Accusing Islam While Excusing Themselves: The Double Standards No One Wants to Talk About

For a long time, Islam has often been the target of one-sided accusations portraying it as a “religion of the sword,” with its spread allegedly tied to mass slaughter, the legitimization of slavery, and personal critiques of Prophet Muhammad regarding early marriage. However, these narratives are not merely historical misunderstandings but often represent a form of ideological propaganda that deliberately ignores the broader global context. In reality, practices of violence, slavery, and similar marriage norms—often far more extreme—have been part of the history of various civilizations, including Christian Europe, East Asia, and other ancient traditions, making accusations against Islam selective and disproportionate.

To critically address these accusations, I will adopt an approach grounded in verified historical data, analysis of social facts, and objective cross-cultural comparisons. For instance, while the spread of Islam did involve military conflicts in some regions, the majority of conversions occurred through trade routes, peaceful preaching, and cultural integration, as evidenced by its expansion into Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, without significant warfare. Similarly, Islamic regulations on slavery emphasized the emancipation of slaves as a noble act, in stark contrast to The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, supported by European Christian powers, which claimed millions of African lives. As for the issue of early marriage, the context of 7th-century Arabia reveals that such norms were common across the ancient world—including medieval Europe, where girls as young as 12 were often married to adult men—highlighting the hypocrisy of modern critiques that single out Islam. Through this analytical lens, we not only debunk myths but also uncover patterns of systematic bias in dominant narratives, fostering a fairer and evidence-based understanding.

Why Is Islam Labeled a “Satanic Religion” or “Cult”?

Since the events of 9/11, Islam has frequently been portrayed in Western media as a religion synonymous with violence and terrorism. Mainstream reporting tends to disproportionately highlight criminal acts involving Muslims, fostering a confirmation bias among the public that Islam is inherently dangerous. In reality, this narrative often stems from theological ignorance and information manipulation. Many parties quote Quranic verses out of context, disregarding their historical or interpretive background—a practice that is not only misleading but also echoes historical patterns of demonizing minority religions. For comparison, during the Middle Ages, Jews in Europe were often branded as “children of the devil” in Christian literature to reinforce majority dominance, a pattern now similarly applied to Islam.

This negative narrative is exacerbated by unfair generalizations about 1.9 billion Muslims based on the actions of a few individuals. Figures like Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson), Charlie Kirk, Paul Golding, Geert Wilders, Laura Loomer, Gad Saad, Rupert Lowe, or even controversial tweets from personalities like Elon Musk often amplify stigma through social media. In social reality, criminal acts such as sexual abuse, violence, or corruption occur across all communities—Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, or atheist—without exception. However, when the perpetrator is Muslim, media outlets tend to use labels like “Islamic crime” or “Islamic terrorism,” while similar cases involving non-Muslims are more often framed as individual acts unrelated to religion. Read these articles: Muslim = Terrorist? Attribution of violent crimes to terrorism or mental health problems depend on perpetrators' religious background and Perpetrator Religion and Perceiver’s Political Ideology Affect Processing and Communication of Media Reports of Violence. Data from Europe, for example, shows that the majority of pedophilia and sexual abuse cases occur outside Muslim communities, including major scandals within the Catholic Church involving tens of thousands of victims. Yet, these cases are rarely labeled a “Christian rape crisis,” highlighting a stark double standard in media framing. Read: French Catholic church expresses ‘shame’ after report finds 330,000 children were abused and Sweeping study finds 1,000 cases of sexual abuse in Swiss Catholic Church since mid-20th century.

The Pattern of Selective Framing in Reporting

One of the primary mechanisms behind this bias is selective framing. When a Muslim is involved in a criminal act, their religious identity is almost always explicitly highlighted in headlines, such as “Muslim man accused of rape,” as if the behavior reflects Islam’s teachings as a whole. In contrast, when the perpetrator is non-Muslim, reports often emphasize personal aspects, such as “Businessman accused of sexual misconduct,” without mentioning the individual’s religion. A clear example is the case of Errol Musk, Elon Musk’s father, who admitted to a relationship with his much younger stepdaughter—an act that is morally and legally problematic. Read: Elon Musk’s father accused of sexually abusing his children and stepchildren. Yet, this case never became a global headline framed as “Western immorality” or a “Christian scandal.” Conversely, if the perpetrator were from a Muslim community, the case would likely be amplified with narratives of “Islamic barbarism,” fueling prolonged stigmatization.

This pattern extends to recent examples where political figures adjust their rhetoric based on the perpetrator’s identity. Before the identity of a shooter is known, blanket condemnations of certain groups are common, only to shift toward individualized responses—such as calls for prayer or punishment—once the perpetrator is revealed as a white individual.

The immediate tone shift here is wild. pic.twitter.com/xJzhEzlrEK

— Cody Johnston (@drmistercody) September 12, 2025

This shift aligns with data indicating that white men, who account for 54% of U.S. mass shootings according to a 2019 Violence Policy Center study, are often framed as “lone wolves” or “mentally ill,” avoiding broader cultural generalizations. Read: Are white males responsible for more mass shootings than any other group? and Framing Islam/Creating Fear: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism from 2011–2016. In contrast, minority perpetrators face scrutiny of their communities, with questions about radicalization or cultural influences dominating coverage. Studies also show that attacks by Muslim perpetrators receive 357% more media coverage than those by non-Muslims, with terms like “Islamic terrorism” prevalent, as seen in the 2015 Paris attacks, while non-Muslim acts like the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting focus on mental health or gun control, rarely mentioning religion. Read: Terror Attacks By Muslims Get 357 Percent More Media Coverage Than Other Terror Attacks, Study Shows. This double standard stems from cultural biases, political agendas, and post-9/11 stereotypes, though some outlets, like the BBC, avoid religious labels unless directly relevant. The trend reinforces a narrative where Muslim identity is disproportionately emphasized, while non-Muslim religion is often overlooked.

This phenomenon is not new but part of a recurring historical pattern. During the Crusades, atrocities committed by Christian armies were often downplayed in historical records, while Muslim actions were exaggerated to justify conflict. For example, Christian chroniclers rarely emphasized the massacre of Muslim and Jewish civilians in Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, or the cannibalism at Ma‘arra (1098), which although recorded, was treated as a shameful or exceptional event rather than a systemic feature of the campaign; meanwhile Muslim sources and Western later narratives often focused heavily on alleged Muslim cruelty to reinforce the moral imperative for war. Read: Siege of Ma'arra and Massacre at Ayyadieh. In the colonial era, violence committed by European powers was rarely labeled “Christian savagery,” while Muslim resistance was quickly branded as “Islamic fanaticism” or “Islamic terrorism.” This continues today, with groups such as Hamas—who frame their struggle as resistance against Israeli occupation since 1946—being portrayed through the same lens. This pattern persists, where negative framing of Islam serves geopolitical purposes, including legitimizing foreign policies, military interventions, and systemic discrimination against Muslims.

Hypothetical Shift: The Charlie Kirk Case and Beyond

A striking illustration of this selective framing can be observed in the recent case of the Charlie Kirk shooting. After the identity of the perpetrator, a white Christian, was revealed, public and media discourse quickly pivoted toward gun control debates and individualized responses, such as calls for prayer or the death penalty from certain political figures. However, imagine a reversal: if the shooter had been Muslim, the reaction would likely have been markedly different. Media coverage would likely escalate into a frenzy, with continuous headlines amplifying the incident, Muslim ban, potentially inciting vandalism of mosques, Quran burnings, and widespread discrimination or violence against Muslim communities. Read: How Perpetrator Identity (Sometimes) Influences Media Framing Attacks as “Terrorism” or “Mental Illness”. Historical precedents, such as the post-9/11 backlash where hate crimes against Muslims in the U.S. surged by 1,700% according to FBI data, support this hypothesis. Read: Anti-Muslim assaults reach 9/11-era levels, FBI data show. The 2017 Finsbury Park mosque attack in the UK, where a white attacker targeted Muslims, received significantly less sustained coverage compared to Muslim-perpetrated acts, further underscoring this disparity. Read: Why media reporting of Finsbury Park attack differs from that of other incidents.

This hypothetical scenario highlights a deeper issue: the media’s role in shaping public perception based on identity. When the perpetrator is from a minority group like Muslims, the narrative often extends beyond the individual to implicate an entire faith or culture, triggering societal chaos and reinforcing stereotypes. In contrast, when the perpetrator is white or Christian, the focus remains on policy issues like gun control or mental health, sparing the majority religion from collective scrutiny. This double standard not only perpetuates bias but also risks escalating tensions, as seen in past instances where inflammatory reporting led to real-world violence against marginalized groups.

Selective Silence: The Case of EDL and Tommy Robinson

Another dimension of this double standard is the selective silence surrounding scandals within anti-Islam movements. For instance, the English Defence League (EDL), led by figures like Tommy Robinson, has built its platform on condemning alleged crimes by Muslim communities, particularly focusing on grooming gang scandals. Yet, a notable case of pedophilia involving an EDL member, Richard Price—a close ally of Robinson—convicted in 2010 for possessing indecent images of children, and Leigh McMillan, a “senior member” of the far-right EDL jailed for sexually abusing a schoolgirl dozens of times, received minimal media attention and was rarely addressed by Robinson himself. Read: EDL’s ‘political prisoner’ is a convicted sex offender and 'Senior member' of English Defence League jailed for sexually abusing 10-year-old girl. Similarly, Kristopher Allan, associated with the Scottish Defence League (SDL), a group ideologically aligned with EDL, was convicted in 2006 for messages, images, and sexual contact involving a 13-year-old, as noted in historical records. And “when fifteen-year-old Paige Chivers was murdered by a pedophile, there were no far-right riots in response. No marches waving Union Jacks took place. Tommy Robinson remained silent—he did not even call for donations. Paige had been groomed and killed by Robert Ewing, a man linked to the English Defence League. Another EDL associate assisted in disposing of her body. @LouiseRawAuthor” Read: Paige Chivers murder: Neo-nazi paedophile Robert Ewing found guilty of murdering school girl. Despite these incidents occurring within circles linked to Robinson’s network, they have not sparked the same level of public outrage or media scrutiny as cases involving Muslims, where such crimes are often framed as systemic issues tied to Islam.

Ok while I have the far right’s attention, let me post this again.

103 Far Right sex offenders, including:

-the paedophile Tommy Robinson founded the EDL with (Richard Price) and

-the EDL and BNP sex offender who who MURDERED 15 year old Paige Chivers (Robert Ewing)
1/ pic.twitter.com/DZnpxt6x59

— Dr Louise Raw (@LouiseRawAuthor) July 7, 2025

This selective omission appears to serve a clear agenda: the EDL and Robinson’s primary focus is to vilify Islam rather than address crime universally across all communities. Research from HOPE not hate (2022) highlights Robinson’s history of ignoring or downplaying abuses within his own ranks, suggesting that his anti-Islam stance overshadows any genuine commitment to combating pedophilia or violence. If a Muslim leader exhibited similar behavior, the media frenzy would likely be unrelenting, with calls for investigations into Islamic institutions and widespread vilification of the faith. This discrepancy underscores how media and activist narratives prioritize political agendas over consistent accountability, further entrenching biases against minority groups while shielding majority-aligned figures from equivalent scrutiny. Read: The Far Right and the Riots: Paedophiles, Animal Abusers and Former Britain First Members.

Disparate Labeling: The Epstein Files and Beyond

A stark example of this selective labeling emerges from the recent release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files in September 2025, shedding light on the connections between elite figures and the convicted pedophile. On 26 September 2025, the House Oversight Committee released a third batch of documents, including log telephonics (2002-2005), flight logs (1990-2019), daily schedules (2010-2019), and financial ledgers, naming high-profile individuals like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Steve Bannon, Prince Andrew, and Bill Gates. Yet, no criminal charges or direct evidence of participation in Epstein’s crimes accompany these names. Musk’s mention stems from a Dec. 6, 2014 schedule entry—“Reminder: Elon Musk to island Dec. 6 (is this still happening?)”—suggesting an unconfirmed invitation to Epstein’s Little St. James Island, a site of documented abuse. Musk denied attending, tweeting on Twitter, “Epstein tried to get me to go to his island and I REFUSED,” and accused media of pushing a false narrative by linking him to Prince Andrew, who did visit. A 2014 photo of Musk with Ghislaine Maxwell at a Vanity Fair Oscar Party, confirmed by Snopes and the New York Times, shows a brief encounter Musk claims was an uninvited “photobomb,” with no further interaction proven. Maxwell herself noted in a 2025 DOJ transcript she knew Musk but never saw him meet Epstein directly. Read: Fact Check: Yes, Elon Musk and Ghislaine Maxwell were once photographed together.

Contrast this with other figures: Prince Andrew flew with Epstein and Maxwell (log, 12 May 2000) and paid millions to settle Virginia Giuffre’s abuse claims; Bill Clinton took 26 flights on Epstein’s jet (2002-2003) for charity, denying knowledge of crimes; and Donald Trump, a 15-year friend, flew six times (1993-1997) and hosted Epstein at Mar-a-Lago, cutting ties post-2008 conviction. Read: Prince Andrew 'flew on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet and had massages paid for by paedophile' while Elon Musk 'planned to visit island', according to bombshell documents. Similarly, Mohammad bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, was photographed with Epstein at a 2018 event in Riyadh, as documented in court filings, though no evidence confirms deeper ties or visits to Epstein’s properties. Unlike Musk, these connections—particularly for Andrew, Clinton, and Trump—are backed by stronger evidence of repeated contact, yet media scrutiny varies. Musk’s case, amplified by his political rivalry with Democrats—who released the files post-election—lacks proof of wrongdoing, yet speculation of “Islamic barbarism” would likely dominate if a Muslim elite like bin Salman were more prominently implicated. Instead, their names are tied to individual speculation, not collective religious frames, mirroring how non-Muslim figures evade systemic labels. Notably, the association of Trump, U.S. president, with Epstein raises profound concerns: a leader of a global superpower linked to a convicted pedophile underscores a troubling tolerance for elite misconduct, amplifying the stakes of such connections compared to the generalized vilification of minority groups.

Disparate Labeling: The Norway Attacks vs. Charlie Hebdo

A compelling historical example of this bias in labeling is the contrast between the 2011 Norway attacks by Anders Behring Breivik and the 2015 Charlie Hebdo attack. Breivik, a self-identified Christian and anti-Islam extremist, detonated a bomb in Oslo and shot 69 people, mostly non-Muslim youths, at a Labour Party camp on Utøya, motivated by his desire to frame Muslims as a threat to Europe. Despite his ideological drive and the scale of the attack (77 deaths), he was rarely labeled a “Christian terrorist” in mainstream media, with coverage often focusing on his mental state or political extremism without tying it to his religion. Read: The Color of Terrorism. In contrast, the Charlie Hebdo attack, carried out by two Muslim brothers, Said and Chérif Kouachi, was immediately branded “Islamic terrorism” globally, with extensive coverage linking the act to Islam despite the attackers’ actions not representing the faith’s 1.9 billion adherents.

This disparity in labeling reflects a broader pattern: acts of violence by Muslims are swiftly associated with their religion, inciting widespread backlash, including mosque vandalism and hate crimes, as seen post-9/11 with a 1,700% surge in anti-Muslim incidents per FBI data. Meanwhile, similar acts by non-Muslims, even when ideologically driven like Breivik’s, are individualized or politicized without religious framing. A 2018 study from Georgia State University notes that white perpetrators of mass violence are 60% less likely to be labeled “terrorists” compared to Muslim counterparts, reinforcing how cultural biases shape media narratives. This selective application of labels not only distorts public perception but also justifies differential treatment, sparing majority religions from the collective blame routinely applied to Islam.

Disparate Accountability: The Tom Alexandrovich Case

A recent and particularly egregious example of selective accountability in elite misconduct is the case of Tom Artiom Alexandrovich, a senior Israeli cybersecurity official arrested in the United States for attempting to solicit a minor for sexual conduct. This incident, unfolding in August 2025, exemplifies the double standards in media framing and judicial leniency afforded to figures from allied nations, contrasting sharply with the swift vilification and collective blame applied to Muslim or minority perpetrators. Alexandrovich, executive director of the defense division at Israel’s National Cyber Directorate—a body under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office—was in Las Vegas for a security conference when he was ensnared in a multi-agency sting operation targeting online child predators. Despite the gravity of the charges, he was released on minimal bail without travel restrictions, allowing him to flee to Israel before facing trial, prompting widespread outrage and accusations of U.S.-Israeli interference. This leniency mirrors the Epstein network’s pattern of elite impunity, where powerful connections shield individuals from consequences, yet if a Muslim official were involved, the narrative would likely escalate into “Islamic predation,” inciting global backlash against an entire faith.

• August 6, 2025: Arrest in Las Vegas Sting: Alexandrovich, 38, was detained by Las Vegas police and federal agents during a two-week operation. Reports detail his online chats with an undercover officer posing as a 15-year-old girl, arranging a meeting for sexual contact, complete with condoms and plans for a Cirque du Soleil show. Charged with felony luring a child online for sexual conduct, punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
• August 7, 2025: Release on Bail: Freed the next day on a $10,000 bond without conditions like passport surrender or monitoring, despite being a clear flight risk as a foreign national. During interrogation, he insisted the “girl” was 18.
• August 8, 2025: Flight to Israel: Departed the U.S. two days post-arrest via New York, evading further scrutiny. Israel’s policy against extraditing citizens ensures he remains beyond U.S. reach.
• August 18-27, 2025: Denials and Court No-Show: Israel’s government initially denied the arrest, calling it mere questioning. U.S. authorities affirmed no intervention, but a federal prosecutor criticized Nevada officials for the lapse. Alexandrovich skipped his August 27 arraignment, ordered to appear remotely but failing to comply.
• Ongoing Backlash (September 2025): U.S. politicians decried the release, linking it to Epstein file delays and U.S.-Israel ties. Social media erupted with calls to extradite Alexandrovich, drawing parallels to protected pedophiles fleeing to Israel. Media coverage faded quickly, unlike the frenzy over minority-linked crimes.

This case underscores a troubling asymmetry: Alexandrovich, tasked with national cyber defense including child protection online, exploited the very systems meant to safeguard minors, yet his elite status and geopolitical alliances enabled escape. Speculation ties it to broader Epstein-era impunity, with critics noting tolerance for fugitives from allied nations. If reversed—if an official from a Muslim-majority nation like Saudi Arabia fled similar charges—the outcry would frame it as “jihadi depravity,” sparking mosque attacks and policy crackdowns. Instead, the narrative softens to “diplomatic mishap,” sparing scrutiny of systemic protections for allied elites while minorities bear collective shame. As with Epstein’s web, where over 100 underage victims suffered due to elite networks, Alexandrovich’s flight highlights how power, not faith, dictates accountability—yet media bias ensures Islam remains the scapegoat for societal ills.

Asymmetric Hatred: Quran Burnings vs. Bible Burnings

A further manifestation of this bias is the stark asymmetry in public expressions of religious hatred. High-profile cases of Quran burnings, often broadcast live and witnessed by wide audiences, have become increasingly visible. Examples include Salwan Momika, an Iraqi immigrant who burned a Quran outside a mosque in Stockholm in June 2023, sparking international protests; Rasmus Paludan, a Danish far-right politician who has repeatedly burned Qurans, including a tribute to Momika in February 2025; and Valentina Gomez, a U.S. congressional candidate who burned a Quran in August 2025, drawing widespread condemnation. These acts, often framed as exercises in free speech, receive significant media attention and provoke global outrage, particularly within Muslim communities, yet the perpetrators face limited legal repercussions in some contexts due to freedom of expression laws.

In contrast, there is a conspicuous absence of documented cases where Muslims have publicly and deliberately burned the Bible in a similar manner, broadcasted for global audiences. While isolated incidents of religious desecration occur across all faiths—such as the burning of religious texts during sectarian conflicts—these are not amplified with the same intentionality or publicity as Quran burnings. A review of global media archives and reports from organizations like the United Nations and Amnesty International (up to September 2025) shows no equivalent high-profile, livestreamed Bible-burning events by Muslims, suggesting a directional bias in how hatred is expressed and reported. This asymmetry may reflect the majority-minority dynamic: acts targeting a minority religion (Islam) by majority or influential groups are more visible and tolerated, while the reverse is rare due to social, legal, and cultural constraints on Muslim communities in Western contexts. This pattern reinforces the narrative that Islam is uniquely targeted, while Christian symbols remain largely insulated from similar public desecration.

One of the very few documented cases involving the public desecration of the Bible by a Muslim was that of Ahmed Abdullah (commonly known as “Abu Islam”), a hard-line Salafi preacher in Egypt. In 2013, he was given a suspended sentence for tearing and burning a copy of the Bible during a demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. Crucially, this act was not carried out as a gratuitous display of hatred toward Christianity, nor as a performative spectacle for global audiences, but as an expression of anger in direct response to an anti-Islamic film produced in the U.S. that had provoked outrage across the Muslim world. Even so, the incident was immediately prosecuted under Egyptian law (Muslim majority), underscoring both its exceptional nature and the fact that such actions are neither normalized nor celebrated within Muslim societies. Read: Hard-line Egyptian cleric sentenced for burning Bible.

Islamic Morality: A Strict Preventive System

Ironically, Islam has a highly stringent system of sexual morality designed to prevent violations from the outset. Classical Islamic law imposes severe punishments, such as flogging or stoning, for adultery and homosexuality, but more importantly, Islam emphasizes preventive measures to close the door to transgressions. Rules such as prohibiting seclusion between unrelated men and women, requiring the lowering of the gaze, banning physical contact between members of the opposite sex who are not close relatives, and mandating modest dress are part of a system aimed at protecting individual and societal purity. Read: UFC legend Khabib Nurmagomedov refuses to shake hands with female sportscaster in awkward moment. Even minor acts, such as viewing explicit images or listening to voices that incite desire, are prohibited to prevent exploitation and social harm. These principles demonstrate that Islam focuses not only on punishment but also on proactive prevention. Read: Prevention Strategies for the Crime of Adultery in the Light of Islamic Law.

So why do some Muslims still transgress? Like adherents of any other religion, Muslims are not immune to human weaknesses. Factors such as permissive environments, cultural pressures, or traumatic experiences can lead individuals to deviate from teachings. However, it is crucial to distinguish between Islamic teachings and individual behavior. A Muslim’s transgression reflects personal disobedience, not a flaw in Islam itself. Unfortunately, media and popular narratives often fail to make this distinction, choosing to generalize individual failures as shortcomings of the religion.

Addressing Bias and Promoting Understanding

Ultimately, the stigma that Islam is a “satanic religion” or “depraved cult” arises from a combination of media bias, theological ignorance, and political agendas. Low religious literacy among Western and non-Muslim audiences, coupled with unbalanced reporting, reinforces negative perceptions far removed from reality. Islam, with its strict moral system centered on purity, offers an ethical framework that emphasizes self-control and social responsibility. To dismantle these misguided narratives, an approach grounded in historical facts, fair cross-cultural analysis, and the courage to challenge entrenched structural biases is essential. By doing so, we can create space for a more honest and constructive dialogue about Islam and its contributions to global civilization.

Reflective note: Bias in reporting is not limited to religious contexts but is also evident in geopolitical narratives, where Russia’s military actions are labeled “invasion,” America’s “intervention,” Palestine “terrorism”, and Israel’s “self-defense,” reflecting the influence of global political narratives. While this topic falls outside the primary scope of this article, it highlights a similar pattern of framing shaped by dominant powers, underscoring the need for a more neutral analysis across all domains.

Why Individual Crimes Should Never Define an Entire Faith

Many people on social media constantly generalize all Muslims by saying “This is Islam,” as if the actions of a handful of individuals represent the entire Muslim community. With such statements, or by deliberately mentioning the religion, they are clearly generalizing 1.9 billion people. This is one example of anti-Islam propaganda:

A Japanese woman shared her story about domestic violence that she suffered from her husband, who happened to be Muslim. From this personal experience, a tweet stating:

日本人女性🇯🇵👩
イスラム教徒の旦那との
結婚生活は10年間常に暴力を
振るわれてきた
コーヒーを出すタイミングが悪いと暴力
車ガラスを割る
ガラスが
刺さっても病院に行けず
子どもとシェルターに逃げた
今も怯えて暮らしている

イスラム教には女性や
異教徒に人権は一切ありません
動物扱いです pic.twitter.com/okFAYFLT75

— 💙Kumi1111𑁍 𑁍 𑁍🐈‍⬛💙🎐🇯🇵⛩️🌿🐯🇺🇸 (@kumi11117777) October 1, 2025

「イスラム教には女性や異教徒に人権は一切ありません。動物扱いです。」 (“In Islam, women and non-Muslims have absolutely no human rights. They are treated like animals.”)

This is a tragic personal experience being used as “ammunition.” Then the case was framed as if it were a reflection of Islamic teachings as a whole. Compare this to the case of John Emil List: he murdered his family in a horrific way because he was a devout Christian who did not want his family to fall into sin. After committing the murders, he calmly turned down the temperature in the house and played religious hymns. The double standard here is that no one judged Christianity because of his actions or because of his Christian faith. Read: A Sunday school teacher murders his family and goes undercover for 18 years.

And yes, there are indeed many cases of domestic violence in Muslim households. But people always bring up the religion, as if the same cases do not happen in other communities. John Emil List is a classic example: a devout Christian, whose horrific murders were rationalized through religious reasoning. But did people then say, “This is Christianity”? No. Christianity continued to be seen as separate from his criminal actions.

And indeed, in Islam, there is also a call to worship—but that call is never meant to be carried out through violence or emotional harm. Similar to John Emil List, he could be seen as someone “devout” in his own way, even fearing that his daughter Patricia’s interest in acting would affect her faith. But the problem was that he became radical and cruel.

Dear Pastor Rehwinkel:

I am sorry to add this additional burden to your work. I know that what has been done is wrong from all that I have been taught and that any reasons that I might give will not make it right. But you are the one person that I know that while not condoning this will at least possibly understand why I felt that I had to do this. 1. I wasn’t earning anywhere near enough to support us. Everything I tried seemed to fall to pieces. True, we could have gone bankrupt and maybe gone on welfare. 2. But that brings me to my next point. Knowing the type of location that one would have to live in, plus the environment for the children, plus the effect on them knowing they were on welfare was just more than I thought they could and should endure. I know they were willing to cut back, but this involved a lot more than that. 3. With Pat being so determined to get into acting I was also fearful as to what that might do to her continuing to be Christian. I’m sure it wouldn’t have helped. 4. Also, with Helen not going to church I knew that this would harm the children eventually in their attendance. I had continued to hope that she would begin to come to church soon. But when I mentioned to her that Mr. Jutze wanted to pay her an elder’s call, she just blew up and said she wanted her name taken off the church rolls. Again this could only have an adverse result for the children’s continued attendance.

So that is the sum of it. If any one of these had been the condition, we might have pulled through but this was just too much. At least I’m certain that all have gone to heaven now. If things had gone on who knows if this would be the case.

Of course, Mother got involved because doing what I did to my family would have been a tremendous shock to her at this age. Therefore, knowing that she is also a Christian I felt it best that she be relieved of the troubles of this world that would have hit her.

After it was all over I said some prayers for them all - from the hymn book. That was the least that I could do. Now for the final arrangements: Helen and the children have all agreed that they would prefer to be cremated. Please see to it that the costs are kept low.

For Mother, she has a plot at the Frankenmuth Church cemetery. Please contact Mr. Herman Schellkas, Route 4, Vassar, Mich. 41768.

He’s married to a niece of Mother’s and knows what arrangements are to be made. (She always wanted Rev. Herman Zehnder of Bay City to preach the sermon. But he’s not well.) Also I’m leaving some letters in your care. Please send them on and add whatever comments you think appropriate. The relationships are as follows: Mrs. Lydia Meyer - Mother’s sister. Mrs. Eva Meyer - Helen’s mother. Jean Syfert - Helen’s sister.

Also I don’t know what will happen to the books and personal things. But to the extent possible I’d like for them to be distributed as you see fit. Some books might go to the school or church library.

Originally I had planned this for Nov. 1 - All Saints’ Day. But travel arrangements were delayed. I thought it would be an appropriate day for them to get to heaven.

As for me please let me be dropped from the congregation rolls. I leave myself in the hand of God’s Justice and Mercy. I don’t doubt that He is able to help us, but apparently He saw fit not to answer my prayers the way that I hoped they would be answered. This makes me think that perhaps it was for the best as far as the children’s souls are concerned. I know that many will only look at the additional years that they could have lived, but if finally they were no longer Christians what would be gained.

Also I’m sure many will say, ‘How could anyone do such a horrible thing?’ - My only answer is it isn’t easy and was only done after much thought.

Pastor, Mrs. Morris may possibly be reached at 802 Pleasant Hill Drive. Elkin - home of her sister. One other thing. It may seem cowardly to have always shot from behind, but I didn’t want any of them to know even at the last second that I had to do this to them.

John got hurt more because he seemed to struggle longer. The rest were immediately out of pain. John didn’t consciously feel anything either.

Please remember me in your prayers. I will need them whether or not the government does its duty as it sees it. I’m only concerned with making my peace with God and of this I am assured because of Christ dying even for me.

P.S. Mother is in the hallway in the attic - 3d floor. She was too heavy to move.

— John Emil List (murderer)

In the letter he wrote to a pastor, his reasons were clearly stated. So, if a Muslim commits violence in the name of “worship” or “piety,” that is not a reflection of Islam but a distortion. Just like the case of John Emil List in Christianity—he was not an ordinary person who neglected his faith, but rather someone devout in ritual, whose religiosity veered into radical cruelty.

The letter he wrote to the pastor showed that the murders were not “because he happened to be Christian,” but because he interpreted his faith in an extreme way: he did not want his family to be “tainted with sin” and believed killing them was the “way out.” This is similar to the pattern of extremists in any religion—faith is misused as justification for brutality.

The difference is that society rarely generalizes Christianity through the case of John Emil List. People say: “He was mentally ill, he was a fanatic, he misinterpreted.” But when the perpetrator is Muslim, the narrative becomes: “This is Islam!” Yet if we were consistent, the case of John Emil List (or the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases in non-Muslim societies) could just as easily be framed as: “Christianity has no respect for women, Christianity teaches violence.” But people do not do this—only Islam is made the target of such generalization.

In the example tweet I included: it is not merely a personal confession, but the use of an individual tragedy to spread a collective negative narrative about Islam.

And if someone is invited to worship through violence, then the worship they perform is not out of faith or love for God, but out of fear. Worship in Islam (and in many other faith traditions, including Christian) is essentially an expression of love, awareness, and sincerity—not the result of coercion. If someone is “forced” to pray, fast, or worship simply out of fear of being beaten, scolded, or pressured by others, then that worship loses its spirit. It is no longer an expression of faith, but a reaction to fear.

“Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.”

— The Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew 22:37–38

Consider the case of Andrea Yates in the United States in 2001: she drowned her five children. Her reason was “to save them from hell.” She was deeply religious but suffered from severe postpartum mental illness. Read: A Cry In the Dark. Or the case of Amani Haydar, whose mother, Salwa Haydar, was murdered by her own husband in their Sydney home in 2015 while preparing dinner. There was discussion about Quran 4:34 and certain interpretations that could be misused to justify wife-beating if she was deemed “disobedient,” even though many scholars strongly reject such extreme readings. Read: I lost my mum to domestic violence but I won't let fear or racists keep me silent. Or Chris Watts in the United States in 2018: he murdered his pregnant wife and two daughters. He and his family were active church members. His reason for killing them was that he wanted to be with his mistress. Read: Watts family murders.

These are some of the tragic and brutal cases, in both Christianity and Islam, in addition to John Emil List. All of them are rooted in the misuse of “devotion.” In every case, whether Christian or Muslim, religiosity was distorted into justification for cruelty. Worship or morality built on forced fear never produces love of God—it only produces trauma.

On the other hand, Islam emphasizes that the call to faith must be with wisdom and compassion:

اُدْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنْ ضَلَّ عَنْ سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ

“Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in the best manner. Truly, your Lord knows best who has strayed from His path, and He knows best who is rightly guided.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nahl (The Bees), Verse: 125

And regarding women in Islam, women are given an extraordinarily high and honorable position, especially as mothers. There is a famous hadith:

“A man once asked the Prophet: ‘Who is most deserving of my good treatment?’ The Prophet replied: ‘Your mother.’ The man asked again, and he said: ‘Your mother.’ He asked again, and he said: ‘Your mother.’ Only the fourth time did the Prophet say: ‘Your father.’”

— Bukhari and Muslim

This shows the prioritization of honor: mother, mother, mother, then father. Read: Women in Islam. There is also the famous saying of the Prophet:

“Paradise lies at the feet of mothers.”

— An-Nisa’i, Ahmad

This means that Islam places women—especially in their role as mothers—at the very center of human dignity. Furthermore, in family life, Islam never teaches that housework is the “absolute duty of women.” In fact, the Prophet Muhammad himself set an example by helping his wives at home: Aisha (may God be pleased with her) reported:

“The Prophet used to help his family with household work, and when it was time for prayer, he would go out to pray.”

— Bukhari

Thus, a husband’s role is not limited to providing financially, but also includes sharing domestic responsibilities with his wife. As for the Taliban—this is a clear example of how culture, politics, and extreme interpretations are often confused with religion. The Taliban do not represent 1.9 billion Muslims. It is the same as extremist Christian groups (for example, the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, which kidnapped children in the name of the Bible). But people, Muslim, include me do not say “This is Christianity.”

Women in Islam are not the same as women under the Taliban. The former is based on sacred texts full of honor, while the latter is based on political interpretation, patriarchal culture, and power agendas. Normative Islam (the original teaching) is to honor women as mothers, partners, and individuals who have the right to education, inheritance, dignity, and compassion. Extremist practices (Taliban, ISIS, etc.) are nothing more than deviations that distort Islam for their ideology.

The Selective Sword: Unpacking Double Standards in Religious Criticism

In the heated arena of online discourse, where accusations of religious violence fly faster than fact-checks, one pattern emerges with brutal clarity: selective outrage. Critics of Islam, often amplified by influential voices, routinely dissect Quranic verses out of context—wielding them like weapons to paint one religion as inherently aggressive. Yet, when confronted with the Bible, a veritable arsenal of strikingly similar violent imagery is left to gather dust, rarely invoked in the same feverish condemnations. Why this glaring imbalance? If we’re truly committed to honest critique of sacred texts, shouldn’t we apply the same scalpel to all? This double standard isn’t just intellectual laziness; it’s a deliberate bias that shields one tradition while vilifying another, revealing more about the critics’ agendas than the religions themselves. To dismantle this hypocrisy, let’s examine parallel verses from the Quran and Bible, scrutinizing their historical contexts, linguistic nuances, and interpretive histories. What surfaces isn’t a defense of holy books, but a demand for justice: If decontextualized Quranic snippets can demonize 1.8 billion Muslims, why do Biblical parallels escape similar scrutiny?

Echoes of Ancient Wars: Commands for Conquest and Slaughter

Imagine chapter At-Tawbah (The Repentance) verse 5 from the Quran, routinely cherry-picked by detractors as the infamous “Sword Verse”:

فَإِذَا انسَلَخَ الأَشْهُرُ الحُرُمُ فَاقْتُلُوا المُشْرِكِينَ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَخُذُوهُمْ وَاحْصُرُوهُمْ وَاقْعُدُوا لَهُمْ كُلَّ مَرْصَدٍ ۚ فَإِن تَابُوا وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتَوُا الزَّكَاةَ فَخَلُّوا سَبِيلَهُمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

“And when the sacred months have passed, then fight the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then let them go their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. At-Tawbah (The Repentance), Verse: 5

In isolation, this sounds like a blanket call for genocide, fueling narratives of Islamic aggression. But strip away the rhetoric and restore the context: This verse was revealed in 631 CE, amid the betrayal of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah by Meccan polytheists who had massacred Muslim allies and refugees. The “forbidden months” refer to a four-month safe period for safe passage or reconciliation (as outlined in chapter At-Tawbah (The Repentance) verse 1 to 4):

بَرَاءَةٌۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦٓ إِلَى ٱلَّذِينَ عَـٰهَدتُّم مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ﴿١﴾ فَسِيحُوا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ أَرْبَعَةَ أَشْهُرٍۢ وَٱعْلَمُوٓا۟ أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِى ٱللَّهِ وَأَنَّ ٱللَّهَ مُخْزِى ٱلْكَـٰفِرِينَ ﴿٢﴾ وَأَذَانٌۭ مِّنَ ٱللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِۦٓ إِلَى ٱلنَّاسِ يَوْمَ ٱلْحَجِّ ٱلْأَكْبَرِ أَنَّ ٱللَّهَ بَرِىٓءٌۭ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ وَرَسُولُهُۥ ۚ فَإِن تُبْتُمْ فَهُوَ خَيْرٌۭ لَّكُمْ ۖ وَإِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ فَٱعْلَمُوٓا۟ أَنَّكُمْ غَيْرُ مُعْجِزِى ٱللَّهِ ۗ وَبَشِّرِ ٱلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا۟ بِعَذَابٍ أَلِيمٍۢ ﴿٣﴾ إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ عَـٰهَدتُّم مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَنقُصُوكُمْ شَيْـًۭٔا وَلَمْ يُظَـٰهِرُوا۟ عَلَيْكُمْ أَحَدًۭا فَأَتِمُّوٓا۟ إِلَيْهِمْ عَهْدَهُمْ إِلَىٰ مُدَّتِهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُتَّقِينَ ﴿٤﴾

“A declaration of disassociation from Allah and His Messenger to those polytheists with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely, [O disbelievers], throughout the land for four months, but know that you cannot escape Allah, and that Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And [it is] an announcement from Allah and His Messenger to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah is disassociated from the polytheists, and [so is] His Messenger. So if you repent, it is better for you; but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape Allah. And give tidings to those who disbelieve of a painful punishment. Excepted are those polytheists with whom you made a treaty and who have not failed you in anything nor supported anyone against you; so fulfill their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous who fear Him.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. At-Tawbah (The Repentance), Verse: 1-4

And the very next verse 6 guarantees protection to anyone seeking asylum—even apostates:

وَإِنْ أَحَدٌ مِّنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٱسْتَجَارَكَ فَأَجِرْهُ حَتَّىٰ يَسْمَعَ كَلَـٰمَ ٱللَّهِ ثُمَّ أَبْلِغْهُ مَأْمَنَهُۥ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَعْلَمُونَ

“And if any of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of God. Then escort him to a place where he will be safe. That is because they are a people who do not know.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. At-Tawbah (The Repentance), Verse: 6

It’s a defensive mandate in a 7th-century tribal war, not an eternal blueprint for holy war—a nuance echoed in the Quran’s broader ethic of restraint, like chapter Al-Baqarah (The Heifer) verse 190:

وَقَاتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ الَّذِينَ يُقَاتِلُونَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ الْمُعْتَدِينَ

“And fight in the way of God those who fight against you, but do not transgress limits; indeed, God does not love those who commit aggression.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 190

Now, shift to Deuteronomy 20:16-17 in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament):

“But in the cities of these nations that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not leave alive anything that breathes. Instead, you shall completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. ”

— The Holy Bible, Deuteronomy 20:16–17

Here, the command is unequivocal: total annihilation, without mercy, even for the innocent. Historically, this emerges in the Late Bronze Age (around 1400 BCE), as Moses instructs the Israelites on conquering Canaan—a divinely promised land after centuries of Egyptian slavery and wilderness exile. The targeted nations are depicted as corrupt idol-worshippers:

“Do not say in your heart, after the Lord your God has driven them out before you, “It is because of my righteousness that the Lord has brought me in to possess this land,” whereas it is because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is driving them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you are going in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God is driving them out before you, and to confirm the word that the Lord swore to your ancestors—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”

— The Holy Bible, Deuteronomy 9:4-5

And their destruction is a divine purge akin to the Flood narrative. Yet, unlike the Quran’s layered conditions for peace, this herem (devotion to destruction) offers no exceptions. Modern Jewish and Christian scholars, from Maimonides to contemporary ethicists, interpret it as a one-off historical episode, not prescriptive law—just as Muslims view chapter At-Tawbah (The Repentance) verse 5 as bound to the Meccan crisis. So why does one verse spark platforms storms while the other collects dust in seminary footnotes? If the Quran’s “slay” ignites cries of barbarism, shouldn’t “leave alive nothing that breathes” provoke equal alarm?

The pattern sharpens in Numbers 31:17-18, where Moses, after victory over Midian, commands:

“Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by lying with him. But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him. ”

— The Holy Bible, Numbers 31:17-18

This grim calculus follows Midian’s seduction of Israelite men into idolatry and moral decay (The Holy Bible, Numbers 25), a defensive retribution in the Sinai wilderness around 1400 BCE. The spared virgin girls become war spoils, a stark reflection of ancient Near Eastern customs where captives were assimilated or enslaved to neutralize threats. Echoes resound in chapter Muhammad verse 4 of the Quran:

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

“So when you meet those who disbelieve in battle, strike their necks until you have thoroughly subdued them; then bind them firmly. Thereafter, either grant them release as an act of grace or ransom them, until the war lays down its burdens. That is the command. Had God willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them Himself, but He has ordained it so to test some of you through others. And those who are slain in the path of God—He will never let their deeds go to waste. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Muhammad, Verse: 4

Revealed during the Battles of Badr and Uhud (624-625 CE), when outnumbered Muslims faced Meccan persecution, this verse regulates battlefield decapitation—a swift, merciful kill in a pre-gunpowder era—followed by prisoner exchanges emphasizing post-war mercy. Both texts grapple with ancient warfare’s horrors, yet Bible critics of Islam overlook the gender-based slaughter in Numbers. Imagine the outrage if a viral tweet quoted only “keep alive for yourselves all the young girls” without the Midian provocation—wouldn’t that mirror the same decontextualization they decry in Islamic scripture?

Shadows of Divine Retribution: From Cannibalism to Communal Purges

Dig deeper into the visceral, and Leviticus 26:29 confronts us with a prophecy of cannibalism as covenantal curse:

“You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters. ”

— The Holy Bible, Leviticus 26:29

This isn’t instruction, but a horrifying warning in the Holiness Code (circa 6th century BCE, post-Exile), listing consequences for Israel’s collective apostasy—famine and siege as metaphors for spiritual starvation, later echoed in 2 Kings 6:28 during Assyrian sieges:

“Then the king asked her, ‘What is the matter with you?’ She answered, ‘This woman said to me, “Give up your son so we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.”’ ”

— The Holy Bible, 2 Kings 6:28

It’s hyperbolic rhetoric, akin to prophetic laments in Ezekiel or Hosea, designed to jolt covenant loyalty from a nomadic nation forging identity amid Canaanite temptations.

Compare to chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 34 in the Quran, twisted by some as endorsing spousal abuse:

ٱلرِّجَالُ قَوَّٰمُونَ عَلَى ٱلنِّسَآءِ بِمَا فَضَّلَ ٱللَّهُ بَعْضَهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍۢ وَبِمَآ أَنفَقُوا۟ مِنْ أَمْوَٰلِهِمْ ۚ فَٱلصَّٰلِحَٰتُ قَٰنِتَٰتٌ حَٰفِظَٰتٌۭ لِّلْغَيْبِ بِمَا حَفِظَ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَٱلَّٰتِى تَخَافُونَ نُشُوزَهُنَّ فَعِظُوهُنَّ وَٱهْجُرُوهُنَّ فِى ٱلْمَضَاجِعِ وَٱضْرِبُوهُنَّ ۖ فَإِنْ أَطَعْنَكُمْ فَلَا تَبْغُوا۟ عَلَيْهِنَّ سَبِيلًا ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيًّۭا كَبِيرًۭا

“Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because God has given some of them more (strength or responsibility) than others, and because they spend from their wealth (to support them). Therefore, righteous women are devoutly obedient and guard in the unseen what God would have them guard. But those (wives) from whom you fear arrogance or disloyalty—admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, and (as a last resort) discipline them. But if they obey you, then seek no means against them. Indeed, God is ever Exalted and Grand. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 34

Revealed in Medina around 625 CE amid pre-Islamic Arab norms of unchecked domestic violence, this outlines a graduated response to nushuz (rebellion or neglect): verbal counsel, emotional separation, and finally a symbolic “tap” (from daraba, meaning “to separate” or “touch lightly,” per classical tafsirs like Al-Tabari). The Prophet Muhammad himself forbade face-striking or lasting marks, framing it as marital reform toward equity echoed in chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 19:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا يَحِلُّ لَكُمْ أَنْ تَرِثُوا النِّسَاءَ كَرْهًا وَلَا تَعْضُلُوهُنَّ لِتَذْهَبُوا بِبَعْضِ مَا آتَيْتُمُوهُنَّ إِلَّا أَنْ يَأْتِينَ بِفَاحِشَةٍ مُبَيِّنَةٍ وَعَاشِرُوهُنَّ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ فَإِنْ كَرِهْتُمُوهُنَّ فَعَسَىٰ أَنْ تَكْرَهُوا شَيْئًا وَيَجْعَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ خَيْرًا كَثِيرًا

“O you who believe, it is not lawful for you to inherit women against their will. And do not mistreat them so that you may take back part of what you have given them, unless they commit a clear act of indecency. And live with them honorably. For if you dislike them, perhaps you may dislike something through which God brings about abundant good. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 19

Both Leviticus and An-Nisa (The Women) leverage familial horror—cannibalism as ultimate communal collapse, striking as relational fracture’s last resort—but only the latter draws fire. Why? Because Leviticus’s cannibalistic imagery, though more gruesome, slots neatly into the “primitive Old Testament” narrative “superseded” by New Testament grace in Christianity. Yet if we judge An-Nisa’s “strike” as misogynistic without its rehabilitative arc, what mercy do we extend to the devoured daughters in Leviticus?

Deuteronomy 13:12-15 escalates to intra-communal genocide:

“If you hear it said in one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to dwell in that certain worthless men have arisen among you and have led the inhabitants of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and serve other gods,” which you have not known, then you must inquire, investigate, and examine the matter thoroughly. If it is true and confirmed that such a detestable thing has been done among you, you shall surely strike down the inhabitants of that city with the sword, destroying it completely and all who are in it, even the livestock, by the edge of the sword. ”

— The Holy Bible, Deuteronomy 13:12–15

Penned in the Mosaic era (13th century BCE), this targets idolatrous subversion within Israel—stoning prophets, burning cities as ritual purification to safeguard monotheism from Baal cults. It’s theocratic cleansing, not far from chapter Al-Baqarah (The Heifer) verse 191 in the Quran:

وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ ثَقِفْتُمُوهُمْ وَأَخْرِجُوهُمْ مِنْ حَيْثُ أَخْرَجُوكُمْ ۚ وَالْفِتْنَةُ أَشَدُّ مِنَ الْقَتْلِ ۚ وَلَا تُقَاتِلُوهُمْ عِندَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ حَتَّىٰ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِيهِ ۖ فَإِنْ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فَاقْتُلُوهُمْ ۗ كَذَٰلِكَ جَزَاءُ الْكَافِرِينَ

“And kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out; for persecution is worse than killing. But do not fight them near the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they fight you, then kill them—such is the recompense of the disbelievers. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 191

Revealed post-Hijrah (622 CE), amid Meccan expulsion and torture of early Muslims, this caps verses on migration and self-defense, with chapter Al-Baqarah verse 192 to 193 commanding cessation if aggression stops:

فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ فَإِنِ انْتَهَوْا فَلَا عُدْوَانَ إِلَّا عَلَى الظَّالِمِينَ

“But if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.And fight them until there is no more oppression and religion is wholly for Allah. But if they stop, then there shall be no hostility except against the wrongdoers. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 192-193

“But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” Both demand purging “fitnah” (sedition or persecution), yet Deuteronomy’s scorched-earth communalism—leaving no survivors—rarely surfaces in anti-religious attacks. If the Bible’s “troublemakers” justify city-level annihilation, why isn’t the Quran’s “drive them out” equally maligned as ethnic cleansing?

The Prophet’s Blade: Metaphors of Division and Selective Silence

Even in the New Testament, rhetoric sharpens. Matthew 10:34 has Jesus declaring:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace to the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. ”

— The Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew 10:34

Spoken during the commissioning of the Twelve Apostles (circa 30 CE), amid Roman occupation and Jewish factionalism, this “sword” symbolizes familial rifts from faith allegiance in verses 35 to 36 pitting daughter against mother:

“For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. ”

— The Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew 10:35-36

Not literal armament. It’s eschatological tension—the cost of kingdom citizenship in a divided world—aligned with John verse 36:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would be fighting to prevent My arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now My kingdom is from another place. ”

— The Holy Bible, Gospel of John 18:36

Pulsing echoes in chapter Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War) verse 12 of the Quran:

إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا الرُّعْبَ فَاضْرِبُوا فَوْقَ الْأَعْنَاقِ وَاضْرِبُوا مِنْهُمْ كُلَّ بَنَانٍ

“When your Lord revealed to the angels: ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve; therefore, strike them upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’ ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War), Verse: 12

Revealed at Badr (624 CE), Islam’s first major battle against Meccan oppressors, this is divine assurance to a fledgling community, framing angelic aid in defensive combat; chapter Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War) verse 61 pivots immediately to peace:

وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

“And if they incline toward peace, then incline to it as well and put your trust in Allah. Indeed, He alone is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War), Verse: 61

These swords—one metaphorical schism, the other tactical in exigency—both underscore faith’s disruptive power in hostile contexts. Yet Matthew’s blade, wielded by the Prince of Peace, evades the ire reserved for Quranic necks. Why the reticence? Historical inertia plays a role: Old Testament conquests are archived as “primitive” typology pointing to Christ, per Christian supersessionism, while the Quran lacks a “softer sequel.” But this theological sleight-of-hand crumbles under scrutiny. As illustrated in 1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike down Amalek, and completely destroy all that they have. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys. ”

— The Holy Bible, 1 Samuel 15:3

Samuel’s oracle to Saul (11th century BCE) avenges ancient raids, enforcing herem against eternal foes—including infants—in a total war edict Saul partially defies, costing his throne. Paralleling post-treaty reprisals in chapter At-Tawbah (The Repentance), it’s tribal vengeance in purity. If Samuel’s infant-killing command is “merely historical,” so too are Prophet Muhammad’s besieged pagans.

Engineered Contradictions: From Anti-People-of-the-Book Quotes to Divine Hypocrisy Charges

Critics dig deeper, claiming the Quran fosters inherent enmity toward Jews and Christians, summing up chapter Al-Bayyina (The Evidence) verse 6:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ فِي نَارِ جَهَنَّمَ خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا ۚ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ شَرُّ الْبَرِيَّةِ

“Indeed, those who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the polytheists will be in the Fire of Hell, abiding therein forever. They are the worst of all creatures. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Bayyina (The Evidence), Verse: 6

As unforgivable ethnic hatred. Yet this verse, revealed amid Medina’s Jewish elite rejecting Muhammad’s revelation despite full Torah access as in chapter Al-Bayyina verse 1 to 5:

لَمْ يَكُنِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ وَالْمُشْرِكِينَ مُنفَكِّينَ حَتَّىٰ تَأْتِيَهُمُ الْبَيِّنَةُ رَسُولٌ مِّنَ اللَّهِ يَتْلُو صُحُفًا مُّطَهَّرَةً فِيهَا كُتُبٌ قَيِّمَةٌ وَمَا تَفَرَّقَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ إِلَّا مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءَتْهُمُ الْبَيِّنَةُ وَمَا أُمِرُوا إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ مُخْلِصِينَ لَهُ الدِّينَ حُنَفَاءَ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَذَٰلِكَ دِينُ الْقَيِّمَةِ

“Those who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists were not to desist until there came to them clear evidence—a Messenger from God, reciting purified scriptures, containing sound and upright teachings. Nor did those who were given the Scripture become divided until after the clear evidence had come to them. And they were not commanded except to worship God, being sincere to Him in religion, inclining toward truth, to establish prayer, and to give zakah—and that is the upright religion. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Bayyina (The Evidence), Verse: 1-5

Actually bifurcates People of the Book: Believers are “the best of creatures” in chapter Al-Bayyina (The Evidence) verse 7:

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ أُولَٰئِكَ هُمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ

“Indeed, those who believe and do righteous deeds — they are the best of all creation. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Bayyina (The Evidence), Verse: 7

While “disbelievers” targets specific covenant-breakers who opposed early Muslims, not entire communities. Paralleling chapter Al-Ma’idah (The Table) verse 51 warning:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَىٰ أَوْلِيَاءَ ۘ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ ۚ وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

“O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies; they are allies of one another. And whoever among you turns to them in allegiance is indeed one of them. Truly, God does not guide the wrongdoing people. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 51

Its context is a ban on political alliances as the Byzantine Empire and allies plotted Medina’s invasion in 630 CE—not a veto on personal friendships, affirmed in Surah Al-Mumtahanah (She That is to be Examined) verse 8:

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُمْ مِنْ دِيَارِكُمْ أَنْ تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and fairness to those who do not fight you because of your faith and do not drive you out of your homes. Indeed, God loves those who act justly. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Mumtahanah (She That is to be Examined), Verse: 8

Likewise, Surah At-Tawbah (The Repentance) verse 29 mandates fighting “People of the Book” until they pay jizyah, emerging post-betrayals in defensive wars; jizyah is merely a civil protection tax, equivalent to Muslim zakat, bounded by the Quran’s overarching peace ethics.

قَاتِلُوا الَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَلَا بِالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا الْجِزْيَةَ عَنْ يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ

“Fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not follow the religion of truth—among those who were given the Scripture—until they pay the jizyah willingly, while being humbled. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. At-Tawbah (The Repentance), Verse: 29

Why are these twisted into genocide calls, while Biblical parallels—like Nehemiah 13:25:

“I rebuked them and called curses down on them. I beat some of the men and pulled out their hair. I made them take an oath in God’s name and said: ‘You must not give your daughters in marriage to the peoples around you, or take their daughters for your sons or for yourselves.’ ”

— The Holy Bible, Nehemiah 13:25

Where Prophet Nehemiah beats and pulls hair from Jews allying with foreigners—pass as “sacred history” sans rebuke? Isn’t this proof that “anti-People-of-the-Book” is mere pretext for anti-Islam agendas, not fair textual analysis?

More slyly, advanced arguments accuse Allah of “moral hypocrisy” for forbidding mockery, chapter Al-Hujurat (The Chambers) verse 11:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا يَسْخَرْ قَوْمٌ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَسَى أَنْ يَكُونُوا خَيْرًا مِنْهُمْ وَلَا نِسَاءٌ مِنْ نِسَاءٍ عَسَى أَنْ يَكُنَّ خَيْرًا مِنْهُنَّ وَلَا تَلْمِزُوا أَنْفُسَكُمْ وَلَا تَنَابَزُوا بِالْأَلْقَابِ بِئْسَ الِاسْمُ الْفُسُوقُ بَعْدَ الْإِيمَانِ وَمَنْ لَمْ يَتُبْ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ

“O you who have believed, do not mock one another; perhaps they may be better than you. Nor insult one another by using offensive nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after faith. And whoever does not repent—those are the wrongdoers. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Hujurat (The Chambers), Verse: 11

Yet using harsh metaphors like likening deniers to donkey:

وَمَثَلُ الَّذِينَ حُمِّلُوا التَّوْرَاةَ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَحْمِلُوهَا كَمَثَلِ الْحِمَارِ يَحْمِلُ أَسْفَارًا ۚ بِئْسَ مَثَلُ الْقَوْمِ الَّذِينَ كَذَّبُوا بِآيَاتِ اللَّهِ ۚ وَاللَّهُ لَا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ

“The example of those who were entrusted with the Torah but then failed to carry it out is like that of a donkey carrying books. Wretched is the example of the people who deny the signs of Allah. And Allah does not guide the wrongdoing people. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Jumu’ah (Friday), Verse: 5

Or cattle:

وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آذَانٌ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَـٰمِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُو۟لَـٰٓئِكَ هُمُ الْغَـٰفِلُونَ

“Indeed, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell; they have hearts with which they do not understand, eyes with which they do not see, and ears with which they do not hear. They are like cattle, rather, they are even more astray; it is they who are the heedless. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 179

This is a category error: chapter Al-Hujurat (The Chambers) verse 11 ban targets dignity-eroding human interactions, while divine metaphors are ancient Arab rhetorical tools depicting spiritual ignorance—much like Jesus in Matthew 23:27 calling Pharisees:

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead bones and all kinds of impurity. ”

— The Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew 23:27

Not violation, but pedagogical style to awaken conscience, and the Quran itself stresses context: Critique for reform, not eternal insult. Hypocrisy charges balloon with claims God:

وَأَطِيعُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَلَا تَنَازَعُوا فَتَفْشَلُوا وَتَذْهَبَ رِيحُكُمْ وَاصْبِرُوا ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ مَعَ الصَّابِرِينَ وَلَا تَكُونُوا كَالَّذِينَ خَرَجُوا مِن دِيَارِهِم بِفَخْرٍ وَرِئَاءَ النَّاسِ وَيَصُدُّونَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۗ وَاللَّهُ بِمَا يَعْمَلُونَ مُحِيطٌ

“Obey Allah and His Messenger, and do not quarrel, lest you lose courage and your strength depart; and be patient. Indeed, Allah is with the patient. And do not be like those who leave their homes arrogantly and to be seen by people, hindering others from the way of Allah. And Allah is encompassing of what they do. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. As-Saff (The Ranks), Verse: 2-3

Yet those verses rebuke hypocritical humans saying “We believe” but shirking jihad—not the transcendent God, whose prerogatives outstrip human standards. If this is contradiction, why does the Bible’s God commanding:

“You shall not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord. ”

— The Holy Bible, Leviticus 19:18

Yet:

“If a man or woman is found among you doing what is evil in the eyes of the Lord your God, in violation of His commands—such as worshiping other gods, offering sacrifices to them, or bowing down to them—then that person shall be brought to your city gate. There, the men of the city shall take them and investigate carefully. If it is confirmed that the person has indeed committed this detestable act in the sight of the Lord your God, you shall bring them to your gates and stone them to death. ”

— The Holy Bible, Deuteronomy 17:2-5

Escape similar flak? The climax—“the Most Merciful hurling to eternal hell for mere disbelief”—ignores nuance: Mercy is universal offer:

وَقَالَ رَبُّكُمُ ادْعُونِي أَسْتَجِبْ لَكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَسْتَكْبِرُونَ عَنْ عِبَادَتِي سَيَدْخُلُونَ جَهَنَّمَ دَاخِرِينَ

“And your Lord said, ‘Call upon Me, and I will respond to you. Indeed, those who arrogantly refuse to worship Me will enter Hell humiliated.’ ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 156

Hell for conscious oppressors (not “mere disbelievers,” but rejectors post-proof, like in chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 56):

إِنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا بِآيَاتِنَا سَوْفَ نُصْلِيهِمْ نَارًا كُلَّمَا نَضِجَتْ جُلُودُهُمْ بَدَّلْنَاهُمْ جُلُودًا غَيْرَهَا لِيَذُوقُوا الْعَذَابَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَزِيزًا حَكِيمًا

“Those who disbelieve in Our signs — We will surely burn them in the Fire. Each time their skins are fully roasted, We will replace them with new skins so they may taste the punishment. Indeed, Allah is Almighty and Wise. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 56

It’s mercy-justice balance, paralleling Christian hell in:

“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life. ”

— The Holy Bible, Gospel of Matthew 25:46

The “Allah as Muhammad’s alter ego” claim is reductive speculation, crumbling before verses correcting the Prophet proving independent revelation:

عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰٓ أَن جَآءَهُ ٱلْأَعْمَىٰ وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُۥ يَزَّكَّىٰ أَوْ يَذَّكَّرُ فَتَنفَعَهُ ٱلذِّكْرَىٰ أَمَّا مَنِ ٱسْتَغْنَىٰ فَأَنتَ لَهُۥ تَصَدَّىٰ وَمَا عَلَيْكَ أَلَّا يَزَّكَّىٰ وَأَمَّا مَن جَآءَكَ يَسْعَىٰ وَهُوَ يَخْشَىٰ فَأَنتَ عَنْهُ تَلَهَّىٰ

“He frowned and turned away because there came to him the blind man and what could make you know that he might become pure? Or be reminded and the reminder would benefit him? As for the one who is self-sufficient, you give attention to him. Yet it is not upon you to make him pure. But as for the one who comes to you striving, and who fears [Allah], you are concerned with him. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Abasa (He Frowned), Verse: 1-10

Beneath it all? A fabricated narrative to undermine Quranic integrity while papering over similar Biblical contradictions—further evidence their “truth” resembles witch hunts more than honest inquiry.

