Here is the debate:
Nuriyah put GREAT arguments regarding the original topic of “Is Veiling for Women in Muslim Countries Good?”
Daniel had no chance to answer them.
Nuriyah is still very young and has already shown her great potential. All indications are there that she will become extremely lethal with time. Congratulations to the non-Muslim community, we have found a great debater and representative in form of Nuriyah Khan.
Table of Contents:
- (1) Daniel claimed that the evolution of human societies is linked to this practice, where they imposed Hijab on women
- (2) Daniel's argument: Spread of AIDS due to TEMPORARY Sexual Relationships in the non-Muslims countries
- (3) Daniel's argument of Mate-Guarding
- (4) Daniel's claim: Only men have responsibilities when it comes to Children
- (5) Depression is all-time high in Islamic countries like Pakistan
- (6) Daniel claims that rate of Divorce is higher in Western countries while women have got equal human rights
- (7) Hijab brings only Sexual Frustration in an Islamic society
- (8) If Muslim States don't let women go outside without Hijab, then the Western countries also don't let you go naked outside in public
- (9) Islamic preachers: But moving naked in public brings a lot of evils
- (10) Naturism in western countries is totally different from the Islamic forced nakedness of slave women and their rape:
- (11) The case of Hijab in the Islamic countries is totally Opposite
- (12) Muslim Youth in Islamic Societies has no chance to get rid of their Sexual Frustration
As usual, Daniel came up with some other objections too. Let us analyse these other arguments.
(1) Daniel claimed that the evolution of human societies is linked to this practice, where they imposed Hijab on women
No. The evolution of human societies is not linked to this practice of the Hijab. There are thousands of Tribes (which even exist today), where women and men are totally naked, or women are topless. There are tons of videos on youtube about them. For example, look at this Youtube Channel.
Daniel is making a mistake, while:
- There were only a handful of societies, which imposed the Hijab upon women.
- And these societies were not so ancient.
- And they did it only to differentiate between free women of noble families and slave women/prostitutes. They prohibited slave women & prostitutes to take Hijab and to resemble the free women from noble families:
Elite women in ancient Mesopotamia and in the Byzantine, Greek, and Persian empires wore the veil as a sign of respectability and high status. In ancient Mesopotamia, Assyria had explicit sumptuary laws detailing which women must veil and which women must not, depending upon the woman's class, rank, and occupation in society. Female slaves and prostitutes were forbidden to veil and faced harsh penalties if they did so.
And Muhammad only followed those few societies in this discrimination. He banned slave women to take Hijab. Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat slave women with a stick if they took Hijab, and told them not to resemble free Muslim women by taking Hijab.
Muhammad's companions used to molest women, who went out to relieve themselves in the evening. Upon that, Muhammad ordered free Muslim women (in the name of revelation) to take Hijab, so that they could be recognized as free women, and not molested as slave women were molested.
Muhammad also kept the breasts of slave women naked. Yes, there were thousands of slave women present in front of Muhammad with naked breasts. They were sold in that same naked state in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery
Please read the details here: Hijab has nothing to do with modesty, as Islam prohibited Slave Women from taking a Hijab or even covering their naked breasts in public 🔥ʰᵒᵗ
(2) Daniel's argument: Spread of AIDS due to TEMPORARY Sexual Relationships in the non-Muslims countries
But Islam also allowed TEMPORARY Sexual Relationships.
In Islam, a man is allowed to buy a slave woman (or capture a prisoner woman) and rape her legally. And when he fulfils his lust, then she can be handed over to his brother, or male slave. And when all brothers and slaves have raped her one by one in a Temporary sexual relationship, then she can be sold to 2nd master, who again rapes her and sells her to the 3rd master .... and thus the rape of poor slave woman continued in such a TEMPORARY sexual relationship.
Please read the details in our article: Part 1: Crimes of Islamic Slavery against Humanity 🔥ʰᵒᵗ
Thus, the original Islamic Sharia could not have saved from HIV. It is only due to the Western World that Islamic slavery was abolished.
Therefore, if there is a chance of the spread of diseases due to the sexual interaction of two consenting adults, then we find the cure for the disease and take precautions against its spread, but we don't declare these natural actions to be crimes and prohibit people from them.
Science has already progressed to that extent in curing AIDS, where it is considered even fewer people are dying due to HIV than the disease of diabetes (link).
(3) Daniel's argument of Mate-Guarding
Daniel claims that Mate-Guarding is a part of Human evolution and even of apes.
But he is wrong.
Bonobo apes don't do mate-guarding. It is due to their environment, where they have food in abundance.
And chimpanzee females also have relations with many male chimpanzees, despite the so-called mate-guarding.
In humans too, there existed (and still exist) several cultures where a woman had multiple husbands (link).
In Inuits (Eskimos), when a man had to leave his house for a long period of time, then his neighbour or friend took care of his family, including his wife. And a child, who was born from that neighbour or friend, was also considered an equal part of the household, as other children were.
Moreover, in Islam:
- Swapping of slave women is also allowed (i.e. two masters can swap their slave girls, and rape them without their consent).
- A Muslim master can take the slave-wife of his male slave from him, and rape her. And after fulfilling his lust, he can return her to his male slave.
- And if a slave woman is shared between multiple masters, and they do sex with her one by one, then the child will have officially multiple fathers.
And it is the right of the owner either to accept the child from his slave women as his own or to deny the child his name. In this case, that child will be called a Bastard (Islamic Terminology is "Walad al-Haram ولد الحرام"), and the child becomes the slave of his own father.
Please read this detailed article for swapping, shared slave women and parentage of a child from a slave woman:
Crimes of Islamic Slavery against Humanity
Islam has no problem with men sleeping with 4 wives and dozens of slave girls (which he can rotate by selling older slave girls and buying new slave girls). Thus, Islam denies any mate-guarding in the case of men. It allows men to enjoy their lives. Islam didn't allow Muslim men to buy and rape new slave girls out of any NECESSITY, but it allowed them in order to fulfil their lust.
But Islam comes only into action when it has to put restrictions in the name of mate-guarding upon women. The only excuse is that women should not be allowed to enjoy their lives, while there comes an issue of determination of paternity of the child.
But the issue of the paternity of the child can be easily solved with modern medical tests and DNA. But still Muslims don't allow a woman to enjoy her life, but compel her to wait for her husband (even if he is mostly busy with his other multiple wives/slave girls, or even if he is weak in sex and almost impotent).
Moreover, minor girls, older women, or already pregnant women also had no chance of getting pregnant. Still, Islam denied them any chance to enjoy their lives.
There is no problem if a man and woman promise each other to have no other sex partners. But Islam became one-sided where it allows ONLY men to have multiple sex partners, but put restrictions upon women only.
(4) Daniel's claim: Only men have responsibilities when it comes to Children
Daniel's argument was ONLY Men have to pay for their children. He cited no other responsibility of men. Then he claimed that women don't have any financial responsibilities for their children, but still women want to have a right to abortion alone.
Daniel is again making a mistake.
In Western Countries, if a woman is earning money, then she also has to pay for the child (just like the Father has to pay). If she is earning more than the father, then she has to pay even more. If she is not looking after the children properly, then the father can take custody of the children from her. In the western system, it is not about the father or mother, but things are decided on the bases of what is better for the child.
In simple words, women have exactly the same responsibilities regarding children, as fathers have. If a father is looking after the children, then the mother has to pay the father for the children.
But as far as delivery is concerned, then ONLY and ONLY a woman has to undergo this painful process. And the husbands have no role in pregnancy and delivery. Thus, it is logical that only women should have the right to decide on delivery or abortion.
While the Islamic system is totally out of BALANCE and is based upon INJUSTICES. In an Islamic system, even if the father is a poor person, or becomes invalid and cannot earn money, still he is responsible for all the expenses of the children and as well as of the wife. But if the wife is rich, still she will not pay either for the children or for the poor husband.
But the Islamic system goes even more out of balance and becomes more unjust when in the name of the financial responsibility of the husband, it declares the wife and the children as a PROPERTY of the man. He can beat his wife, even with bruises (link). And he can also beat children and if he kills them, still he will not be physically punished for that, as children are considered his property in Islam. Please read our article: A child is the father's property in Islamic Sharia, thus the father cannot be physically punished for killing his child
In the name of this same unjust financial responsibility upon fathers, Islam also wants to deprive women of their choice for delivery or abortion.
(5) Depression is all-time high in Islamic countries like Pakistan
We don't know how Daniel comes to the conclusion that western people are suffering more from depression than Islamic countries.
Just look at the level of depression in Islamic Pakistan: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728784/#:~:text=Depression%20is%20a%20debilitating%20mood,at%2047%25%20%5B8%5D.
In fact, the depression of women in Islamic countries is absolutely not registered in the majority of cases. We saw how people got depression during COVID-19, when they only had to put masks on their mouths, and had to stay in their houses most of the time. But all Muslim women had to put on Hijab and it is discouraged that they leave the 4 walls of their homes. Even if they come out of their houses, still it is a war-like situation for them outside, and they are absolutely not comfortable. They cannot move freely in the open air.
Moreover, also think about the depression that slave women had to suffer due to Islam.
- Their masters could rape them against their consent.
- Their masters could hand them over to any of their brothers or male slaves to rape them.
- The master could break their family life, take the slave wife from his male slaves, and rape her.
- The masters could separate the slave mothers from their children, and sell them (or their babies) in the Bazaars of Islamic slavery after the child had got 2 teeth (at 6 months approximately).
There is a very long list of Crimes of Islam against Humanity on the issue of slave girls. Please read our detailed article: Part 1: Crimes of Islamic Slavery against Humanity.
Moreover, Daniel also claimed that the suicide rate is higher in Western countries, which proves that western women are in depression. Nevertheless, this is again a false claim by Daniel. Studies show that western people are much happier than Muslims in Islamic countries. But if they lose interest in life due to illness, then they want to have a right to Euthanasia (which Muslims falsely claim to be suicide). Please read our article: Suicide: Why the rate of suicide is higher in the Atheist Community?
(6) Daniel claims that rate of Divorce is higher in Western countries while women have got equal human rights
Just look in Kuwait, UAE, Qatar and even Saudia, where the Divorce Rate is touching 50%.
Whenever women get equal human rights, they will deny their exploitation.
While the Islamic system is only based on the exploitation of women. They better turn their women into slaves. In this way, they will bring the Divorce rate to ZERO, while Islam gives absolutely no human rights to slave women.
Please read our article: Muslims blame the non-religious Western system for Destroying the FAMILY System.
(7) Hijab brings only Sexual Frustration in an Islamic society
Look at Pakistan:
- Pakistan is at the top in the search for INCEST Porn in the world (for the last 2 decades).
- 80% of child girls are raped by their fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, and grandfathers. Their cases are not even registered. Please read our article: Incest in Islamic Pakistan.
- Pakistan is at the top in search of donkey rape.
- Thousands of children are being raped in the Quran Madaris.
- Women are molested by mobs. This thing never happens in western countries. It may be individual men indulge in abuses against women, but never a mob of men molest a woman.
Muslim women are even molested during Hajj (link).
While western women at disco parties and beaches are perhaps safer than Muslim women during Hajj gatherings.
Please read our articles:
Islamic Hijab & Modesty حياء leads only towards Sexual Frustration
(8) If Muslim States don't let women go outside without Hijab, then the Western countries also don't let you go naked outside in public
The problem with Muslim preachers is that they deny the “Evolution of Dress”. But this is a reality:
- This evolution of dress was initiated due to weather conditions. When our ancestors migrated from Africa towards Europe and other colder places (or very hot places), they needed to cover their bodies with clothes, while modern humans lost their body hairs (i.e. they had no cover against the extreme sun or freezing cold).
- In the next stage of the evolution of dress, it became the sign of women of wealthy families to cover themselves with clothes, while women from poor families (or slave women) stayed naked, or topless.
- Then it became a FASHION too.
The issue is:
- Why do Muslim preachers directly take the example of western countries?
- Why don't they start with the indigenous tribes (link), who are practising Naturism (i.e. a lifestyle of practising non-sexual social nudity in private and in public) for thousands of years?
