Are Women authorised to Teach?

download (1).jpeg

The role of women in the church has been a hotly debated subject for decades.

On one side are those who use selected Bible verses to demean and mistreat women, and on the other side are those who not only champion women’s rights but also treat men in the very exploitative and degrading ways that they have been treated by traditional religion.

In the latter category are critics who use certain bible verses to attack Christianity and the Bible as being sexist and misogynist.

Even within the church, some troublesome passages in the New Testament have led to different denominational positions – some forbidding women to teach or preach and some allowing them to do so. Let’s look at two examples:

1 Corinthians 14: 34-36

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. Did the word of God originate with you [Corinthians]? Or are you the only people it has reached?

In this chapter where Apostle Paul tells women to be silent, he had already told two other groups to be “silent”: those who spoke in tongues and who prophesied (1 Cor. 14:28, 32, 43).

No one takes “let him keep silent in the church” in the other two verses to mean a man cannot preach, pray, sing or testify in church. That is why the context of the word “silence” in the text should be understood.

These instructions were intended to bring order, propriety and politeness to the church services – not to silence the people forever or prevent them from teaching and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

In the text, Apostle Paul appealed to the law to validate his stance. Some commentators believe he was referring to the Old Testament law – well, not exactly.

“He appeals to it in the context in 14:21 and also in 7:19 and 9:8-10 (cf. Rom. 3:19; 7:7). The problem is that he does not cite a text from the law, and no Old Testament passage instructs women to be silent” (1 Corinthians’ Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, 2003, 672).

Indeed, not all OT prophets were men. Miriam, Deborah, Huldah and Anna were also prophets (Ex. 15:20; Jud. 4:4; 2Kgs. 22:4). Even Elizabeth and Mary the mother of Jesus prophesied (Lk. 1:42-55). So we can surmise that God used women in ministry just as He used men.

It appears that those who spoke in tongues, those who prophesied, and some of the women in the Corinthian church were disrupting the congregations and lacked self-control.

They were uneducated (men were more educated than women in that era) and asking questions at inappropriate times or weren’t using wisdom to know when to speak out.

It should be noted also that many of them in Corinth had been involved in pagan worship which involved wild feasts and untempered activities, so it seems some of the women reverted to this conduct.

From the context, it’s clear that the women were being admonished to be subordinate to the authority present, just as others were expected to do.

To cite an example, let’s say, some youths in several churches were always chatting and laughing and asking wild questions which engendered confusion during services.

If a church leader now writes a letter to tell the youths to be quiet in the church and reserve their questions till after service, or ask their parents at home, of course, no one would take it to mean that youths must be absolutely silent.

It’s difficult to know exactly what was going on when Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians, but to conclude from this verse that women are forever forbidden to speak in church would conflict with other passages. For example: 

1 Cor. 11:5 says “And every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head…”

Prophecy involves reproving, admonishing, teaching and comforting. If women are required to always keep silent in the church, then they wouldn’t be praying or prophesying. They would not be singing, reading the Bible out loud or making announcements.

In Colossians 3:16, Paul says “Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom…”

This teaching could not be limited to men, since the church doesn’t consist of only men.

Similarly, 1 Cor. 14:13-26 addresses “the whole church being come together” in which “every one” could take part – with a revelation, song, doctrine or tongue to edify the entire church.

1 Cor. 12:11 says the Holy Spirit distributes His gifts to “every man” as He wills. At the upper room during Pentecost, women were present there (Acts 1:14, 15).

If women didn’t need the power to effectively preach the gospel, they wouldn’t have been included in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

In the OT prophecy foretelling this experience, both men and women were included as recipients of the Spirit of God (Joel 2:28, 29).

When persecution broke out in the early church, women were also imprisoned (Acts 8:3, 9:1-2). That implies they were also teaching and preaching the gospel publicly.

Of the 39 co-workers that Paul mentioned throughout his writings, at least one-fourth was women.

In Romans 16:7, he wrote, “Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me.” That’s another woman, and she couldn’t have been arrested for being silent.

In Philippians 4:2-3, Paul encourages Euodia and Syntyche to keep cooperating and states that they had toiled along with him in preaching the gospel.

The Corinthian church may have been dealing with a troublesome woman or some women who had an unscriptural attitude towards authority, but all women shouldn’t be permanently punished or kept from participating in teaching God’s Word for it.

1 Timothy 2:11-12

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be silent.”

Again we are faced with another directive to women to learn in submission and not exercise authority over men. But this time around, nothing in the text suggests it applies to a church setting.

Let accept for the sake of argument that this instruction to Timothy applied to a church situation. We must realize that there are absolute truths in Scripture and there are certain instructions that must be understood in a specific, limited sense.

The early Christians largely congregated in one another’s homes. But that later changed as they owned property and had buildings since the late second century. Does this mean that Christians meeting today in church buildings are violating God’s Word? Some people believe so.

In 1 Timothy 2:9, Paul said that women should adorn themselves modestly and appropriately without elaborate hair arrangements, gold, pearl or expensive clothing. Does this mean that any woman today who wears gold or pearls is disobeying God’s Word? Some Christians believe so.

If we took first century Greek or Roman culture as divine precepts, we would all be dressed in tunics and writing on parchments and greeting everyone in our churches with a nice kiss.

That something was done in a certain way at a period of church history doesn’t mean it must always be done at every stage of history – especially when there’s an allowance of cultural exceptions.

If we applied 1 Tim. 2:11-12 in an absolute sense, then it would mean that women cannot even be school teachers! But in the world today, women are politicians, judges, policewomen, professionals and lecturers and they exercise authority over men.

However, from the context of this passage in Timothy, it’s referring to married women accepting the headship of their husbands in the home and not usurping his authority (see Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22).

Unlike the passage in Corinthians, it doesn’t apply to a church setting. It refers to order in a marriage.

Those who advocate for women to be silent in the churches accuse those who differ of “rejecting Scripture and subjecting it to the personal inclination and creativity of the reader.”

This line of argument can be also utilized in other issues on which Christians respectably disagree (e.g. baptism, Lord’s supper, music etc.), thus it’s irrelevant.

One thing I’ve observed in some denominations where women are forbidden from teaching, preaching or pastoral roles is that, women are allowed to be evangelists and missionaries in foreign nations. Fair enough, but they are still teachers and preachers!

And you can’t insist women must remain silent in church and then have them lead prayer services, teach Sunday school or teach a congregation via Skype or YouTube.

If men alone have the authority to teach, then men alone should take the responsibility for teaching. But as it often turns out, that is not so.

Priscilla and her husband , Aquila, had a church in their home and her being mentioned equally with him may suggest she pastored the church along with him (Acts 18:2-26).

We are also told of Philip’s daughters who were prophetesses (Acts 21:9). In Romans 16:1-2, Paul asked the church in Rome should receive Phoebe a female “minister” with all due respect and honour.

Note that the Greek word for “minister” (diakovos) used for Phebe was also used for Timothy (1 Tim. 4:6), Epaphras (Col. 1:17) and Paul himself (Eph. 3:7-8).

The Lord instructed us to pray that He would send labourers into the harvest (Lk. 10:2). He didn’t say “male labourers.” He didn’t limit the preaching of the gospel or proclamation of His Word to a gender.

We can’t tell the Holy Spirit what ministerial gift to impart to whom. The Holy Spirit guards His own sovereignty and if He wills, He can call and appoint some women into positions that conflict with our denominational traditions.

These ministers are accountable to Him, not to us, and we have no right to dictate to God what gender He must use to fulfill His purposes.

Does the Bible demean Women?

download (1).jpeg

During a discussion on sexism in Islam on a Facebook forum, I rebutted the claims of a Muslim who claimed Islam respected women.

To soothe his bruised ego, he sent a list of Bible verses into my box to “prove” that the Bible also demeans women. They were, of course, copied from an atheist website.

I’m very much familiar with how insecure Muslims desperately run to atheists for their anti-Bible arguments the same way their prophet ran home to his wife screaming “Cover me! Cover me!!” I guess it’s a part and parcel of being a good Muslim too.

Here, I will be responding to some of those passages as the atheist wrote them.