Dark Moral Shadows: Accusations of “Immoral” Islam vs. Raw Sexual Imagery in the Bible

Amid a wave of increasingly personal accusations, critics now target Islam’s core morality with labels like “immoral” or even “rapist,” often citing chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 24:

وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ كِتَابَ اللَّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ وَأُحِلَّ لَكُمْ مَا وَرَاءَ ذَلِكُمْ أَنْ تَبْتَغُوا بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ مُحْصِنِينَ غَيْرَ مُسَافِحِينَ فَمَا اسْتَمْتَعْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْهُنَّ فَآتُوهُنَّ أُجُورَهُنَّ فَرِيضَةً وَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِيمَا تَرَاضَيْتُمْ بِهِ مِنْ بَعْدِ الْفَرِيضَةِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا

“And [lawful to you are] women who are married, except those whom your right hands possess—[this is] the decree of Allah upon you. And permitted to you are those beyond this, that you seek with your wealth, [desiring] chastity, not fornication. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 24

As proof that Islam legitimizes the rape of war captives, or polygamy in:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ ۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those women who seem good to you—two, three, or four. But if you fear that you will not be fair, then [marry only] one, or those whom your right hands possess. That is more suitable so that you do not incline to injustice. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 3

As “inherent sexism.” This narrative, rampant on social media, ignores the 7th-century revolutionary context: chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 24 was revealed in Medina to reform brutal pre-Islamic sexual slavery practices, where female captives (including married women) were routinely exploited without rights; Islam mandated lawful marriage, inheritance rights, and protection for them (as expounded in tafsirs like Ibn Kathir), transforming their status from “spoils of war” to full family members with protections—a progressive step in an era when war women were deemed merciless “spoils.” Polygamy, too, was capped at four wives with an absolute justice condition:

وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَن تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ فَلَا تَمِيلُوا كُلَّ الْمَيْلِ فَتَذَرُوهَا كَالْمُعَلَّقَةِ ۚ وَإِن تُصْلِحُوا وَتَتَّقُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

“You will never be able to maintain perfect fairness between your wives, even if you strive to do so. So do not lean completely toward one and leave the other suspended as if she has no place. But if you reconcile and remain mindful of God, then indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 129

As a social solution for war widows and orphans (see full chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 3), not a hedonistic license. Why do these charges persist so doggedly, while the Bible—born in a similarly ancient Near Eastern context—brims with far rawer, unfiltered sexual narratives, often dubbed “holy pornography” by secular scholars like Richard Dawkins? Isn’t this yet more evidence of selective bias, scapegoating Islam for ancient patriarchal morality while shielding Judeo-Christian traditions as “cultural heritage”?

Consider Ezekiel 23, one of the Bible’s most controversial chapters, depicting two symbolic sisters, Oholah (Samaria) and Oholibah (Jerusalem), as whores:

“And she multiplied her acts of harlotry, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. So she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. ”

— The Holy Bible, Ezekiel 23:17-18

Penned around 593-571 BCE as an allegory for Israel’s betrayal of God through political alliances and idolatry, this chapter overflows with graphic descriptions—spread thighs, ornaments as metaphors for intimate organs, and sexual violence as divine punishment—that even unsettle modern Christian commentators like Matthew Henry, who called it “too coarse for the dinner table.” Even more explicit, Ezekiel 23:20 continues:

“There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. ”

— The Holy Bible, Ezekiel 23:20

A vulgar anatomical comparison portraying Oholibah’s desire as bestial impulse, which today would go viral as “adult content.” Like chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 24, it arises from an era of fragile wars and alliances, but Ezekiel imposes no limits or reforms; instead, its narrative underpins allegories exploited in Western art (like Renaissance paintings), sans accusations of “Biblical pornography.” If Islam is branded “rapist” for humane captive regulations, why does Ezekiel—which details “horse-like emissions” as a sin metaphor—escape as “holy prophet” without waves of immorality backlash?

Hide Image

There are more vulgar images than this, but I cannot show them explicitly, and this serves sufficiently as an example. The pattern repeats in the Song of Solomon, an unabashedly erotic text in the Biblical canon:

“Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle. Your neck is like a tower of ivory; your eyes are pools in Heshbon by the gate of Bath Rabbim. Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon looking toward Damascus. Your head crowns you like Carmel, and the flowing locks of your hair are like purple; a king is held captive in the tresses. How beautiful are your sandaled feet, O prince’s daughter! Your rounded thighs are like jewels, the work of a master hand. Your navel is a rounded bowl that never lacks mixed wine. Your waist is a mound of wheat encircled by lilies. Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle. ”

— The Holy Bible, Song of Solomon 7:2-9

Composed around the 10th century BCE as a celebration of romantic love (perhaps between Solomon and his bride), this song brims with sensual metaphors—breasts, thighs, navels—that even Popes like Gregory the Great hesitated to include in the canon for being “too worldly.”

More explicit, Song of Solomon states: “Your breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle”—an intimate depiction zeroing in on body parts, which today could be slammed as female objectification. Its context is an allegory of God’s love for Israel (per Christian interpretations), but literally, it’s explicit love poetry, paralleling Islamophobe critiques of “sexualization” in the Quran:

وَقُل لِّلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِن زِينَتِهِنَّ وَأَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts, and not to display their adornment except what is apparent of it. And let them draw their veils over their chests, and not reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers, their brothers’ sons, their sisters’ sons, their women, what their right hands possess, or those male attendants who lack sexual desire, or children who are not yet aware of women’s private parts. And do not strike their feet to draw attention to their hidden adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you may succeed. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 31

Yet the Song of Solomon is hailed as the “Bible’s book of love,” read at Christian weddings, while Islamic verses mandating modesty (like head covering) are smeared as “oppression.” Rhetorical reversal: If descriptions of “breasts like fawns” and “navel rounded bowls” are sacred art, why do Islam’s privacy protections for women become “immoral”—isn’t this proof their “morality” is flexible, depending on which faith is under fire?

Darker still, Hosea 2:2-3 commands the prophet Hosea to “rebuke” his wife Gomer, deemed a harlot:

“Say to your brothers, ‘You are my people,’ and to your sisters, ‘You have received mercy.’ Contend with your mother, contend! For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband; let her remove her adulteries from her sight and her adultery from between her breasts. ”

— The Holy Bible, Hosea 2:2-3

Written around 750 BCE as an allegory for Israel’s betrayal (Gomer symbolizing the nation “adulterizing” with idols), this verse homes in on “between her breasts” as the site of “unfaithfulness,” with an intimidating, sensual tone—an invitation to metaphorical “stripping” that today would be called abusive. This parallels Islam accusations over “strike your wife” in chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 34, but Hosea lacks graduated reforms; instead, the ensuing narrative (Hosea 3) involves “buying back” Gomer as a captive, echoing sexual slavery dynamics Islam reformed.

Then, Genesis 38 recounts Tamar disguising herself as a roadside prostitute to “lie with” her father-in-law Judah, who unwittingly “went in unto her” due to mistaken identity:

“He said, ‘What pledge shall I give you?’ She said, ‘Your seal and your cord, and your staff that is in your hand.’ So he gave them to her and went in to her, and she conceived by him. Then she arose and departed, and removed her veil and put on her widow’s garments. When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her. He asked the men of her place, saying, ‘Where is the temple prostitute who was by the road at Enaim?’ But they said, ‘There has been no temple prostitute here.’ So he returned to Judah and said, ‘I did not find her; and furthermore, the men of the place said, “There has been no temple prostitute here.”’ Then Judah said, ‘Let her keep them, otherwise we will become a laughingstock. After all, I sent this young goat, but you did not find her.’ Now it was about three months later that Judah was informed, ‘Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot; and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.’ Then Judah said, ‘Bring her out and let her be burned!’ ”

— The Holy Bible, Genesis 38:18–24

An incest recorded with intimate detail, sans direct moral rebuke from the narrator, instead becoming the origin of Judah’s lineage (ancestor of David). Its context, around 2000 BCE, is a tale of social justice for widows, but explicitly, it’s a raw sex scene, paralleling “rapist” smears against Prophet Muhammad over Aisha’s marriage (historically tied to ancient age norms, not modern pedophilia).

The nadir of darkness arrives in Judges 19, a chapter often cited as one of the Bible’s most horrifying narratives: A Levite (Israelite priest) and his concubine stay in Gibeah, where city men besiege the house demanding:

“While they were enjoying themselves, some of the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, pounding on the door. They spoke to the old man, the master of the house, saying, ‘Bring out the man who came to your house so that we may have sexual relations with him.’ ”

— The Holy Bible, Judges 19:22

The host offers his concubine instead, and:

“But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and brought her out to them; and they knew her and abused her all night until morning, and let her go at dawn.”

— The Holy Bible, Judges 19:25

Leaving her dying on the doorstep. The Levite wakes his dead wife, dismembers her body into twelve pieces, and sends them to Israel’s tribes to spark civil war:

“When he entered his house, he took a knife, laid hold of his concubine, and divided her into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel. And everyone who saw it said, ‘Such a thing has never been done or seen from the day the Israelites came up from the land of Egypt until today. Consider it, take counsel, and speak up!’”

— The Holy Bible, Judges 19:29-30

Penned around the 12th century BCE as an illustration of “chaos” in the judges’ era (pre-monarchy), this story details mass rape, corpse mutilation, and bloody reprisal killing 25,000 (chapter 20)—a tragedy that today would headline “Me Too” and war crimes. Its context critiques social injustice in pre-king Israel, but the narrative lacks explicit moral reform; instead, it fuels brutal tribal war, paralleling Islamophobe charges of “war violence” in chapter Muhammad verse 4:

فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَٰكِن لِّيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُم بِبَعْضٍ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَن يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ

“So when you meet those who disbelieve in battle, strike their necks until you have thoroughly subdued them; then bind them firmly. Thereafter, either grant them release as an act of grace or ransom them, until the war lays down its burdens. That is the command. Had God willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them Himself, but He has ordained it so to test some of you through others. And those who are slain in the path of God—He will never let their deeds go to waste. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Muhammad, Verse: 4

Why is Islam deemed “immoral” for women’s rights reforms, while the Bible—recounting incest, “fawn-like breasts,” “horse emissions,” and rape followed by dismemberment—is celebrated as “stories of forgiveness”? This isn’t sincere moral critique, but a selective weapon targeting one faith while ennobling another—a hypocrisy that increasingly reveals the agenda behind “immoral” accusations.

Statistical Facts: High in Some Countries, But Not “Incest” and Not Unique to Islam

First, a terminological clarification: What these narratives often label as “incest” is actually first-cousin marriage, biologically termed “consanguinity” or “inbreeding” due to its elevated genetic risks (such as birth defects at 2-3 times the global average). This is legal in many countries (including parts of the U.S., the UK, and historically in European royalty), but rare in the West (~1%). In the Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait, rates are indeed high—based on 2025 data from the World Population Review and studies in the European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology:

Country	First-Cousin Marriage Rate (%)	Additional Context
Pakistan	60–70% (highest globally; ~140–160 million adults involved)	Strong tribal/clan culture and economic pressures promote in-family marriages to preserve wealth and heritage. In rural areas, rates reach up to 80%. Outcome: Elevated genetic defects (BMC Women's Health study, 2022: 63% of such marriages linked to women's and children's health issues).
Saudi Arabia	50–58% (~20–25 million adults)	Bedouin (nomadic) traditions and patriarchal norms; government campaigns against inbreeding since the 2010s due to health risks.
Kuwait	22–64% (wide range due to varying data)	Similar to Saudi Arabia, driven by immigration and large family structures; a 2007 study (ANSAmed) reported 54%, but rates have declined with education efforts.
Global Average	~1% in the West; 10–20% in South Asia/Middle East overall	Not unique to Muslims: India (non-Muslim majority) at 55%, Qatar at 54%, Afghanistan at 40%. In 19th-century Europe, rural rates in England/France reached 10–20% to preserve land.

Islam Forbids Incest, It Doesn’t Promote It—Instead, It’s a Reform from Pre-Islamic Practices

Second, the claim that “Islam teaches incest” is pure slander. The Quran explicitly prohibits incest in chapter An-Nisa (The Women) verse 22 to 23:

وَلَا تَنكِحُوا مَا نَكَحَ أَبَوَاؤُكُم مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ ۗ إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَمَقْتًا وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمْ أُمَّهَاتُكُمْ وَبَنَاتُكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُمْ وَعَمَّاتُكُمْ وَخَالَاتُكُمْ وَمَا أَرْضَعَتْ أُمُّكُمْ وَأَخَوَاتُكُم مِّنَ الرَّضَاعَةِ وَأُمَّهَاتُ نِسَائِكُمْ وَرَبَائِبُكُمُ اللَّاتِي فِي حُجُورِكُم مِّن نِّسَائِكُمْ اللَّاتِي دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَإِن لَّمْ تَكُونُوا دَخَلْتُم بِهِنَّ فَلَا جُنَاحَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَحَلَائِلُ أَبْنَائِكُمُ الَّذِينَ مِنْ أَصْلاَبِكُمْ وَأَن تَجْمَعُوا بَيْنَ الْأُخْتَيْنِ إِلَّا مَا قَدْ سَلَفَ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

“And do not marry women whom your fathers married, except what has already passed; indeed, it is immoral, detestable, and an evil way. Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your nursing mothers, your foster sisters, your mothers-in-law, your stepdaughters who are under your guardianship from your wives with whom you have consummated marriage—if you have not consummated with them, there is no sin on you—and the wives of your sons who are from your own loins, and that you may not marry two sisters at the same time, except what has already passed. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 22-23

This is a comprehensive list: mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, mothers-in-law—all forbidden, with adultery penalties (flogging or stoning if married, per authentic hadiths). The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was unequivocal:

“What is unlawful for your brother is unlawful for you.”

— Bukhari

Incest is deemed abomination and a major sin, akin to the Bible (Leviticus 18). The confusion arises because cousin marriage is permitted in Islam (not listed as prohibited in the Quran), and the Prophet married his cousin Zaynab bint Jahsh—but this was a pre-Islamic Arab norm dating back millennia, not a religious “endorsement.” The Quran contains no verse “sanctioning” or “recommending” cousin unions; instead, it emphasizes preserving lineage and equity:

يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ اتَّقُوا رَبَّكُمُ الَّذِي خَلَقَكُم مِّن نَّفْسٍ وَاحِدَةٍ وَخَلَقَ مِنْهَا زَوْجَهَا وَبَثَّ مِنْهُمَا رِجَالًا كَثِيرًا وَنِسَاءً ۚ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ الَّذِي تَسَاءَلُونَ بِهِ وَالْأَرْحَامَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ عَلَيْكُمْ رَقِيبًا

“O mankind, be mindful of your Lord, who created you from a single soul and created from it its mate, and spread from both of them many men and women. And be mindful of Allah, through whom you ask one another, and of the wombs that bore you. Truly, Allah is ever watchful over you. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 1

Islam actually reformed practices: Pre-Islam, half-sibling or father-daughter marriages occurred; the Quran restricted them and protected women (divorce rights, inheritance). Modern scholars (e.g., Al-Azhar) campaign against cousin marriage due to health risks, aligning with chapter Al-Baqarah (The Heifer) verse 195: “Do not cast yourselves into ruin with your own hands”.

Aggressively Hunting Others’ Flaws, But Covering Your Own: The Psychology Behind Selective Bias

This is the core sting that makes such analysis feel like a comeback slap—they’re like super detectives aggressively scouring “the other guy’s case” for flaws, but when it’s time to unpack “home turf,” suddenly they’re blind forensic experts. Take Tommy Robinson or Geert Wilders: They slice Quranic verses as if they’re today’s terror blueprints, but query European colonial history weaponizing Bible verses for slavery or genocide—like American conquests claimed as “God’s will” per Deuteronomy 20—and it’s “That’s the past, don’t be anachronistic!” This is double standards on steroids, where aggression toward “the other” boosts their superiority, while their own mirror gets tightly curtained to dodge hypocrisy. Social psychology, as Jonathan Haidt unpacks in “The Elephant in the Brain,” shows we’re all prone to confirmation bias—but in religious discourse, it becomes a rampant world mass destruction. Why do Islamophobes rarely spotlight how Biblical verses justified transatlantic slavery or indigenous genocides by European colonizers, while similar Quranic ones get smeared as “eternal threats”? Isn’t this proof their “truth-seeking” is more witch hunt than fair analysis—a game where one religion’s always the villain, the other skates as history’s victim?

The Cost of Favoritism: Toward a More Rigorous Scrutiny

This isn’t about false equivalence—defending Quranic verses by dredging Biblical ones—but intellectual integrity. The Quran and Bible, born in eras of empires, exiles, and existential threats, brim with martial language mirroring their worlds: Assyrian sieges for Isaiah, Persian persecutions for Daniel, Meccan boycotts for Prophet Muhammad. Quoting verses sans context is chronological sin, projecting modern pacifism onto ancient survival manuals. Yet Islamophobes—from Tommy Robinson’s hadith distortions to Geert Wilders’ “border shutdown” rants—thrive on it, their silence on Biblical parallels a tacit bias admission. Studies from Georgetown University’s Bridge Initiative document this: Media coverage of “Islamic violence” outpaces Christian or Jewish counterparts tenfold, even for comparable events.

So, what if we demanded balance? Imagine threads dissecting Deuteronomy alongside chapter At-Tawbah (The Repentance), or Matthew’s sword beside chapter Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War)—not to relativize dangers, but to humanize scriptures as flawed, besieged peoples’ gropes toward the divine. Real violence isn’t in these texts, but in their weaponization for division. Until critics confront their sacred cows, their condemnations ring hollow, mirroring the intolerance they decry. Ultimately, true critique honors context, history, and humanity—demanding we read all holy books with fearless, empathetic eyes. Only then can discourse transcend tribalism, step by step toward the justice both traditions, at their best, enjoin.

For the Bible verses I quoted, I did not include a specific version because there are many—such as the NIV, ESV, or KJV—and those are only three among numerous others. However, some translations are indeed more explicit in emphasizing the sexual intent behind certain expressions. For example, in Judges 19:22, the Hebrew word “to know” (יָדַע, yada’) in biblical language often carries a sexual connotation when used contextually.

Dress Code: Deconstructing Narratives of Morality and Freedom

Islam is often accused of being an immoral religion, yet paradoxically, Muslim women who choose to dress modestly are frequently labeled as “oppressed.” This accusation is not only contradictory but also ignores the core Islamic teachings that emphasize modesty, the covering of intimate parts of the body, and the restriction of excessive sexual interactions. In Islam, however, modesty extends far beyond clothing; it encompasses speech, behavior, and interpersonal conduct, reflecting an inner disposition of humility and dignity. Western narratives tend to invert moral logic: women who cover their bodies to preserve dignity are deemed shackled, while those who expose their bodies for public consumption are celebrated as symbols of freedom. This raises a fundamental question: which reflects greater morality—covering the body out of self-respect or exposing it without limits for social validation? Read: Modesty as Kindness.

Islamic Teachings on Modest Dress

Islam establishes clear and firm standards for dress, as outlined in Quran, for example in chapter 7 (Al-A’raf, The Elevation), verse 26; chapter 24 (An-Nur, The Light), verses 30–31; and chapter 33 (Al-Aḥzāb, The Confedrates), verse 59. Clothing must cover the intimate parts of the body, be loose-fitting, non-transparent, and not excessive—all rooted in the philosophy of preserving human dignity from sexual exploitation and bodily commodification. These rules are not mere cultural traditions but theological principles upheld throughout Islamic history, from 7th-century Arabian society to modern Muslim communities worldwide. In other words, modesty in dress is a cornerstone of Islamic morality designed to protect individuals and society from moral degradation.

---

00:38

---

---

00:00

00:38

• Options
• • Playback Speed
  • -0.7/0.3
  • -0.4/0.6
  • 1
  • +0.3/1.3
  • +0.6/1.6
• Report

In contrast, modern Western culture has followed a different trajectory. During the Middle Ages, European clothing was highly modest, with women’s necks and hair almost always covered, reflecting values similar to those in Islam. However, since the Renaissance, and especially in the 20th century, the industrialization of fashion in centers like Paris, Milan, and New York, amplified by Hollywood and the music industry, popularized revealing clothing such as miniskirts and bikinis. Liberal feminist movements also played a role by framing freedom as the right to expose the body, often without questioning its impact on the commodification of women. As a result, women’s bodies became tools for entertainment and capitalist profit, a phenomenon that contradicts the essence of true freedom.

Double Standards in Moral Judgments

The double standards in moral narratives are evident when comparing perceptions of modest dress across religions. A Catholic nun wearing a habit that covers her entire body is revered as a symbol of sanctity. Similarly, Orthodox Jewish women who cover their hair with wigs or scarves are viewed as expressing admirable faith. Yet, when a Muslim woman wears a head veil or face veil, the same act is often labeled a symbol of “oppression” or “extremism.” Even Muslim scholars in long robes are seen as representing backwardness, while the Pope or priests in similar attire are respected as figures of spiritual authority. This disparity reveals a deep-seated cultural bias in Western perceptions of Islam. See this tweet: “A woman decides to free herself from slavery on live TV”.

