Muhammad is often presented by Muslim apologists as a liberator of women, a reformer who improved Arabian customs, curbed abuses, and gave women a new dignity. There is some truth in the narrow claim that early Islam altered certain pre-Islamic practices. Yet that limited improvement is often exaggerated into a sweeping moral defense, as though any movement away from pagan Arabia must therefore represent the righteous standard of God. The real question is not whether Muhammad adjusted some customs, but whether the total picture of his teaching and conduct reveals a prophet who spoke with genuine moral authority from Jehovah. When the Qur’an and hadith are examined together, the answer is no. The pattern that emerges is one of hierarchy, humiliation, coercion, and sexual entitlement. Muhammad did not present women as equal bearers of honor before God in the biblical sense. He repeatedly treated them as persons under male authority, more prone to error, especially vulnerable to judgment, and available to men within structures that the Gospel condemns.

The Claim of Reform and the Pattern of Control

Defenders of Islam often point to inheritance rules, restrictions on unlimited polygamy, and the abolition of some abuses as proof that Muhammad elevated women. Yet reform measured against a degraded pagan baseline is not the same thing as righteousness. A law can be less cruel than what came before and still remain morally corrupt. Even the example of Muhammad’s marriage to Khadija does not overturn the larger pattern, because whatever that early marriage may suggest, Muhammad’s later revelations and permissions became the standard for the Islamic community. Those later revelations favored male sexual access, gave Muhammad special marital privileges, and framed obedience to him as obedience to Allah. That last point matters greatly. Once Muhammad’s personal desires and legal directives are fused with divine command, criticism of his treatment of women becomes criticism of the religion’s prophet at its center. From a biblical perspective, this alone should raise alarm. A true prophet directs people upward to Jehovah’s holiness. He does not build a legal order that consistently bends toward male advantage while claiming heavenly sanction for it.

Wife-Beating and the Structure of Obedience

One of the clearest examples is Qur’an 4:34. The verse declares men to be over women and then prescribes a sequence for dealing with a wife feared to be rebellious: admonish her, separate from her in bed, and beat her. Muslim translators have often softened the wording, but the force of the verse has not disappeared, and centuries of interpretation confirm that the text has been read as permitting physical discipline. That is why the phrase wife-beating mandated by Allah so directly captures the legal consequence of the passage. Muhammad did not leave the matter there as an isolated verse floating without context. The broader hadith tradition reinforces a household structure in which female obedience is central and male correction is normalized. This is the very opposite of apostolic teaching. Colossians 3:19 commands husbands to love their wives and not be harsh with them. Ephesians 5:25 grounds the husband’s role in Christ’s self-sacrifice, not in coercive power. Any religious founder who authorizes a man to strike his wife for resistance has already disqualified himself as a moral guide when measured by the standard of Christ.

Deficiency of Mind and Diminished Testimony

Muhammad’s sayings about women deepen the problem from household authority into anthropology. In the hadith literature, he tells women that many of the inhabitants of Hell are women, then explains their condition by describing them as deficient in intelligence and religion. When asked what this deficiency means, he points to the legal rule that two women equal one man in testimony. The logic is circular and revealing. Women’s testimony is diminished because their minds are deficient, and their deficient minds are supposedly proved by the fact that their testimony is diminished. In effect, the system defines women downward and then cites its own definition as evidence. The legal result is the doctrine that a woman’s testimony is worth half a man’s. This is not a small rhetorical slip. It is an explicit declaration about female mental reliability. Scripture does not speak this way. The Bible contains wise women, courageous women, prophetic women in the non-office sense, and women whose faith shames men who should have known better. The issue in Scripture is not that women possess lesser minds, but that all humanity, male and female alike, is fallen and in need of redemption. Muhammad’s saying therefore exposes more than cultural bias. It exposes a theological anthropology at odds with the Word of God.

Hell, Gratitude, and Female Fear

Muhammad’s low view of women also appears in his statements about final judgment. The hadith record preserves his declaration that the majority of Hell’s inhabitants are women, especially because of cursing and ingratitude toward husbands. Even if one grants that he was warning against specific sins, the framing is still striking. The accent falls not on rebellion against God in the broad biblical sense, but on women’s failure to satisfy the expectations of their husbands. Meanwhile, the imagery of Paradise in the Qur’an frequently centers male gratification, with female companions described in idealized sensual terms. The result is a deeply asymmetrical moral world. Women are warned that they are numerous in Hell because of failures connected to male relationships, while Paradise is repeatedly portrayed in male-oriented sexual imagery. In the biblical revelation, judgment falls on sin without this distortion. Men and women alike stand before God accountable for what they have done. Salvation is through Christ, not through appeasing a spouse. The Lord Jesus never taught that women as a class are especially fated for condemnation because they fail in gratitude toward husbands. Such teaching bears the mark of a patriarchal religious culture, not the mark of Jehovah’s righteous judgment.

Captives, Concubinage, and Sexual Exploitation

The darkest issue is Muhammad’s treatment of female captives and slave women. The Qur’an repeatedly allows sexual relations not only with wives but also with those whom one’s right hand possesses, as seen in Surah 23:5-6, Surah 70:29-30, and the exception clause in Surah 4:24. The hadith then shows how these texts functioned in practice. Muslim fighters captured women in war, desired them sexually, and asked Muhammad about intercourse and coitus interruptus with them. Rather than condemning the practice, he permitted it. That is why the linked concepts sexual assault on non-Muslim women is lawful and slavery is still theologically permissible are not polemical inventions detached from the texts; they describe the legal-moral outcome of Muhammad’s permissions. These women were captives whose families had been defeated, whose prior marriages could be nullified by capture, and whose bodies became available to their new owners. To treat such a system as morally elevated is impossible. By biblical standards it is exploitation, not righteousness. The God of Scripture condemns fornication, oppression, kidnapping, and the abuse of the vulnerable. A man who authorizes sexual access to war captives does not speak with the holiness of Jehovah.

The Biblical Measure of a Prophet

The Christian response to Muhammad’s teaching about women is not rooted in Western fashion, modern politics, or sentimental preference. It is rooted in revelation. Deuteronomy teaches that a prophet must speak truly for God, and the wider Scriptural witness shows that God’s moral character is consistent with His commands. Jesus confirmed the creation order of one man and one woman in covenant union. The apostles commanded husbands to love, honor, and cherish their wives, not to strike them, degrade them, or treat them as disposable. Galatians 3:28 teaches equal standing in relation to salvation, while the household passages require sacrificial love and holiness. Muhammad’s teaching cuts against that grain at every major point. He authorizes domination where Christ commands self-giving. He diminishes female intelligence where Scripture honors women as moral and spiritual persons. He threatens women with hell in a distinctly husband-centered way, and he permits the sexual use of female captives where the Bible demands purity and justice. For that reason, Muhammad cannot be accepted as a prophet from Jehovah. His view of women does not reveal divine perfection. It reveals the moral limits of a seventh-century Arabian religious leader whose system fell far short of the truth made known in Christ.

You May Also Enjoy

Islam-Shariah Law: Liberal Woke Westerners—The Pawns of Their Own Destruction

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS