Arabic Translated Memes page

She may have been telling the truth and if she was lying desperately to get out of the marriage, surely this is enough reason to annul the marriage and avoid marital rape! Marital rape is not a concept understood in 7th century Arabia and you would find most Islamists in 21st century do not understand it or accept it. Things were getting out of hand as verse 4:34 had legalised domestic violence to a whole new level. We can see that in the Hadith: Iyas bin 'Abdullah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "Do not beat Allah's bondwomen." When 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) came to Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and complained saying: "The women have become very daring towards their husbands," He (PBUH) gave permission to beat them. Then many women went to the family of the Messenger of Allah (wives) complaining of their husbands, and he (the Prophet (PBUH)) said, "Many women have gone round Muhammad's family complaining of their husbands. Those who do so, that is, those who take to beating their wives, are not the best among you". [Abu Dawud, with a Sahih chain]. sunnah.com/riyadussalihin… The damage control continues as Aisha weights in to lessen the violence women were experiencing. It was narrated that 'Aishah said: "The Messenger of Allah never beat any of his servants, or wives, and his hand never hit anything." sunnah.com/ibnmajah:1984 The Prophet may have realised the verse left a terrible loophole in which even Aisha who had grown up among pagans, Christian, and even Jewish women – had never seen women suffer as much as the believing women! It is from this Hadith and few other similar Hadiths that the translators (and Arabic commentators) started to add in brackets the term ‘lightly’. ----- Issue 16.1: Having seen the huge impact of Quran 4:34, the Prophet could not rewrite the verse as this would expose him as the actual author of the Quran. So, he resorted to damage control and ‘lessening’ the impact of the verse. Even 1400 years later, Quran.com continues to cover this verse because of the huge damage it has caused for women across the globe. Women are humans, not children, or animals – which even now we know violence is not an effective disciplinary measure– so how can an all-knowing and all-wise god write this in His eternal book! Issue 16.2: Any claims that before Islam women were treated worse and that Islam came about to protect and honour women is completely debunked here! Aisha’s words sum up how women before Islam were treated and she would have been a witness to that. Issue 16.3: The author of this verse must be a man and not an all-knowing god. The outline of the steps does not include ‘listen to their views, talk to them, use empathy, and reconcile’ - the first step is to ‘advise them!’ The authority of a dictator starts from step one. And then ‘forsake them in bed’ - are you joking here? Anyone who has had an argument with his wife knows it is SHE who will kick him out of the bedroom. This is no punishment for the woman but for the man. You can tell this is the way a man thinks of punishment – assert authority, withhold something they like, and then violence. ------- Apologist Excuses: Issue 16.1: You focus on the last step whereas there is a process that follows through. Women aware of the last step push their luck if they do not engage in a fair and honest way to resolve whatever issue her husband. The wording of the Quran is always open to interpretation whereby sometimes the word may be used in certain ways but means something different in the context of another conversation. Translators have the right to use the most accurate way to describe a word, even if it does not match the current standalone translation of the word. Your suggestion that the Prophet tried to lessen this later is not proven by any given timeline. The Hadith is not presented in a timeline but narrations that mostly presented by topic and not timeline. So, the timeline you present is speculative.

>> Our response: There is no timeline as well in the Quran for the process of disciplining a woman. An argument can result in beating within few minutes of starting and here is how. He is not happy, he advises her, she tells him to fuk-off! He tells her that because he is being arrogant, he is not going to sleep with her tonight, she laughs in his face on how ridiculous this sounds. She does not want him in her bed today...and BOOM: the first hit comes along. If she really pissed him off, he could beat the hell out of her in that moment of rage. What do you know, that took less than 2 mins to escalate to violence! You think in that moment of anger a man is going to stop and think about the words in ‘brackets.’ Issue 16.2: You are misrepresenting Aisha’s personal views as historical facts. She was young and her views are anecdotal evidence based on personal views. Not necessarily factual. Having parameters for discipline where the man is the breadwinner and guardian of the home removes any confusion who has that right. Women were given many rights that were not present before Islam. >> Our response: Aisha’s words are one of the few historical facts we can find that point to how women were treated before Islam. It is consistent with what we know about Khadijah (Prophet first wife) who was wealthy and independent businesswoman. It is also consistent with how women’s rights changed dramatically after Islam. Where are women leaders, women philosophers, even women poets and writers in Islam? They are outnumbered 2 billion to 1. The only right that women were given is to be owned by their male guardians with limited space to breath. Issue 16.3: If you continue reading, verse 4:35 suggest ways to reconciliation whereby mediator from his and her family are appointed to resolve any issues. If the Quran is man made for men, as you claim, why is it allowing the woman’s wife to be party for any reconciliation? Surely, it will be the man and the man only. >> Our response: The verse 4:35 talks when separation or split becomes a possibility. This does not talk about day to day activity. And including the wife’s parents is only so she has representation. And you forget that only male members of her family will represent her, with the view of ‘keep her with her husband, we don’t want her back!’ This comes with financial and reputations costs that her family do not want. That is the man-made world of Islam. -------- Final Thought: Would it shock you to read that the author of the Quran has empathy to females when it says in two places: Quran 11:64 and 7:73 respectively: “...do her no harm, or a swift punishment will overtake you!” “So leave her...on Allah’s land and do not harm her, or else you will be overcome by a painful punishment.” How beautiful these verses and full of empathy, right? Only they are not for women. They are for female Camels! Makes you think how the author of the Quran had more compassion to female camels than female humans! quran.com/7?startingVers… quran.com/11?startingVer…

