Turkish Marriage Guide Encourages Beating Wives Who Do Not “Beautify” Themselves And Supports Marriage Of Girls As Young As 10

Flag of TurkeyWe have previously discussed the plight of women and girls subject to Sharia law and extreme Muslim traditions of marriage. The nightmare faced by many women was captured in a horrific guide being distributed by in Turkey by former religious affairs department employee Hasan Caliskan. The guide supports the beating of women who do not “beautify” themselves, supports the marriage of 10-year-old girls, and advances absurd notions like the danger of having a stuttering child if a woman talks during sex.

“Marriage and Family Life” also reportedly encourages women to wear “flirtatious” outfits and serve their husbands after their beatings. The 394-page manual was said to have been handed to new couples in the city of Kutahya and other towns. It teaches men that “A woman who does not beautify herself for her husband, and who does not obey the headmanship of the man can be beaten; this would remind her of the ruler of the house, which is like medicine.”

Then there is the advice on polygamy: “Polygamy is beneficial. Would it not be better if, instead of divorcing his bad-tempered wife and making her a trouble for another man, the man took a second wife, prompting her feelings of competition, and eventually bringing her down?”

The mayor of Kutahya, Kamil Saracoglu, admitted that the council has been handing out the guide for two years and insisted “The contents of the book are open to interpretation. The verse consists of works based on hadith [reports from the Islamic prophet Muhammad] and scientific research.” It is hard to see the interpretative room for telling women to flirt with their husbands after beatings or encouraging the marriage of 10-year-old girls.

It does not help to have a president who has actively destroyed secular traditions in the country and endorsed extreme Islamic views of women, including the view that women without children are “deficient and incomplete.” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has also declared that “women are not equal to men.”

67 thoughts on “Turkish Marriage Guide Encourages Beating Wives Who Do Not “Beautify” Themselves And Supports Marriage Of Girls As Young As 10”

  1. “…Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we’re the imagination of ourselves.

    What to think of civilization? I think it would be a good idea.
    Peace, love and freedom y’all. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    Justice is just this.”

    If you’re not being ironic, how does this subjective garbage pass for objective wisdom such as “justice is thus this?”

  2. Some people believe in flying spaghetti monsters.
    Some people believe in an invisible man in the sky.
    Some people believe in bombing other people.
    Some people don’t want you to say this, some people don’t want you to say that.
    Some people think if you mention some things they might happen.
    Some people are stupid.

    Today, a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is only a dream and we’re the imagination of ourselves.

    What to think of civilization? I think it would be a good idea.
    Peace, love and freedom y’all. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

    Justice is just this.

  3. The Turks are fierce fighters but, historically speaking, they were incredibly cruel. When a sultan feared being replaced by one of his many male offspring, his harem witnessed unbelievable terror. His guard went into the harem killing, ofttimes, every male child there. Those of his harem who were pregnant were sewn into bags and thrown into the river.

  4. Why is this article illustrated with a woman wearing a niqab. The niqab is common in Saudi Arabia, not Turkey.

        1. Considering that you were talking about an article, I followed all the links to all the actual articles and there are no pictures of any women wearing traditional Muslim garb. I thought you were referring to the woman in Squeeky Fromm’s comment.

            1. Yes, thank you, now I realize that’s the picture you were referring to. Admittedly I ignored that picture. I just chalked it up to the poster not knowing that Turkey actually had laws (starting in the 1970s, picking up speed in the ’80s) banning the hijab in so many places (schools, universities, libraries, government buildings, hospitals) that until 2013 when Erdogan and his Islamists relaxed the ban (by decree; no wonder Erdogan is said to be Obama’s only close friend among world leaders as they have the same style of “governing”) it was rare to see a Turkish woman even covering her hair at all. It still is rare in western Turkey; the overwhelming majority of women in Istanbul and Ankara don’t cover their hair.

              And the face veil remains illegal.


              The law is rarely enforced as at least a bare majority of women in Turkey still don’t even wear the hijab. Almost all women in Turkey that you’ll see wearing a niqab or burqa aren’t Turks. They’re from other more conservative Muslim countries so the cops just let it slide.

              Since the law prohibiting women from covering their faces by wearing a niqab or burqa remains on the books (and we may see that law more strongly enforced given the recent terror attacks in Turkey as you can hide a lot under a niqab or a burqa including a man who just shot up a nightclub) I thought you were talking about some other picture at one of the links.

            2. By the way, it you right click the picture and select “open link in new tab,” that’s a picture of a Muslim woman in Yemen. Which is why I subconsciously ignored it.

              I really did think you were talking about some other picture and I followed all the available links to see if I could find it.

    1. Actually, I was wondering the opposite. The picture is in a section called “Life In Saudi Arabia.” Women in Saudi Arabia don’t dress that way. At least, not in public. By law all women residing in SA, whether Saudis or expats have to wear an abayya which is basically a tent that covers them from the neck to the ground, including long sleeves. They do have the option of, at a minimum, wearing a hijab. They have to wear some sort of head covering. But almost always the abayya and the hijab are black. That’s too colorful for SA.

  5. No doubt that Po, the resident Islamic champion, will remain strangely silent and absent from this thread. If CAIR does, in fact, force him to earn his pay and add some voluminous diatribes to the mix, anyone willing to wager that Israel, his favorite enemy, will now be condemned? Anything–yes, anything–to get the searing spotlight off of his backwards and primitive religious brethren, who publish these handbooks and shoot videos depicting the manner in which women, who have been severely beaten by their husbands, can artfully apply makeup to conceal the telltale signs of abuse. I must admit. The video puzzles me. In a society, where men are encouraged to beat their wives into submission, as an act of God and as an act of dedication to their trapped and unfortunate wives, wouldn’t said women wear those bruises and marks as badges of honor? Why cover the proof that your husband cares so deeply and is so devoted to his religious beliefs?

    Let’s just admit it–Turkey is lost, into the abyss. Chalk up another one for the mullahs. It took Turkey decades to finally alter and reverse the negative image that the world associated with that country. The film, Midnight Express, did untold damage to Turkey’s reputation, leaving most with the opinion that Turkey was an inhumane, barbaric and monstrous society. With the passage of time, that view finally managed to subside. Now, who will Turkey blame for its image, once again, as a savage and dangerous place on the globe? Oh, yeah–Israel. Wonder how many sanctions will be brought against Turkey by the reps in dirty suits at the UN? Not a single one.

    1. I don’t think Turkey had a great reputation prior to 1978. I once saw some early survey research collected ca. 1925, asking American respondents questions about their impression of foreign countries. The place Americans found most alienating was Turkey.

  6. OTOH:

    University of Pennsylvania researchers Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers studied the happiness of women in the United States from the 1970s through present day and found an astounding conclusion: the more society accommodated women, gave them jobs, and scholarships, and supported them living single, and encouraged them to pursue their own private dreams and goals, to dress and act as masculine as they wanted to, and to shun any ideas of universal beauty or happiness in pursuit of their own private desires, the LESS happy they were.

    From the paper’s abstract:

    By many objective measures the lives of women in the US have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging–one with higher subjective well-being for men.



    There is a chart at the link, and some more interesting opinions.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. I’d wager the alleged “decline in happiness” has more to do with women being expected to be all things, and do them well: worker, wife and mother, sex kitten, abused slave in this case. Women are expected to be both independent (their own financial resources and willingness to work) and submissive (still domestic slaves and subject to Squeeky-type preaching)–always doing what other people say. Why do women have to do what others (men and women) choose for them? I suppose they don’t have minds or contributions to make or an intrinsic desire to make their own choices? As for the myth that women are silly and stupid, our entire planet is that.

      People should be able to do what they want as long as they aren’t criminal, evil, or cruel. When they are, it shouldn’t be praised.

      And–the necessity of two- income households hasn’t helped anyone, male or female. Keeping the economic engines going is valued above anyone’s happiness. That’s common to all of us, and hurts all of us.

      And going all retrograde back to the dark ages and taking away the freedom of INDIVIDUALS (you’re a person/human before you’re a man or woman) and assigning them rigid roles–that’s not my idea of living or having a marriage.

      1. JackW – is someone up to the task of telling my wife she is supposed to be submissive? I would be ever so grateful.

  7. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2773/turkish-women-permitted-rape

    “According to the Turkish group Women for Women’s Rights, 40 percent of all women in eastern Turkey undergo forced marriage. Publicity campaigns and initiatives to raise public consciousness try to focus attention on these injustices, but have yet to produce significant success in expunging them.

    Domestic violence is increasing in Turkey, where a woman is murdered by a family member about once every other day. Women may turn to the police but rarely are protected adequately. At the end of 2010, a woman was killed by her ex-husband in the presence of police officers.”

  8. Well, I think this clarifies the issue for anyone who thinks women enjoy polygamy. The advice is that you can bring a haughty woman down by taking another wife.

    This would all be you like peas I like carrots if the women were free to leave. But they aren’t. They’re stuck there, and will be stuck there for their entire lives. No one is going to save them. The reality of women living under Sharia Law is pretty bleak. I feel blessed to be living in the US, but cannot forget the plight of my sisters being abused around the world. In this case, they are being abused under the color of religion. Turkey seems to be inexorably moving from a relatively secular, tourist friendly country to extremism and Sharia Law. Ataturk abolished Sharia Law in the 1920s, but the trend seems to be embracing it again.

    This also raises the concerns that many people have about immigration from extremist countries. Do these men suddenly realize that beating their wives was wrong the moment their feet touch our soil? Do they get zapped with an ethical lobotomy to cure their madness? No, they bring it here.

    There are oceans of difference between those who wish to emigrate here to escape extremism, who long for freedom, and those who move here for other reasons and hold tight to their extremist views.

    In my opinion, the most just punishment for men who abuse their wives in regions where it is accepted, is to have all their women and girls airlifted out to safety, where they will be showered with Cosmo, self help books, a confidence coach, and a makeover. And probably a trail ride someplace pretty. If they don’t treat their ladies well, they don’t deserve to have them.

  9. Good for Turkey! There is a day when I would have been shocked and angry at stuff like this, but as I get older, I am coming more and more to believe that women need some structure in their lives. I think our country would have been better off if we had never embarked down the “women are equal to men” road. One of my uncles used to irritate the crap out of me saying stuff like this, and I used to think he was saying things like “Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote” just to get on my nerves.

    But the SOB was right. Women, as a group, don’t have good sense, and do wind up engaging in silly and vacuous pursuits. Maybe 10%-15% of women can compete with men in most jobs, but most of the remainder should simply stay at home and raise kids. And focus on their husbands and family, Maybe go to work outside the home when the kids are grown. That is the best route to overall happiness and financial security for them, and the nation as a whole..

    The other 10%-15% that can’t be happy in that mode will, and always have, found some way out of what is to them, a Domestic Hell. But they have convinced their less able sisters to follow them down that road. Like Honest John in Pinocchio, they have enticed them to Pleasure Island, where they eventually end up as donkeys doing slave labor.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. If there are only two choices, then being able to wear a miniskirt beats the hell out of a face full of acid for going to school. Or resisting a forced marriage. Or getting beheaded for going to market when you need food, and hubby is out of town. But the Taliban is in town.


      Or the Saudi Religious police force girls back inside a burning building to die because they’re not properly covered and might ignite the lusts of men.


      “Saudi police ‘stopped’ fire rescue”

      If those are the only two choices, if I can only choose from one extreme or another, then it’s miniskirts. Every time. I’ve seen lots of girls and women in miniskirts and I’ve never harmed one of them.

      Aside; if the “Greater Jihad” is supposed to be an internal spiritual struggle, and that’s really what Muslims are talking about when they talk about Jihad, how come they’re no good at it? Because the Saudi religious police would rather see girls attempting to flee a burning building die rather than be rescued. And you’d think that if Muslims practice “jihad” as we’re told it should be practiced, as an internal spiritual struggle, eventually a Muslim man could see an uncovered woman and through the course of his jihad he wouldn’t turn into a drooling, uncontrollable rapist. But, no, despite centuries of “jihad” women have to cover up more and more, to the extent that in some countries if they’re not wearing a complete burqa with no skin exposed including gloves it’s they’re fault. They asked for it.

      Hell, I can go to any prison and hear someone say the b***h asked for it, Just look at how she was dressed.

  10. As a second wave feminist, that worked hard for equality for everyone, I’m shocked and saddened that we’re pushing women back to the stone age.

    I have a good friend that is a 67 year old Turkish women. She wore miniskirts when she attended university in the 1970s. Now she’s frightened for her female relatives that remained in that country.

    1. Think about it for a second. Is “wearing a miniskirt” the height of human existence or something for a woman? Does exposing your upper leg and thihg, and drawing attention to your sexuality, the very epitome of human freedom? Because I think that over-sexuality in your clothing is probably the very opposite of that. It makes you an object.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. My mother never wore a miniskirt in her life. The midpoint of that life was in 1971. I really wasn’t aware that I grew up in the stone age. Thanks for the education.

  11. Their country, their handbook. Just sanction them. How does anyone think that 10 year old is the proper age to marry?

    1. Because that’s what their religion teaches. There is a waiting period for newly divorced women before they can remarry. The purpose of the waiting period is to be able to know who is the father of the child.

      The Quran verse that discusses fertile women is Surah 2:228 Al-Baqarah (The Cow)

      “Divorced women remain in waiting for three periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allah has created in their wombs if they believe in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have more right to take them back in this [period] if they want reconciliation. And due to the wives is similar to what is expected of them, according to what is reasonable. But the men have a degree over them [in responsibility and authority]. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.”

      Quran Surhah 65 At-Talaq (The Divorce) verses 1-4 discusses what to do in the cases of women/girls who aren’t expected to have menstrual cycles because they’re either too old and have already gone through menopause, they’re already pregnant, or they’re child brides and they haven’t yet entered puberty.

      “O Prophet, when you [Muslims] divorce women, divorce them for [the commencement of] their waiting period and keep count of the waiting period, and fear Allah , your Lord. Do not turn them out of their [husbands’] houses, nor should they [themselves] leave [during that period] unless they are committing a clear immorality. And those are the limits [set by] Allah . And whoever transgresses the limits of Allah has certainly wronged himself. You know not; perhaps Allah will bring about after that a [different] matter. And when they have [nearly] fulfilled their term, either retain them according to acceptable terms or part with them according to acceptable terms. And bring to witness two just men from among you and establish the testimony for [the acceptance of] Allah . That is instructed to whoever should believe in Allah and the Last day. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him a way out And will provide for him from where he does not expect. And whoever relies upon Allah – then He is sufficient for him. Indeed, Allah will accomplish His purpose. Allah has already set for everything a [decreed] extent. And those who no longer expect menstruation among your women – if you doubt, then their period is three months, and [also for] those who have not menstruated. And for those who are pregnant, their term is until they give birth. And whoever fears Allah – He will make for him of his matter ease.”

      The Arabic makes it clearer than the English translations; a lot of Muslims are embarrassed and can’t quite accept many things that are in the Quran. For “those who have not menstruated” the Quran uses the words “Lam yahidna.” The word “Lam” means that something hasn’t happened yet, but it could happen in the future. If the Quran was talking about older girls or women who for some reason don’t have menstrual cycles the words would be “La yahidna.” The word “La” means something doesn’t happen, and you don’t expect it to happen in the future.

      Also the Quran teaches that Muhammad is the perfect moral example (excellent pattern) for Muslims to emulate if they wish to see paradise (33:21). That Muslims must obey Allah and his messenger (4:59). That whoever opposes Muhammad “after guidance has been given to him” will go to hell (4:115). There are other verses that establish Muhammad’s moral authority as Allah’s messenger on earth.

      So, what lessons did Muhammad teach on the subject of marrying prepubescent girls? That it’s great!

      Sahih al-Bukhari » Book of Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab)

      ” 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.) (Fath-ul-Bari page 143, Vol.13)

      Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6130
      In-book reference : Book 78, Hadith 157
      USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 8, Book 73, Hadith 151
      (deprecated numbering scheme)”

      This is after he married Aisha.

      Sahih al-Bukhari » Book of Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah)

      ” Narrated `Aisha:

      that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death).

      Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 5133
      In-book reference : Book 67, Hadith 69
      USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 64
      (deprecated numbering scheme)”

      “Narrated ‘Aishah:
      The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) married me when I was seven years old. The narrator Sulaiman said: or Six years. He had intercourse with me when I was nine years old.

      Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani)
      Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 2121
      In-book reference : Book 12, Hadith 76
      English translation : Book 11, Hadith 2116”
      This is why this keeps happening throughout the Islamic world. I’m using Sunni canonical religious texts (although, again, some Muslims will deny these are are actually authoritative, canonical texts, but both Sunni and Shia agree; anyone who rejects the authority of the ahadith, and means it, is a heretic). Shia, as you you may have guessed, have their own versions of these ahadith. This is why when the Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979 Iran one of his first acts was to lower the legal age for girls to get married from 18 to 9. Khomeini himself married a ten year old girl when he was 28. As every orthodox religious and sharia authority agrees, since Allah condones marrying prepubescent girls in the Quran, and Muhammad provided the example, then no Muslim can forbid it. After all, according to Allah in S. 4:115 anyone who opposes Muhammad “after guidance has been given to him,” that is opposes his authority on this matter, is on the straight path to Hell.

    2. The last hadith in my previous was from Sunan Abi Dawud – Book of Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah) – (700) Chapter: Regarding The Marriage Of The Young

      Here’s another hadith with more, or at least different, details:

      Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar) – (44) Chapter: Marriage of the Prophet (saws) with ‘Aishah

      ” 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. 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 Allright, 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.

      Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 3894
      In-book reference : Book 63, Hadith 120
      USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 5, Book 58, Hadith 234
      (deprecated numbering scheme)”

      This is why child marriage is so hard to eradicate in the Islamic world. Allah condones it, and Muhammad did it. For someone to say it’s wrong is to blaspheme against both Allah and Muhammad, as far as the religious authorities are concerned. This is what makes Islam different from other religions. If you are a devout Muslim then you have to believe that the Quran is the eternal, uncreated word of Allah, dictated in perfect form by the angel Jibril (Gabriel) and an exact copy of Umm-ul-Kitab, the mother of the book, which exists in paradise with Allah carved into tablets and has for all time.

      It’s not open to interpretation, unless you think you know better than Allah. And to think you know better than Allah, and his prophet whom he commands people to obey, is sheer blasphemy to devout Muslims. Perhaps not westernized Muslims, even if they consider themselves devout, because westernized Muslims are viewed with deep suspicion by those from the Islamic world. For one reason, because westernized Muslims attempt to reinterpret their texts in ways that Muslims from the Islamic world know the texts can’t be reinterpreted. When westernized Muslims aren’t denying that these texts hold any authority at all.