- Yes, the Muslim preachers first have to answer why it is not an issue in these tribes to move in public without a dress?
- Yes, the Muslim preachers first have to answer why is it NORMAL for them to move naked in public, and women are there not molested all the time for being nude?
- Yes, the Muslim preachers first have to answer why a strong family system exists in these societies, despite women being naked there for thousands of years.
Western countries are also going through an evolution of dress gradually. They stayed under the heavy influence of the Christian religion for the past 2 thousand years. The majority of their population is still Christian. Thus, western countries are not fully free of religious influence yet.
Similarly, even many ex-Muslims in Islamic countries are not ready for even bikinis in public. It is due to the reason that they have never been in such an environment before. But when they stay for a couple of years in the western countries, then bikini becomes totally NORMAL for them.
And there are 'Naturists Movements' rising in the western countries. Due to their struggles, there exist thousands of Nude Beaches today, where Naturism has already become totally NORMAL.
In Denmark, nudism is allowed on 4,500 kilometres of coastline. The same is true about other Scandinavian countries (https://www.dailyscandinavian.com/naturists-in-scandinavia/). Of course, private offices and government institutes have their own dress codes, but in your private life, you can even come out in a bikini in public places today. And despite bikinis in public (or total nude on beaches), women in Western countries are not molested and they are safer as compared to Muslim women who are even molested during Hajj gatherings.
Moreover, there is technically no law about nudity in Denmark. There is a relevant law, though, which reads:
It is forbidden to display obscene or offensive behavior, that is likely to offend others or to outrage bystanders.
Here’s the Danish text:
Det er forbudt at udvise uanstændig eller anstødelig opførsel, der er egnet til at forulempe andre eller vække offentlig forargelse.
The relevant word is “likely”. This makes the application of the law highly situational. Except for religious people in Denmark, other people will probably soon stop getting offended even if others move totally nude in public. It is just like indigenous tribes move naked and it is totally NORMAL for them.
Here is an introduction to the history of Nudity:
The history of nudity involves social attitudes to nakedness of the human body in different cultures in history. The use of clothing to cover the body is one of the changes that mark the end of the Neolithic, and the beginning of civilizations. Nudity (or near-complete nudity) has traditionally been the social norm for both men and women in hunter-gatherer cultures in warm climates, and it is still common among many indigenous peoples. The need to cover the body is associated with human migration out of the tropics into climates where clothes were needed as protection from sun, heat, and dust in the Middle East; or from cold and rain in Europe and Asia. The first use of animal skins and cloth may have been as adornment, along with body modification, body painting, and jewelry, invented first for other purposes, such as magic, decoration, cult, or prestige. The skills used in their making were later found to be practical as well.
In modern societies, complete nudity in public became increasingly rare as nakedness became associated with lower status, but the mild Mediterranean climate allowed for a minimum of clothing, and in a number of ancient cultures, the athletic and/or cultist nudity of men and boys was a natural concept. In ancient Greece, nudity became associated with the perfection of the gods. In ancient Rome, complete nudity could be a public disgrace, though it could be seen at the public baths or in erotic art. In the Western world, with the spread of Christianity, any positive associations with nudity were replaced with concepts of sin and shame. Although rediscovery of Greek ideals in the Renaissance restored the nude to symbolic meaning in art, by the Victorian era, public nakedness was considered obscene. In Asia, public nudity has been viewed as a violation of social propriety rather than sin; embarrassing rather than shameful. However, in Japan, mixed-gender communal bathing was quite normal and commonplace until the Meiji Restoration.
While the upper classes had turned clothing into fashion, those who could not afford otherwise continued to swim or bathe openly in natural bodies of water or frequent communal baths through the 19th century. Acceptance of public nudity re-emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Philosophically based movements, particularly in Germany, opposed the rise of industrialization. Freikörperkultur (Free Body Culture) represented a return to nature and the elimination of shame. In the 1960s naturism moved from being a small subculture to part of a general rejection of restrictions on the body. Women reasserted the right to uncover their breasts in public, which had been the norm until the 17th century. The trend continued in much of Europe, with the establishment of many clothing-optional areas in parks and on beaches.