#101reasonswhyweleft #Reason16: The Disciplining of Women It is easier to read it here: https://exmuslimmemes.com/reason-16-the-disciplining-of-women/ In chapter 4, ironically called the chapter of ‘women’, the Quran outlines for men what to do with women, how many to marry, how to marry them, making the dowry payment, how to own women as slaves, who not to marry...etc –many of the earlier sections, you will see regular reference to chapter 4. As you read, you get to the point where the all-knowing and all-wise Allah outlines how to discipline one’s wife: Qur'an 4:34: Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. — Sahih International translation corpus.quran.com/translation.js… This must be the most ‘covered up’ verse you would ever find in the Quran. Why? Because there are so many attempts to cover up or lessen the term ‘strike them’ but as the link above shows six most accurate translations of this verse the word used is while keeping in mind anything in brackets is not in the verse but added by the translators: - Sahih International: “...strike them.” - Pickhall: “...scourge them.” - Yusuf Ali: “...beat them (lightly)” - Shakir: “...beat them;” - Muhammad Sarwar: “...beat them.” - Mohsin Khan: “...beat them (lightly, if it is useful),” - Arberry: “...beat them.” Out of the seven translations, five used ‘beat them’. The other two used ‘strike them’ and ‘scourge them’, YET Quran.com adopts a translation that says “...then discipline them (gently).”  No one said this. Even Quran.com does not show who was behind this new translation! quran.com/an-nisa/34 The word for anyone who wants to check it against any dictionary you want, is وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ which translates as ‘hit them or beat them’ - This never translates as anything less. Al Azhar, Egypt and Arabs highest Islamic authority fatwa on hitting women is acceptable, but do not break bones! Here it is reported in the Arabic news: m.elwatannews.com/news/details/5… Feel free to use Google Translate, if you are not Arab. Keep in mind, Egypt Al Azhar authority is considered a moderate Islamic authority compared to some of the others! So, why would they say this? Because the Tafsir and Hadith both agree that beating women who act arrogantly, even if it is the last resort. In the aftermath of verse 4:34, men had free hands in beating their women –something that does not seem to have been the norm before Islam. Aisha commented on a woman who was so badly beaten that her skin was greener than her green clothes by saying: “I have not seen any women suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!” sunnah.com/bukhari:5825 This Hadith is significant. A woman marries a man, but she does not want him. She wants to go back to her first husband who wants her back. She seeks the Prophet of mercy to annul her marriage and stop her husband beating her, showing Aisha the severity of the beating! You find the Prophet not telling off the husband for what he has done but arguing that his wife needs to ‘sleep’ with him to fulfil her Nikah before she can go back to her first husband. To which she explains he has erectile dysfunction and is not able to complete the contract. But the husband explains he has had children from earlier marriage, so what does the Prophet of mercy say? He accuses her of lying and sends her back to her abusive husband. Anyone knows that erectile dysfunction can happen at any time in a man’s life, even if a man has had children before.

