The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.


Sunday, 24 April 2011

Why Sunni Muslims hate and rule Muslim women

These posts/comments are from the Internet's Sunni Forum. My comments are in brown.

*) A wife is not legally responsible to cook for the husband but it is her moral responsibility. Meaning if a husband tells her wife to cook she must cook and if she refuses she will be sinful. However legally she cannot be forced to cook. Even if the husband does not command her she should cook. - by Shaykh Faraz

This means that it is not legally obligatory for a Muslim wife to ‘cook for her husband’. This has nothing to do with Islam. It is just the reality of British law. However, when it comes to Islam, it is the wife’s ‘moral responsibility’ to cook for her husband. In practical terms, then, if the Muslim wife refuses to cook for her husband, ‘she will be [being] sinful’. It is an Islamic sin for a Muslim wife not to cook for her husband. Again, this does not mean that she is ‘legally forced to cook’, just as she is not legally forced to have sex with her husband. Thus all such enforcements will be Islamic in nature, and not a matter of British law.

This case also shows us how particular Islamic morality is. It truly does deal with everything, as many Muslims are keen to stress. In this example, it is a moral duty for a Muslim wife to cook for her husband.

*) Also it says in the Reliance of the Traveller:


w45.2 (Nahlawi: "The wife's serving her husband at home-by cooking, cleaning, and baking bread-is religiously obligatory for her, and if she does not, she is committing a sin, though it is not something that she may be forced to do by the court (al-Durar al-mubaha fi ai-hazr wa ai-ibaha (y99),I72)." – by Hope1

*) There is a procedure outlined in Quran. If your wife is disobedient, then you should admonish her. If she desists, then fine. If not, continue the admonishment for a period of time (maybe a month). If at the end of this period, this does not work, then stop sexual intimacy with her. This should also be for around a month. If she desists, then go back to normal relations with her, forgive her, etc. If she does not desist, there is a permission to 'strike' her. Many of the commentators of Quran have held that this 'striking' is to be done with a miswak, scarf, etc (like a tap on the shoulder) and is mainly symbolic rather than anything else. You cannot strike her face, or strike so hard to leave a mark, etc so regardless what is used, it seems blatantly obvious that the 'strike' is just symbolic. – by Ahmad12

As you can see, there is theological backing for forcing a Muslim wife to cook. But not just cook. In addition to cooking, ‘cleaning and baking bread’ are also ‘religiously obligatory for her’. And if she refuses? Then ‘she is committing a sin’. Yes, this Hanafi School scholar again has the decency to acknowledge that ‘it is not something that she may be forced to do by the court’.

This post is mainly about ‘striking’ your wife, however. This is the rule for punishing a ‘disobedient’ wife.

i) Firstly, ‘you should admonish her’.
ii) If ‘this does not work, then stop sexual intimacy with her’ for ‘around a month’.
iii) ‘If she [still] does not desist, there is a permission to strike her’.

So it may be a small mercy that Muslim husbands are not allowed to ‘strike’ their wives straight away, at least not according to the Hanafi School (which is Sunni Islam). The problem is, what does ‘strike’ mean? It can mean anything. Did it mean anything to these scholars or to Muslims generally? Is it a punch or a kick? Or maybe a cane or a thorough beating? It says that ‘it is to be done with a miswak, scarf, etc’. With a scarf? How is that done? In any case, it says that this ‘is mainly symbolic’. However, ‘you cannot strike her face, or strike so hard to leave a mark’. I have noted this Islamic rule many times before. Do not strike her on the face or leave a mark? Is that because the husband does not want other Muslims to know he has beaten his wife? Or does he not want other Muslims to know that his wife has been ‘disobedient’? If so, clearly that explains the rule not ‘to leave a mark’ on the wife. If a mark is left, then clearly other Muslims will know that the wife has been disobedient and/or the husband has beaten her.

*) It is not sunnah, but the prophets wives were very good mannered. Nothing like how females are today.

The hadith shows that when the prophet(p) allowed the sahabbas to hit their wives, he did so because the females started being bad. So he allowed them to hit them if there was a better alternative, then why didnt he tell them what it was? – by Tariqa

The Prophet did not beat his wives because they ‘were very good mannered’. Thus bad-mannered wives deserve to be beaten. In any case, there are accounts of Mohammed beating his wives, even in the Koran itself. Apparently, ‘females today’ aren't nice and good mannered, as they were in Mohammed’s day. Maybe in Mohammed’s day they daren’t be ‘disobedient’ for fear of punishment which was worse than a mere ‘strike’.

*) Question: Is it possible to marry multiple women at the same time as Mutah Marriage and that I sleep with all of them at the same time?

Answer: Bism allah al rahman al Raheem,
It is permissible to marry several women and to sleep with all of them at the same time. – by Same

I think I’m going to become a Muslim. Islam is literally and explitly a man-made religion. The exact opposite of a matriarchal religion. Of course Muslims can ‘marry several women and sleep with all of them at the same time’. That’s precisely what Mohammed himself did! And this man is the ultimate exemplar for Muslims!

More particularly, one of his wives, Aisha, whom he married when she was nine, said:

‘Truly your Allah seems to have been very quick in fulfilling your prayers.’

And this itself was said by Aisha in response to Mohammed wanting sexual relations with more than one woman at the same time. However, if Aisha had wised up to Mohammed, why didn’t she leave him? Perhaps because she didn’t want to be stoned to death!

Another time Aisha also said:

‘Allah comes to your aid rather conveniently when it is a question of your desires.’

It was not only Aisha who was aware of Mohammed the Stud. The philosopher al-Ghazali said that Mohammed was able to perform his conjugal duties to all his nine wives in one morning.

*) Question: There are some narrations stating the impressibility of Having Mutah (Temporary marriage) with more than four women. However right next to them we find others permitting this ... What is the truth of the matter?

I have heard a lot about this ‘arrangement’ within various Islamic cultures. A temporary marriage is basically either a sexual liaison with a prostitute or with a lover. Some Islamic Mutah (temporary marriages) last as long as three hours. That is, enough time to have sex with the prostitute or woman. In that case, I wouldn’t be surprised if some Islamic temporary marriages lasted as long as three minutes, or however long the man takes to ejaculate.

*) QUESTION: At one time I went to a Night Club and a Prostitute asked for 100$ and I paid her and she said: I give you my whole body for Mutah (pleasure) in exchange for this amount, But only for one day. Can I consider this Islamic Mutah Marriage?

ANSWER: If from what she said, she meant setting up marriage and you said to yourself "I accept this for myself" Then this would be lawful Mutah Marriage.

Why don’t these Muslims have the honesty to admit that they are having sexual relations with a prostitute? Why go through the motions by speaking of Mutah or ‘temporary marriage’? This is ridiculous. Then again, Islam is a stickler for mindless and pointless rules.

*) We have two clear authentic narrations from Sahih Bukhari: Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234:

Narrated 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. … 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.” also: Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236:

For those Muslims who use Taqiyya and deny that Aisha was nine years old when she married Mohammed. In fact she was ‘engaged’ to him at six years old. Talking about it coming from the horse’s mouth!

There is more ‘evidence’ on Aisha’s age:

Narrated Hisham's father:

“Khadija died three years before the Prophet departed to Medina. He stayed there for two years or so and then he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old.” - posted by Godilali

*) Re: What can the Islamic court legally force a wife to do for her husband?


The court can force the wife to give herself to him when he calls her to himself for his physical need. and to live with him in his house during the period she is in nikah with him.. – by Abu Hamza Deccani

There it is, written down for all Muslims – and some non-Muslims! – to see. Muslim men can indeed force their wives to have sex with them, at least according to Abu Hamza Deccani. I have no strong reasons to doubt him. However, I do doubt the Taqiyya Muslims who pretend otherwise.


  1. You are extremely Islamophobic. Please read around the topic and not pick and highlight specific sentences to make false accusations. Aisha RA was not touched until she reached puberty. Also, rape in marriage is haraam in Islam. Why are you trying to cause segregation, promote hate and divide communities. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Live and let live.

    1. I will not even bother responding to the claim that I'm 'Islamophobic' save to say that all people like you usually mean by it is that others are critical of Islam and Muhammad.

      'Please read around the topic.' My guess is that I've read more about Islam than you. However, there will be one MASSIVE difference. Virtually everything you will have read will have been written by Muslims and have been positive. I've read the Koran myself more than once as well as other Islamic texts and Muslim history. Also, I've read stuff that praises Islam, etc.

      Rape in marriage is 'haraam' either because Islam doesn't recognise rape in marriage, which it doesn't, or because you have a notion of rape which makes it the case that it effectively CANNOT exist in Muslim marriages. It has been defined out of existence by Islam and sharia law, as the situation in Pakistan and many other Muslim countries shows.

      Aisha was six when she was wedded to Mohammed and he consummated the marriage when she was nine. I say this because I've heard countless Muslims say and write it themselves. If you have an Interfaith version, one for the kuffar folks at interfaith meetings, then that's your prerogative.

      It depends on when you think Aisha 'reached puberty'. Many Muslim men think girls reach puberty at that age – nine - and probably younger. A lot of Muslim clerics see girls as young as four as being sexual beings and that's why they too are forced to wear the hijab and sometimes the niqab. In addition, because a girl has reached puberty it doesn't follow that she's ready for sex and marriage with a man who is around 40 years older than she is, as I think Mohammed was when compared to Aisha.

  2. How about a Sunni Muslim man who brags about shagging vulnerable women while he is already married and feels it is quite okay. Is it a quite okay to have a test run - take away a woman's virginity and discard her because he can. Then she is worthless! Women are there to be shagged and abused. Hello should we castrate them - the vain dickhead man. I am an English woman who cares for an 87 year old PIG of a Man. Yes and I shall not be seeing him again. He may not live in the middle east anymore and owns a British Passport and brags about that also. Makes my skin crawl. And he is very proud of his past improper behaviour. When he washes himself shower noticeably hides his PRIVATE PARTS - small parts small brain. Hello Mohammed was a GOOD MAN and would never approve such disgusting behaviour. Buy a blow up doll useless man leave vulnerable females alone and Fathers protect your DAUGHTERS from these animals and teach your sons respect for their MOTHERS and SISTERS and OTHER VULNERABLE UNFORTUNATE FEMALES!