1. Burn the daughter!

“And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire” (Lev. 21:9)

A biased, ignorant reader would think this was a punishment reserved only for women but an informed person sees a different picture.

Just 22 verses earlier, it says: “If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you” (Lev. 20:14).

In Joshua 7:15, when Achan stole some of the plunder from Jericho, the penalty was destruction by fire, along with all his belongings. This punishment applied to both men and women.

Today, the only burning taking place in modern secular societies are the scalding to death of preborn babies (mostly females) by saline abortion with full consent of the law. But atheists would rather talk selectively about ancient punishments.

2. Cut off her hand!

“When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand and taketh him by the secrets; then thou shall cut off her hand, thine eyes shall not pity her” (Dt. 25:11-12).

The atheist writer says this was done to amputate “the hand that fondled the genitals!” This is profoundly ignorant, given that it was actually a penalty on anyone who injured a man’s reproductive organ and rendered him impotent.

Dake’s Reference Bible has this to say: “This shows how serious it was for one to be denied the power of reproduction and suggests that God was not in sympathy with the making of eunuchs which was so common in the East.”

3. Female births get penalty

“Speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child; then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean” (Lev. 12:2).

Verse 5 says if she gave birth to a female, she would be unclean for 14 days. Under the OT, there were certain things that could make people “unclean” e.g eating unclean foods (Lev. 11:43), touching carcasses of dead animals (Lev. 11:26), infectious skin diseases (Lev. 13:3), bodily discharge (Lev. 15:1-3) and menstrual discharge (Lev. 15:19).

These ceremonial laws were given only to the nation of Israel, not to any other nation either since then or now.

The differences in the period of “uncleanness” with regards to male and female infants was either because Jewish culture required that females be taken care of longer than males or the males were circumcised on the 8th day (Gen. 17:12).

This purification didn’t have to do with physical impurity and the rituals prescribed for both males and females were the same.

4. Female inferiority

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3)

The word “head” (Gr: kephale) here doesn’t mean inequality but differences in roles and responsibility.

Jesus Christ was subject to God the Father (He is the Head) in a sense, but He is equal to God in another sense since they both have the same Divine essence. Jesus was subject to Joseph and Mary as a child, yet they were creatures and He was Deity. His submission didn’t make Him inferior in that sense.

There’s no justification for the conclusion that being the head means domination or submission implies female inferiority. Headship in marriage is for the purpose of order, just as there can’t be two drivers in a car.

The husband is the head of the wife and he is mandated to love, nourish and cherish her (Eph. 5:28-29). This is patterned after Christ’s love for the church, His body. Therefore, a Christian man who mistreats his wife is mistreating his own body.

5. Jesus will kill the children

“Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds. And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he who searches the reins and hearts; and I will give unto everyone of you according to your works” (Rev. 2:22-23)

Where is the oppression of women here? This was a warning given to the church in Thyatira. Jezebel had been dead for centuries, but her name was used here because the Jews understood her sin.

It’s also possible that a specific woman with the same name was being referred to.

In any case however, the text indicates that the stated judgement applies to both men and women as Jesus says: “I will repay each of you according to your deeds.”

A person who uses this as a “proof text” of male chauvinism ought to be laughed out of an elementary class debate.

6. Kill the Witches!

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. He that sacrificeth to any god, save to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed” (Ex. 22:18-20).

Just four verses later, the death penalty is applied to men only (vs 22-24). Leviticus 20:27 says “A man or a woman who is a medium or spiritist” must be stoned to death.

Every Bible student knows that under the OT, death or other severe penalty applied to both males and females involved in divination, false prophecies, sorcery, necromancy, wizardry and idolatry (Dt. 18:10-12, Rev. 21:8).

7. Rape my daughter

“Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you; but unto this man do not do so vile a thing” (Judges 19:24).

The Bible records people’s sins and many evils which it also condemns e.g incest, rape or murder. We don’t reject even historical accounts on such basis. Therefore, that something “is in the Bible” doesn’t always mean it’s good. One must always interpret each verse in the light of its context.