      1. Stev57 – Aisha is the last wife who is the source of the all the pedophile claims. However, by the time the Prophet consummates the marriage, she is too old for it to qualify him as a pedophile. Isn’t she the one who ran one of the sects of Mohammedism after he did?

        1. No, all the authentic sources say Aisha was nine years old when Muhammad had intercourse with her. I’ve already cited two of the hadith collections that comprise Sunni Islam’s Sahih Sittah or reliable six. In other words, their canonical hadith collections. Here’s a sampling of what the others have to say.

          Sahih Muslim – The Book of Marriage – (10) Chapter: It is permissible for a father to arrange the marriage of a young virgin

          “‘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.

          Reference : Sahih Muslim 1422 c
          In-book reference : Book 16, Hadith 83
          USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 8, Hadith 3311
          (deprecated numbering scheme)”

          Just so the significance of this doesn’t slip by, when Aisha “was taken to his (Muhammad’s) house as a bride,” or in other words when he had intercourse with her, she was nine years old “and her dolls where with her.” Only prepubescent girls were allowed to play with dolls, as they were considered forbidden graven images for any mature person.

          Sunan an-Nasa’i – The Book of Marriage – (29) Chapter: A Man Marrying Off His Young Daughter

          “It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:
          “The Messenger of Allah married me when I was seven years old, and he consummated the marriage with me when I was nine.”

          Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
          Reference : Sunan an-Nasa’i 3256
          In-book reference : Book 26, Hadith 61
          English translation : Vol. 4, Book 26, Hadith 3258″

          Some of the sources disagree how old Aisha was when Muhammad contracted the marriage with Aisha’s father. Whether she was six or seven. They all agree how old she was when Muhammad took her into his house as his bride and consummated the marriage. She was nine.

          I’m going to skip Jamiat Tirmidhi as his only reference to Aisha’s age is a hasan (good) hadith, and I’m only going to relate the strongest or sahih (authentic or genuine) ahadith. Hasan is still a strong reference, and are used for legal rulings. But I’m only going to relate the highes-grade of ahadith.

          Sunan ibn Majah – The Chapters on Marriage

          “It was narrated that:
          Abdullah said: “The Prophet married Aishah when she was seven years old, and consummated the marriage with her when she was nine, and he passed away when she was eighteen.”

          Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
          English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1877
          Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 1951”

          Of the five of six books that comprise the Sahih Sittah, there are 19 strong references attesting that Aisha was nine years old when Muhammad had intercourse with her, four weaker references attesting that she was nine, and no counter references in any of the canonical texts (including Tirmidhi) that indicate she was anything but nine when Muhammad had sex with her.

          How does that not qualify as pedophilia?

          Yes, there is a minority faction that denies the validity of these Sahih ahadith attesting to Aisha being nine when Muhammad had intercourse with her. These are “liberal” Muslims, primarily westernized Muslims. But an odd thing generally happens when they insist Aisha was at least 13/14, and perhaps even 17/18 when she and Muhammad consummated their marriage. They go to even shakier sources from a theological perspective. Source that are not part of the Sunnah of Muhammad. And if one claims to be a Sunni Muslim, if that means anything it means adhering to the Sunnah of Muhammad. That is after all what Ahlus Sunnah, one of the ways Sunnis describe themselves in Arabic, literally means. Adherents of the Sunnah. It’s a basic, fundamental contradiction when people claim to be adherents of the Sunnah, Sunnis as it is rendered in English, while rejecting the authority of the Sunnah of which the ahadith form the vastly greatest part.

          The Sirah or biographical literature forms a minor part of the Sunnah, but people who reject the authority of the ahadith almost universally reject the validity of ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah, or Life of the Prophet of God. And with good reason; the original doesn’t survive. We only have edited versions or recensions by ibn Hisham and al-Tabari. And ibn Hisham is quite open about why he edited it. He thought ibn Ishaq cast Muhammad in a very negative, even insulting, light. So ibn Hisham threw out what he didn’t like and only kept what he liked. Which is not how you do history.

          As for Aisha, she wasn’t Muhammad’s last wife, and it depends on what you mean by “ran one of the sects.” She never would have been accepted as a Caliph.

          Sahih al-Bukhari – Book of Afflictions and the End of the World

          ” Narrated Abu Bakra:

          During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler.”

          Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 7099
          In-book reference : Book 92, Hadith 50
          USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 88, Hadith 219
          (deprecated numbering scheme)”

          However, Aisha was respected as “Mother of the Faithful” and had considerable influence per Islamic historical law. After the third Caliph, Uthman, was assassinated and Ali replaced him as Caliph under what she and and many other Muslims considered very suspicious circumstances, she did lead a civil war against Ali culminating with her leading an army against him in 656 A.D. in what is now known as the Battle of Camel. Tens of thousands of Muslims slaughtered each other and ultimately led to the Sunni/Shia split.

          But such is the status of women that the Sunnis referred to Aisha’s mount, a camel, and not Aisha’s leadership role in the battle.

  12. We can gasp and pull out our hair at this, be horrified, shocked and disgusted, but it won’t alter the traditions and beliefs of those who practice Sharia law. But we do not have to tollerate it in our country, on our streets or in our scools. If people wish to relocate emigrate etc they should be told without exception we do not allow it here and furthermore if that is how you wish to live then you need to go to a country that does. When in Rome…

    1. “When in Rome…..”
      Unless those who come to Rome have bigger and better weapons than the Romans have.

  13. People without children are deficient and incomplete. That’s true here, there, and everywhere. That’s true for men and for woman. That’s true for all time.

      1. It is true. And societies which frown on reproduction disappear.

        1. Societies which reproduce too much for their resources and climate conditions disappear, too.

          1. You don’t live on Easter Island. There are people who want to sell you the idea that you do in a self-aggrandizing exercise.

              1. In your mind. If that’s where you fancy you are, no skin off the nose of anyone else.

            1. Could you point these people out?

              I only ask because I would like to be aware of them.

              Given that you seem to know who they are — by your own admission — please provide a list. I would be forever grateful.

              Thank you.

              P.S. I hope this meager request passes the bam bam writing test.

              1. Dr. Paul Ehrlich and the uber creep who has been BO’s ‘science adviser’.

          2. Could you name a society that disappeared because they had too many children?

            Historically having too many children for your resources and climactic conditions explain periods of conquest, not extinction.

            I could delve into the Viking age, but why bother looking back into the mists of history when we can just look across the Atlantic and see what’s going on right now in Western Europe. We don’t see the falsehood called multi-culturism breaking out gloriously in all its magical rainbow colors. That always has been a fiction. We see the native population that isn’t having enough children to replace itself and, more importantly to a European who wants to stay in school until age 30 work until they’re 55 or so, then retire on a full pension. And since they’re not having enough children to maintain they’re social welfare state and live in the luxury to which they’ve become accustomed (nobody can have enough children to maintain that social model, but the Europeans didn’t even try) they’ve invited in a population from a society that could arguably be said did reproduce too much for its resources and climactic conditions.

            A population that is convinced it has a superior lifestyle, superior morals, a superior god-given legal code, and a superior model of government and consequently is self-confidently demanding their hosts assimilate to their way of life. And has no plan to assimilate to the societies they’ve moved into as they have contempt for it. One of the reasons why they have such contempt for their new hosts is that their new hosts don’t even have the self-confidence to argue in defense of the their civilization as they’ve been raised to believe that Western Civilization is something to be ashamed of. So they can’t defend it. That’s why they fell for the multi-culti lie in the first place. And their new guests won’t fall for that lie. They’ll fall for others, but not that one.

            Any guesses as to which society is going to disappear?

          3. The Europeans who don’t see the writing on the wall, like Merkel who thinks (or publicly take the position) that these new arrivals from all points in Africa, the Middle East, and Southwest Asia are a net gain for Europe. She publicly takes the obviously delusional position that they will quickly learn the language, develop the job skills that their education has in no way prepared them to learn, and start paying the kind of taxes the Germans need to support their aging population that has not bothered to reproduce on its own to support them as pensioners.

            Moreover, she tells Germans these people want to do this, when they can see with their own eyes is exactly opposite of the truth

            Most Europeans are not fooled by this. It explains in large part the BREXIT vote. Few Europeans speak out because their dictatorial rulers classify not mere dissenting opinion but even that which is demonstrably true as hate speech. A Swedish member of Parliament was convicted of hate speech for gathering data that proved that all gang rapes in Stockholm were committed by Muslim immigrants. In Europe the hate speech laws are such that the truth is no defense. I can cite numerous cases. Some you may have heard of, others you may not have heard of like Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff in Austria who was convicted of hate speech in 2011 for accurately citing the fact that according to all the canonical Islamic sources Muhammad married a six or seven year old girl and consummated the marriage when she was nine. There is some dispute as to when the marriage contract was finalized but none as to when Aisha entered Muhammad’s house as a bride and he first had intercourse with her. Earlier in response to another comment I noted that of the six Sunni canonical hadith collections there are approximately 20 strong references to Aisha’s age, about a half dozen weaker references (individual hadith are graded on their quality), and no counter references to indicate anyone disputed the fact that she was nine years old. Zero. Yet she was convicted anyway because, again, the truth is no defense.

