• Power imbalance is obvious
• Classical jurists permitted intimacy with captives

This is one of the biggest ethical debates in modern scholarship.

FINAL WORD LET’S BE HONEST

You are free to interpret your texts positively that is your right.

But when the primary sources themselves contain:

• wife-striking permission
• half-weight testimony
• majority-in-hell statements
• “deficient in intelligence” language
• child marriage precedent
• concubinage allowances

…then simply repeating “Islam honours women” without addressing these texts head-on is not a serious argument.

I haven't talked about the virgins in heaven o and the sexism behind this. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Over to you. 👍