69 million page views

Bilal: How black is your Islamic kettle

Reader comment on item: Niqabs and Burqas - The Veiled Threat Continues
in response to reader comment: RE: Article

Submitted by Plato (India), Sep 3, 2009 at 06:37

Bilal, you write,

>>Yet another display of the contradiction of "Freedom".The West propagate this idea of "Freedom" as if people are free to do and say what they can. Yet it is a fallacy because the ambit of "Freedom" is defined by them.<<

Yes people are free to say and do as they wish and the "ambit" of that freedom is limited only when it impinges on the freedom and dignity of another human being. Among the civilized non-Muslims human beings include women unlike in Islam which downgrades women to be a degree below men (Koran 2:228) and as confirmed by Muhammad in his last sermon where he compares women to animals/slaves (read your Ibn Ishaq or Tabari).

>>I see you made no connotation to misogyny; probably knowing full well that putting an upper limit on how much a woman can cover her own body proves how the accusation is like the pot calling the kettle black.<<

Allah's misogyny is exposed in verse 4:34 and 2:228.

Bilal, God did not bring women into this world wearing a burqa or niqab. He would have if He had found His own creation so unclean or so unworthy that it could not be exposed to male eyes. But according the Muslim god Allah (or at least those who claim to speak for Him) women cannot be seen except by those licensed to do so by a contract where her body, rather vulva, is let out for use by a male.

Read: "…mehar, is according to classical interpretation of sharia a payment for making the girl's vulva (bud'uha) lawful. To quote Kecia Ali in Progressive Muslims and Islamic Jurisprudence, chapter VII of the book 'Progressive Muslims, on Justice, Gender and Pluralism, page178:" ..the Maliki jusrists…express quite a different role for the dower, stating free woman 'is due her dower, and her vulva [bud'uha] is not made lawful by anything else….Various discussions of the Umm illustrate that dower is 'a price for the vulva' [thaman al-bud] and that 'a woman's fair dower is the fair value of her vulva' [qima mithl al-bud'a mahr mithala]. The commercial aspects of the marriage contract are unremarkable for the jurists. For example, in discussing a situation where a slave was specified as the wife's dower, Al Shafi states that 'she sold him her vulva for the slave' [ba'athu bud'aha bi'abd." The references quoted for these are Mudawwana, K al-Nikah V, 'Fi ihlal', 2:292. Umm, K al sadaq, 'Fi'l sadaq bi aynihi yatl:afu qabala dafahu', , 5:92 and Al-Umm, K al-Nafaqat 'Ikhtilaf al rajul wa l-mar'a fi'l-khul, 5:30 [From my post: http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/159972 ]

How black is your Islamic kettle, Bilal?

>> You force women to uncover against their will, because you treat them like sexual objects. If they don't, they remain abandoned not only socially, but in terms of employment too by the "free" west. That's why women who go for interviews always feel the need to wear open blouses with low cuts often donning mini skirts resembling office prostitfutes.<<

You read my previous answer. Islam treats women as just a vulva to be purchased for a few dinars.

For you a woman showing a little bit of cleavage is a prostitute. For the Saudis a little bit of face makes a woman one and for Afghan Muslims a wee bit of ankle will do. Your prostitute comment goes to show the level to which believers in Islam sink in following their religion. And this is no surprise as the culture you have imbued from your classical scholar's views women only as a bit flesh for men to buy for their use.

>>I think that not wearing Burqas and Niqaab in the West should be made illegal. Maybe that would curb the explosive numbers of rapes that occur daily in the countries inhabited by you decadent animals with no morals.<<

Compare the qualities of the decadent animals of the west with the superior morals of the children of the followers of Muhammad:

"Women in Pakistan live in a world structured around strict religious, family and

tribal customs that essentially force them to live in submission and overall fear. In a

nation where Islamic law dictates traditional family values and is enmeshed in the legal

system, Pakistan's government, law and society discriminate against women and condone

gender-based violence……

Pakistan's interpretation of Islam views women as needing protection, which essentially results in their suppression physically, mentally and emotionally

Strict family, tribal and traditional Pakistani Islamic values dictate that women are

considered property of male family members. Pakistani society essentially views a

woman as being owned by her father or brothers before marriage, and her husband after

marriage. This commodification of women (refer to my answer above where women are considered just a purchasable vulva in Islam)is one of the main factors contributing to violence against women. If men believe that women are mere property, men are more

inclined to feel that they may do as they please to women. Women are viewed as chattel. [WHAT ELSE DID YOU EXPECT AFTER MUSLIM JURISTS HAVE REDUCED WOMEN TO JUST A VULVA TO BE PURCHASED FROM THEIR OWNERS?]


Male dominance and commodification subjects women to violence on a daily

basis in Pakistan. Approximately seventy-percent to ninety-percent of Pakistani women

are subjected to domestic violence.4 Typical violent acts include, but are not limited to,

murder in the name of "honor," rape, spousal abuse including marital rape, acid attacks,

and being burned by family members (often labeled an accident by family members). A

rape occurs in Pakistan every two hours with one in every 12,500 women being victims

of rape.

1 United Nations' Women's Indicators and Statistics, 1994, Pakistan Gender Indic ators - projections for 1995

2 Human Rights Commission of Pakistan's 1999 Report, www.hrcp.cjb.net.

3 "Pakistan: Violence Against Women in the Name of Honor," Amnesty International, September 1999, p. 41.

4 "Crime or Custom? Violence Against Women in Pakistan," Human Rights Watch 1999, p. 1.


In 1979, under the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan enacted the Hudood



Under Article 17 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984,

Pakistan's law of evidence, a woman's testimony is not weighed equally to that of a

man.13 Under the Hudood Ordinance, in order for a rapist to receive "hadd," the

maximum punishment provided for under the Quran, four adult Muslim men must

witness the "act of penetration" itself and testify against the perpetrator.14 Thus, if a

woman does not have male witnesses but does have female witnesses, their testimony

would not satisfy the evidentiary requirement and the perpetrator may be acquitted.

Furthermore, if a woman does not have physical signs of rape or of a struggle such as

bruises and scratches, she is often seen as having not resisted. The judicial system

oftentimes views the woman not as a victim but instead an "immoral" woman. These

biases are a direct violation of the Constitution's guarantee of equality before the law.

As discussed previously, if a woman accuses a man of rape and the man is

acquitted, the rape victim could be found guilty of violating zina. By reporting the rape, a

woman has essentially "admitted" to either extra-marital or non-marital intercourse…..

13 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984 (Law of Evidence), Article 17, located at


14 The Offence of Zina Ordinance, 1979, Section 8, located at www.equalitynow.org/beijing_plus5_toc_eng.html)


I have quoted passages from this site before but they bear repeating for Muslims to understand what their religion does to its women. If Muslims think this is how women should be treated then non-Muslims have nothing to fear for they are taking away half of their population from contributing to their own intellectual and physical well-being. They are forever condemning themselves to slavish imitation and dependence for progress on non-Muslims in all spheres of human activity except religion.

>>No wonder the fastest growing ideology worldwide is Islaam and no wonder the largest proportion of those reverts are white women.<<

Non-Muslims are happy to leave you with your madrassa-induced delusion.

>> One look ... is enough to convince anyone Islaam is the superior way of life.<<

Anyone?? Count the number convinced on this blog alone to find how many have seen Islam's superiority despite all the dawa (and threats) by Muslims who post on this blog. If by superiority you mean Muslim capacity to indulge in gratuitous violence then you certainly deserve the trophy as the champions of mayhem.




Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2023 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)