This is something the atheist or Muslim seldom does because it doesn’t fit with their playbook. A Bible scholar succinctly explains this incident:

“The second incident deals with the moral corruption of Israel at the time. In terms which paralleled the account of Lot’s visit to Sodom (Ge. 19:5), local Israelites of the tribe of Benjamin attempt to homosexually rape a traveller in the town of Gibeah, before raping a woman instead, who dies from the shock of the attack. The woman in question was the concubine of a Levite” (Alister McGrath, NIV Bible Commentary, Hodder and Stroughton, 1996, 95).

8. Stone the woman

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her. Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die…” (Dt. 22:22, 24).

Notice that the heading didn’t match the Bible verses given. How on earth is this “against women,” since both the man and woman were to be stoned for the sin of adultery?

Under the Law, a married woman was expected to scream for help during such assault or it was ruled as consent.

If the Bible was all about men doing whatever they wished while punishing women for the same, as radical feminists claim, why then were most of the laws in the Pentateuch directed at men who wanted to have sex with everyone except their wives (see Leviticus 18)?

9. Virgin’s worth

“If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silvers, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days” (Deut. 22:28-29).

Just three verses earlier, the law stated that if a man raped a betrothed lady, he alone is to be killed (v. 25). On the other hand, if she wasn’t betrothed, the man would pay her dowry and marry her. In ancient cultures, a violated woman was considered unfit for marriage.

The atheist writer seems to have a problem with the idea of dowry paid to the lady’s father, probably because he expects ancient Jewish culture to follow the norms of the West in the 21st century where “liberated” women are seen as sexual playthings men can use and discard like garbage if deemed undesirable.

10. Wives, submit yourselves!

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the saviour of the body” (Eph. 5:22-23).

Verse 25 says “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”

A Christian husband must love his wife to the point of laying down his life for her and caring for her by making her presentable (vv. 26-27). Alister McGrath explains:

“The word ‘submit’ is used several times in this section (5:21-6:9), not with the sense of ‘obeying an earthly superior,’ but rather with the meaning of ‘discovering and accepting God’s intentions’ … The mutual relationship between a man and woman in marriage is defined in terms of love and submission that is, the same quality of self-giving love which took Christ to the cross for his church and the same committed willingness to be faithful to the demands of a relationship” (NIV Commentary, p. 352)

The Old Testament shows the respect women are given. Elizabeth Achtemeier, a Professor of Bible and Homiletics wrote that:

“Women are found serving as prophets (Exod. 15.20; 2Kings 22.14-20), judges (Judg.4-5) and queens (1 Kings 19; 2Kings 11) in preexilic Israel. They are never excluded from the worship of God (Deut. 16.13-14; 1 Sam. 1-2).

Women are sometimes honored as models of wisdom (2Sam. 14: 20.19-22). The honor of mothers ranks with that of fathers in Israel’s basic laws, the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20.12; Deut. 5.16). The family rights of wives and mothers are protected by law (Ge. 16.5-6; 38)” (The Oxford Companion to the Bible, eds. Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, Oxford University Press, 1993, 806).

In the New Testament, we see Jesus set aside a long racial barrier by speaking with a foreign woman in public (Jn. 4:27). He ignored all structures of ritual impurity attached to women (Mk. 5:25-34, 35-43). He taught women and even gave them an equal rank with men as daughters of Abraham (Lk. 10:38-42; 13:10-17).

In John 8, He saved a woman from being stoned for adultery. Women belonged to the inner circle of His disciples (Lk. 8:1-3).

Women with great courage were present at His crucifixion, while most of the male disciples had fled in terror. Women were the first witnesses of the resurrection and were at the forefront of that event while the men were slow to believe.

The fourth Gospel account begins and ends with the testimony of a woman to Jesus (Jn. 4:29; 20:18). Women were not excluded from the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:17; 5:14). When persecution broke out against the early church, women too suffered imprisonment (Acts 8:3; 9:1-2).

We read about Priscilla teaching along with her husband, Aquilla (18:26) and Philip the evangelist whose 4 unmarried daughters prophesied (21:9). In Romans 16:1-7, apostle Paul listed women who were ministers in the church. If they weren’t honoured why would he include them in his letters? This same apostle taught that there is no male or female in Christ (Gal. 3:28).

But hostile critics prefer throwing around “500 evil verses in the Bible” leaving all these passages out because they don’t go with the grand plan and… that may make Christianity a bit reasonable to their readers. May it not be! So ignore the contexts, goodbye exegesis and farewell rudimentary hermeneutics.

When I sent my responses to the Muslim critic, his reply was like “Good, keep on.” That’s it folks, his nimble mind is already made up, don’t confuse him with the facts!

The Women Behind the Veil

In a recent 30 paged document released by ISIS, the social media image of “the happy Muslim woman” was ripped off.

The document, titled “Women in the Islamic State: Manifesto and Case Study” (translated by the Quilliam foundation), didn’t try to play tricks on words like Islamic books for western consumption. It admits it is for an audience that is “used to a very austere interpretation of Islam.”

In it, Muslim women are permitted to leave their homes only under three conditions:

1. If in the absence of men, they are needed to fight.

2. If they are leaving to study Islam.

3. If they are doctors and are required to follow Sharia guidelines.

It declares: “It is always preferable for a woman to remain hidden and veiled, to maintain society from behind this veil.”

The Quran says Muslim women must “lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent and to draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, husband’s fathers, their sons … And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment…” (Sura 24:31)

Sura 33:59 also says they are “to draw their cloaks [veils] all over their bodies [screen themselves completely except the eyes]” that this would make them known and protect them.

These restrictions were placed only on the women with the underlying thought that they are unclean vessels of lust that drive men on the street to pounce on and mount them right away.

Now how does covering up or wearing baggy clothes imply morality? It was acceptable for 7th century Arabian desert women to cover themselves up because of the climate. Why should such dress codes be made a law for every Muslim woman in every nation in the 21st century? That is Arab cultural imperialism.

Islam keeps women behind the veil, physically, mentally and spiritually.

Apart from the fact that physical veils suited Muhammad’s personal agenda, to keep his men followers away from his women, there is another side to it. He said:

“Women have ten (‘awrat [external genitals]). When she gets married, the husband covers one, and when she dies the grave covers the ten.” (Kanz el-Ummal 22:858).

He likens women to genitals that must be covered and hidden. Some Islamic climes even call women “awrat” (they call their wives, mothers and sisters “genitals.” How sick!)

In reality, Muslim ladies have been programmed to cover themselves the same way normal people cover their genitals. But women are not to be hidden but admired.

We don’t cover up beautiful gems or flowers: we uncover them for all to see, while we cover up our privates and flush away our faeces. If Islam respects women, why does it treats them as dung and genitals?

Sura 3:14 puts “women” in the same category as possessions men covet like “hordes of gold, silver, horses, cattle and well-tiiled land.”

Sura 2:223 says “Your women are your tilth [fields], so come into your tillage as you choose.”

In a hadith, Muhammad asked some women: “Isn’t the witness of a woman half of that of a man? The woman said ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of the woman’s mind” (Bukhari 3:826).

Islam also sees women as sex objects. Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [to have sex] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4:54:540).

It’s quite amusing to me that Allah’s angels have nothing better to do than to sit around and curse a poor wife for depriving them from watching a live porno show!

Muslims argue that Muhammad prohibited killing of females infants among the Arabs. Maybe he forbade female infanticide, but he endorsed paedophilia, an equally devastating sacrifice of the future of young girls on the altar of instincts of depraved men.

If female infanticide was truly practiced by pre-Islamic Arabs, where then, did their women come from? And how come they took many wives? It doesn’t add up.

A Muslim man quoted Sura 33:35 to prove that men and women are equal in Islam. The passage says: “…for muslim men and women, for believing men and women…who humble themselves and men and women who give in charity…for them Allah has prepared forgiveness and great reward.”

This doesn’t prove equality. If I tell you that I have prepared some food for you and your dog, that does not mean that you and your dog are equal.

Besides, Muhammad deliberately recited this sura because a woman asked him why Allah always gave him verses that omitted women. So all of a sudden, the all-knowing Allah remembered to include women in his verses! How convenient.