            Moreover, it demonstrates how incrementally Europe is adopting Sharia. Under Sharia slander includes telling a truth about someone (or a group of someones) that they don’t want known. It also highlights the double standard. Muslims could (watch for this in the future) proudly point to the example of Muhammad and demand that their country lower the age of marriage to suit them. That’s OK. But if a non-Muslim quotes what Imams say on the subject they won’t be charged with hate speech. For instance so far I’ve only discussed the Sunnis. The Shia have their own hadith collections. So, following Muhammad’s example when he married nine year old Aisha, Khomeini married a ten year old girl when he was 28. When he returned victoriously to Iran following the revolution in 1979 one of his first acts was to lower the legal age of marriage from 18 to nine. Khomeini publicly commented that marrying prepubescent girls “a divine blessing” and advised fathers “Do your best to ensure that your daughters do not see their first blood in your house.”

            Sabaditsch-Wolff spent years in Tehran because her father was a diplomat at the Austrian embassy. She knows all of the above, and when the families of diplomats were forced to evacuate by the increasing violence her father stayed on. She gave what was supposed to be a closed talk to a small audience, but a “journalist” from a left-wing publication infiltrated it. Having grown up practically immersed in Islam, and having witnessed much of the Iranian revolution first hand, and having learned much more from her father, she simply talked about what she knew. And the rest, as they say, is history.

            Some people still speak out about what most people already know but are afraid to say.


            There’s an embedded link in the article should you not trust Breitbart as a source, but you have to be able to read Italian. My Italian is a bit rusty, but it’s still good enough to be able to say that “In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity” is an accurate translation of what Monsignor Carlo Liberati, Archbishop Emeritus of Pompeii said to the Italian Catholic journal; “Tra dieci anni diventeremo musulmani per nostra stupidità.”

            The Monsignor is speaking about immigration, but if you were to go to Mosques you’d hear that not only are Muslims as confident as the Monsignor that Western European countries will shortly have Muslim majorities because of immigration, but because of reproduction as well. Of course, you dare not repeat that in public or your own government will make an example out of you (which is why Merkel is demanding, and getting the cooperation of, that social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter censor “hate speech” i.e. accurate quoting what Muslims are openly saying). So it’s easier to find accurate quotations from Islamic countries or the disputed territories.

            On the 14th anniversary of 9/11 Sheikh Muhammad Ayed gave a sermon on the subject at the Al Aqsa Mosque in which he said:

            “Germany is not a compassionate country that wishes to absorb refugees from Syria and Iraq, and Palestinian refugees in the Levant and elsewhere. Europe has become old and decrepit, and needs human reinforcement. No force is more powerful than the human force of us Muslims… Throughout Europe, all the hearts are infused with hatred toward Muslims. They wish that we were dead. But they have lost their fertility, so they look for fertility in their midst. We will give them fertility! We will breed children with them, because we shall conquer their countries – whether you like it or not, oh Germans, oh Americans, oh French, oh Italians, and all those like you. Take the refugees! We shall soon collect them in the name of the coming Caliphate. We will say to you: These are our sons. Send them, or we will send our armies to you.”

            This, by the way, is why the vast majority of the Muslim non-refugees-the-Euroweenies-lie-about-that-too are young men. People seize on the idea that they’re of military age but most of them are coming to have children with European girls. And since Muslim societies are patrilineal a child born to a Muslim father is a Muslim. That’s what this Sheikh is talking about when he says the Muslims will claim them in the name of the coming Caliphate.

            Marrying girls at an extremely young age is part of a strategy. It’s possible for a girl who marries at nine to be a grandmother by the time she’s twenty one. It’s rare as it is highly likely she won’t live through a pregnancy at such a young age but it has happened. Another part of this “civiliztion jihad,” to quote the explanatory memorandum on the strategic goals of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America presented as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, is the fact that Muslims will take multiple wives whether it’s legal or not. They’ll have one wife under the civil laws of their host countries then marry others in underground (so to speak) Islamic marriages. Who you will, by the way, support because they’ll go on welfare.

            So again, I must ask, where do you get this idea that “Societies which reproduce too much for their resources and climate conditions disappear, too?” The historical norm has been if you have so many children they exceed the carrying capacity of a country of origin, those children will simply invade and seize the resources of weaker societies. That’s what is going on now, in Europe. And if follow their lead will happen here “per nostra stupidità.”

            I’d still like to get an example from you of a society that went extinct by having too many children.

        2. Does this mean that there are way to adjust the gene pool such that your kind — so long in words lacking substance — will subside?

    1. Really, DSS?

      I haven’t begot any little darlings, and I don’t feel deficient nor incomplete. In fact, I was able to save more, travel more, learn more, teach more, contribute more, love more, help more, laugh more – basically accomplish more – and had less headaches, frustration and aggravation – than someone with offspring. I did not add to the population crisis facing the Earth, nor did I increase nor perpetuate my carbon-footprint. All in all, I am actually the one who is sufficient, and complete.

      I’m sure you would force a woman without pre-existing offspring to bear her rapist’s child.

      1. There is no population crisis. It doesn’t matter what you feel or what you pretend to feel. A life without children is a lesser existence.

        1. “A life without children is a lesser existence.” — DesperatelySeekingSusan’sToads (or maybe toes)

          Just like that Jesus guy, right?

          Your skirt, and hypocrisy, is showing.

          I’m sure bam bam will be along soon to more appropriately place my commas.

          1. Why is it liberals so obstinately and proudly show off their ignorance of Christian theology? Clearly you don’t have a clue that it wasn’t Jesus’ mission to come to Earth and interbreed with God’s creation and produce little godlets.

            That’s the kind of thing pagan gods like Zeus used to like to do. The Judeo-Christian tradition couldn’t have more clearly rejected this view of God in any stronger terms. Yet, not clearly enough for you, apparently.

            DesperatelySeekingSusan isn’t being a hypocrite. What you’re explicitly demanding is blasphemy to a Christian. And you’re just too ignorant to know this.

            You don’t have to be a Christian to note that your monumental ignorance has real world consequences. And you’re not alone in your ignorance. People like you are just lazy. You won’t bother to learn what different religions actually profess. Islam is entirely different than Judaism or Christianity. Which is why we’re getting our butts kicked three ways from Sunday by the Islamists.

            They are winning, thanks to you and people like you, who are too lazy to crack a book and take what you read seriously. It’s a first in world history, as far as I can tell. Up until late 20th century/21st century America/Western Europe, most people have been practical enough to take their enemy’s motivating ideology seriously. You see, most people were actually interested in their own survival to make the effort.

            1. Steve57 – I think Hitler said it best when he said that Muslims were a warrior religion, unlike Christianity or Judaism.

              1. Basically he was just repeating what Muhammad said on numerous occasions:

                Sahih Muslim – The Book on Government – (41) Chapter: Affirmation of Paradise for the Martyr

                ” The tradition has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah said:

                Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain.

                Reference : Sahih Muslim 1902
                In-book reference : Book 33, Hadith 211
                USC-MSA web (English) reference : Book 20, Hadith 4681
                (deprecated numbering scheme)”

                Every hadith in the collections of the two Sahihs, al-Bukhari and Muslim, is sahih. The highest grade of hadith. No believing Sunni Muslim can question their authority. Both of these collections are second in authority only to the Quran.

                Of course, in the above hadith Muhammad was simply explaining the meaning of Surah 9:111:

                “Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah , so they kill and are killed. [It is] a true promise [binding] upon Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur’an. And who is truer to his covenant than Allah ? So rejoice in your transaction which you have contracted. And it is that which is the great attainment.”

                As has often been observed, Islam alone was born with the sword in hand. If you read the in depth guide to the very mainstream Shafi’i school of jurisprudence Umdat al Salik, The Reliance of the Traveler…


                (Also available at Amazon if you prefer; this edition is certified by what is one of if not the highest authority in Sunni Islam, Al Azhar University in Cairo, as being an accurate English transliteration of the Arabic original and containing nothing contrary to Sharia)

                …when it discusses the so-called “Greater Jihad” has half a page on the internal spiritual struggle then spends 12 pages discussing the military campaigns against the infidels. Which Muslims insist is the “Lesser Jihad” but their own texts give away the game about which one is more important by discussing one far, far more than the other.

  14. Half of the three million ethnic Turks living in Germany believe it is more important to follow Islamic Sharia law than German law if the two are in conflict, according to a survey.-Omegashock.com
    Craziness coming to a city near you.

  15. It’s not our place to judge another culture. I’m sure we look pretty weird to them too. Let’s find a way to develop tolerance for others that are different.

    1. It’s rather challenging to respect another culture when one’s perspective is several centuries ahead of the other.

      1. It’s rather challenging to respect the utterances of people trading in the Whig interpretation of history.

    2. I really hope you are being facetious. If it were your daughter your tune would change instantly. What you suggest is turning a blind eye, the coward’s way out. People do indeed have to stand for something in life. I’d be willing to wager you abhor what has transpired at Gusntanamo, too. Violence is violence. We do not willfully hurt other living things in a civil society.

      Sadly, this is very common in fundamentalist Islam, even in parts of the Desi culture in India. There are sane, more secular muslims that denounce the behavior just like us, but in their countries of origin they do not have the freedom speak about it as we do, and that is conditioning they often bring with them.

  16. Clearly women are not equal in level of depravity, to the men who compiled these rules.

Comments are closed.