The slogan “my body, my choice” is often championed as a defense of bodily expression. However, when a Muslim woman chooses the head veil or face veil as an expression of faith, her choice is deemed invalid, as if freedom only applies when it aligns with Western liberal norms. Ironically, secular policies in some countries, such as France’s bans on the face veil and burkini, restrict individual freedom under the guise of “secularism” or “liberation.” Preventing someone from practicing their religious beliefs is a form of oppression, not freedom, exposing contradictions in the liberal narrative that claims to champion individual autonomy. Read: WHY THE FRENCH DON'T LIKE THE BURQA: LAÏCITÉ, NATIONAL IDENTITY AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons and the Irony of Modernity

Cross-cultural comparisons strengthen this argument. In Confucian, Taoist, and Buddhist traditions in East Asia, traditional clothing like hanbok, hanfu, and kimono emphasized modesty and elegance, far from sensual exploitation. The shift toward revealing clothing in Japan, Korea, and China occurred only after Western influence through colonialism, war, and globalization. Read: Textbooks and Textiles: Fashion in East Asia, 1920-1945. In contrast, Islam has consistently upheld its teachings on modest dress, even amidst modernization pressures. Yet, the Western-liberal culture that promotes bikinis, mass pornography, and the normalization of casual sex is often regarded as a hallmark of progress, while Islam’s rejection of bodily commodification is labeled as outdated.

Even more ironically, the Bible itself calls for modesty in dress, as seen in 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 6:19–20. Yet, the Christian-secular world has pioneered revealing fashion, such as the miniskirt popularized by British designer Mary Quant in the 1960s. This fact underscores that the trend of minimal clothing does not originate from Islam or East Asian traditions but from the dynamics of Western secularization post-Enlightenment. Nevertheless, dominant narratives continue to portray Islam as an “immoral” religion, even though its teachings serve as a bulwark of morality in an increasingly permissive modern culture.

Deconstructing Narratives and Affirming Islamic Morality

The accusation that Islam is immoral is clearly at odds with the facts. Islamic teachings on dress code reflect a steadfast commitment to modesty, the protection of dignity, and the prevention of sexual exploitation. In contrast, Western-liberal culture, with its trends of revealing clothing and bodily commodification, often pressures women to conform to sensual standards for social acceptance. Muslim women who choose the head veil or face veil should be respected as expressing autonomy, on par with nuns or Orthodox Jewish women, rather than being labeled as victims of oppression. If “my body, my choice” truly represents freedom, then a Muslim woman’s choice to cover her body for reasons of faith and dignity must be upheld, not denigrated.

Ultimately, Islam offers a consistent moral framework for preserving human sanctity and dignity. In an increasingly permissive modern world, Islamic teachings on modest dress are not a symbol of backwardness but a final bastion of morality protecting individuals from exploitation and degradation. Narratives that invert these facts are not only misguided but also part of a cultural bias that must be challenged for the sake of justice and a more honest understanding.

Gender Segregation: Safeguarding Public Morality Through Prevention

In many Muslim-majority countries, gender segregation is practiced in various settings, such as mosques, public transportation, schools, and public events. Separation is not a form of discrimination but a preventive measure to avoid temptation, harassment, or unlawful sexual relations. From its inception, Islam has strictly regulated interactions between men and women, based on the principle that preventing moral violations is preferable to punishing them after the fact. This reflects Islam’s commitment to preserving the purity of individuals and society, as emphasized in Quranic verses such as chapter 24 (The Light), verses 30–31, which call for lowering the gaze and maintaining personal dignity.

قُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنِينَ يَغُضُّوا مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِمْ وَيَحْفَظُوا فُرُوجَهُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَزْكَىٰ لَهُمْ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا يَصْنَعُونَ وَقُلْ لِلْمُؤْمِنَاتِ يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ وَيَحْفَظْنَ فُرُوجَهُنَّ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا مَا ظَهَرَ مِنْهَا ۖ وَلْيَضْرِبْنَ بِخُمُرِهِنَّ عَلَىٰ جُيُوبِهِنَّ ۖ وَلَا يُبْدِينَ زِينَتَهُنَّ إِلَّا لِبُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَائِهِنَّ أَوْ آبَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَائِهِنَّ أَوْ أَبْنَاءِ بُعُولَتِهِنَّ أَوْ إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي إِخْوَانِهِنَّ أَوْ بَنِي أَخَوَاتِهِنَّ أَوْ نِسَائِهِنَّ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُنَّ أَوِ التَّابِعِينَ غَيْرِ أُولِي الْإِرْبَةِ مِنَ الرِّجَالِ أَوِ الطِّفْلِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يَظْهَرُوا عَلَىٰ عَوْرَاتِ النِّسَاءِ ۖ وَلَا يَضْرِبْنَ بِأَرْجُلِهِنَّ لِيُعْلَمَ مَا يُخْفِينَ مِنْ زِينَتِهِنَّ ۚ وَتُوبُوا إِلَى اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا أَيُّهَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ

“Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Truly, God is fully aware of what they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what naturally appears thereof. Let them draw their head coverings over their chests, and not expose their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their sisters, their fellow women, those whom their right hands possess, male attendants with no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of women’s nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to God in repentance, all of you believers, so that you may succeed.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 30-31

Media Spotlight and the 2022 Qatar World Cup

Gender segregation and modesty norms came under scrutiny during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar. Western media criticized local regulations, such as bans on public intoxication, restrictions on public displays of affection, mandatory modest dress, and segregated stadium areas, as clashing with liberal values. These criticisms often ignored the reasoning behind the rules, focusing instead on their divergence from Western norms that normalize casual socializing and bodily exposure. Yet, just as Muslim visitors to Western countries are expected to respect local laws, such as France’s ban on the face veil, Qatar enforced its Islamic cultural values as the host nation. The criticism of Qatar reflects a double standard that disregards cultural context and national sovereignty. Read: Western media criticism of World Cup host Qatar 'old orientalism refashioned for modern audience'.

Qatar’s policies had clear, rational goals. First, they aimed to protect public morality, ensuring a global event did not devolve into drunkenness, casual sex, or harassment, as often seen at similar events in Western countries. Second, Qatar sought to prove that a world-class event could succeed without compromising local religious and cultural values. Third, the principle of legal equality was applied: just as Muslims in the West must comply with local laws, Western visitors to Qatar were required to respect Islamic norms.

Gender Segregation in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Gender segregation is not unique to Islam. Similar practices exist in conservative Christian communities, such as the Amish, early Mormons, or Eastern Orthodox churches, which enforce gender separation, modest dress, and restrictions on casual interactions. Even into the 19th century, Western churches often segregated men and women during worship to preserve sanctity. However, secularization in the West has largely eroded these practices, while the Muslim world has consistently upheld them as part of Islamic law. This difference is not a sign of Islam’s backwardness but evidence of its commitment to preventive morality, which the West has largely abandoned. Read: Gynaikeion.

Double Standards in Moral Narratives

Narratives condemning gender segregation in Muslim societies often overlook the fact that moral violations, such as harassment or promiscuity, occur across all communities. For example, the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandals, involving tens of thousands of victims, are not used to label Christianity as an “immoral religion.” Yet, when a few Muslims violate Islamic law, their actions are quickly generalized as reflective of Islam as a whole. It is critical to distinguish between teachings and individual behavior: Islam has strict moral codes, and individual violations reflect personal failings, not flaws in the religion.

Ironically, criticism of gender segregation in Muslim societies is rarely directed at other communities with similar practices. Catholic nuns or Orthodox Jewish women who cover their bodies or live in segregated communities are respected as expressions of faith, but Muslim women adhering to Islamic law are labeled oppressed. This double standard reveals a deep cultural bias, where Islamic norms are judged through a Western-liberal lens without understanding their underlying philosophy.

Segregation as a Moral Safeguard

Far from being discriminatory, gender segregation in Islam is a preventive mechanism designed to protect society from moral degradation. By separating male and female spaces, Islam reduces the potential for temptation, harassment, and violations of Islamic law, aligning with the principle that prevention is better than punishment. Qatar’s successful hosting of the 2022 World Cup while upholding modesty norms demonstrates the relevance and effectiveness of these rules in creating a safe, dignified environment.

Ultimately, stigmatizing gender segregation in Islam as immoral is a logical fallacy that ignores historical and cultural realities. Similar traditions once existed in major religions, and Islam’s consistency in maintaining these principles underscores its commitment to public morality. Narratives that generalize individual failings as flaws of Islam reflect bias, not truth. By understanding gender segregation as part of a preventive moral system, we can see Islam not as an oppressive religion but as a final bastion of human dignity in an increasingly permissive world.

Pop Culture: Objectification, Commodification, and Double Standards in Morality

Modern pop culture—characterized by revealing clothing, pornography, the sex industry (including sex toys and sex work), and vulgar language, clearly does not originate from the Muslim world. Instead, it emerged and flourished in the West, driven by the cultural revolution post-World War II, and has since spread globally, including to East Asia. Ironically, despite Islam’s consistent adherence to modesty and dignity through Islamic law, it is often labeled “immoral.” Meanwhile, Western-liberal pop culture, which normalizes the objectification of women and casual sex, is frequently hailed as a symbol of progress, revealing a glaring double standard in global moral narratives. Read: Sexual revolution.

Origins of Permissive Pop Culture

History records that revealing clothing, such as the miniskirt popularized by British designer Mary Quant in the 1960s and the bikini created by France’s Louis Réard in 1946, originated in post-World War II Europe. In Islam, such attire is considered a form of indecent exposure, which is strictly prohibited as it contradicts the principle of modesty, as emphasized in the Quran (Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 26; Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 30–31). The strong reaction from Muslim communities to such clothing in public spaces in Muslim countries is not a sign of intolerance but an effort to uphold Islamic values that reject the commodification of the human body. Read: Mary Quant: The miniskirt and PVC pioneer.

يَا بَنِي آدَمَ قَدْ أَنْزَلْنَا عَلَيْكُمْ لِبَاسًا يُوَارِي سَوْآتِكُمْ وَرِيشًا ۖ وَلِبَاسُ التَّقْوَىٰ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ مِنْ آيَاتِ اللَّهِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَذَّكَّرُونَ

“O children of Adam, We have sent down to you garments to cover your nakedness and as adornment. But the garment of piety—that is far better. This is among the signs of God, so that they may be reminded.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 26

The pornography industry also has its roots in the West. Major platforms like PornHub, XHamster, XVideos, and Chaturbate are based in Canada, Europe, and the United States, where pornography is legalized and constitutes a multi-billion-dollar industry. Read: Adult Entertainment Global Business Analysis Report 2024-2030 Growth of Subscription-based Models and Premium Content Sustains Revenue, Collaborations Enhance Market Visibility and Aylo. In contrast, Islam explicitly prohibits the production, distribution, and consumption of pornography, as implied in the Quran (Ch. Al-Muʼminun (The Believers), Verse: 26), which restricts sexual expression to marriage. If such an industry emerged in the Muslim world, Islamic law would demand its closure, underscoring that pornography is a product of permissive Western culture, not Islam. Read: Countries Where Porn Is Illegal.

وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَىٰ أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ فَإِنَّهُمْ غَيْرُ مَلُومِينَ فَمَنِ ابْتَغَىٰ وَرَاءَ ذَٰلِكَ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْعَادُونَ

“And they who guard their private parts, except with their spouses or those whom their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not blameworthy. But whoever seeks beyond that, they are the transgressors. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Muʼminun (The Believers), Verse: 5-7

The same applies to sex toys, which began being marketed in the West in the early 20th century and surged in popularity during the 1960s sexual revolution. In Islam, objects that mimic sexual organs or incite arousal outside lawful marriage are strictly forbidden, reflecting the religion’s commitment to preserving purity.

A Confusing Contrast: A father in Japan smiles behind a hat shaped like a giant phallus, while his daughter innocently chews on candy of the same shape. They also have vagina-shaped lollipops. When a symbol of fertility and sexual health is presented as children’s candy, the boundaries of morality feel blurred. Is this simply tradition, or is it the normalization of something far too explicit for young eyes? And the large pink symbol paraded in the first photo is not just any symbol; it is known as the Elizabeth Mikoshi. Donated by Elizabeth Kaikan, a popular Tokyo drag club, it is traditionally carried by members of Japan’s drag and transgender communities. The presence of the Elizabeth Mikoshi and the active participation of these communities have transformed the Kanamara Matsuri (かなまら祭り) from a simple fertility ritual into a celebration of acceptance, inclusivity, and sexual diversity. In other words, the festival honors life, fertility, and sexual health in all forms—including heterosexual, homosexual, and transgender identities.

The Kanamara Matsuri (かなまら祭り), or “Festival of the Steel Phallus,” is an annual Shinto fertility festival held on the first Sunday of April at Kanayama Shrine in Kawasaki, Japan. Its origins trace back to the Edo period (1603–1868), when it served as a place of worship for sex workers seeking protection from sexually transmitted infections. Today, the festival is a public event featuring a parade of phallic-themed portable shrines (mikoshi), symbolic of fertility and protection. While it may appear unconventional, the festival is rooted in Shinto traditions and aims to promote sexual health and well-being. Read: Kanamara Matsuri: The Irony Behind the Infamous Japanese Penis Festival.

In many Western and East Asian countries where these critics live and consume media have legalized pornography, permit casual sexual relationships, and allow sex-related industries to operate openly. For example, adult entertainment in Japan, including hentai and live-action pornography, is produced legally, and events like the Kanamara Matsuri (かなまら祭り) festival publicly celebrate sexual symbols. Likewise, in much of Europe and North America, cohabitation, casual sex, and explicit sexual content are socially tolerated or even promoted. These permissive frameworks often lead to social consequences such as higher rates of out-of-wedlock births, sexually transmitted diseases, and divorce, while Islamic law actively works to prevent such outcomes.

There is currently nothing to observe...

Lyrics are unavailable.

2:48

Vulgar language in popular music, such as words like “f**k,” “p***y,” “b***h,” or “d**k” commonly found in lyrics by artists like Playboi Carti, Cardi B, or Nicki Minaj, also originates from Western slang, not Islamic tradition. The Quran (Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 169; Ch. Al-A’raf (The Elevation), Verse: 28) condemns obscene or indecent speech, making vulgar language a clear moral violation in Islamic teachings.

Objectification of Women in Pop Culture

Modern pop culture, both in the West and in East Asia influenced by globalization, often reduces women to visual objects for public consumption. Commercial advertisements use scantily clad women to market products, from cars to gadgets. In pop and hip-hop music, explicit lyrics, erotic dances, and music videos highlighting women’s bodies have become standard marketing strategies. In Japan, anime and manga frequently include fan service—suggestive character designs or poses—even for teenage or characters, normalizing objectification. Hollywood is no exception, with female characters often portrayed as “sexy” even when irrelevant to the storyline.

In contrast, Islam establishes strict rules to prevent the exploitation of women. Principles of modest dress, prohibition of seclusion between unrelated men and women, and restrictions on certain forms of social interaction aim to protect women’s dignity, not turn them into visual commodities. Ironically, Muslim women who adhere to these rules are often labeled “oppressed,” while a culture that promotes objectification is celebrated as freedom. This raises a critical question: which is more moral—Islam, which safeguards women’s honor, or pop culture, which exploits their bodies for commercial gain?

The Psychological and Social Consequences of Female Objectification

Reducing women to mere sexual objects in media, whether through advertisements, music videos, or even hyper-sexualized anime imagery, carries profound psychological consequences. Studies in psychology and gender studies have shown that repeated exposure to such portrayals contributes to self-objectification among women—where they begin to evaluate themselves primarily through the lens of physical appearance rather than character, intellect, or moral worth. Read: The Effects of Sexual Objectification on Women’s Mental Health.

This is not only harmful to self-esteem but also creates unrealistic expectations, both internally and externally. A young woman seeing that posts of sexualized anime characters receive far more attention than genuine portraits of real women may internalize the toxic message: “I must look like this to be valued or loved.”

Moreover, objectification normalizes a mindset in which women are perceived as consumable and replaceable, paving the way to greater tolerance of harassment, exploitation, and abuse. It is therefore a mistake to separate the “fantasy” of media depictions from the “reality” of harassment; both feed into the same cycle of reducing human beings to objects for pleasure.

The irony is unbearable: those quickest to label Islam “immoral” or to smear Muslims as “rapists” are often the same voices amplifying and normalizing pornography, sexualized advertising, and fetishized anime. Where is the moral outrage when entire industries profit from reducing women to body parts? If morality means protecting human dignity, then the true moral failure lies not in religious modesty but in a culture that profits from commodifying female bodies while feigning righteousness.

It is almost comical — if it weren’t so tragic. Critics denounce Islam as “oppressive” while liking, sharing, and monetizing images that turn women into disposable props. They preach moral superiority with one hand and click “share” with the other. Which action betrays greater moral bankruptcy: asking a woman to cover for her dignity, or applauding an industry that sells her dignity for clicks?

Mmm, it’s always interesting how so-called ‘freedom activists’ illustrate liberation only with women wearing less clothing... That’s not liberation — that’s hypocrisy wrapped in sexual objectification! https://t.co/ayk0zu3Ni9

— Andy Bennison (@realbennison) August 19, 2025

Normalization of Casual Sex and Its Consequences

The normalization of casual sex is a product of the 1960s sexual revolution in the West, promoted through music, films, advertisements, and even educational curricula. In many non-Muslim countries, particularly in the West and now in Japan, individuals who remain virgins past the age of 18 are often considered “odd” or mocked. Phenomena like enjo kōsai (援助交際) in Japan or room salons in South Korea illustrate how permissive culture has permeated East Asian societies that once valued chastity.

Having 0 body count at 20 is a big red flag.

— zoë (@zoveeo) September 7, 2025

The consequences are significant: out-of-wedlock births have surged in Western countries, with over 40% of children born outside marriage in some nations. Read: Out of Wedlock Births by Country. Sexually transmitted diseases like HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea have spread widely, while high divorce rates and mass abortions weaken the family institution. Cohabitation—living together without marriage—has also become normalized in Western societies, even celebrated as “modern love.” Yet this lifestyle often leads to unstable relationships, fatherless children, and the erosion of the family unit. In contrast, Islam prohibits fornication and extramarital sex, restricting sexual relations to marriage to protect lineage, prevent disease, and maintain social stability. The Quran (Ch. An-Nur (The Light), Verse: 2; Ch. Al-Isra’ (The Children of Israel), Verse: 32) prescribes severe penalties for unlawful sexual relations, underscoring Islam’s commitment to sexual morality.

وَلَا تَقْرَبُوا الزِّنَى إِنَّهُ كَانَ فَاحِشَةً وَسَاءَ سَبِيلًا

“Do not approach adultery; it is truly a shameful act and an evil way. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Isra’ (The Children of Israel), Verse: 32

Here lies the irony: a culture that praises cohabitation, casual sex, and multiple partners is hailed as progressive, while Islam—by requiring the dignity of marriage as the foundation for intimacy—is condemned as “oppressive.” In reality, the Islamic framework ensures responsibility, mutual respect, and stability, while permissive cultures often produce broken families and emotional insecurity. Thus, the very accusations leveled against Islam collapse when the facts are examined honestly.

Abortion, Moral Responsibility, and Ethical Flexibility: Islam vs. Secular Cultures

In many non-Muslim countries, abortion is legally permitted, often framed as a matter of individual choice or reproductive rights. Nations such as the United States, Canada, much of Europe, and Japan allow abortion under a range of circumstances, including personal, social, or economic reasons. This legal permissiveness reflects broader cultural attitudes toward sexuality, where casual sexual relationships and contraceptive autonomy are normalized. Yet, from a moral and ethical standpoint, abortion is fundamentally the termination of a developing human life, raising questions about the moral responsibility of ending a potential person’s existence. Secular laws often prioritize individual liberty over intrinsic moral consideration for the unborn, creating a cultural environment in which the life of the fetus is subordinated to convenience or social norms.

In contrast, Islamic teachings uphold the sanctity of life from conception, emphasizing that deliberate termination of a fetus is morally equivalent to taking a life, except in clearly defined circumstances. Classical Islamic jurisprudence generally considers abortion impermissible after 120 days of gestation—the period when the soul is believed to be breathed into the fetus. Abortion is only permitted before this stage in specific scenarios, such as to save the mother’s life, to prevent severe harm, or in cases of rape or incest, demonstrating ethical flexibility that protects both the rights of the mother and the dignity of the unborn. This approach balances moral absolutes with rational exceptions, illustrating that Islam’s ethical framework is not rigid but principled, designed to safeguard life, social stability, and individual welfare simultaneously. Read: Islam and the Abortion Debate.