Through all of the historical changes in the developed countries, cultures in the tropical climates of sub-Saharan Africa and the Amazon rainforest have continued with their traditional practices, being partially or completely nude during everyday activities.
(9) Islamic preachers: But moving naked in public brings a lot of evils
Daniel and other Islamic preachers make this argument against us, but they forget these realities:
- It was Muhammad who made slave women move in public topless. There were thousands of slave women in front of Muhammad with naked breasts.
- It is 1300 year long history of Islam where slave women had to stay topless. Umar Ibn Khattab used to beat them with a stick for taking Hijab and told them not to resemble free Muslim women by taking Hijab.
- And Islam turned poor slave women into sexual objects, and Muslim men were given licences to fulfil their sexual lusts by raping them. They were presented in that naked state in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery, where Muslim customers were also allowed to touch their private parts (just like sheep and cattle are groped before purchase).
- And Muslim men were molesting them, without any fear of physical punishment, while Muhammad/Allah didn't punish or even rebuked them for molesting slave women. Thus, Muslim men were even kidnapping slave women of others, and raping them, without any fear of punishment. Muslim men were raping slave girls in Temporary Sexual Relationships, and selling them, in order to buy other slave girls to rape them too. They were swapping their slave girls and raping them ... In short, Islamic Sharia turned Muslim men into serial rapists legally by giving them full control over the poor slave girls.
Please see all proofs here: Part 1: Crimes of Islamic Slavery against Humanity
Those were the evils which Islamic Sharia brought along with forced nakedness and rape of slave women, but Islamic preachers never condemn Islam for all these evils. Why?
(10) Naturism in western countries is totally different from the Islamic forced nakedness of slave women and their rape:
Naturism is not about sex, but it is based upon respect for humans and their choices.
No one can force a woman to become topless or nude. And forget about rape, no one is allowed to even touch a woman without her consent.
Naturism is linked with absolutely no evil.
Islamic preachers blame Nuturism for an increase in the divorce rate in western countries. But they are wrong. Just look at indigenous tribes who have been practising Naturism for thousands of years. They marry and have a strong family system till today.
The reasons for the increase in the divorce rate in western countries are different. Modern technology and social system have made life easier for people, and they don't need a family to survive. This is the main reason for the increase in the divorce rate. If a hard time comes, and people once again need their family to survive, then once again the family system will automatically become stronger.
That is why the divorce rate in Gulf Muslim countries is touching 50% (which is even higher than many western countries too). Although these Gulf countries practise no Naturalism but take full Hijab, still this high rate of divorce is a result of the fact that people in these rich Gulf countries are not in need of a strong family system in order to survive.
The same is the case with the tribal system. Just like the family system, the tribal system was also extremely strong in the past, while people needed the support of their tribe in order to survive. But today, the tribal system has almost died, and we don't need the support of our tribes in order to survive in this modern era (especially in the cities).
(11) The case of Hijab in the Islamic countries is totally Opposite
The Naturist Movement in western countries is not compelling Muslim women to become topless, but it is liberating all humans. It is about human rights and respecting one's choice for his/her dressing. Modesty and decency are not hidden in Hijab, but modesty and decency are to RESPECT the women and their choices. The Western world is the most decent, as it educates men to RESPECT women and their choices.
But the issue of Hijab in the Islamic countries is totally opposite.
The first evil of the Islamic Hijab is:
- Hijab is a sign of the worst kind of DISCRIMINATION and worst kind of HUMILIATION & INSULT to millions of slave women, who were prohibited from taking Hijab by Islamic Sharia, which reserved it only for free Muslim women as a sign of respect and honour.
- Dear Muslim women, Islamic Hijab should not be your CHOICE today, but you have to join us in PROTESTING against this extreme injustice against millions of slave women.
The second evil of the Islamic Hijab is:
- The Hijab is practically IMPOSED by force upon the private lives of millions of women.
- It is a TOOL in hands of men, in order to take away their liberties and make them dependent upon men so that men can exploit them.