I heard growing up hearing the term Sabayah (سبايا) and I did not understand it. It sounded like women who the Khalifa or wealthy men have on the side as extra-marital legal in a way under Islam. Always presented on the side line of fun or comedy TV sketches. What I did not expect is the horror of what this really means. It is the selling, buying, and owning of women as sex slaves usually taken as war bounty.  Where did this trade come from? It comes from the term Melk Alymein (ما ملكت إيمانكم & ملك اليمين) or what your right hand possess. Mentioned in the Quran at least 14 times: Quran [4:23-24];[16:71]; [23:5-6]; [24: 31-33-58]; [30:28]; [33:50- 52 -55]; [70:27-30] And as you can see confirmed in the Hadith. In fact, so casual it is mentioned in the hadith, here is a random hadith for you: Sahih al-Bukhari 4350 Narrated Buraida: The Prophet (ﷺ) sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (war booty tax) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet (ﷺ) I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate `Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus." You want more? Here are 15 Hadiths on this topic: https://sunnah.com/search?q=%D8%B3%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7 How can an all-knowing and all-merciful Allah allow the "Owning of Humans" and owning of women as sex objects! It is, if anything, evidence the Quran is man made for men. Please watch a video I shared. I only have two, so not hard to find. It is from these Quranic verses that ISIS sold Yazidi women as slaves, girls as young as infants were sold. The records now show what happened to them. Think, Muhammad did the same thing. How beautiful...how peaceful...how example for ALL humanity.  Don't just get angry, read and educate yourself. You can read more about it here:  https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Slavery

Muhammad had an irrational fear of dogs in general but specifically black dogs. Go to Sunnah.com website and search "black dog" and you will find 19 hadith, all demonizing black dogs. https://sunnah.com/search?q=Black+dog Black or white, any pet expert will tell you that dogs are classified by their breed and not their colours. Colour has absolutely nothing to do with the dog actions or behaviour. The same way humans should not be judged by the colour of their skin! And why devil? Just because Muhammad had irrational fear, he called them all "the devils"? Thousands of innocent dogs got killed in Arabia over this hadith. And beyond that, dogs (man's best friend) became our enemy. Is there science to back it? No. Scientists insist dogs are friendly, and dogs and cats' saliva is equally how clean, so why pick on dogs? There is no animal more loyal and loving, absolutely dedicated to being your companion as dogs. They are responsible for saving countless lives as rescue, protection, and even helping blind people all around the world to be independent. On mental health, they help every person struggling with depression or loneliness as they are the one animal that will give you unconditional love. Many people who have dogs will tell you that they are excellent judges of character. It may explain why dogs did not like Muhammad and Muhammad did not like them. As to the choice of colour, let's face it Muhammad had an unconscious racism against blacks. We see that in the Hadith and even in the Quran 3:106. If this is yet another evidence that Muhammad was inventing Islam based on his preferences and his rationalisation...has nothing to do with reality or science.

#101reasonswhyweleft Reason #15: Polygamy in Islam It will be easier to read it from my blog page here: exmuslimmemes.com/reason-15-poly… On the topic of polygamy, Muslim men claim that Islam came to reflect Allah’s creation and the natural order of life. They point out how a roaster manages multiple hens; a lion needs multiple lionesses, and bull mates with multiple cows. Throughout nature, we find males to be genetically dominant and designed to mate and build social structures whereby a single male dominates their family tree. Islam has come to manage this 'natural’ process. Polygamy in Islam comes from one specific verse in the Quran: Quran 4:3 If you fear you might fail to give orphan women their ˹due˺ rights ˹if you were to marry them˺, then marry other women of your choice—two, three, or four. But if you are afraid you will fail to maintain justice, then ˹content yourselves with˺ one or those ˹bondwomen˺ in your possession. This way you are less likely to commit injustice. While this verse talks about ‘orphan’ women, it states the limit for how many wives a man can have to be four. Nice to see slave women in men's possession are an ‘option’! The parameters for men became as follows: men can have up to four wives as long as they treat them all fairly. This limit is not a lifetime maximum but rather four at a time maximum. They can divorce and marry as many as they like as long as they do not have more than four at a single time. Men can have unlimited women as war bounty sex slaves (the translators politely called “’bondwomen’ in your possession.”) In the days before the Internet, one of the key arguments that were marketed for the need for polygamy in Islam was that there are more women than men in this world. Therefore, Islam, the most perfect religion, came to solve this problem! I say this because now Islamists find it hard to make this claim. A quick search of UN statistics on gender distribution across the globe or against any country of your choice will return either equal or leaning towards men as the overall data below shows the world population is 50.4% males - with every 100 females, there are nearly102 males: 📷 unstats.un.org/unsd/demograph… Because women live on average longer than men, the ratio for eligible men for marriage is even worse! These statistics debunk completely the narrative for polygamy. It suggests that for every 100 females, there is 102 males. In every 100 couples, there will be 2 males left out! To put this in context, Pew Research shows that in 2021 worldwide there was an estimated 44 million more males than female – the size of the population of Algeria! , Islam was supposedly the ‘perfect’ solution that allowed a man to have four females and an unlimited number of concubines. At best, this suggests Islam’s understanding of the world is limited to what might have been the need in 7th-century Arabia. What is more, the author of the Quran has absolutely no understanding of the world. Under the Islamic formula, the discrepancy between males and females would get even worse. And that is not some hypothetical issue. That is a real lived experience in many Arab and Muslim countries, resulting in men having to look for younger and younger girls to secure a mate. More men are being alienated and forced to leave or travel. The only scenario where Islam would work is continuous wars where the surplus of men die in battles, even more die leaving excess widows and orphans for the rich men back home to marry. Does that sound like the scenario predetermined by a peaceful and loving god? Issue 15.1: The suggestion that having multiple female partners is a universal view is an egocentric primitive male view. This is counterintuitive to what women look for in a mate. In the majority of cases, women seek one person who is loving, loyal, and exclusive to them, and this need transcends different cultures and times. Also, the examples used to justify polygamy are typically biased.

We also have many monogamous examples in nature, such as swans, penguins, wolves, dolphins, some species of monkeys and mice, and many more. Issue 15.2: It is evident that the world population cannot sustain the version of polygamy proposed in Islam. The pressure this puts on men and women is not sustainable and is a cause of frustration and conflict. It explains why so many men end up not being able to marry or having to escape to countries where they could have equal chances of meeting a mate. Apologists Excuses: Issue 15.1: Biologists agree with the Islamic view that men are inclined to want and have multiple female mates. The Islamic view creates less opportunity for infidelity and reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases as it restricts sexual relations within formal marriages. The option to have multiple wives is not open to anyone but rather to those who can afford it and are able to provide the correct support. In countries that do not allow it, men are likely to cheat on their wives, and they have a lot of sexually transmitted diseases. >> Our response: The secular view is that men can be married to multiple females, and females can be married to multiple males – if done consensually and under no pressure with the option to walk away if this does not work for anyone part of the agreement. These remain very minor cases. The absolute majority of the cases involve couples with an explicit agreement on fidelity. Islam only takes one view and sets it as a universal view. This is not right and not helped by the Prophet, who is supposed to be the best example to follow in having over 9 wives at one single time. It seems that the Prophet's wants is what ended up being the only view tolerated. The lack of female partners has raised sex between men, even when they are not gay. This sub-culture thrives in many Islamic countries out of necessity, and STDs do spread but are not reported for cultural reasons. But probably more disturbing is what we see: the abuse of young boys that seems to be, at times, culturally accepted. Issue 15.2: UN studies on gender distributions only go back to the 1950s, and all previous studies are estimates. Because of wars and diseases, the world population would have been different. For example, after World War II, there were as few as 9 men for every 10 women. This ratio prompted even countries that banned polygamy to allow it temporarily. In a world that historically was at war and more men died than women in battle, Islam provided the perfect solution. >> Our response: This is a limited view that fails to address how would Islam deals when we have more males than females as the UN and Pew research data show. How can the world address a 44 million shortfall? For example, the birth rate in Azerbaijan, Vietnam, and China is almost 110 males for every 100 females. How would Islam fix that? The only scenario that Islam’s polygamy works is at a time of mass killings and world wars – sounds about right. But is that the world we want to live in? Final Thoughts: The polygamy under which men can have many women in Islam further marginalised the role of women as being fractionally equal to men. From the first wife a man gets, she is under constant threat of one day finding he married another woman, claiming she is not ‘satisfying him’. She must please and keep this husband happy otherwise, she may end up ‘sharing him’. Then, she must share the same man and even fight to keep the limited resources for her and her children. It further created tensions within the family and between the siblings of the children of each wife. I have seen it happening to relatives of mine, and it is not a disgusting experience. In a scenario where a man can mate with four females and unlimited concubines, the value of the female member becomes marginalised rather than ever being equal despite any other claims Islamists make.