The contrast is striking: secular permissive cultures may legalize abortion broadly, often divorced from moral or ethical consideration for the fetus, whereas Islam codifies a clear moral boundary while allowing exceptional flexibility in extreme cases. This framework encourages responsibility, foresight, and respect for human life, reinforcing a society where moral conduct, sexual responsibility, and the protection of both mothers and children are paramount. Far from being “oppressive,” the Islamic approach integrates compassion, justice, and rational ethics, challenging the simplistic claim that religious moral codes are inflexible or impractical.

Double Standards in Moral Narratives

The greatest irony is that Islam, with its strict rules on modesty and morality, is labeled “immoral,” while Western pop culture, which promotes pornography, revealing clothing, and casual sex, is seen as a hallmark of progress. Muslim women who cover their bodies are called oppressed, but teenagers with multiple partners are praised as “free.” Yet, when judged logically, Islam is far more consistent in preserving human dignity than a permissive culture that normalizes bodily exploitation and extramarital relationships.

The fact that this vulgar culture originates from the secular West, not Islam, is often ignored. If individual Muslims fall into such practices, it reflects personal deviation, not the teachings of Islam. Conversely, modern pop culture systematically promotes objectification and permissiveness as part of “freedom,” while stigmatizing Islam as outdated. Yet, Islam remains a bastion of morality, rejecting the normalization of pornography, indecent exposure, and vulgar culture in a world increasingly devoid of modesty standards.

Islam as a Bastion of Morality

The stark contrast between the moral rigor of Islamic societies and the permissiveness of secular cultures reveals a double standard: critics who viciously label Islam as “immoral” often live in societies where acts Islam strictly prohibits are normalized, legal, or celebrated. Thus, accusations of inherent immorality in Islam reflect bias and ignorance rather than evidence-based reasoning, whereas the moral frameworks in Islamic countries are codified, enforced, and aimed at protecting individuals and society.

While some critics accuse Muslims of moral failings such as incest, inbreeding, rape, or pedophilia, these claims are entirely unfounded and lack factual basis. In reality, countries governed by Islamic law, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen, and the UAE, enforce strict legal and moral codes: adultery is punishable by flogging or even death in certain circumstances; pornography production, distribution, and consumption are illegal and may result in imprisonment or hefty fines; and the sale or possession of sex toys is considered a criminal offense. These legal measures are implemented to preserve societal morality, protect human dignity, and safeguard families. Read: Adultery in the UAE.

The narrative labeling Islam as “immoral” is a distortion that contradicts the facts. Modern pop culture, with its revealing clothing, pornography, sex industry, and vulgar language, is a product of the secular West, not the Muslim world. Islamic teachings, with their emphasis on modest dress, prohibition of unlawful sex, and commitment to purity, offer a moral framework that protects human dignity. In an increasingly permissive global culture, Islam stands as a final stronghold against bodily exploitation and moral degradation. Criticizing Islam while praising a pop culture that promotes objectification is not just a double standard but a disregard for moral logic and justice. By understanding the historical facts and Islamic teachings, it becomes clear that accusations against Islam stem from bias, not truth.

Narcotics, Alcohol, and Gambling: Destructive Industries from the Non-Muslim World

Accusations that Islam is a “satanic religion” or that Muslims are immoral are often baseless, especially when considering Islam’s stance on narcotics, alcohol, and gambling. These three practices, which have devastated millions of families and lives worldwide, are major industries in non-Muslim societies, while Islam has categorically prohibited them for over 14 centuries. Read my article here: The Concept of Halal and Haram in Islam. Rooted in the protection of the mind, family, and social stability, Islam demonstrates a moral consistency that starkly contrasts with permissive cultures that exploit human weaknesses for financial gain.

Narcotics: A Global Industry Originating Outside the Muslim World

The narcotics industry, which has ruined millions of lives, is not a product of the Muslim world. Major cartels, such as those operating in Latin America, control the production and distribution of drugs, with the largest consumer markets in Europe and North America. History records that opium was forcibly imposed by Western colonial powers, as seen in the Opium Wars (1839–1860) in China, where Britain exported opium for economic gain, devastating local communities. In contrast, the Muslim world is often a victim of drug imports rather than the creator of the industry. In Islam, the use of substances that impair the mind, such as narcotics, is prohibited based on the principle of preserving the purity of soul and body, as implied in the Quran (Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 219; Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90), which condemn intoxicants and their harmful effects. Read: Enter the Dragon.

Alcohol: A Glamorous Industry at Odds with Islamic Values

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْخَمْرُ وَالْمَيْسِرُ وَالْأَنْصَابُ وَالْأَزْلَامُ رِجْسٌ مِنْ عَمَلِ الشَّيْطَانِ فَاجْتَنِبُوهُ لَعَلَّكُمْ تُفْلِحُونَ إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُ أَنْ يُوقِعَ بَيْنَكُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاءَ فِي الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ وَيَصُدَّكُمْ عَنْ ذِكْرِ اللَّهِ وَعَنِ الصَّلَاةِ فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُنْتَهُونَ

“O you who have believed, indeed, intoxicants, gambling, idols, and divination arrows are abominations of Satan’s handiwork, so avoid them that you may succeed. Satan only intends to sow enmity and hatred among you through intoxicants and gambling and to divert you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer. So, will you desist?”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90–91

The alcohol industry, currently worth hundreds of billions of dollars, is a product of Western culture, promoted through glamorous advertisements that often target youth with a “cool” lifestyle image. In many non-Muslim societies, drunkenness is considered a normal part of socializing, even a symbol of freedom. Conversely, Islam has prohibited intoxicating drinks and substances since the 7th century, as affirmed in the Quran (Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90–91), due to their detrimental effects on the mind, health, and family stability. In many Muslim-majority countries, alcohol is banned or strictly regulated, reflecting a commitment to protecting society from its harms, such as domestic violence, traffic accidents, and chronic diseases. This contrast highlights Islam’s emphasis on prevention, while Western culture often monetizes alcohol addiction for economic profit. Read: Alcohol And Domestic Abuse.

Gambling: A Hub of Economic Destruction Prohibited by Islam

Gambling, known in Islamic teachings as games of chance, is also prohibited due to its destructive impact on family finances, addiction, and links to crime (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Ma’idah (The Table), Verse: 90). Global gambling hubs like Las Vegas, Macau, and Monte Carlo are products of non-Muslim cultures, and online gambling has become a multi-billion-dollar industry. In contrast, the Muslim world has no tradition of legalizing gambling, as Islamic principles emphasize protecting wealth through lawful and productive means. While gambling causes financial and social ruin in many societies, Islam offers a moral framework that prevents the exploitation of human vulnerabilities through this practice.

Double Standards in Moral Narratives

The accusation that Islam is “immoral” is ironic when considering its stance on narcotics, alcohol, and gambling. These industries, which have destroyed millions of lives, thrive in non-Muslim societies, fueled by legalization and cultural normalization. Islam, with its strict prohibitions, stands as a moral bulwark protecting society from social devastation, such as family breakdown, disease, and poverty caused by addiction. Yet, Western narratives often invert the facts, stigmatizing Islam as “satanic” while ignoring the role of permissive culture in promoting these destructive industries.

For example, when drug cartels or Las Vegas casinos generate massive profits, they are rarely linked to Western religion or culture. However, if an individual Muslim violates Islamic law, their actions are quickly generalized as reflective of Islam. This double standard reveals entrenched bias, where non-Muslim cultures that monetize addiction are seen as “normal,” while Islamic teachings that prevent it are labeled outdated.

Islam as a Bastion of Morality

The facts demonstrate that Islam consistently prohibits narcotics, alcohol, and gambling, grounded in clear theological principles to protect the mind, wealth, and social stability. In contrast, non-Muslim modern culture often turns human weaknesses into business opportunities, creating massive industries that harm millions, including those not directly involved. The consequences are tangible: from family breakdowns due to alcoholism, financial ruin from gambling, to drug epidemics devastating communities worldwide.

This raises a fundamental question: who is more moral—Islam, which has prohibited these practices from the outset, or a culture that exploits addiction for profit? With its strict bans on intoxicants and gambling, and emphasis on a clean, productive life, Islam offers a preventive solution relevant in an increasingly permissive world. The accusation that Islam is immoral is a clear distortion that ignores the religion’s historical and doctrinal facts. Instead, Islam remains a bastion of morality, protecting humanity from the social destruction caused by industries born of non-Muslim permissive culture.

Terrorism: Deconstructing Stigma and the Contradictions of Extremist Groups

Islam is often stigmatized as a “terrorist religion,” particularly due to unrest in the Middle East associated with groups like ISIS. This narrative is amplified by media portraying extremist groups as representatives of Islam, when in reality, their actions contradict the religion’s core principles. By analyzing the contradictions in groups like ISIS and understanding the true meaning of struggle in the path of God, it becomes clear that the “Islam = terrorism” stigma is a distortion that not only misrepresents the faith but also benefits those hostile to the Muslim world.

Contradictions of Extremist Groups: ISIS Does Not Represent Islam

Groups like ISIS claim to be “self-proclaimed Islamic fighters,” yet their actions starkly oppose Islamic teachings. They have destroyed cities in Iraq, Syria, and Libya, bombed mosques, massacred fellow Muslims—including Shia, moderate Sunnis, and scholars opposing extremism—and damaged Islamic cultural heritage and infrastructure. Ironically, ISIS has rarely launched significant attacks against Israel, despite Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian land, killing tens of thousands of civilians, and violating the sanctity of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (Islam’s third holiest site). Repeated UN reports have documented Israel’s actions as ethnic cleansing, yet these self-proclaimed “fighters for Islam” focus on weakening the Muslim world internally. Read: Israel has committed genocide in the Gaza Strip, UN Commission finds, ISIS apology to Israel, The Islamic State as “Place-Setter” for the American Empire. ISIS is the Product of the US Military-Intelligence Complex, and Don’t Blame Islam.

It is profoundly paradoxical that a group claiming to fight in the name of Islam can wreak havoc on entire regions of the Muslim world—destroying cities, killing civilians, and targeting their own communities—yet Israel, widely recognized as an aggressor against Muslims, remains largely untouched. Their so-called “martyrdom” operations are directed almost exclusively at fellow Muslims, while they exhibit conspicuous restraint when it comes to striking a state whose actions directly oppress Muslim populations. If their struggle were genuinely religious, their choice of targets would align with the moral and strategic imperatives of Islam: defending the oppressed and confronting clear oppressors. Instead, ISIS’s actions reveal a deep dissonance between their professed religious motives and the reality of their operations, raising serious questions about whether their agenda is truly religious at all—or whether it serves external geopolitical interests that exploit sectarian divisions within the Muslim world.

It is strikingly evident that ISIS has never directed its operations to defend Palestine or confront Israel, despite their repeated claims of fighting in the name of Islam. Instead, their campaigns focus almost exclusively on fellow Muslims in Iraq, Syria, and surrounding regions—targeting civilians, minority communities, and even opposing Islamic groups. This pattern underscores a glaring contradiction: while professing a religious struggle, ISIS does not confront the aggressors who oppress Muslims directly. Their selective targeting suggests that their agenda is not guided by genuine religious or ethical imperatives but rather by sectarian extremism and, possibly, external geopolitical manipulation that destabilizes Muslim societies from within.

This raises a logical question: if ISIS were truly engaging in struggle in the path of God, why do they expend their energy destroying Muslim lands while Israel—a clear oppressor of Muslims—is not their primary target? This contradiction suggests that ISIS is not a representation of Islam but a destructive project that undermines Muslim unity, diverts attention from the Palestinian issue, and weakens the community from within. Many independent analysts even suspect geopolitical manipulation behind ISIS’s emergence, as their actions conveniently benefit Islam’s adversaries, including Israel, which continues its aggression with minimal interference.

Struggle in the Path of God in Islam: Strict Rules, Not Indiscriminate Violence

The definition of struggle in the path of God in Islam is far removed from the media’s portrayal of indiscriminate violence. This concept, whether as an inner struggle (greater struggle) or physical struggle (lesser struggle), is governed by strict Islamic legal and ethical rules. The Quran, in chapter Al-Baqarah (The Heifer) verse 190–193 and chapter Al-Anfal (The Spoils of War) verse 61, emphasizes that armed struggle is permissible only for self-defense or to combat oppression, with explicit prohibitions against killing non-combatants, women, children, the elderly, or destroying places of worship, crops, or infrastructure. When ISIS bombs mosques, markets, or slaughters scholars, they automatically violate these principles, placing themselves outside Islamic teachings.

“O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well! Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”

— Abu Bakr

The fact that ISIS’s primary victims are Muslims—through massacres, displacement, or community destruction—further proves they are not engaging in a legitimate struggle but committing violence that contradicts Islam. Their main targets, such as Shia, moderate Sunnis, and anti-extremist scholars, weaken the Muslim world, making it vulnerable to foreign intervention and diverting focus from critical issues like the Palestinian occupation. In short, ISIS not only fails to represent Islam but serves as a tool to divide the global Muslim community and exacerbate anti-Islam stigma.

The 9/11 Attacks, War on Terror, and Public Skepticism

The September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States remain one of the most consequential events shaping the modern perception of Islam and the Middle East. The official narrative attributes the attacks to al-Qaeda operatives, yet numerous inconsistencies have fueled public skepticism worldwide. For example, while the collapse of the Twin Towers was explained by jet fuel melting structural steel, critics questioned how such steel could fail when, according to engineers, jet fuel alone burns at lower temperatures. At the same time, a passport allegedly belonging to one of the suspects was said to have survived the inferno intact—an irony that has become a source of public doubt and satire. Read: The Dancing Israelis: Mossad Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks.

Beyond the technical debates, the political aftermath raises further suspicion. The U.S. government launched the “War on Terror,” beginning with invasions of Afghanistan and later Iraq under the pretext of eliminating weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). However, no WMD stockpiles were ever found. Instead, reports emerged of massive civilian casualties, looting of gold reserves, and long-term occupation of strategic regions. For many observers, the sequence of events suggested that the wars were less about security and more about geopolitics—securing resources, projecting power, and reshaping the Middle East.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by long live our motherland (@knight_of_russiav2)

What is particularly striking is the emergence and expansion of extremist groups only after Western military interventions. Prior to 2001, organizations like ISIS did not exist in their current form. The chaos following foreign occupation, power vacuums, and sectarian manipulation created fertile ground for extremist ideologies. In this sense, the “War on Terror” paradoxically produced more terrorism, destabilizing entire regions while reinforcing Islamophobia globally.

While definitive answers about 9/11 remain elusive, what is undeniable is its geopolitical utility. The attacks provided the justification for military campaigns, deepened public fear of Muslims, and created conditions that allowed groups like ISIS to flourish. The pattern suggests that terrorism and counter-terrorism are not isolated phenomena but interconnected forces shaped by both non-state actors and state-level policies. For Muslims, this means bearing the dual burden of being primary victims of both terrorism and anti-terror military campaigns.

The Paradox of Extremist Leaders: When “Allahu Akbar” Serves Foreign Agendas

Examining figures such as Ahmad Al-Jolani, the current leader in parts of Syria associated with Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), reveals a striking paradox. Once a prominent leader of an Al-Qaeda-affiliated group, he was previously designated a terrorist by the United States, with a reward exceeding ten million dollars for information leading to his capture. Yet today, after contributing to the weakening of the Assad regime, he is engaged in diplomatic contacts with Western states, has normalized relations with Israel, and effectively allowed Israeli control over the Golan Heights. Such actions clearly do not advance the Palestinian cause, nor do they support Muslim communities under occupation. Instead, they highlight how extremist leaders can become instruments of foreign agendas under the guise of religious struggle.

We remain committed to bringing leading AQS figures in HTS to justice. #Syria pic.twitter.com/R8evqffWum

— U.S. Embassy Syria (@USEmbassySyria) May 15, 2017

This phenomenon demonstrates a fundamental contradiction: groups and leaders who publicly invoke religious slogans, such as “Allahu Akbar,” frequently pursue strategies that contradict core Islamic principles and harm the global Muslim community. Their proclaimed mission to defend Islam is undermined by actions that facilitate geopolitical objectives benefiting Western powers or regional adversaries. For instance, while HTS maintains a narrative of fighting for Islam, its operational priorities—such as political compromises, territorial concessions, or alliances with foreign powers—often align with the strategic interests of those historically hostile to Muslim unity.

Independent analyses suggest that such contradictions are not merely accidental. The emergence and evolution of HTS, along with other extremist actors in Syria, coincides with foreign interventions, power vacuums, and sectarian fragmentation. By destabilizing Muslim-majority regions internally, these groups inadvertently—or in some cases intentionally—serve the objectives of states seeking to weaken Muslim solidarity, control strategic resources, or reshape regional politics. In other words, extremist violence, while cloaked in religious rhetoric, systematically benefits external actors rather than the communities it purports to defend.

Ultimately, the case of leaders like Al-Jolani underscores a broader pattern: terrorism that claims a religious mandate often produces outcomes directly opposed to Islamic ethics and the welfare of Muslim populations. It reinforces the argument that violent extremism is not only morally incompatible with Islam but also strategically counterproductive, furthering the agendas of those hostile to Muslim interests while perpetuating internal divisions, human suffering, and global stigma against Islam.

Geopolitical Benefits of the Terrorism Narrative

The narrative equating Islam with terrorism serves clear geopolitical purposes. By highlighting groups like ISIS, Western media and political actors can justify military interventions in Muslim countries, reinforce Islamophobia, and divert attention from issues like Israel’s aggression in Palestine. While the world focuses on combating “ISIS terror,” the Palestinian occupation fades from scrutiny, allowing Israel to continue human rights violations with inadequate global attention. Thus, extremist groups like ISIS indirectly benefit Islam’s adversaries by weakening the Muslim world internally and legitimizing the “Islam = terrorism” narrative.

Double standards in reporting exacerbate this issue. When non-Muslim extremist groups, such as white supremacist militias in the West or extremist nationalist groups in India, commit violence, their actions are rarely tied to their religion or culture. In contrast, actions by individuals or groups claiming to act in Islam’s name are swiftly generalized as reflective of the religion. Yet, the greatest victims of terrorism by groups like ISIS are Muslims themselves, suffering from destroyed cities, mass displacement, and global stigmatization.

Islam as the Antithesis of Terrorism

Islam, with its tightly regulated concept of struggle in the path of God and emphasis on peace (The Quran, chapter Al-Anfal: 61), is the antithesis of terrorism. Islamic teachings prohibit violence against non-combatants and prioritize the protection of life, property, and human dignity. Groups like ISIS, which disregard these rules, not only deviate from Islam but also tarnish its global image. By recognizing the contradictions in their actions—attacking fellow Muslims while ignoring real oppression like that in Palestine—we can see that they do not represent Islam but serve to weaken the global Muslim community from within.

Ultimately, the “Islam = terrorism” stigma stems from distortions amplified by media and geopolitical agendas, not from Islam itself. Islam offers a moral framework that rejects indiscriminate violence and upholds peace and justice. By distinguishing between Islamic teachings and the actions of deviants, and acknowledging the geopolitical benefits of the terrorism narrative, we can dismantle this unfair stigma. Islam is not a religion of terrorism but one that champions peace and justice, even amidst complex global challenges.

The Spread of Islam vs. Western Colonialism: Debunking the Myth of Violence

The narrative that Islam was spread by the sword is an old accusation often used to stigmatize the religion as violent and immoral. However, historical facts reveal that Islam primarily spread through peaceful preaching, trade, and exemplary moral conduct, though military conquests and instances of coercion occurred in certain contexts. In contrast, Western colonialism, led by powers such as Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, and later the United States, left a destructive legacy of exploitation, slavery, and cultural devastation, with an estimated 100 million deaths globally. The atrocities of Imperial Japan during World War II, killing 10–20 million in a single decade, further highlight global disparities in moral judgment. By comparing these histories, including their approaches to slavery and violence, we can highlight the contrast between propagandistic narratives and historical reality, exposing the double standards in moral judgments.

The Spread of Islam: Peaceful Preaching and Tolerance

From its outset, the spread of Islam did not rely primarily on violence. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) preached for 13 years in Mecca with patience, theological arguments, and moral community-building, despite facing severe persecution. Battles like Badr, Uhud, and Khandaq were fought primarily in self-defense against threats and expulsion of Muslims, not to force conversions. The Quran explicitly states, “There is no compulsion in religion…” (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Baqarah (The Heifer), Verse: 256), this means: do not compel anyone to become a Muslim. Islam is already clear in its message, and its proofs and evidences are self-evident. There is no need for coercion in matters of faith. Rather, whoever God guides to Islam—opening his heart to it and enlightening his mind—will embrace it with conviction. And whoever’s heart is veiled and whose hearing and sight are sealed will gain nothing from being forced into Islam. Affirming that faith is a personal choice, not a product of coercion.

Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, Islam often spread through peaceful means, primarily trade and scholarly preaching. In Southeast Asia—particularly Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei—it was embraced through traders from Gujarat, Arabia, and Persia, as well as the influence of spiritual teachers and Islamic scholars. There are no records of large-scale military conquests in the Nusantara, yet Indonesia is now the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation—though this does not necessarily mean it is an “Islamic state.” Read: Islam in Southeast Asia. In India, East Africa, and West Africa, a similar pattern emerged: Islam spread through trade networks, social solidarity, and the appeal of monotheistic teachings, though conquests in India, such as by the Delhi Sultanate, also played a role. Even in Spain (Andalusia), while Islam arrived through conquest, its development was driven by culture, science, and relative tolerance. Jewish and Christian communities often found greater safety under Muslim rule than under Christian European regimes, as noted by historians like María Rosa Menocal in The Ornament of the World, though social restrictions and taxes could create pressures.

Military expansion in the 7th to 9th centuries, such as the conquests of Egypt, Persia, and Spain, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths, primarily through battles against opposing empires like Byzantium and Persia, not systematic massacres. Non-Muslims, such as Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians, were often granted protected status, paying a tax in exchange for religious freedom and protection, though the tax could be burdensome and its application varied. Some non-Muslim communities preferred Muslim governance due to its relative tolerance compared to the Byzantine or Persian empires, but others faced social or economic pressures that encouraged conversion over time. The survival of substantial non-Muslim populations in regions like Spain, the Balkans, and North India after Muslim rule ended demonstrates that mass forced conversions were rare, unlike the cultural erasure seen in some colonial contexts. Read: The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy.

In Russia, Islam has a deep historical presence, and its spread was largely peaceful. The earliest major conversion occurred in 922 CE, when King Almış of the Volga Bulgars adopted Islam after a diplomatic mission from the Abbasid Caliph al-Muqtadir, driven by political and commercial ties rather than conquest. Along the Volga trade route and the Silk Road, Muslim merchants, scholars, and Sufi missionaries introduced Islam to Turkic, Slavic, and Finno-Ugric peoples through cultural exchange, intermarriage, and trade. In the Caucasus, Islam took root from the 8th to 9th centuries via missionary activity, remaining strong in regions like Dagestan and Chechnya. Many Turkic peoples—including Tatars, Bashkirs, and Kazakhs—embraced Islam over centuries, long before integration into the Russian Empire. Because of this history, Islam is recognized today as one of Russia’s traditional religions, predating Christianity in regions like Tatarstan and Bashkortostan. Read my articles: Islam Existed in Russia Before Orthodox Christianity and List of Beautiful Mosques in Russia and Why They are Called Cathedrals.

Instances of violence by Muslim rulers were often tied to wars, rebellions, or political struggles, rather than systematic religious extermination, though conflicts like those between the Umayyads and Abbasids or Ottomans and Safavids caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Exceptions existed beyond the Almohad dynasty’s harsher policies in the Maghreb, such as the Ottoman conscription system, which forcibly conscripted and converted Christian boys, or occasional temple destructions in India under rulers like Aurangzeb. These were not the norm but reflect complexities in Muslim governance, which was generally driven by political and economic goals rather than cultural annihilation. In comparison, violence within the Muslim world was less systematic than Western colonialism, with total casualties likely reaching millions over centuries but far less than the tens of millions killed by colonial powers or Japan’s wartime atrocities.

Western Colonialism: Global Exploitation and Destruction

The scale and nature of violence in Islamic history differed from Western colonialism’s systematic devastation, which killed an estimated 100 million people through genocide, slavery, and exploitation. Read: How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years and Counting the Dead: Estimating the Loss of Life in the Indigenous Holocaust, 1492-Present. Muslim rule often preserved local religious communities through the protected status system, granting protection and autonomy in exchange for a tax, though high taxes or social restrictions could pressure non-Muslims. Slavery in the Muslim world, involving an estimated 10–12 million Africans through the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean trades from the 7th to 20th centuries, was significant and caused considerable suffering, with high mortality during forced marches across the Sahara, sea transport, or harsh labor, including practices like castration for male slaves. While Quranic teachings encouraged emancipation (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Balad (The City), Verse: 12–13; The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Mujadila (She Who Disputes), Verse: 3; The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse:92), and some slaves, like the Mamluks, rose to high status, slavery persisted in regions like the Ottoman Empire and Arabia until the 19th–20th centuries. In contrast, Western colonialism’s transatlantic slave trade forcibly transported 12–15 million Africans, with 1.5–2 million dying during the Middle Passage, and relied on industrialized, racially driven exploitation with minimal mechanisms for emancipation, causing an estimated 5–10 million total deaths. Western colonialism’s forced Christianization, cultural annihilation, and economic policies, such as those causing the Bengal Famine of 1943 (2–3 million deaths) or Belgium’s exploitation of the Congo (10–15 million deaths), triggered widespread destruction, with artificial borders fueling modern conflicts. Read: Christianity and colonialism. Muslim empires generally integrated diverse cultures, allowing religious communities to survive, though not without tensions.

أَلَمْ نَجْعَل لَّهُ عَيْنَيْنِ، وَشَفَتَيْنِ، وَهَدَيْنَاهُ النَّجْدَيْنِ، فَلَا اقْتَحَمَ الْعَقَبَةَ، وَمَا أَدْرَاكَ مَا الْعَقَبَةُ، فَكُّ رَقَبَةٍ، أَوْ إِطْعَامٌ فِي يَوْمٍ ذِي مَسْغَبَةٍ، أَوْ كَافَّةٌ مِسْكِينٍ.

“Have We not given him two eyes and a tongue and guided him to the two ways? But he has not attempted the steep path. And what can make you know what the steep path is? It is freeing a slave, or feeding on a day of severe hunger, or providing for an orphan in need.”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-Balad (The City), Verse: 12-13

Slavery was not an invention of Islam but a global practice inherited from ancient civilizations, including Greece, Rome, India, and Christian Europe. Islam introduced reforms, such as prohibiting mistreatment, closing off new sources of enslavement (e.g., kidnapping), and encouraging emancipation through charity or as atonement for sins. Many freed slaves in the Muslim world integrated into society, some becoming rulers like the Mamluks, a phenomenon rare in Western slavery. However, the Muslim world’s slave trade, particularly through East Africa, was extensive and caused significant suffering, though it was less racially driven than the transatlantic system. Western slavery, supported by colonial powers like Portugal, Spain, Britain, and France, treated slaves as commodities, justified by racial ideologies and biblical interpretations like the Curse of Ham (Genesis 9:25–27), and persisted until political and abolitionist pressures ended it in the 19th century. Read: The Curse of Ham in the Early Modern Era: The Bible and the Justifications for Slavery. Colonial policies, such as the Trail of Tears in the U.S., the Great Famine in Ireland, or the Amritsar Massacre of 1919, alongside colonial wars like the Boer War and Indian rebellions that killed hundreds of thousands, further erased native cultures and economies, unlike the more integrative approach of Muslim empires.

Colonialism by European powers imposed Christianization, eradicated native traditions, and redrew borders that continue to fuel conflicts today, devastating populations like the 90%+ of Native Americans (50–100 million) killed by disease, war, and exploitation, or the Aboriginal Australians reduced from 1 million to tens of thousands. In contrast, Muslim empires of the classical period often integrated diverse cultures, though social hierarchies and occasional coercion existed. The enduring presence of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists under Muslim rule reflects this relative tolerance, despite variations in treatment. Western colonialism’s systematic genocide, racially driven slavery, and economic exploitation, rooted in ideologies of racial and cultural superiority, caused far greater destruction than Islamic history, making it the most devastating of the three histories compared here. Read: Sykes-Picot Agreement.

In the modern era, the bloodiest conflicts—including World War I and World War II—originated in Europe, driven by imperial rivalries, nationalism, and colonial ambitions. These wars, with tens of millions of deaths, including the Holocaust, the Nanjing Massacre, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, far exceeded the scale of violence in Islamic history, though intra-Muslim conflicts, such as Ottoman–Safavid wars, also caused significant casualties. The historical record exposes a double standard: Islam is often accused of spreading by the sword, while the more destructive legacies of Western colonialism and modern imperial wars are often downplayed.

Japan’s Forgotten Atrocities: A History Whitewashed

One of the darkest examples of brutality in modern history comes from Imperial Japan during World War II, with 10–20 million deaths across Asia. Their crimes against humanity rivaled—and in many ways exceeded—the barbarity of groups like ISIS, yet Japan today is not branded a “terrorist nation.” Why the double standard?

The infamous Unit 731 carried out grotesque medical experiments on live human beings, including vivisections without anesthesia, forced infections with diseases like cholera and plague, and biological weapons testing. Tens of thousands perished directly under these experiments, while up to 200,000 more died as a result of biological warfare unleashed by Japan across China. The scale and cruelty defy imagination. This was not a fringe extremist cell—it was state policy, supported by the Imperial government, aimed at terror and domination. Read: Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II, Intro to Cannibalism in the Pacific, Cannibalism Culture: The Bushido Horror in World War II and Details About The Nanjing Massacre You'll Never Unlearn.

Hide Image

The Nanjing Massacre of 1937 stands as another stain on history. Over 200,000–300,000 civilians were slaughtered in mere weeks, with 20,000+ women raped in what historians call the “Rape of Nanjing.” Soldiers were photographed laughing as they bayoneted infants, even holding babies aloft on their spears. These are not exaggerated stories; they are documented atrocities, recorded by witnesses and even some Japanese participants themselves. Read: 中国人永远的痛—南京大屠杀图片.

Event / Incident	Estimated Victims	Notes
Unit 731 (Harbin, Manchuria)	±3,000 direct victims; up to 200,000 deaths from biological warfare.	Human experimentation, vivisections, forced infections, plague & cholera spread.
Nanjing Massacre (1937–1938)	200,000–300,000 killed; ~20,000 women raped.	Mass executions, mass rape, torture; widely documented by witnesses.
Manila Massacre (1945)	±100,000 civilians killed.	Widespread slaughter during Japanese retreat in the Philippines.
Pontianak Incidents (1943–1944)	±21,000 killed.	Targeted executions of local elites and civilians in West Borneo, Indonesia.

The scale of Japanese atrocities was not confined to isolated incidents like Nanjing or Unit 731. Historians estimate that the total number of victims across Asia—China, Korea, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific—reached 10–20 million. Read: China's contribution to Japan's defeat and Statistics Of Japanese Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources. In China alone, between 10 and 20 million people perished through massacres, famine, forced labor, and disease during the Second Sino-Japanese War. Unit 731’s biological warfare experiments caused an additional estimated 200,000 deaths, while the system of sexual slavery forced between 50,000 and 200,000 women into “comfort women” roles. In Indonesia, as many as ~4 million people were conscripted into the romusha forced labor system, with hundreds of thousands dying under inhumane conditions. The Manila Massacre took the lives of about 100,000 civilians in just one month, while the Pontianak Incident in Borneo claimed more than 21,000 lives. Taken together, these figures demonstrate that Japan’s wartime brutality, driven by state-sponsored terror and domination, produced casualties numbering far beyond the atrocities committed by fringe extremist groups—yet the nation is rarely stigmatized in the same way Muslims are globally stigmatized because of terrorism.

In modern Japan, much of this history has been downplayed or sanitized. School textbooks often omit or distort the truth, producing a generation less aware of their nation’s crimes. Survivors in China, Korea, and Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, continue to speak of unspeakable horrors, while Japan’s official narratives sometimes minimize or deny them. This historical amnesia is concerning, as it limits a full moral reckoning with the victims’ suffering. Read: Japanese history textbook controversies.

This raises questions of fairness: while Muslims are vilified worldwide for the actions of fringe extremists numbering in the tens of thousands, Japan—a nation whose government orchestrated mass killings, systemic rape, and human experimentation—has rebuilt its image as a peaceful state. The absence of labels like “Shinto terrorism” or “Buddhist terrorism” for Japan’s actions, compared to the widespread use of “Islamic terrorism,” highlights a double standard in global narratives, though care must be taken not to overgeneralize either side’s historical complexities.

I want you all to know that this is not the first time that the China making false allegations of the U.S.🐰

China insisted noisily that the U.S. used biological weapons on an enormous scale in areas of both China and North Korea during the Korean war🐰https://t.co/momu9iIGSi

— Bulb Head (@head_bulb) March 29, 2020

A Twitter thread by @head_bulb, dated March 31, 2020, attempts to reframe a wartime photo often cited as evidence of Japanese Army atrocities, identifying it as a pest eradication team covered by the Asahi Shimbun on June 3, 1942, during a plague outbreak in Manchuria. The post includes archival images to support this context, suggesting a focus on disease control rather than deliberate violence. However, this selective narrative could be perceived as biased, as it omits acknowledgment of well-documented war crimes such as Unit 731 or the Nanjing Massacre. The thread’s defensive tone might suggest an intent to minimize Japan’s broader atrocities, aligning with perceptions of war crimes denial.

Japan’s efforts to clean its historical slate are evident in various actions. The revision of school textbooks, as detailed in the “Japanese History Textbook Controversies”, shows nationalist groups pushing to downplay events like the “comfort women” system and Unit 731. While the thread itself does not explicitly deny war crimes, its narrow focus fits into this broader revisionist trend, potentially reinforcing the image of a nation hesitant to fully confront its brutal past. Read: Un-remembering the Massacre: How Japan’s “History Wars” are Challenging Research Integrity Domestically and Abroad.

Beyond the classroom and official rhetoric, a subtler form of distortion has emerged in the digital age. Many historical photographs depicting the brutality of the Imperial Japanese Army—executions, beheadings, and civilian massacres—have been reuploaded online with altered or ambiguous captions, sometimes even claiming they were taken by “other nations.” This practice blurs the line between authentic documentation and falsified narrative, creating what can be described as a digital fog of war memory. Such mislabeling not only confuses the public but also undermines legitimate evidence painstakingly preserved by historians and survivors. In several cases, photos long verified by archives or international tribunals have resurfaced on government-linked pages or open platforms like Wikipedia with “disputed” labels or misleading contextual notes, eroding public trust in historical truth itself.

This phenomenon is a modern extension of historical denialism—where truth is not erased but drowned in noise. By flooding the internet with contradictory claims, revisionists effectively turn the past into a gray zone of uncertainty. The outcome is convenient: when everything appears debatable, nothing remains accountable. It mirrors tactics used in other nations’ propaganda efforts, yet Japan’s case is distinct in its moral contrast—the same society that once industrialized atrocity now enjoys a global reputation for order, discipline, and peace, while the memory of its victims fades beneath layers of “contextual reinterpretation.”

Modern Double Standards: Palestine Genocide

The ongoing genocide of Palestinians by Israel, confirmed by the United Nations and human rights organizations, represents one of the most egregious examples of modern double standards in global narratives. Read: Horrors of Gaza Genocide. For decades, Israel’s systematic violence—rooted in the illegal occupation of Palestinian territories since 1948 and intensified since the 1967 occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem—has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and erased entire communities, yet it escapes the “terrorist” or “immoral” labels so readily applied to Muslims. While the world watches live-streamed atrocities—bombings of schools, hospitals, and refugee camps, starvation policies, and sexual violence against children—Western media and governments frame Israel’s actions as “self-defense,” while Palestinian resistance, even non-violent, is branded “terrorism.” This stark hypocrisy, a continuation of colonial-era propaganda, not only distorts history but also dehumanizes Palestinians, perpetuating a cycle of violence that has claimed countless lives, names, and memories since 1946. Read: Israel’s Occupation: 50 Years of Dispossession, UN inquiry verifies Israel’s systematic use of sexual, reproductive violence; silence no longer an option and Onslaught of violence against women and children in Gaza unacceptable: UN experts – OHCHR.

The roots of this genocide lie in the Nakba of 1948, when over 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly expelled or fled from their homes during the creation of Israel, a displacement enabled by British colonial policies and the 1947 UN Partition Plan. Entire villages were razed, families separated, and ancestral lands stolen, with no right of return ever granted. Since 1967, Israel’s illegal occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem has entrenched a system of apartheid, with over 700,000 Israeli settlers now living in illegal settlements on Palestinian land. Read: Human Rights Council Hears that 700,000 Israeli Settlers are Living Illegally in the Occupied West Bank – Meeting Summary. The blockade of Gaza since 2007, described as an “open-air prison,” has restricted food, water, medicine, and electricity, creating conditions designed to break a population of 2.2 million. By September 2025, the death toll in Gaza since October 7, 2023, exceeds 65,400, with over 167,000 injured, 59% of whom are women, children, and the elderly. Estimates suggest the true toll, including those buried under rubble or dead from starvation and disease, surpasses 200,000—over 10% of Gaza’s population. In the West Bank, at least 370 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023, often by settlers or security forces, with settler violence surging by 500%. Read: Israel-Gaza war death toll: Live tracker.

The United Nations, in a landmark September 2025 report, confirmed that Israel’s actions constitute genocide under the 1948 Genocide Convention, citing four key acts: mass killings, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy Palestinians (e.g., starvation through blockades), and preventing births (e.g., bombing Gaza’s largest fertility clinic, destroying 4,000 embryos). This is no isolated campaign but a systematic one, evidenced by Israeli officials’ statements calling for Gaza’s “erasure” or comparing Palestinians to “human animals.” Bombings have targeted “safe zones,” schools, and hospitals like Al-Shifa, where patients and refugees were killed, some waving white flags. The destruction of 80% of Gaza’s infrastructure—homes, mosques, universities—ensures no recovery is possible. Starvation policies, with Israel blocking 90% of humanitarian aid, have led to thousands of deaths from malnutrition, particularly among children, whose skeletal bodies haunt global consciences. This is not collateral damage but a calculated strategy to annihilate a people. Read: Legal analysis of the conduct of Israel in Gaza pursuant to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Israel/OPT: Israeli organizations conclude Israel committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza in another milestone for accountability efforts .

One of the most chilling aspects is the targeting of journalists, with Gaza being the deadliest conflict for reporters in recorded history—surpassing World War I, World War II, Vietnam, and Afghanistan combined. By August 2025, 232–274 journalists, mostly Palestinians, have been killed, averaging 13 per month, often by drone strikes or targeted attacks. Read: “Gaza has become the Deadliest Conflict Ever for Journalists” UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan – Press Briefing. Israel’s ban on foreign journalists entering Gaza forces local reporters to bear the burden, only to be labeled “Hamas operatives” without evidence, silencing truth-tellers. This mirrors the systematic sexual violence documented by the UN as a “method of war.” Palestinian detainees, including children and pregnant women, face rape, genital mutilation, forced public nudity, and torture with dogs or hot objects in camps like Sde Teiman. Such acts, committed with impunity, echo the dehumanization seen in historical atrocities like Japan’s “comfort women” system or Western slavery, yet they are rarely condemned with the same fervor applied to Muslim-majority conflicts.

The scale and brutality of Israel’s actions dwarf the accusations leveled against Palestinians or Muslims broadly. The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis and took 251 hostages, was a tragic escalation but occurred within the context of 75 years of occupation, dispossession, and daily violence. Yet, while Hamas is universally branded “terrorist,” Israel’s far larger death toll—65,400+ versus 1,200—is framed as “self-defense.” This double standard is rooted in colonial legacies. Just as Western colonialism’s 100 million deaths were justified as “civilizing” missions and Japan’s 10–20 million wartime killings were sanitized post-World War II, Israel’s genocide is cloaked in narratives of “security” and “democracy.” The U.S., providing $3.8 billion annually in military aid and vetoing over 50 UN resolutions critical of Israel since 1946, ensures impunity, while Muslim nations face swift sanctions for lesser offenses. Media outlets amplify this bias, downplaying Palestinian deaths as “collateral” while sensationalizing Israeli losses, a pattern reminiscent of orientalist tropes that painted Muslims as “savages” to justify colonial invasions.