- The Hijab is used in order to usurp the basic human rights of women.
And the other evils of the Islamic Hijab are:
- Hijab is not enough to secure women. It demands women stay within the 4 walls of their houses, and don't leave their houses without necessity.
- It demands that women don't even talk with men.
- This gender segregation brings many more evils. Not showing men women's bodies is only going to make them fetishize the tiniest detail they do get to see. If women's bodies were treated normally, men would get used to them and not fetishize every tiny part of them. Muslim men are super frustrated. And the main reason is restrictions upon natural interaction between men and women in the name of the Hijab and Islamic modesty. Please read: Islamic Hijab & Modesty حياء leads only towards Sexual Frustration.
- The same is true if you don't let men talk and interact with women. It will never allow them to understand women and their feelings and how to deal with them respectfully.
- Love is natural, but Hijab and Islamic Decency (حياء) are the killers of this natural love between a girl and a boy. Islam blames the love of Layla and Majnun (Arabic characters like Romeo/Juliet) to be indecent. And Islam punishes all the Laylas and Majnuns severely, while they commit the crime of indulging in Love. Islam uses the tools of Hijab and Islamic Decency (حياء) (i.e. no interaction between a boy and a girl) in order to kill this love. Islam is not a religion of nature, but it is a murderer of nature.
- In Islam, a girl is practically forced to marry a man to whom she has never talked before and does not know if his mentality and personality suit her or not. This makes both Hijab and Islamic decency حياء to be crimes against humanity.
Hijab turns the lives of women into hell. They have to face thousands of hardships in their daily lives. Please read this article to see these evils of the Hijab in action: Negative role of 'Hijab' and 'Islamic Modesty' in the incident of Ifk (Highly recommended)
(12) Muslim Youth in Islamic Societies has no chance to get rid of their Sexual Frustration
In the earlier centuries, Muslim men got the chance to interact with the opposite sex, while:
- There were thousands of slave women present in public (and even their breasts were naked).
- Muslim men also raping the slave women.
- And even Muhammad was moving in public while holding the hands of slave girls of other men (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 6072 & Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 4177)
But today, there exist no slave women any more (thanks to the Western World).
Muslim boys are not able to marry till 30 years today (before they get their education and stable job, and they spare big money for Haq Mehr).
All these unnatural Islamic restrictions upon the interaction between opposite sex lead only towards extreme sexual frustration.
Sahaba (i.e. companions) of Muhammad were unable to control themselves for only 30 nights of Ramadan (when initially Muhammad/Allah forbade them to have sex with their wives during Ramadan nights). Thus, Sahaba used to go secretly to their wives during Ramadan nights and had sex with them. In the end, Muhammad/Allah had to abrogate this order and had to give permission to Sahaba to have sex during the nights of Ramadan. This whole incident is present in the Quran.
Surah Al-Baqarah (2:187)
“It is made lawful for you to have sexual relations with your wives on the night of As-Siyam (fasting) ... Allah knows that you used to deceive yourselves (by going to wives secretly), so He turned to you and forgave you (for this sin). So now you are allowed to have sexual relations with your wives.
Narrated Al-Bara': When the order of compulsory fasting of Ramadan was revealed, the people did not have sexual relations with their wives for the whole month of Ramadan, but some men cheated themselves (by violating that restriction). So Allah revealed: "Allah is aware that you were deceiving yourselves but He accepted your repentance and forgave you..".
So, if Sahaba were unable to control their sexual desires for 30 nights, how can then Muslim Youth control themselves for 30 long years?
Muslim preachers claim that Muslim boys have to FAST in order to control their sexual desires. But look, Sahaba were indeed FASTING too, but still, they were unable to control their sexual desires during 30 nights of Ramadan.
Another Muslim excuse is to marry boys and girls when they are 12 years old. But PRACTICALLY it is impossible. Even Muhammad was unable to marry till the age of 25 years. No father wants his daughter to wed a boy who is not earning money. No father wants his daughter to face hunger. No father wants her daughter to become a baby-producing machine at the age of 12.
The results will come only and only in the form of extreme sexual frustration in Islamic societies. They have no escape door from this problem.