Speaking of divorced women having some rights, Sura 2:228 insists “But the men ought to have superiority over them.” Where is equality here?

Sura 4:15 says “Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women bring against them four witnesses from among you. And if they testify confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way.”

Why should fornication be proven by four witnesses? Such acts are often committed behind closed doors.

The next verse says if men are guilty of fornication “dishonour them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone.”

Two different punishments for the same sin. Is this equality? No.

Sura 4:34 says: “Men are in charge of women because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other… As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to their beds apart and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them…”

Let’s break this down:

Men are in charge of women.” This is not gender equality.

because Allah hath made one of them to excel the other“. The truth is, women do excel than men in some qualities like speech, affection, intuition and more. Muhammad was a primitive man who didn’t see any inner qualities in women. He only saw them as servile sex objects.

As for those from whom ye fear rebellion” So the Muslim man acts as a prosecutor, judge and executor. If he ‘fears’ or imagines his wife is becoming disobedient, he deals with her.

admonish them” that is, verbally abuse them.

banish them to their beds apart” that is, refuse to share their bed. In esssess, man is permitted to punish the wife by withholding sex from her. Psychological abuse.

and scourge them” This is physical abuse and this is where it falls apart. It’s wrong for a husband to beat his wife!

Yusuf Ali’s version renders it as “beat them (lightly)”. He added “lightly” (which was not in the Arabic text) apparently because he was embarrassed his holy book endorses domestic violence.

Some educated Muslims argue that the Arabic word translated “beat” is just a slight touching of the woman with a toothbrush and the face must be avoided. Is that some kind of joke? Beating is beating, whether with a stick or vegetable stem, and such an act is inhumane.

In reality, thousands of Muslim women can testify to it that there is nothing benign about this act. Anyone who defends this evil verse needs psychiatric evaluation.

No, it’s not a symbolic verse; it uses the correct term “scourge” (Arabic: daraba) used in connection with punishing wild camels. We all know wild camels are not tamed by a slight touch.

Islamic records suggest that even pre-Islamic Arabia gave more rights and respect to women than Islam itself.

For instance, Khadija, was a wealthy business woman widow in pagan Arabia, yet she had men at her command. How many Muslim women can enjoy this status today in an Islamic enclave without being shot in the head by islamic militants?

When Muhammad heard that the Persians had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen, he said: “Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler” (Bukhari 9:88:219).

This is why female politicians or scholars are assassinated in some Islamic climes.

The pre-islamic Arabs also took their wives with them to wars. The Sira refers to Hind bint Uthbah, the wife of Abu Sofyan (with other women) roaring like a lioness at the battle of Uhud, charging the men to step forward to fight.

But the moment Islam prevailed, women no longer found a place except to be caged in their houses like a pack of fowls and made to retreat to a backroom once a male visitor is in.

And when they are allowed to leave the house, they are still caged in a burqa – a mobile prison – reminding them of their slavery to Islam.

In many Islamic nations, females are being genitally mutilated; restricted in education or medical care; rape victims are “honour killed;” single mothers are stoned for adultery; banned from driving etc.

The Quran promises men 72 big breasted women in paradise, but what’s in for Muslim ladies? They will live all their days on earth as slaves and still can’t look forward to rewards…like 72 handsome studs in Allah’s sex paradise.

Yes, if they are equal in Allah’s sight, they should have equal rewards. Unfortunately, Muhammad said most of them will be Hell:

“Then I saw the (hell) fire, and I have never before seen such a horrible sight as that and I saw that majority of its dwellers were women.’ The people asked ‘O Allah’s apostle! What is the reason for that?’ He replied, ‘because of their ungratefulness…” (Bukhari 7:62:125).

My heart goes out to Christian ladies who are being deceived into dating or marrying Muslim men for mundane reasons. That journey is usually filled with many secret tears and regrets.

So long as a man follows Muhammad, he can metamorphose at anytime. To my Muslima readers, let me put it to you that Islam hates you and you need to leave it.

Any Muslim woman saying “I’m proud to be a Muslim” is either ignorant or cruelly deceived. The Islamic veil is the symbol of oppression and the bondage of stupidity. Only Jesus Christ can give you true love and freedom.