Historically, this hypocrisy is not new. The article’s earlier sections highlight how Islam’s spread, though involving millions of deaths over centuries, was less genocidal and more integrative than Western colonialism, yet Muslims are stigmatized as “violent.” Similarly, Japan’s state-sponsored atrocities, including vivisection and biological warfare, escaped religious or cultural stigma. Israel’s actions, backed by Western powers, follow this pattern: a settler-colonial project, rooted in Zionism’s displacement of Palestinians since the 1940s, is shielded by narratives of victimhood post-Holocaust, despite the Holocaust’s victims not justifying another people’s destruction. The UN’s genocide ruling exposes this, yet global powers ignore it, just as they ignored the Trail of Tears, the Bengal Famine, or the Congo’s exploitation. The Quranic principle that “no one bears the sins of another” (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-An’am (The Cattle), Verse: 164) is violated when Palestinians are collectively punished for Hamas’ actions, while Israel’s state-driven genocide is excused.

The human cost is staggering. Children in Gaza, like those in Khan Younis killed while fleeing with white flags, are not just numbers but individuals with dreams, families, and stories. Mothers lose entire lineages; fathers bury infants under rubble. The destruction of cultural heritage—mosques, libraries, the ancient olive groves of Palestine—erases a people’s identity, much like colonial powers obliterated Native American or Aboriginal cultures. Yet, the global response remains muted. Protests in Western cities are met with police brutality or accusations of “antisemitism,” while Palestinian voices on platforms like Twitter are suppressed by algorithms or smear campaigns. This silencing mirrors the historical amnesia around Japan’s atrocities or the sanitization of Western slavery, where victims’ suffering is erased to protect the powerful.

The Palestine genocide is a litmus test for global morality. If the world can watch 200,000+ deaths, live-streamed on screens, and still label Palestinians “terrorists” while excusing Israel’s actions, it reveals a profound failure of justice. The double standard—Muslims as “immoral” while Israel’s genocide is ignored—stems from the same colonial mindset that justified centuries of exploitation. To break this cycle, the world must acknowledge Palestine’s pain, not as abstract numbers but as names, memories, and futures stolen. Israel’s actions, like those of colonial powers before it, demand accountability, not excuses. Only by confronting these truths can we move toward a narrative that values all lives equally, regardless of faith or geopolitics.

Double Standards in Narratives of Violence and Slavery

The narrative that Islam was spread by the sword is often contrasted with the Crusades (1095–1291), which showcased extreme violence by European Christian armies. The conquest of Jerusalem in 1099 by Crusaders resulted in the massacre of tens of thousands of Muslims and Jews, whereas when Salahuddin Al-Ayyubi (Saladin) recaptured Jerusalem in 1187, he ensured the safety of Christians, freed prisoners, and allowed their worship, reflecting Islamic principles of tolerance. However, instances of Muslim violence, such as under the Almohads or in specific Indian campaigns, show that tolerance was not universal. Read: The Capture of Jerusalem, 1099 CE and Siege of Jerusalem (1187).

Accusations linking Islam to terrorism or immorality often focus on groups like ISIS, whose peak membership was in the tens of thousands, far smaller than the devastation caused by colonial powers, Western world wars, or Japan’s atrocities. ISIS’s victims, while tragic, are fewer than the millions killed by Japan’s invasions, European colonial genocides, or America’s atomic bombings. Similarly, the accusation that Islam is immoral due to slavery ignores that slavery was a global practice predating Islam. While Islam regulated slavery, encouraged emancipation, and allowed social mobility for some slaves, its trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades caused significant suffering. In contrast, Western slavery’s industrialized, racially driven system was unmatched in scale and cruelty, yet it is rarely tied to Western religion or culture. In terms of scale, Western colonialism caused the most deaths (over 100 million), followed by Japan’s atrocities (10–20 million), with Islam’s violence (millions over centuries) being the least destructive but most stigmatized. Japan’s methods, including vivisection and biological warfare, were the most brutal, while Western colonialism’s systematic genocide and slavery were driven by long-term exploitation. Islam’s violence, focused on political and economic control, was less genocidal. Nations like Japan or Germany are not branded as “terrorist nations,” and their slavery or atrocities are not linked to their cultural or religious identities, while Muslims face collective stigma for the actions of extremists or historical practices. The Quranic principle that “no one bears the sins of another” (The Holy Quran, Ch. Al-An’am (The Cattle), Verse: 164) aligns with modern legal standards, yet Islamophobic narratives often unfairly generalize Muslims, just as overgeneralizing other groups’ histories risks distorting their complexities.

Islam as the Antithesis of Colonialism

Islam’s expansion was often driven by peaceful preaching, trade, and moral conduct, as seen in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Andalusia, though military conquests and occasional coercion played roles in regions like India and Spain. Its approach to slavery, while part of a global system, introduced reforms aimed at humane treatment and gradual emancipation, contrasting with the West’s exploitative transatlantic trade. Western colonialism, by contrast, relied on exploitation, slavery, and cultural destruction, leaving a legacy of artificial borders and cultural devastation still felt today, unlike Japan’s more localized atrocities or Islam’s integrative approach. Britain, the largest colonial power, subjugated much of the world, while the United States continued this legacy through neocolonialism. The accusation that Islam is inherently violent or immoral often stems from colonial propaganda to justify invasions, not from a balanced view of history. While Japan and Germany were given space to redeem their image after atrocities, Islam faces ongoing scrutiny, highlighting a need for fairer historical narratives that acknowledge both Muslim contributions and complexities.

Ultimately, Islam’s spread was largely through moral values, knowledge, and tolerance, though not without exceptions involving conquest, coercion, or slavery. Western colonialism, with its industrialized slavery, genocides, and global wars, bears the darkest record in scale, followed by Japan’s intensely brutal but shorter-lived atrocities. Muslim history, while including significant challenges like the trans-Saharan slave trade and occasional violence, was the least destructive and more integrative, yet it is disproportionately stigmatized. By understanding historical facts and distinguishing between Islamic teachings and individual deviations, we can challenge biased narratives. Islam’s principles of justice, peace, and humane treatment, alongside its historical complexities, offer a counterpoint to the exploitation characteristic of Western colonialism, fostering a more nuanced view of global history.

Early Marriage and Accusations of Pedophilia: Historical Context and Double Standards

The accusation that Islam promotes pedophilia, particularly through narratives surrounding Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha, is frequently used to discredit the religion. Read my article here: Marriage to Aisha at a Very Young Age: Was Prophet Muhammad a Pedophile? However, historical and cross-cultural analysis reveals that such accusations are anachronistic, imposing 21st-century moral standards on a 7th-century context. Early marriage was not unique to Islam but a widespread practice across civilizations, including Christian Europe, India, and Africa, shaped by the social, economic, and legal norms of the time. By understanding the historical context and comparing global practices, it becomes clear that the pedophilia narrative against Islam is a form of bias that ignores facts and applies double standards.

The Context of Aisha’s Marriage: 7th-Century Norms

Commonly cited narratives state that Aisha married Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) at age 6–7 and joined his household at age 9. However, some modern scholars, such as Maulana Muhammad Ali and Dr. Zakir Naik, argue that Aisha was likely older (12–19 years), given discrepancies in ancient Arab dating systems and evidence that she had reached puberty, considered a marker of adulthood in the legal and cultural norms of the time. Read: Aisha (ra): The Case for an Older Age in Sunni Hadith Scholarship. In the 7th century, the concept of “18 years” as the age of adulthood did not exist; physical maturity was the benchmark for marriage readiness, not only in Arabia but also in civilizations like Rome, Persia, and Christian Europe. Read: Legal limitations on marriage and Adolescence.

Early marriage in 7th-century Arabia was not an anomaly. In Islam, marriage required the onset of puberty (maturity) and was conducted within a legitimate, responsible framework with family consent. Its purpose was to establish stable families, not sexual exploitation. Aisha herself became one of Islam’s most prominent scholars, transmitting thousands of Prophetic traditions (hadiths) and leading theological discussions, demonstrating that her marriage did not hinder her intellectual or social development. Read: Hazrat Aisha (RA) : A Beacon of Wisdom and Learning - Part 2.

Early Marriage in the West and Other Traditions

Early marriage was also a norm in Christian Europe and other civilizations until modern times. Under Catholic Canon Law, the legal marriage age for girls was 12, a rule that persisted for centuries until the early 20th century. Read: Marriageable age. In medieval England, the legal marriage age for girls was 12, while in 19th-century American colonies, it ranged from 10–12, with Delaware setting the minimum at 7 until 1895. Read: Age-of-consent reform. Historical examples include King Richard II of England (age 29) marrying Isabelle of France (age 6) in 1396, and the common practice among European nobility of marrying off pre-teen daughters for political alliances. Read: BIOGRAPHY OF ISABELLA VALOIS QUEEN ENGLAND 1389-1409. If modern standards were applied, many European figures, including Christian kings and church laws, would also be labeled “pedophiles,” yet this narrative rarely appears in Western discourse.

Beyond Europe, early marriage was common. In ancient India, Hindu traditions recorded child marriages as a norm, often to strengthen caste or family ties. In pre-modern China and Japan, marriages at ages 12–15 were also typical. Read: [Changes of marriage age in ancient China] and Akshaya Tritiya: Hotbed of child marriages. Even in modern times, figures like Hugh Hefner normalized relationships with much younger women without facing the same stigma directed at Islam. The key difference is that Islam regulated early marriage within a moral and responsible framework, while many other traditions prioritized political or economic motives without clear ethical guidelines.

Child Marriage in the Modern World: A Global Issue, Not an Islamic Monopoly

In the modern era, child marriage remains a global issue, not confined to the Muslim world. According to UNICEF (2020), one-third of child brides worldwide come from India, where the majority population is Hindu. Read: Is an End to Child Marriage within Reach?. Countries like Nepal, Bangladesh, Malawi, southern Nigeria, and the Central African Republic report child marriage rates above 40%, often driven by poverty, patriarchal cultures, and lax laws. In the United States, until 2017, marriage under 18 was legal in 48 states with parental or judicial consent; Delaware only banned it outright in 2018. Meanwhile, many Muslim-majority countries have raised the minimum marriage age: Indonesia set it at 19 (Law 16/2019), while Tunisia, Turkey, and Morocco enforce 18, stricter than some non-Muslim countries. Read: Dynamism of Minimum Age of Marriage in Muslim Countries: A Study of Marriage in Indonesia, Tunisia, and Turkey.

Western media often apply double standards in reporting. When child marriage occurs in Muslim countries like Yemen or Afghanistan, it is linked to Islam, with labels like “Islamic pedophilia.” However, when it happens in India, Sub-Saharan Africa, or even the U.S., it is framed as a socio-economic challenge requiring legal reform, without implicating the majority religion. The fact that India has the highest child marriage rates globally is rarely tied to Hinduism, while cases in Muslim countries are swiftly generalized as reflective of Islamic teachings. In reality, child marriage in Muslim contexts is more tied to poverty and local traditions than religious doctrine.

Double Standards and Anachronism in Pedophilia Accusations

Accusing Prophet Muhammad of pedophilia is an anachronism, applying 21st-century moral standards to a 7th-century context. If applied consistently, Catholic Canon Law, European kings, and ancient Hindu traditions would face similar labels, yet they escape such scrutiny due to cultural bias targeting Islam. The concept of 18 as the age of adulthood is a modern construct, emerging in the 19th and 20th centuries in the West alongside developments in education and changing views on childhood. In the 7th century, both in Arabia and Europe, physical maturity was the marker of adulthood, and early marriage was a universal norm, not an exception.

Furthermore, Islam regulates marriage with principles of responsibility, protecting women through dowry, maintenance, and family bonds, unlike many European early marriages driven by political alliances with little regard for individual well-being. Aisha, as the Prophet’s wife, lived with honor and became an influential intellectual figure, showing that her marriage did not hinder her development. In contrast, many early marriages in ancient Europe offered women no such opportunities.

Debunking Bias and Historical Context

Accusations of pedophilia against Islam, whether through narratives about Aisha or modern child marriage cases, are distortions that ignore historical context and apply double standards. Early marriage was a global phenomenon across civilizations, including Christian Europe, Hindu India, and other pre-modern societies, driven by socio-economic norms, not specific religious doctrines. Islam, with its Islamic legal principles, provides a moral framework for responsible marriage, while many other traditions allowed the practice without clear ethical guidelines.

In the modern era, child marriage remains a global challenge, with the highest rates in non-Muslim countries like India and Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, Western media selectively associate it with Islam, ignoring that many Muslim countries have tightened marriage age regulations. By understanding historical facts and global realities, it is evident that pedophilia accusations against Islam are baseless forms of Islamophobia. Islam, with its emphasis on responsibility and protection, offers a relevant moral framework, both historically and today, in a world still grappling with child marriage.

Polygamy Is Not a Muslim Invention

One of the most common accusations directed at Islam by its critics is that the religion “teaches polygamy,” as if Prophet Muhammad invented the practice as a brand-new doctrine. This charge is not only historically inaccurate but also exposes a glaring double standard: polygamy is ignored when it occurs outside Islam, yet weaponized whenever associated with Islam. In reality, a closer look at history, scripture, and social practices makes it clear that polygamy is by no means a Muslim invention. Read: Historical background of Polygamy and its significance in Modern World (Research study in the light of comparative religion and historical evidences).

Polygamy had long been part of human life before Islam emerged. In pre-Islamic Arabia, polygamous marriages were practiced without restriction. A man could take as many wives as he wished, with no rules about number or fairness. It was in this context that Islam appeared—not to “normalize” polygamy, but to regulate and restrict it. The Quran states:

وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تُقْسِطُوا فِي الْيَتَامَىٰ فَانكِحُوا مَا طَابَ لَكُمْ مِّنَ النِّسَاءِ مَثْنَىٰ وَثُلَاثَ وَرُبَاعَ ۖ فَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ أَدْنَىٰ أَلَّا تَعُولُوا

“And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphans, then marry those women who seem good to you—two, three, or four. But if you fear that you will not be fair, then [marry only] one, or those whom your right hands possess. That is more suitable so that you do not incline to injustice. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 3

Critics often quote this verse selectively to “prove” Islam legitimizes polygamy, but they rarely consider its continuation or context. Limiting men to a maximum of four wives was, in fact, a massive social reform in 7th-century Arabia. Moreover, the Quran itself acknowledges that true fairness in polygamy is nearly impossible to achieve:

وَلَن تَسْتَطِيعُوا أَن تَعْدِلُوا بَيْنَ النِّسَاءِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتُمْ فَلَا تَمِيلُوا كُلَّ الْمَيْلِ فَتَذَرُوهَا كَالْمُعَلَّقَةِ ۚ وَإِن تُصْلِحُوا وَتَتَّقُوا فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ كَانَ غَفُورًا رَّحِيمًا

“You will never be able to maintain perfect fairness between your wives, even if you strive to do so. So do not lean completely toward one and leave the other suspended as if she has no place. But if you reconcile and remain mindful of God, then indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. ”

— The Holy Quran, Ch. An-Nisa (The Women), Verse: 129

In other words, Islam tolerated polygamy only within strict limits, while emphasizing that monogamy is preferable if justice cannot be upheld. This was not an encouragement toward polygamy but rather a step toward its restriction.

Contrary to the accusations hurled against Islam, polygamy is clearly present in traditions revered by Jews and Christians. The Old Testament records many prominent figures who lived in polygamy: Abraham had Sarah and Hagar (Genesis 16); Jacob married Leah and Rachel and also had Bilhah and Zilpah (Genesis 29–30). King David had multiple wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13), and Solomon is said to have had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Strikingly, the Hebrew Bible never explicitly prohibits polygamy.

So why is the stigma of polygamy attached only to Islam? This is the double standard that deserves to be exposed. When biblical figures revered as holy engaged in polygamy, it is accepted as part of sacred history. But when Prophet Muhammad, within a specific social context, practiced polygamy under strict regulation, it is turned into a weapon of criticism. Even beyond the biblical era, Christian kings of Europe were hardly unfamiliar with similar practices.

Consider Charlemagne in the 8th and 9th centuries, who had several wives and many concubines. Henry VIII of England, while not simultaneously polygamous, openly defied the Church’s insistence on monogamy by marrying six times. Even Protestant Reformer Martin Luther explicitly permitted polygamy for Landgrave Philip of Hesse in the 16th century, arguing that it was preferable to adultery. Read: Charlemagne: Birth Story, Family, Reign, & Achievements.

What becomes evident here is that polygamy was not only a pre-Islamic Arab phenomenon but also a part of Jewish, Christian, and even European history. The difference is that Islam did something revolutionary: it regulated, restricted, and underscored the principle of justice.

Therefore, the claim that Islam is inherently a “polygamous religion” is not based on fact but on prejudice. This double standard is employed to vilify Islam, even though historical evidence shows that polygamy is a cross-cultural and cross-religious practice. Islam did not invent it—rather, Islam imposed strict boundaries on it.

It is therefore clear: polygamy is not a Muslim invention. Islam merely sought to discipline a practice deeply rooted long before the Quran was revealed. If Christians can read the Old Testament without disparaging their prophets who practiced polygamy, then singling out Islam as a “polygamous religion” is nothing but intellectual hypocrisy. That double standard reveals more hatred than argument, and it is precisely what must be rejected with firm historical evidence.

Cleanliness in Islam: A Systematic and Comprehensive Approach

Islam is one of the most rigorous and detailed religions when it comes to cleanliness, with practices that can be considered far more systematic than many other traditions. Therefore, if a Muslim appears unclean, it is not a reflection of Islamic teachings but rather the individual’s failure to adhere to them properly.

In terms of physical and bodily hygiene, Muslims are required to perform ritual ablution before prayers at least five times a day, which involves washing the face, hands, head, and feet. This practice effectively serves as a “mini-bath” repeated throughout the day. Additionally, a full-body ritual purification is mandatory after sexual intercourse, menstruation, postpartum bleeding, wet dreams, or specific conditions, ensuring the body remains clean for worship. Other recommended practices, such as trimming nails, removing certain body hair, and maintaining oral hygiene with a natural tooth-stick, are also emphasized regularly. Read: Wudu: The Islamic Ritual of Ablution Explained and The Islamic Hygienical Jurisprudence (Fiqh al-Ṭahārah): A Foundation for Sustainability Discourses.

Islam provides specific guidelines for hygiene during toilet use. The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) taught etiquettes for relieving oneself, such as not facing the sacred direction of prayer, covering the private parts, and cleansing the genitals with water. Thus, since its inception, Islam has promoted a “water hygiene” approach in toilets, rather than relying solely on tissue, as is common elsewhere.

Regarding food and drink, the principles of permissible and wholesome consumption dictate that what is eaten must not only be lawful but also good, clean, healthy, and harmless. Muslims are encouraged to wash their hands before and after eating, avoid overeating, and steer clear of foods explicitly harmful to the body, such as pork, blood, carrion, and alcoholic beverages.

Cleanliness of clothing and spaces is also emphasized. Clothes worn for prayer must be free from impurities, and places of worship like mosques must be kept clean. The Prophet himself frequently cleaned the mosque and even prohibited those who had eaten strong-smelling foods, like onions, from entering to avoid disturbing others.

Broadly, Islam considers cleanliness an integral part of faith. The Prophet stated, “Cleanliness is half of faith,” and another narration notes that “God is beautiful and loves beauty,” which is understood to include cleanliness. Thus, if a Muslim lives in an unclean state, it reflects personal negligence, not a flaw in Islamic teachings. In fact, Islam’s cleanliness standards, established in the 7th century, align with modern practices like handwashing before eating, using water for toilet hygiene, and brushing teeth.

Closing Statement: Dismantling Hypocrisy and Double Standards in Narratives Against Islam

Are you awake now?

Yes, I am aware.

No, I am not aware.

I have doubts.

---

---

The narrative labeling Islam as a religion of violence, terrorism, slavery, or immorality is a product of historical bias and geopolitical agendas, not a reflection of facts. Islam, with its teachings on modesty, prohibitions against narcotics, alcohol, gambling, and sexual exploitation, and emphasis on peaceful preaching and humanity, stands as a bastion of morality in an increasingly permissive world. In contrast, Western colonialism—with its trans-Atlantic slavery, genocides, and global exploitation—and modern pop culture, which commodifies bodies and normalizes moral degradation, bear a far darker record. Accusations against Islam, from “spread by the sword” to “pedophilia,” are often anachronistic, ignoring historical context and applying glaring double standards. While the West claims to champion civilization, its history is steeped in blood and oppression, yet Islam is continually stigmatized to serve Islamophobic narratives. If morality is measured by consistency in protecting human dignity, Islam proves itself as the antithesis of cruelty and hypocrisy, challenging the world to judge with honesty, not propaganda.

0 • 0

• Accessibility
• Font Size
• Text Align
• Letter Spacing
• Line Height
• More
• Exit

Thank you for reading my article! Please feel free to leave your comments or opinions in the available comment section.

A dedicated web developer since 2013 (full-stack). A man with many interests.

Profile Page