by Kamel Ibn Sabala 

Originally published 2024. Revised March 23, 2025.

---

This eBook, on this page, is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

---

The Mohammedan’s Conspiracy (1914), released four years after Jessup’s death, received a period review that encapsulates its storyline:

“The conspiracy consists of the fact that the Mohammedans have discovered a deadly germ. . .the natives by now know him and his mission. . .The Sheik arouses her suspicions and she follows him to his laboratory, where he instructs the faithful in the use of a new deadly germ to be put in the water and food of the English. . . 

Regrettably, no clip appears available on thanhouser.org. One might wonder why. However, apparently the “stars” James Cruze and Flo La Badie appear in “DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE (1912)” together as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AwRWnGQ_GI

---

Fair Warning

About the Author: I am not a religious scholar, an Imam or Priest, nor do I claim any specific role or title in religious matters. I am, rather, a sophisticated computer enthusiast with a passion for in-depth research and an enduring commitment to lifelong learning.

This work should not be cited as a religious authority. In fact, before discussing it with anyone, please conduct your own research and reach your own conclusions.

Throughout this book, I have made every effort to cite my references. Where I anticipated confusion for non-Muslim readers or encountered vagueness or obscurity, I have provided footnotes to clarify meanings and ensure the discussion remains accessible and coherent.

God knows best, and may God forgive any mistakes, as this work reflects my personal research and understanding. This is, simply, how I interpret it.

Thank you.

---

God Willing, and in the name of Allah, may these be the author’s opening thoughts:  

This book encourages readers to pursue their own learning and research. Whenever you hear a claim, whether about a sports team or a religion, be objective, open-minded, and consider the bigger picture.

Often, setting the record straight requires significant effort. A simple phrase like “religion Z treats animals poorly,” for instance, might take deep analysis to refute, especially against the weight of bias carried by such statements.

In 2024, we contend with social media figures and personalities who say anything for followers. “Like, subscribe, and follow” becomes the mantra, often fueled by sensational negativity to increase engagement. Avoid being drawn into fruitless debates with such figures. Instead, engage with those open to genuine, intellectual dialogue—regardless of creed, race, or religion. Jessup himself claimed government monitoring during his overseas work; considering his approach, it’s no surprise he was viewed with suspicion. 

What is “The Mohammedan Missionary Problem?” The Mohammedan Missionary Problem is a book by Henry Harris Jessup, pictured above and below, an American Presbyterian missionary who dedicated his career to evangelical work in Syria, now Lebanon. Jessup’s Wikipedia entry briefly states: “(1832–1910) was an American Presbyterian missionary and author who devoted his distinguished career to evangelical missionary work in Syria (now Lebanon).”

To put it bluntly, Henry Jessup was a prominent Islamophobe and racist. While he did not originate such behavior, his actions did nothing to curb its spread.

Our review of Jessup and his work, particularly his book The Mohammedan Missionary Problem, will make this evident.

Sadly, even though this publication is now 145 years old as of 2024, one doesn’t have to look far to see, hear, or feel the lasting effects of such hatred in today’s society. While Jessup made a point of claiming he did not support practices like slavery, his work unmistakably reveals a deep-seated superiority complex.

Henry Harris Jessup (center) with two fellow missionaries, Syria, circa 1856-1876

Racism Apparent

This book will primarily examine Jessup’s statements in The Mohammedan Missionary Problem, but to underscore that his viewpoints extended beyond religious matters, here are a few revealing highlights. In 1893, approximately fourteen years after The Mohammedan Missionary Problem was published, Jessup was mentioned in The Inter Ocean newspaper out of Chicago, Illinois.

The article wastes no time with bias, opening with the phrase, “The great English-speaking nations…”

The article almost certainly references “Beha Allah” in a perplexing note, describing him as part of a “reform party of Persian Muslims.”

Baháʼu’lláh, pictured above in 1868, is described in Wikipedia as “an Iranian religious leader who founded the Baháʼí Faith.” His teachings were influenced by the Báb, born ʿAlí Muḥammad (1819–1850), an Iranian religious leader and founder of the Bábi Faith. The term “Báb” translates to “Gate,” referencing the gateway to the Twelfth Imam.

Confused yet? Imagine readers in 1893 encountering a newspaper article discussing “Beha Allah” and a “reform party of Persian Muslims”—it would be easy for them to assume these figures were related to Islam by the names being used.

Further, allegedly, in Chicago by 1893 was the first Islamic mosque opening (image below), may this have something to do with the interest in spreading misinformation? Or perhaps a desire to suppress up-and-coming knowledge that could be shared, such as from Omar ibn Said?

For a modern opinion, in his video, Who are the Baha’ia & What are their beliefs? – Assim al hakeem, he refers to this group as a “cult.”

Above image: Cairo Street at the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, held in Chicago – with mosque in background.

---

Jessup’s view of salvation versus Islam from an 1898 publication. 

Jessup wrote: 
The two words in the Koran which express the doctrine of expiation are, first, “Kaffarah,” (Sura 5 :49): “And therein (Ex. 21 : 23) have we enacted for them ‘Life for life, an eye for eye and  nose for nose and ear for ear and tooth for tooth, and for wounds retaliation ; whoso shall  compromise it as alms shall have therein the expiation of his sin.” “The expiation of a[145] mistaken word in your oaths shall be to feed ten poor persons,” etc. (Sura 5 :91).. And, second, “Fidyah” (Sura 2:180) “Those who are fit to fast and do not, the expiation of this shall  be the maintenance of a poor man.” Whosoever is sick and can not make the pilgrimage to  Mecca “must expiate by fasting or alms or an offering.” In Moslem theology the term “kaf faratu’z zunub,” “the atonement for sins,” is used for the duties of prayer, fasting, almsgiving,  and pilgrimage. The visiting of shrines of the saints is also an atonement for sins. “Ziyaratu’l is “kaffaratu-zzunub.”

Under Sunni law (the largest denomination in Islam), Al-Kaffarah (an Islamic term meaning prescribed acts of expiation) serves as atonement for certain violations, whether intentional or accidental. Each offense has defined methods of expiation derived directly from the Qur’an (Islam’s holy book) and Sunnah (teachings and practices of the Prophet Muhammad). Kaffarah applies specifically to:

• [1] Unintentional and Semi-Unintentional Murder
• [2] Breaking a Fast During Ramadan (Islamic holy month of fasting)
• [3] Breaking an Oath
• [4] Violations During Hajj (annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca)
• [5] Zihar (a pre-Islamic form of divorce where a man equates his wife to a forbidden relative, making marital relations temporarily unlawful)

Each Kaffarah category follows a structured, tiered approach to expiation, typically starting with higher-cost acts (e.g., freeing a slave) and moving toward more accessible alternatives (e.g., fasting). This progression ensures individuals of all economic backgrounds can fulfill their religious obligations.

Kaffarah emphasizes personal accountability, requiring individuals to undertake specific corrective actions as both deterrents against future violations and acknowledgments of wrongdoing. This structured process ensures repentance moves beyond mere words and is grounded in sincere, meaningful action.

---

Jessup incorrectly cites Qur’an 5:49 as referring to Kaffarah (prescribed acts of expiation). This verse, however, does not directly address Al-Kaffarah; rather, it emphasizes the broader principle of judging according to Allah’s revelation. Al-Tabari, as translated by ibnsabala.com (v2), clarifies the verse as follows:

---

Second, Jessup references Exodus 21:23 from the Old Testament as a point of comparison, yet this does not fully align with Islamic law. While the principle of “an eye for an eye” is present in both traditions, Islamic regulations regarding unintentional or semi-unintentional killing differ significantly. Under Islamic law, the prescribed atonements are:

• Freeing a slave: If financially and practically feasible, this is the first required form of expiation.
• Fasting: If freeing a slave is impossible, the individual must fast for two consecutive months.
• Diya (Blood Money): Diya is separate financial compensation paid to the deceased’s family, distinct from Kaffarah (spiritual expiation), yet often associated with it. Diya serves as social restitution, while Kaffarah is the spiritual act of repentance.

These regulations aim to restore community balance by recognizing the seriousness of life taken, even unintentionally. Jessup, however, does not explore this nuance in detail, though the Bible does contain related ideas.

For example, Jesus is reported in Matthew 5:29–30 as saying:

“If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

In this instance, Jesus specifically addresses adultery, emphasizing the seriousness with which the Prophets, including Jesus himself, approached acts of sin and personal accountability.consistent in advocating for avenues to avoid and atone for sin, each requiring a measure of personal action.

---

Jessup then cites, 5:91, which should have been cited at 5:89 both nonetheless read:

A beautiful line in 5:89 states, “…This is how Allah makes things clear to you, so perhaps you will be grateful…” Engaging in such acts would indeed make the wrongdoer fully aware of their error.

Fidyah, or compensation, is referenced in Surah Al-Baqarah (2:184), not 2:180—another misquotation by Jessup. The verses both state:

---

al-Tabari in his Tafsir from ibnsabala.com v2 discusses 2:184. He states:

The most correct view in my opinion is the statement of those who said that Allah, glory be to Him, meant by it the days of Ramadan. This is because there is no report that proves that fasting was obligatory on the people of Islam other than Ramadan, and then it was abrogated by Ramadan. Also, Allah has clarified in the verse that the fasting He obligated us with is the fasting of Ramadan, not any other. . .

‘And upon those who are able [to fast], a ransom [as substitute] of feeding a poor person.’ At that time, whoever wanted to fast could do so, and whoever wanted to break their fast had to feed a poor person. Later on, Allah made fasting obligatory for the healthy resident, and feeding became mandatory for the elderly who were unable to fast.”

. . . Whoever wanted to fast did so, and whoever wanted to break their fast would feed a poor person half a sa’ (a unit of measurement) of food. This was later abrogated by the verse “So whoever sights [the new moon of] the month, let him fast it” (Quran 2:185).

Thus, Jessup is making arguments about Fidyah within a verse that has a backstory of “rolling out” to the final rules on fasting. Jessup most likely didn’t know, and didn’t care, about these fine details.

---

Explanation of Fidyah

Nonetheless, Fidyah (compensation) offers an alternative for those unable to fast due to illness or old age, where fasting would pose excessive difficulty. Instead of fasting, they are required to feed a poor person for each day missed. Fidyah thus provides a way to fulfill religious obligations when physical limitations prevent the observance of the fast.

Difference Between Fidyah and Kaffarah

• Fidyah is paid when someone cannot perform an obligation (like fasting) due to a legitimate hardship (age, illness, etc.), and it does not involve a violation or sin. It is a substitute act. Thus, Surah Al-Baqarah 2:184 establishes a compassionate allowance in Islamic law, ensuring that those who cannot fast due to genuine hardship can still maintain their spiritual duties.

Examples from al-Tabari’s tafsir, per ibnsabala.com v2 information:

Example 1: When Allah made fasting obligatory for those who witnessed the month of Ramadan, those who were healthy and able to fast no longer had to pay a ransom (fidyah). The fidyah remained only for the elderly who could not fast due to old age or illness.

Example 2: Quran 2:184, Bishr bin Mu’adh narrated to us, saying: Yazid bin Zuri’ narrated to us, saying: Sa’id narrated to us from Qatadah (137/2), who said: It was mentioned to us that Ibn Abbas said to a pregnant or breastfeeding woman of his: “You are like those who cannot fast. You have the option of paying fidyah (ransom) and do not have to fast.

Example 3: Ibn Abbas said: “Whoever finds it difficult to fast, except with great effort, can break their fast and feed a poor person every day. This includes pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, the elderly, and those with chronic illnesses.” Hannad narrated that Ubaidah said: “Mansur told me that Ibn Abbas said: ‘The elderly or the woman who used to fast in her youth but became weak due to old age before death can feed a poor person every day.'” Ubaidah asked Mansur, “Is it half a sa’ (a unit of measurement) per day?” Mansur replied, “Yes.”

Example 4: The word “fidyah” means compensation or ransom. For example, when you say “I ransomed this with that,” it means you compensated for it with something else.

---

Kaffarah, on the other hand, is expiation for specific violations, such as breaking an oath, intentionally breaking a fast, or other acts requiring atonement.

For example, al-Tabari in his Tafsir per v2 on ibnsabala.com states:

Example 1: …and the kaffarah is upon the killer, by consensus of the scholars based on the narration of the Prophet (peace be upon him)…

Example 2, from Tafsir on 5:95: Another narration by Ibn Jurayj states: “Allah has forgiven what was done in the past, but whoever repeats the offense, Allah will exact revenge from him, and he must pay the Kaffarah.” I asked Ibn Jurayj, “Will the Sultan punish him?” He said, “No.” Ataa’ also said that if someone commits an offense due to mistake, intention, or forgetfulness, and then repeats it, Allah’s statement “Allah has forgiven what was done in the past” applies. However, if he repeats the offense again, Allah will exact revenge from him, along with the Kaffarah. Mujahid said that whenever someone commits an offense, they must pay the Kaffarah.

Example 3, further into 5:95: The most accurate statement regarding this verse is that it means: “And whoever, after being forbidden from hunting in the sacred precincts, deliberately kills game, will have to pay a penalty.” This is because Allah, the Almighty, has informed us that He will exact revenge on such individuals. However, some people may think that the penalty (kaffarah) removes the punishment. But if the kaffarah were obligatory for them in this world, it would nullify the punishment in the Hereafter. This is a mistaken assumption, as Allah, the Almighty, has the power to differentiate between the punishments for His servants’ transgressions as He sees fit. For example, Allah has differentiated between the punishments for the unmarried adulterer and the married adulterer, as well as between the thief who steals a quarter of a dinar and one who steals less than that. Similarly, Allah has differentiated between the punishment for someone who kills game in the sacred precincts intentionally for the first time and one who does so repeatedly. For the first-time offender, Allah has prescribed a penalty of providing food or fasting as an expiation, which is a fixed punishment (li-yadhūqa wabāla amrihi). However, for the repeat offender, Allah has added to their punishment by exacting revenge, which is a more severe punishment. If Allah’s punishments were uniform, it would be necessary that there not be different penalties for different crimes. But since Allah’s punishments are varied, it is clear that He has differentiated between them as He sees fit.

---

Next, Jessup cites, “In Moslem theology the term kaf faratu’z zunub, the atonement for sins, is used for the duties of prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and pilgrimage.” 

Prayer (Salah): Sahih Muslim 233c – The Book of Purification – كتاب الطهارة – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) Abu Huraira reported: Verily, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “The five (daily) prayers, and from one Friday prayer to the (next) Friday prayer, and from Ramadan to Ramadan are expiations for the (sins) committed in between, provided one avoids the major sins.”

Fasting: Sahih al-Bukhari 1904 – Fasting – كتاب الصوم – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) – Fasting is unique, and Jessup did not go into detail on this. The Hadith reports: 

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Allah said: Every deed of the son of Adam is for him, except fasting; it is for Me, and I reward it. Fasting is a shield. So when any of you is fasting, he should neither indulge in obscene language nor raise his voice in anger. If someone abuses him or fights with him, he should say, ‘I am fasting.’ By Him in Whose Hand is the soul of Muhammad, the breath of the fasting person is more pleasant to Allah than the fragrance of musk. The fasting person has two moments of joy: when he breaks his fast, he rejoices; and when he meets his Lord, he will be joyful because of his fasting.”

The Hajj pilgrimage, one of the Five Pillars of Islam, is an obligatory act of worship that every financially and physically able Muslim must perform at least once in their lifetime. This pilgrimage takes place annually in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, during the Islamic month of Dhu al-Hijjah. It includes a series of rituals intended to bring pilgrims closer to Allah, symbolizing spiritual rebirth, humility, and the unity of the Muslim Ummah (community).

In addition to Hajj, there is also Umrah, the “lesser pilgrimage,” which can be performed at any time of the year. While it includes some of the same rituals, such as Tawaf (circumambulating the Kaaba) and Sa’i (walking between the hills of Safa and Marwah), it does not fulfill the obligation of Hajj.

---

These are the very same actions that Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) also practiced:

• Prayer – Matthew 14:23 And after he (Jesus) had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone… This happens to be the way Muhammad first met the Angel Gabriel. Then, Matthew 26:39 39 And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” This happens to be the way Muslims perform part of our prayer. 
• Fasting – Matthew 4:2 And he (Jesus) fasted forty days and forty nights, and afterward he was hungry. Muslims fast every year during Ramadan for about 30 days from sun-up to sun-down. 
• Almsgiving – Matthew 19:21 (RSV) “Jesus said to him, If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” Matthew 6:1-4 (RSV) “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you…” Quran 4:38 is similar, “Likewise for those who spend their wealth to show off and do not believe in Allah or the Last Day. And whoever takes Satan as an associate—what an evil associate they have!” 
• Pilgrimage – John 2:13 (RSV) “The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” This passage shows that Jesus continued the custom of going to Jerusalem for Passover during his ministry. This annual journey to the Temple in Jerusalem for Passover was a central part of Jewish religious practice. Per myjewishlearning.com, “A major category of Jewish holidays is the pilgrimage festival. Described in the Hebrew Bible as. . .these three holidays were set aside in biblical times for people to travel to the ancient Temple in Jerusalem. These three holidays are Passover, Shavuot, and Sukkot.” 

---

Now You’ve Gone Too Far. . .

Jessup claims that “the visiting of shrines of the saints is also an atonement for sins. Ziyaratu’l is kaffaratu-zzunub.” This phrase, Ziyaratu’l is Kaffaratu-zzunub, implies that ziyarah (visitation) can serve as kaffaratu-zzunub (atonement for sins).

This word, Ziyarah in al-Tabari’s work shows up saying:

He was purified by God from all impurities. Obedience to God and His Messenger is required in all matters. Voluntary circumambulation (Tawaf) around the Kaaba is performed. Circumambulation during the visit (Ziyarah) is mentioned in the verse “and let them circumambulate the ancient House.”

Thus, this “visit” is visiting a mosque to perform a religious practice, not visiting a grave. IslamQA.info has a clear article on this as well: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/6744/visiting-graves-and-attending-occasions-on-which-they-say-that-the-souls-of-the-awliyaa-are-present

It states, “visiting graves for the purpose of calling upon their occupants, seeking their help, offering sacrifices to them and making vows to them. This is forbidden and is a major form of Shirk (shirk akbar). Connected to this is the practice of visiting graves to offer du’aa’, perform salaah and read Qur’aan there. This is all bid’ah and is not prescribed in Islam.“

And they cite clear Hadiths:

(a) ‘Aa’ishah and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: “When (death) approached the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), he started to cover his face with a cloak of his. When he became distressed he lifted it from his face and said, “May Allaah curse the Jews and the Christians, for they have taken the graves of their Prophets as places of worship.” [The narrator said:] he was warning against doing what they did.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 425; Muslim, 531).

(b) Abu Marthad al-Ghanawi said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not sit on graves and do not pray facing them.” (Narrated by Muslim, 972).

---

Saints in Islam (Awliya)?

Quran 3:175-176 per al-Tabari’s tafsir from ibnsabala.com discusses this word, and unless you are a scholar of his magnitude with a command over the Arabic language, then it’s easy to wildly make wrong claims about this word, in fact:

The phrase “awliya’uhu” (his allies) is similar to saying “he gives dirhams and clothes.” This means that he gives people dirhams and clothes them. However, in this case, the word “awliya'” refers to those who are being warned or threatened by others, not those who are receiving something.

In other places al-Tabari cites the word in its unique use, i.e. 4:33, “He said: They are the awliya’ (those who are closely related by blood or marriage).” Also, 6:121, “As for ‘the allies’ (al-awliya’), they are the helpers and supporters in this matter.” Further, “The term ‘awliya’ refers to the plural form of ‘wali’, which means a helper or supporter.”

---

Furthermore, Quran 10:62 There will certainly be no fear for the close servants of Allah, nor will they grieve.

al-Tabari reports, The scholars of interpretation differed regarding who deserves this name (awliya’ Allah). Some said they are a people whom Allah is mentioned upon seeing them, due to the good character and humility they possess. . . . There are people among whom, when seen, Allah is mentioned. . .

This couldn’t be a saint in the Christian sense, as this could be and should be nearly anyone!

Thus this verse, from Surah Yunus (Chapter 10), assures that those truly close to Allah—referred to as awliya (translated here as “close servants” or “friends” of Allah)—will experience neither fear nor grief. It offers comfort to devout believers, promising that Allah will grant peace and protection to His loyal servants both in this life and the hereafter.

In this context, awliya broadly denotes devout believers who adhere to Islamic principles, rather than indicating a specific class or hierarchy. While it can include well-known figures of piety, the term encompasses all who live with true faith and God-consciousness, without formal classifications or ranks.

---

The More You Know

It’s important to recognize that a single paragraph can carry immense depth, conveying a wealth of information while simultaneously requiring a profound foundation of understanding to fully grasp its meaning. 

In the same 1898 publication, Jessup discusses an alleged story about “Kamil.” Jessup claims this encounter with Kamil occurred: 

Kamil: “Sir, I want to know just what you believe about Christ and the way of salvation. I am not at rest. I find nothing in the Koran to show me how God can be a just God and yet pardon a sinner. I know I am a sinner and that God is merciful, but he is also just.” 

Jessup: I opened the New Testament and read to him: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and  are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” [Then Jessup asked,] “Did Mohammed ever venture to use such language as that?” 

Kamil: “No.” 

Jessup: I then said, “Now, when you read the gospel ask yourself, who was Jesus Christ? And why does he speak as if he were God? He says he will give us rest from sin and trouble and sorrow. He says, I and my Father are one.’ [and] ‘I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.’”

Again, there’s so much to unpack in just one paragraph. So, let’s begin with:

Matthew 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

A Christian might interpret this as Jesus’s invitation: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” This call offers not only relief from physical toil but also a profound peace that eases the soul’s heaviest burdens.

Jessup then claims to have asked Kamil whether Muhammad said anything similar, to which he reports Kamil replied, “no.” If accurate, this suggests Kamil did not seek Islamic guidance on the matter, as Muhammad certainly did address such themes. Numerous examples exist:

Yahya related to me . . . mentioning to him a great array of Byzantine troops and the anxiety they were causing him. Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote in reply to him, “Whatever hardship befalls a believing slave, Allah will make an opening for him after it, and a hardship will not overcome two eases. Allah the Exalted says in His Book:

Muwatta Malik https://sunnah.com/urn/509670

---

Patience

Muhammad and the Qur’an—regarded as the direct words of God—emphasize patience profoundly. If Kamil was indeed a real person, perhaps patience was an area where he struggled.

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) passed by a woman who was weeping beside a grave. He told her to fear Allah and be patient. She said to him, “Go away, for you have not been afflicted with a calamity like mine.” And she did not recognize him. Then she was informed that he was the Prophet (ﷺ) so she went to the house of the Prophet (ﷺ) and there she did not find any guard. Then she said to him, “I did not recognize you.” He said, “Verily, the patience is at the first stroke of a calamity.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 1283 – Funerals (Al-Janaa’iz) – كتاب الجنائز – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Islam teaches that trials are an inherent part of life.

It was narrated from Mus’ab bin Sa’d that his father, Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas, said: “I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which people are most severely tested?’ He said: ‘The Prophets, then the next best and the next best. A person is tested according to his religious commitment. If he is steadfast in his religious commitment, he will be tested more severely, and if he is frail in his religious commitment, his test will be according to his commitment. Trials will continue to afflict a person until they leave him walking on the earth with no sin on him.’”

Sunan Ibn Majah 4023 – Tribulations – كتاب الفتن – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

Furthermore:

Abu Dharr reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying that Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, said: “O My servants, I have forbidden oppression for Myself and have made it forbidden amongst you, so do not oppress one another. O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I have guided, so seek guidance of Me and I shall guide you, O My servants, all of you are hungry except for those I have fed, so seek food of Me and I shall feed you. O My servants, all of you are naked except for those I have clothed, so seek clothing of Me and I shall clothe you. O My servants, you sin by night and by day, and I forgive all sins, so seek forgiveness of Me and I shall forgive you. O My servants, you will not attain harming Me so as to harm Me, and will not attain benefitting Me so as to benefit Me. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as pious as the most pious heart of any one man of you, that would not increase My dominion in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to be as wicked as the most wicked heart of any one man of you, that would not decrease My dominion in anything. O My servants, were the first of you and the last of you, the human of you and the jinn of you to rise up in one place and make a request of Me, and were I to give everyone what he requested, that would not decrease what I have, any more that a needle decreases the sea if put into it. O My servants, it is but your deeds that I record for you and then recompense you for. So let him who finds good, praise Allah, and let him who finds other than that blame no one but himself.“

Sahih Muslim 2577a – The Book of Virtue, Enjoining Good Manners, and Joining of the Ties of Kinship – كتاب البر والصلة والآداب – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

In summary, “Kamil” appeared to have significant theological misunderstandings and perhaps some underlying anxiety. Notably, the publication records that he passed away about two years after this event.

It’s important to emphasize that Islam centers on a direct relationship with God. All requests—whether for sustenance, clothing, or forgiveness—are directed solely to God, never to Muhammad or any intermediary.

Quran 2:186 states:

---

What Really Happened to Kamil, Was He Real At All? It would not have been difficult for a spiritual leader, such as an Imam to support this alleged “Kamil.”

This is not the last time Jessup will be grossly mistaken or outright a liar. What’s more troubling is that, as we continue, it feels as if he were following a prescribed handbook of Islamophobia and anti-Islamic rhetoric—one that persists even to this day.

---

What is “Mohammedan” Anyways?
According to Wikipedia, “The Oxford English Dictionary cites 1663 as the first recorded usage of the English term; the older spelling Mahometan dates back to at least 1529. The English word is derived from Neo-Latin Mahometanus, from Medieval Latin Mahometus, Muhammad. It meant simply a follower of Mohammad.” The term has largely been replaced by Muslim (formerly transliterated as Moslem) or Islamic. Mohammedan was commonly used in European literature until at least the mid-1960s, but today, Muslim is the preferred term, and Mohammedan is generally considered archaic or even offensive.

How Were “Mohammedans” Represented?
This text does not aim to provide a detailed historical analysis of the term “Mohammedan,” but certain instances of its use are revealing. Some of the more striking examples come from the 1800s (Jessup’s era). For example, the title Lectures on India: also, descriptions of remarkable customs and personages in other pagan and Mohammedan countries, published by C. Wright in 1848, provides insight into the term’s usage and the perceptions associated with it at the time. 

Title page:

On page 6 of Wright’s book, the image titled “A Hindu of Bengal, of high rank, in full dress” appears at the right, while on page 7, a similar image at the left is labeled “A Mohammedan of Bengal, of high rank, in full dress.” Both depictions show figures in traditional attire, though the Muslim depiction notably lacks jewelry. If the illustration is accurate, this aligns with Islamic teachings, as Qur’an 7:31-32 and various Hadiths indicate a preference for modesty, with Muhammad (PBUH) explicitly forbidding men from wearing gold and silk.

A Brief Look at Bengal’s History:
Bengal was under the British East India Company from 1772 until 1858. Just a decade after Wright’s publication, in 1858, Bengal transitioned to direct British Crown rule, which lasted until 1947. Thus, at the time of Wright’s publication, both individuals depicted would have been subjects of the British Empire.

While not part of Wright’s work, by 1906, depictions of Bengal’s Muslims had evolved, with some incorporating elements like the Fez, a symbol that reflects shifting influences and cultural identity among Muslims in the region approximately 50 years later. Considering the shifts in dress styles within the United States—from the 1950s to the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s—it’s entirely reasonable to expect dramatic changes in fashion over 50 years in any society.

Below is an overview of the United States across different periods, with particular attention to the 1850s—the era of Jessup. We’ll revisit this point in more detail later.

1850s	1880s
1950s	1970s
1980s	1990s

What were other depictions of “Mohammedan” over time?

Above: Sometime in the 1890s, “A Mohammedan Funeral, Egypt” 

Above: “Mohammedans worshipping in Kait Bey Mosque, Cairo, Egypt” circa 1896. 

Above: Circa between 1898 and 1914. A Sheik tends to refer to one of the following definitions:

[1] The leader of an Arab village, family or small tribe. [2] An Islamic religious cleric; the leader of an Islamic religious order. [3] In some Arab Gulf countries: An official title for members of the royal family as well as some prominent families. [4] Slang: An Arab, especially one dressed in traditional clothing. [5] An honorific title for specialists in spirituality. 

Above: Circa 1898–1914, titled “Neby Mousa [i.e., Nebi Musa] procession.” An-Nabī Mūsā (meaning “the Prophet Moses”) is a Muslim holy site near Jericho in Palestine, locally believed to contain the tomb of Moses. The complex includes a mosque built around this reputed tomb, and it once hosted an annual seven-day festival celebrated by Palestinian Muslims.

However, it’s important to clarify that this “pilgrimage” was primarily a local custom without basis in Islamic law or prophetic tradition (Hadith). Islamic teachings firmly establish pilgrimage to only a few specific locations, such as Mecca, Medina, and Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. Discussing Nebi Musa here serves purely as historical exploration. For more detailed Islamic guidance on visiting places associated with prophets or historical figures, see this resource:
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/11669/going-to-visit-places-and-mosques-in-which-the-prophet-prayed.

Below: Additional images of Nebi Musa, with the first sourced from biblewalks.com: 

Above: Translation: “And peace be upon you, O Muhammad.” To the left, partially cut off, is the phrase “And every matter is [returned] to Allah.” This appears to be an image of the actual tomb, sourced from https://wbabdullah.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/musa/. 

Below: Additional photographs of the site, showing further details of the Nebi Musa shrine and surrounding area.

---

Now, moving forward in time.  Below: “Mohammedan Gypsies, Ruschuk, Bulgaria,” 1922.

Above: “Unveiled Mohammedan [i.e., Muslim] women,” circa 1920–1936. Notably, the caption reads “unveiled…women” (captions as found), which raises curiosity about the intention or implications behind highlighting this detail. 

Above: “Veiled Mohammedan [i.e., Muslim] women,” likely circa 1920–1936. The caption emphasizes that these women are “veiled.” Noteworthy are their coats and shoes, which might suggest they belonged to an upper or middle-class background. Their “class” is the opinion of this author, and not even a researched one, per only “at a glance” review. 

Above: “Veiled Mohammedan women leaving the harem, Adana, Asiatic Turkey Scene of massacres of April, 1909.” Per merriam-webster.com, “a harem is a part of a house set apart for women and from which nonfamily males are excluded. Harems existed in the pre-Islamic civilizations of the Middle East and in the courts of pre-Islamic Assyria, Persia, and Egypt. The harem was also found in the courts of China and Japan as well as in India and southeast Asia.”  

In Japan, the harem was known as Kōkyū, and the term Dairi referred not only to the buildings in which the Japanese Imperial family resided but also indirectly to the women of the Imperial family—the Kōkyū. This term had multiple layers of meaning, encompassing both the specific group of buildings near the sovereign’s personal quarters, where consorts (ladies) lived, and the staff of female palace officials dedicated to serving those consorts. More broadly, Kōkyū referred to the ranks of consorts below the empress. The suffix -tsubo (坪 or 壺), meaning “chamber” or “room,” was often used in names of quarters associated with the empress, consorts, and other royal women.

In the above image from Wikipedia, several areas likely represent women’s quarters, including Kannari-tsubo (top-left side), Ume-tsubo (left side), Fuji-tsubo (bottom-left side), Kiri-tsubo (top-right side), and Nashi-tsubo (right side). During the Heian period (794–1185), these quarters served as spaces primarily used by the empress, consorts, and other female court members.

To clarify in the historical timeline: Muhammad (PBUH) passed away around June 8, 632, in Medina, centuries before the structures of the Japanese imperial court during the Heian period.

This detailed explanation of the Japanese court is relevant because later, Jessup makes broad assumptions about Islam by comparing it with customs among certain members of royalty and elite classes—individuals who lived lives entirely removed from the common person.

For the Japanese court an interesting read on this is “The Pillow Book by Sei Shonagon, b. ca. 967” (~300-400 years after Muhammad) which you can read for free at:

https://archive.org/embed/the-pillow-book 

Here is a snippet: 

Notice the contrast in perspective between the “court lady” Sei Shōnagon and her view of “women who live at home faithfully serving their husbands.” Sei Shōnagon seems aware that men of her time often regarded court ladies as “wicked,” likely because women of her rank may not have practiced modestly hiding behind fans and screens. This suggests that women of lower status—the general populace—adhered to more modest traditions.

Interestingly, Wikipedia notes that the origins of the kimono trace back to the Heian period (794–1185), when Japan’s nobility embraced a unique style of dress. Sei Shōnagon herself would have worn such attire, which is notably modest in design.

Illustrations of Sei Shōnagon often depict her as shown below:

About 600 years after Sei Shōnagon, around 1650 CE, Japanese dress styles feature distinctive patterns and vibrant colors, yet the clothing remains long and covering, much like the styles worn by Muslim women. The primary difference seems to be the veil—Muslim attire often includes head coverings or veils, which were less common in Japanese attire.

Below is artwork from around 1650, showcasing these styles, approximately 200 years before Jessup and his book. This comparison raises the question: is there truly a significant difference in modesty between these styles, aside from the veil?

Moving forward in time, approximately 250 years later, we find the following:

“Family of Horiai Setsuko, May 1912, some in European dress, some in kimono, some wearing hakama. Women’s hakama spread from the court as part of Japanese reform dress.” 

Further, below: “American bread for Greeks. At the American Red Cross relief station in Kavalla with Christians, Mohammedans and Jews lined up for a bread ration…” 1919

Below: 1920, captioned, “Through the veil, which Mohammedan women are compelled to wear, this group in Tirana, Albania, expresses gratitude to Miss Helen Ahern of Buffalo, N.Y., for the assistance the American Red Cross provided to their sick. Due to religious restrictions, Muslim women refused to consult male doctors, regardless of the severity of their illness. The American Red Cross addressed this by providing American women doctors and nurses…” 

It’s important to clarify that if these women were refusing to see a male doctor, this was likely a cultural norm specific to their location and time, rather than an Islamic requirement. There is ample evidence supporting this distinction:

It was narrated that Usamah bin Sharik said: “I saw the Bedouins asking the Prophet (ﷺ): ‘Is there any harm in such and such, is there any harm in such and such?’ He said to them: ‘O slaves of Allah! Allah has only made harm in that which transgresses the honor of one’s brother. That is what is sinful.’ They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Is there any sin if we do not seek treatment?’ He said: ‘Seek treatment, O slaves of Allah! For Allah does not create any disease but He also creates with it the cure, except for old age.’ They said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the best thing that a person may be given?’ He said: ‘Good manners.’”

Sunan Ibn Majah 3436 – Chapters on Medicine – كتاب الطب – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

It was narrated that Abu Khizamah said: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) was asked: ‘Do you think that the medicines with which we treat ourselves, the Ruqyah by which we seek healing, and the means of protection that we seek, change the decree of Allah at all?’ He said: ‘They are part of the decree of Allah.’”

Sunan Ibn Majah 3437 – Chapters on Medicine – كتاب الطب – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Facilitate things to people (concerning religious matters), and do not make it hard for them and give them good tidings and do not make them run away (from Islam).

Sahih al-Bukhari 69 – Knowledge – كتاب العلم – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

In fact, there are direct accounts of men attending to sick women, indicating that gender separation in medical contexts is not a strict Islamic requirement but rather varies by cultural context.

---

Ruqyah, what’s that?

See: https://islamqa.info/en/answers/3476/how-to-do-ruqyah-for-yourself

---

It was narrated that Zainab said: “There was an old woman who used to enter upon us and perform Ruqyah from erysipelas: Contagious disease which causes fever and leaves a red coloration of the skin. We had a bed with long legs, and when ‘Abdullah entered he would clear his throat and make noise. He entered one day and when she heard his voice she veiled herself from him. He came and sat beside me, and touched me, and he found a sting. He said: ‘What is this?’ I said: ‘An amulet against erysipelas.’ He pulled it, broke it and threw it away. . .

Sunan Ibn Majah 3530 – Chapters on Medicine – كتاب الطب – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم)

---

From the Holy Quran:

2:173 He has only forbidden you ˹to eat˺ carrion, blood, swine, and what is slaughtered in the name of any other than Allah. But if someone is compelled by necessity—neither driven by desire nor exceeding immediate need—they will not be sinful. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

2:173 does not address medicine, it’s primarily about food; but it follows a trend in Islam of necessity being understood. Similar below is 2:185 regarding Ramadan. Allah excuses those who are ill during that time “so that you may complete the prescribed period” – if one were to not treat their ailment, how would they meet their religious necessity? Note, Ramadan is a pillar of Islam, a major requirement. 

2:185 Ramaḍân is the month in which the Quran was revealed as a guide for humanity with clear proofs of guidance and the decisive authority. So whoever is present this month, let them fast. But whoever is ill or on a journey, then ˹let them fast˺ an equal number of days ˹after Ramaḍân˺. Allah intends ease for you, not hardship, so that you may complete the prescribed period and proclaim the greatness of Allah for guiding you, and perhaps you will be grateful.

---

Next, consider the 1919 image and caption from the American Red Cross below: 

“I’se in town, Honey – In the words of a well, known food advertisement this negro mother with her two children announced her arrival at an American Red Cross station in Roumanian town near the Bessarabian border. She is a Mohammedan negress, descendant of the sleeves imported from Africa by the old Roman conquerors. She heard of the American relief effort, and tramped miles to get some food and clothes for her children. The type and color of her garments shows the characteristics of the Oriental blood that has crept into her blood. Nowhere but in the Near East can be found such a conglomerate mixture of races” (sic)

Notice the curious way the American Red Cross captioned this lady throughout, including comparing her to Aunt Jemina via the in use catch-phrase of the time “I’se in town, Honey” in the U.S. 

Finally, for comparison, let’s explore some historical imagery of Christian and Jewish women.  Traditional depictions often show Christian women in long dresses, head coverings (such as veils or wimples in medieval Europe), and modest attire, especially in religious contexts. Similarly, Jewish women were historically depicted with head coverings like tichels or shawls. 

Jews praying at the Wall, 1910.

Jewish Women at the Wall, ca. 1905.

An example of a “wimple” (left) and “coif” (right).

From myjewishlearning.com, “The classical symbol of tzniut is the veil. It bespeaks privacy, a person apart; Isaiah (3:18) calls it tiferet (“glory”). . .The veil was instinctively donned by Rebecca as soon as she observed her future husband in the distance (Genesis 24:65). That is one reason why the ceremony immediately prior to the wedding celebration is the bedeken. . .” 

The bedeken, does that seem familiar? . . .

Also from myjewishlearning.com, “The veiling ceremony dates back at least to early medieval times, and some find a reference to the custom in the Talmud. The reason for the ceremony is probably related to modesty; the veil symbolically represents the added level of modesty the bride is expected to adopt with her elevation to the married state. . .The bedeken ceremony thus recalls to all Jewish brides the matriarch’s gesture of modesty at seeing her bridegroom, inspiring them to emulate their biblical forebears and conduct themselves with an elevated level of modesty in their married lives. Some ascribe the custom of the bride’s veiling to her position of centrality at the wedding, and the possibility that some men, undisciplined in their thoughts, might cast lustful eyes at her. The veiling accordingly underscores that, from this day on, the beauty of the bride is reserved for her husband alone to appreciate. Others see in the ritual a symbolic act directing attention away from the physical toward the spiritual at the wedding. . .There is also a rabbinic opinion that the tradition has a legal basis, as it symbolizes the groom’s public obligation to clothe his wife. . .”

Finally, what about the mother of Jesus and others, how are they depicted? 

Above image: “Holy Women at Christ’s Tomb (c. 1590s) by Annibale Carracci. In Matthew 28:1–10, Mary Magdalene and ‘the other Mary’ encounter an angel at the tomb, who tells them that Christ has risen.”

Above: “This fresco from the nave of the Dura-Europos church dates to c. 240 and contains the oldest surviving depiction of Mary Magdalene.”  In my personal understanding, she appears veiled here. 

Above left: The Virgin in Prayer, by Sassoferrato, c. 1650 – 200 years before Jessup. 

Above right: Trojeručica, a Byzantine representation of the Theotokos, (c. 8th century), in Hilandar. Serbia. 

Each appearing veiled in the above two images. 

The American Red Cross’s choice to refer to the Muslim woman earlier as “Aunt Jemima” raises questions about bias based on skin tone, religion, and/or social assumptions. It’s doubtful the Red Cross authors would have used such a label for revered figures like the Virgin Mary or Mary Magdalene, or for depictions such as “Jewish Women at the Wall, ca. 1905.”

---

Now We Come Back to Jessup

The stage is now set to examine Jessup’s 1879 book, The Mohammedan Missionary Problem. We will not conduct a page-by-page analysis, nor even a complete work review, just as we avoided an exhaustive overview of world history. The aim is to effectively discredit Jessup’s racist narrative and highlight the tragedy of how such prejudiced ideas can persist and be perpetuated, even generations later.

For those following along, you can access the text here, note: it’s not an easy read, it’s highly offensive.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.mohammedanmissio00jess

Let’s begin with page 12, under the section titled “The Aggressive Command.”

Jessup compares Mark 16:15 which per RSV states Jesus as speaking to his disciples: 

15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation.” 

Although this itself isn’t a problem, i.e. to go and spread your faith is a common demand of any religion. Jessup apparently wasn’t aware of the historical background on this.  The RSV states as a footnote: 

“Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse 8 the following: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9–20. In most authorities verses 9–20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14.” 

Jessup cites a portion of the Bible that is fundamentally disputed. While we cannot confirm whether he was aware of this or not, the issue remains: he is juxtaposing a contested biblical passage with an oddly chosen verse from the Qur’an. This comparison lacks coherence and, at best, misrepresents both texts.

Quran 9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, nor comply with what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor embrace the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture, until they pay the tax, willingly submitting, fully humbled.

Qur’an 9:29 is frequently cited by Islamophobic individuals, often out of context. To gain a clearer understanding, let’s consult the Tafsir from Quran.com for further interpretation. Including 9:28 provides additional historical context, particularly concerning the social and political climate of the time:

9:28 was revealed in the ninth year of Hijrah. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ sent `Ali in the company of Abu Bakr that year to publicize to the idolators that no Mushrik will be allowed to perform Hajj after that year, nor a naked person allowed to perform Tawaf around the House.

“The House” refers to the Kaaba in present-day Saudi Arabia (see image above). Tawaf is the act of circling around it as part of pilgrimage rituals. While a detailed explanation is beyond this book’s scope, it’s worth noting that, prior to Muhammad (PBUH), some people would circle the Kaaba unclothed. Imagine your mother, sister, or children witnessing such behavior on a religious journey—it’s easy to see the need for reform. Thankfully, this practice was brought to an end, restoring dignity to the pilgrimage.

---

Further regarding Quran 9:20 Tafsir states: 

“Literally, jizyah means return or recompense. . .Since, they would be living there as citizens of a Muslim state, the protection of their life, property and honor will be the responsibility of the Islamic government and no hindrance will be placed in the observance of their religious duties. The amount thus taken is called jizyah.

. . .jizyah be fixed by mutual conciliation and agreement, there is no prescribed limit imposed by the Shari’ ah. It accepts the amount and thing for which a mutual peace treaty is arrived at – as was done by the Holy Prophet ﷺ with the people of Najran. A peace pact was concluded between him and the whole group of these people. They agreed to give him two thousand hullahs annually. A hullah is a pair of clothes. It could be a waist wrap for the lower part of the body with a top sheet wrap, or a long, loose shirt or cloak.”

Now turning to 9:29 itself, lets review Quran.com note: 

To fully understand this verse we need to bear in mind that Quranic verses are of two types. General verses talk about belief in Allah, good manners, and acts of worship. Specific verses, such as this verse, were revealed in regards to particular situations. This sûrah came at a time when the pagans of Arabia (and their allies) repeatedly violated treaties they had signed with the Prophet (ﷺ). Muslims had to fight for the survival of their newly established state in Medina. So this verse discusses dealing with those who violated their agreements and attacked the Muslims. Offenders were fought, unless they stopped their aggression. If they chose not to accept Islam, they were obligated to pay Jizya-tax.

Thus, Qur’an 9:29 is not a general order to fight people indiscriminately. The broader guiding principle is found in Qur’an 5:32

That is why We ordained for the Children of Israel that whoever takes a life—unless as a punishment for murder or mischief in the land—it will be as if they killed all of humanity; and whoever saves a life, it will be as if they saved all of humanity. ˹Although˺ Our messengers already came to them with clear proofs, many of them still transgressed afterwards through the land.

It appears related to 2:83-85, but regardless does apply too: 

And ˹remember˺ when We took a covenant from the children of Israel ˹stating˺, “Worship none but Allah; be kind to parents, relatives, orphans and the needy; speak kindly to people; establish prayer; and pay alms-tax.” But you ˹Israelites˺ turned away—except for a few of you—and were indifferent.

And ˹remember˺ when We took your covenant that you would neither shed each other’s blood nor expel each other from their homes, you gave your pledge and bore witness.

But here you are, killing each other and expelling some of your people from their homes, aiding one another in sin and aggression; and when those ˹expelled˺ come to you as captives, you still ransom them—though expelling them was unlawful for you. Do you believe in some of the Scripture and reject the rest? Is there any reward for those who do so among you other than disgrace in this worldly life and being subjected to the harshest punishment on the Day of Judgment? For Allah is never unaware of what you do.

---

Can this concept be linked to the Bible?

Exodus 20:13 “You shall not kill.” Also, Jeremiah 7:21 states: 

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices, and eat the flesh. 22 For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. 23 But this command I gave them, ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people; and walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’ 24 But they did not obey or incline their ear, but walked in their own counsels and the stubbornness of their evil hearts, and went backward and not forward. 25 From the day that your fathers came out of the land of Egypt to this day, I have persistently sent all my servants the prophets to them, day after day; 26 yet they did not listen to me, or incline their ear, but stiffened their neck. They did worse than their fathers. 27 “So you shall speak all these words to them, but they will not listen to you. You shall call to them, but they will not answer you. 28 And you shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, and did not accept discipline; truth has perished; it is cut off from their lips.

Now, circling back: Qur’an 9:29 does not pertain to the spread of Islam. There are specific commands regarding how to spread the faith, and if Jessup were being honest, he would have cited the following: 

Quran 16:125 states:

Invite ˹all˺ to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner. Surely your Lord ˹alone˺ knows best who has strayed from His Way and who is ˹rightly˺ guided.

Quran 2:256 states:

Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

And Tafsir on 2:256 records: 

Abu Dawud and An-Nasa’i also recorded this Hadith. As for the Hadith that Imam Ahmad recorded, in which Anas said that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said to a man, (“Embrace Islam.” The man said, “I dislike it.” The Prophet said, “Even if you dislike it.”) . . . Here the Prophet did not force that man to become Muslim.

Ultimately there is Quran 109, the entire Surah (“Chapter”) is as follows:

1. Say, “O disbelievers.

2. I do not worship what you worship.

3. Nor do you worship what I worship.

4. Nor do I serve what you serve.

5. Nor do you serve what I serve.

6. You have your way, and I have my way.”

Notice that Qur’an 109 explicitly refrains from any notion of compulsion, emphasizing, “…you have your way, and I have my way…” There are other verses as well that clearly state, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256), and Hadith support this principle. 

Jessup’s claim, then, is not only misleading but amounts to an outright falsehood in his book.

---

The next is “The Motto” which Jessup records as: 1 Timothy 2:5 (RSV): 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”  Then for Islam he records:  “There is no God but God and Muhammad is his apostle.”  Jessup elaborates a bit more on page 15:

The Bible contains passages that refer to various figures as intermediaries between God and humanity. 

1 Timothy was written by the “Apostle” Paul, within it is also says: “7 For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.”

Wikipedia notes that “Paul was not one of the Twelve Apostles and did not know Jesus during his lifetime.” Instead, Paul claimed that “Jesus had revealed himself to Paul, just as he had appeared to Peter, to James, and to the twelve disciples after his resurrection.” Therefore, the statement in 1 Timothy 2:5—asserting “there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”—originates from Paul and not from Jesus himself during his earthly life. This context is essential for understanding that such theological assertions reflect Paul’s interpretation rather than a direct teaching of Jesus.

It is beyond the scope of this document to delve deeply into this topic, but we can refer to Matthew 6 (RSV)  where Jesus states: 

6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. 9 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. 10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us this day our daily bread; 12 And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; 13 And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil.

---

Jessup quotes, “There is no God but God and Muhammad is his apostle,” yet provides no citation. Curiously, he omits the term and concept of the Shahada, the declaration of faith fundamental to Islam. This phrase, the Shahada, is the foundational statement that one recites when embracing Islam. Could it be that Jessup deliberately avoided mentioning this to keep readers from understanding its significance? By not acknowledging it as the core declaration of Islamic faith, he omits a key element that would provide context and clarity.

First, we have Monotheism (Tawhid): “There is no god but God,” a statement affirming absolute monotheism. It declares that only Allah (God) is worthy of worship, rejecting all forms of polytheism and idolatry. This is consistent with Qur’an 3:18, which states: 

“God bears witness that there is no god but He, as do the angels, and those endowed with knowledge—upholding justice. There is no god but He, the Mighty, the Wise.”

Second, we have Prophethood: “Muhammad is His messenger,” which acknowledges Muhammad as the final prophet in Islam and to humanity, conveying God’s last and complete revelation, the Qur’an. This declaration affirms that Muhammad’s teachings and example are to be followed. This is consistent with Qur’an 48:28-29, which states: 

“28. It is He who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, to make it prevail over all religions. God suffices as Witness. 29. Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Those with him are stern against the disbelievers, yet compassionate amongst themselves. You see them kneeling, prostrating, seeking blessings from God and approval. Their marks are on their faces from the effects of prostration. Such is their description in the Torah, and their description in the Gospel: like a plant that sprouts, becomes strong, grows thick, and rests on its stem, impressing the farmers. Through them He enrages the disbelievers. God has promised those among them who believe and do good deeds forgiveness and a great reward.”

---

Potential sources?

Exodus 13:9 And it shall be to you as a sign on your hand and as a memorial between your eyes, that the law of the Lord may be in your mouth; for with a strong hand the Lord has brought you out of Egypt.

Although this may not directly relate to Scripture, or perhaps refers to Scripture that has since been lost, some commentary from Quran.com on Qur’an 48:29 offers an interpretation:

“(The mark of them is on their faces from the traces of prostration.) refers to a graceful appearance, according to Ibn Abbas, as reported by Ali bin Abi Talhah. Mujahid and others explained it as ‘humbleness and reverence.’ Some scholars noted, ‘A righteous deed brings light to the heart, brightness to the face, ample provision, and love in people’s hearts.’ The Leader of the Faithful, Uthman bin Affan, stated, ‘Everyone who hides a secret, Allah the Exalted will either reveal it on his face or through words that inadvertently escape his mouth.’”

This interpretation highlights the visible effects of faith and humility, showing how a person’s inner sincerity and actions are often reflected outwardly.

Matthew 13:31-32 states:

31 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Mark 4:26-29 states: 

31 Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”

Again, God knows best regarding these matters. The key point in Jessup’s comparison, however, is that Muhammad is not a mediator between humanity and God, as Jesus is often depicted in Christian theology. Therefore, any comparison between the two roles is fundamentally flawed.

Quran 3:144, “Muhammad is no more than a messenger. Messengers have passed on before him. If he dies or gets killed, will you turn on your heels? He who turns on his heels will not harm God in any way. And God will reward the appreciative.”

Direct forgiveness from God is prescribed, without a mediator.  For example from Quran 39: 

53. Say, “O My servants who have transgressed against themselves: do not despair of God’s mercy, for God forgives all sins. He is indeed the Forgiver, the Clement.” 54. And turn to your Lord, and submit to Him, before the retribution comes upon you. Then you will not be helped. 55. And follow the best of what was revealed to you from your Lord, before the punishment comes upon you suddenly, while you are unaware. 56. So that a soul may not say, “How sorry I am, for having neglected my duty to God, and for having been of the scoffers.”

There is no mention of any Prophet or anyone else being necessary from Quran 39:54, it clearly indicates, “…And turn to your Lord, and submit to Him…” Further, God was clear on the role of Muhammad from Quran 5:98-99: “98. Know that God is severe in retribution, and that God is Forgiving and Merciful. 99. The Messenger’s sole duty is to convey. God knows what you reveal and what you conceal.”

---

In Quran 6:50 God gives specific directions to Muhammad on what to say about himself: 

50. Say, “I do not say to you that I possess the treasuries of God, nor do I know the future, nor do I say to you that I am an angel. I only follow what is inspired to me.” Say, “Are the blind and the seeing alike? Do you not think?”

There is much more to explore on this topic; however, we will conclude this section with the following Hadith: 

On the authority of Abu Abbas Abdullah bin Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: One day I was behind the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) [riding on the same mount] and he said, “O young man, I shall teach you some words [of advice]: Be mindful of Allah and Allah will protect you. Be mindful of Allah and you will find Him in front of you. If you ask, then ask Allah [alone]; and if you seek help, then seek help from Allah [alone]. And know that if the nation were to gather together to benefit you with anything, they would not benefit you except with what Allah had already prescribed for you. And if they were to gather together to harm you with anything, they would not harm you except with what Allah had already prescribed against you. The pens have been lifted and the pages have dried.” 

Hadith 19, 40 Hadith an-Nawawi – Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

---

Next, on page 15 and in relation to this section, Jessup quickly jumps to the following: 

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) served in his prophetic role from 610 to 632 CE, and the renowned General Khalid ibn al-Walid concluded his career in 638 CE. For the sake of argument, even if we assume there was ongoing warfare throughout the Prophet’s life and extending to Khalid’s retirement, this would amount to a span of 28 years of conflict.

Lets Do The Math and Run a Logic Box

28 years of conflict	357 Churches per year assuming exactly 10,000 Churches	29 Churches per month
With your typical month obviously being 29-31 days that means 1 Church per day!	However, Muhammad departed from Mecca in 622 CE during the Hijra (Migration), seeking refuge from persecution by the Quraysh.	Logically then through 622 Islam couldn’t have been taking over Churches when Muhammad himself was suffering persecution in Mecca and fleeing.
Now that window of time shrinks to about 16 years calculating from 622.	However, the Battle of Badr occurred in 624, defending against the Quraysh—whom Muhammad had sought refuge during the Hijra.	During the Battle of Badr the Muslim strength was  Total: 313 troops vs the Quraysh of 1000.
How was a community that could muster 313 troops able to destroy or take over so many Churches?	Later, the conquest of Mecca carried approximately 10,000 Muslim troops by 629, and were focused on Mecca.	The largest army Muhammad assembled was 30,000 for the Expedition to Tabuk in 630 CE based on reports of an impending attack.  But, no battle took place.

Muhammad (PBUH) passed away in Medina, two years after the expedition to Tabuk. This map from Wikipedia provides a helpful visualization:

The areas shaded in dark brown on the map indicate the territory during Muhammad’s time. During his lifetime, the population in the region was approximately 1–2 million people at most, with Mecca hosting around 5,000–10,000 residents and Medina about half that. Any territorial expansions beyond this occurred after Muhammad’s passing and were directed by later Caliphates, not by Muhammad himself. These expansions were led by non-Prophets, who made decisions independently.

Jessup, however, extends his arguments into later history, such as events in 732. He claims that 10,000 churches were assaulted. This assertion is highly unlikely, given the available evidence—and, in any case, none of these actions could have been directed by Muhammad himself. God knows best, this author is not a formal historian. 

---

Jessup references the following:

Regarding the sites Jessup mentions. 

The “Amweh Mosque” refers to the Umayyad Mosque, also known as the Great Mosque of Damascus, located in the historic city of Damascus, now the capital of Syria. This site has been a place of worship since the Iron Age, around 1300 BCE, long predating Christian influence. Originally, it was the Temple of Hadad-Ramman until Damascus fell to the Roman Empire in 64 BCE, at which point it was transformed into the Temple of Jupiter, central to the imperial cult of Jupiter in response to Jerusalem’s Second Temple.

It was not until 391 CE, under Christian Emperor Theodosius I (reigned 379–395), that the Temple of Jupiter was converted into a Christian cathedral. By 711 CE—79 years after Muhammad’s passing—the complex was formally transformed into a mosque under the Umayyad Caliphate. Interestingly, this mosque is traditionally believed to house the head of John the Baptist, who is also a revered prophet in Islam. This association has granted the site a significant level of respect, with John’s memorial located within the mosque.

And it’s mentioned in, “Palestine under the Moslems; a description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500. Translated from the works of the mediaeval Arab geographers by Le Strange, G. (Guy), 1854-1933” at https://archive.org/embed/palestineundermo00lestuoft – snippet: 

It’s worth noting that other locations around the world also claim to hold relics or remains associated with John the Baptist. However, examining or judging these claims is outside the scope of this book. The primary point here is to highlight that the mosque’s site has served as a place of worship long before Christian use, and that John the Baptist (AS), a respected figure in Islam, was shown honor.

---

Jessup refers to the “Church of Aksa in Jerusalem,” clearly intending to mean Al-Aqsa or al-Masjid al-Aqsa—the Islamic religious complex on the Temple Mount, also known as the Haram al-Sharif, in Jerusalem’s Old City, which includes the Dome of the Rock. Early English maps often labeled it simply as “Aksa.” Exploring the history of this location in depth would require multiple volumes.

Focusing on Jessup’s statement, he calls it the “Church of Justinian,” a claim that is simply inaccurate. The Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem was not originally the Church of Justinian. Its history is distinct from the Byzantine churches tied to Emperor Justinian. Historically, the Temple Mount was the site of the Jewish Second Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, and later, during the early Islamic period, it became home to the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

During the Byzantine period, Emperor Justinian (527–565 CE) built the Nea Church (Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos) in Jerusalem, dedicated to the Virgin Mary. This church was located near the southern end of the city but was not on the Temple Mount. There is no evidence that Justinian built any church structures on the Temple Mount itself. For the Byzantines, the Temple Mount was largely abandoned, as they did not consider it a site of major significance after the destruction of the Second Temple.

The Madaba Mosaic Map (below) depicts Jerusalem with the New Church of the Theotokos, which was dedicated on 20 November 542. Buildings erected in Jerusalem after 570 are absent from the depiction. Where the arrow points below is the wording indicating where Jerusalem is. The destroyed Temple was on the Eastern side and the Nea Church was in the upper-right portion of the image. 

Per Wikipedia, “In 1967, excavations in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem revealed the Nea Church and the Cardo Maximus in the very locations suggested by the Madaba Map. In 746, Madaba was largely destroyed by an earthquake and subsequently abandoned.” 

Around 70 CE is when the Romans destroyed the Temple, it is recorded:

Josephus had acted as a mediator for the Romans and, when negotiations failed, witnessed the siege and aftermath. He wrote: Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), [Titus] Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and Temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as they were of the greatest eminence. . .but for all the rest of the wall [surrounding Jerusalem], it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it [Jerusalem] had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind. And truly, the very view itself was a melancholy thing; for those places which were adorned with trees and pleasant gardens, were now become desolate country every way, and its trees were all cut down. Nor could any foreigner that had formerly seen Judaea and the most beautiful suburbs of the city, and now saw it as a desert, but lament and mourn sadly at so great a change. For the war had laid all signs of beauty quite waste. . .

After that was Christian control, and a Smithsonian Article by Joshua Hammer in April 2011 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-is-beneath-the-temple-mount-920764/ states: 

For example, it is widely accepted that early Christians used the Mount as a garbage dump on the ruins of the Jewish temples. But the abundance of coins, ornamental crucifixes and fragments of columns found from Jerusalem’s Byzantine era (A.D. 380–638) suggest that some public buildings were constructed there. Barkay and his colleagues have published their main findings in two academic journals in Hebrew, and they plan to eventually publish a book-length account in English.

But Natsheh, the Waqf’s chief archaeologist, dismisses Barkay’s finds because they were not found in situ in their original archaeological layers in the ground. “It is worth nothing,” he says of the sifting project, adding that Barkay has leapt to unwarranted conclusions in order to strengthen the Israeli argument that Jewish ties to the Temple Mount are older and stronger than those of the Palestinians.

Other sites indicate the similar, that the Roman’s and Christian’s of the era used the site as a trash dump: https://www.ritmeyer.com/2017/12/29/jerusalems-garbage/ and the site claims: 

The landfill, which was excavated in 2013-2014 in conjunction with the Israel Antiquities Authority, rose to a towering 70 meters in height, from the bottom of the valley to the walls of the city. It was quite unusual in its size says, Yuval Gadot a Tel Aviv University archaeologist who led the dig.

Further on page 100 of https://www.loc.gov/resource/gdcmassbookdig.palestinepilgrim00welc in 1922 Welch, Edward Ruskin in “A Palestine pilgrimage” states the following: 

Why was there “little development” on the site? The fourth century, spanning 301–400 CE, saw limited Roman or Christian interest in the area. Notably, Emperor Justinian only began construction of the Nea Church much later, between 527–565 CE. During this earlier period, the area around what is now the Al-Aqsa Mosque was largely disregarded and even used as a dumping ground.

In 637 CE, approximately 567 years after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple and around 72 years after Justinian initiated Christian interest in Jerusalem, the city came under Islamic rule. This transition was marked by the Pact (Treaty) of Omar, which detailed the terms of surrender and coexistence. The text of this treaty varies across historical sources, showing differing wording, yet it consistently emphasizes respect and protection for Jerusalem’s residents and religious sites.

One view comes from a Jewish perspective: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015046330851 

“The Jew in the medieval world, a source book, 315-1791, by Jacob R. Marcus” in 1937. This book cited the treaty to govern relations “down to the present day” suggesting it was known or in use, to some extent, even by 1937. Snippet from page 13 of the book:

And it goes on to Claim the pact read as such:

The text continues, and if you’re interested, you can find the full passage at the URL above. The text was halted at this point as the author observes, “[At least six of these laws were taken over from earlier Christian laws against infidels.]” This is worth noting, as it suggests that such regulations were typical for both Christian and Islamic societies of the period, if we accept the text’s account as accurate. 

However, https://www.islamicity.org/11511/capture-of-jerusalem-the-treaty-of-umar/ narrates:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This is the assurance of safety which the servant of God, Umar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves  for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted. No Jew will live with them in Jerusalem.

The people of Jerusalem must pay the taxes like the people of other cities and must expel the Byzantines and the robbers. Those of the people of Jerusalem who want to leave with the Byzantines, take their property and abandon their churches and crosses will be safe until they reach their place of refuge. The villagers may remain in the city if they wish but must pay taxes like the citizens. Those who wish may go with the Byzantines and those who wish may return to their families. Nothing is to be taken from them before their harvest is reaped.

If they pay their taxes according to their obligations, then the conditions laid out in this letter are under the covenant of God, are the responsibility of His Prophet, of the caliphs and of the faithful.

– Quoted in The Great Arab Conquests, from Tarikh Tabari

Tarikh al-Tabari, or al-Tabari, was an influential historian and scholar who completed The History of the Prophets and Kings—an Arabic-language historical chronicle—in 915 AD, about 283 years after the Prophet Muhammad’s passing. Known for his scholarly rigor, al-Tabari’s Tafsir is famous for presenting multiple perspectives, even when they conflicted, allowing for a comprehensive examination of Qur’anic verses. This practice enhances his credibility as a historian, though he was naturally limited by the sources available to him in his era—records that may no longer exist today.

Returning to Jessup’s claim that the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque was originally a church, evidence disproves this assertion. The lack of Roman and Christian interest, the area’s historical use as a garbage dump, and the documented location of the Justinian Church elsewhere all suggest that Jessup’s claim is indeed a fabrication. 

---

Jessup also references the Hagia Sophia in what was then Constantinople, now Istanbul, Turkey. Commissioned by Emperor Justinian (the same figure previously discussed) and completed in 537 CE, the Hagia Sophia served as the largest Christian church of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire and the seat of the Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1453—821 years after Muhammad’s lifetime—the Ottoman Empire, under Sultan Mehmed II, converted Hagia Sophia into a mosque. Later, in 1935, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the modern Turkish Republic, transformed it into a museum as part of his secularization efforts. More recently, in July 2020, it was officially reconverted into a mosque by a decree from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

For Jessup, this event lay some 400 years in the past, and for us in 2024, it occurred 571 years ago. Notably, these transformations have no connection to Muhammad’s time. They were decisions made by later leaders.

---

Finally, we come to Jessup’s last comparison on page 12. 

Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies  and  “O lord of all creates, O Allah destroy the infidels and polytheists thine enemies, the enemies of religion, give them and their families their women, children, as booty to moslems, O Lord of all creatures.” -Mohammedan missionary prayer

Matthew 5:43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you… 

However, Matthew 5:22 also says: 

But I say to you that every one who is angry with [his brother][or without cause] shall be liable to judgment; whoever [insults][or abuse] his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire.

The concept of “love thy enemies” poses no issue in itself. Moving to Jessup’s second point, he quotes what he calls a “Mohammedan missionary prayer.” However, Jessup fails to provide the name of the supposed missionary or any credible source for this prayer. Ironically, he has no issue citing Qur’an passages earlier or even referencing Baháʼu’lláh—complete with details on his death date—despite Baháʼu’lláh’s lack of relevance to mainstream Islam.

Attempts to locate this “prayer” have proven difficult, likely because it doesn’t exist. Even an AI search returns the following:

This particular wording does not correspond to any known, authentic Islamic prayer found in the Qur’an, Hadith, or traditional Islamic texts. In Islam, prayers (du’a) are generally encouraged to be respectful, merciful, and focused on seeking guidance, forgiveness, and blessings for oneself and others, rather than targeting others with harm.

Put simply, this is not an authentic source. Given Jessup’s experience and time spent in Islamic countries, he likely understood that the Qur’an and Hadith are the authoritative texts in Islam—not a random prayer from an unnamed individual. Prayers are personal expressions and do not encapsulate the beliefs of an entire religion. Even if this was indeed an authentic prayer he overheard, it would merely represent the sentiments of that specific individual, not Islam as a whole.

Otherwise, if Jessup had been truthful, he would have referenced Qur’an 41, which states:

Further Quran 60 states:

5. Our Lord, do not make us a target for those who disbelieve, and forgive us, our Lord. You are indeed the Mighty and Wise. 6. There is an excellent example in them for you—for anyone who seeks God and the Last Day. But whoever turns away—God is the Self-Sufficient, the Most Praised. 7. Perhaps God will plant affection between you and those of them you consider enemies. God is Capable. God is Forgiving and Merciful. 8. As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable. 9. But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers.

Qur’an 60 stands in stark contrast to the supposed prayer Jessup presents. It states, “…Our Lord, do not make us a target for those who disbelieve…” and goes on to say, “…Perhaps God will plant affection…” Here, the verse emphasizes that God may even foster affection between people. Further, it declares, “As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable.” How much clearer can this be?

Quran 5:8 also reports:

O you who believe! Be upright to God, witnessing with justice; and let not the hatred of a certain people prevent you from acting justly. Adhere to justice, for that is nearer to piety; and fear God. God is informed of what you do.

Therefore, Jessup’s comparison here collapses as entirely disingenuous.

---

Next we turn to page 14 of Jessup’s book:

Jessup acknowledges what he calls the “idolatrous Christianity and pagan systems” of the time, viewing Islam merely as a stepping stone toward Christianity. It appears that Jessup perceives Islam as a “step up” from faithlessness or paganism. . .

Nonetheless, this author wishes to clarify how Islam fundamentally disagrees with Jessup’s perspective. Qur’an 5:3 states:

Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.

---

And Then Jessup Decided to Mention Christopher Columbus

Jessup glorifies Christopher Columbus, describing him in 1492 as having “opened a new field for the growth and development of that Christianized Anglo-Saxon race. . .to wield so mighty an influence on the future Mohammedan nations…”

This is a fascinating historical point, one that only came to light more widely in recent years. Columbus’s journals, now translated into English, reveal his intentions and actions directly—offering a firsthand perspective that can be contrasted with Jessup’s praise for him.

Here is the title page, which begins with the well-known context of Spain’s reclamation following centuries of Islamic rule:

. . . 

. . . 

Upon reaching land and encountering the native people, Columbus observes that they are essentially unfamiliar with weapons and unprepared to defend themselves against his crew. His assessment is, “they should be good servants… they would easily be made Christians…”

Moving on to Sunday the 14th of October. Columbus records:

Monday the 15th of October. 

. . . Columbus kept searching for gold . . .

Tuesday the 16th of October

Friday the 19th of October

. . .an “important” part of his mission . . .

Thursday November 1

Tuesday 27th of November

. . .

Wednesday the 26th, after the loss of one of their ships.

This brief review of Columbus’s first journey with three ships (one of which sank) reveals an intense focus on material wealth. Out of roughly 193 pages, the word “gold” appears 142 times, while “God” is mentioned 37 times, and “spice/spices” around 30 times. Columbus’s journal is almost certainly self-sanitized to some extent.

Encouraged by their findings, they returned in 1493, documented by: https://www.latinamericanstudies.org/columbus/chanca.pdf 

This time with 17 ships and about 1,200 fighting men.

. . .

People were taken against their will.

. . .

. . .

And they found what they sought.

Again, Columbus’s letters and journals seem like a sanitized version of events. However, a closer reading reveals the underlying truth. Other voices provide alternative perspectives—for instance, Bishop Brother Bartolomé de Las Casas, also known as Casaus, wrote to “the most high and most mighty Prince of Spain, our Lord the Prince Philip,” offering a starkly different account.

https://web.as.uky.edu/history/faculty/myrup/his208/Casas,%20Bartolome%20de%20las%20-%20Short%20Account%20(1992,%20excerpts).pdf

Hispaniola: Before delving into further quotes, it’s essential to note that Columbus and others frequently describe the indigenous people as gentle, genuine, and unable to resist. For example:

1. Columbus himself recounted, “…It was there that the Admiral’s own ship was lost, and he and his men were as graciously treated and looked after as if they had been back home and were all part of the same close family…”
2. Of the local rulers, Bishop Las Casas wrote, “…King Behechio and his sister, Anacaona, both rendered great service to the Spanish Crown and provided every assistance to the European settlers, even saving their lives on occasion…”
3. Las Casas further attested, “…All I can say is that I know it to be an incontrovertible fact, and I here swear before Almighty God, that the local peoples never gave the Spanish any cause whatsoever for the injury and injustice inflicted upon them in these campaigns…”

Yet despite their kindness, the indigenous people of Hispaniola and surrounding islands faced harsh treatment at the hands of the Spanish driven by their quest for wealth. 

“…the island of Hispaniola was the first to witness the arrival of Europeans and the first to suffer the wholesale slaughter of its people and the devastation and depopulation of the land. It all began with the Europeans taking native women and children both as servants and to satisfy their own base appetites…” 

“…The Christians punched them, boxed their ears and flogged them in order to track down the local leaders, and the whole shameful process came to a head when one of the European commanders raped the wife of the paramount chief of the entire island…”

“…They spared no one, erecting especially wide gibbets on which they could string their victims up with their feet just off the ground and then burn them alive thirteen at a time, in honour of our Saviour and the twelve Apostles…” 

“…The governor even decreed that those who made their way to a small island some eight leagues distant in order to escape this bestial cruelty should be condemned to slavery because they had fled the carnage…”

“…They strung her up and I saw with my own eyes how the Spaniards burned countless local inhabitants alive or hacked them to pieces, or devised novel ways of torturing them to death, enslaving those they took alive. Indeed, they invented so many new methods of murder that it would be quite impossible to set them all down on paper a…”

That account pertains solely to Hispaniola and Christopher Columbus. The document further details similar treatment in Puerto Rico, Jamaica, and New Spain. For instance, in New Spain, it was reported: 

“In 1518 the so-called Christians set about stealing from the people and murdering them on the pretence of settling the area. And from that year until this – and it is now 1542 – the great iniquities and injustices, the outrageous acts of violence and the bloody tyranny of these Christians have steadily escalated, the perpetrators having lost all fear of God, all love of their sovereign, and all sense of self-respect.”

There is the famous stories of Mexico City as well:

“…king Montezuma who also sent some of his men to stage entertainments and banquets for them on the way. When they reached the Great Causeway which runs for some two leagues right up to the city itself, they were greeted by Montezuma’s own brother and many local dignitaries bearing valuable gifts of gold, silver and apparel from the great lord. At the city gates, Montezuma himself came out to meet them, carried on a litter of gold and surrounded by the entire court. He escorted them into the city to the great houses where he had directed they should be lodged. Yet that same day, or so I am reliably informed by a number of eyewitnesses, the Spaniards seized the great king unawares by means of a trick and held him under armed guard of eighty soldiers, eventually putting him in irons…” 

---

Bringing this Back to Jessup

Remember, this was Jessup’s own quote from his book.

This is what Jessup envisions for “the future of the Mohammedan nations”—a future resembling the suffering that so many indigenous people endured under colonial expansion.

---

Temporal and Spiritual Power?

Next, on page 26, Jessup discusses the “union between the temporal and spiritual power in Islam” but fails to define what this entails. The relevant section is as follows:

If we hypothesize that Jessup’s mention of the “union between the temporal and spiritual power in Islam” refers to a system where rulers or states exercise both secular (worldly) and religious control, or where religious institutions influence political matters, then his statement could indeed be seen as disingenuous.

By Jessup’s time, he would have been aware of the medieval Roman Catholic Church structure, particularly the Papal States in the 11th to 13th centuries, where the Pope held dual authority. As both the spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church and a political ruler over the Papal States, the Pope wielded significant secular power, often extending influence over European kings and emperors.

This concept was rooted in the Doctrine of the Two Swords, a medieval Christian theological framework. Based on Luke 22:38, this doctrine held that the Pope possessed both a spiritual sword (authority over religious matters) and a temporal sword (influence over secular affairs), which he could wield either directly or indirectly.

In context, Luke 22:38 (RSV) reads: 

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

Here’s a simplified chart representing the Doctrine of the Two Swords concept:  https://slideplayer.com/slide/4321522/ 

The most well-known Crusades to the Holy Land, occurring between 1095 and 1291, aimed to reclaim Jerusalem and surrounding regions from Muslim rule. This period aligns with the “Doctrine of the Two Swords,” where the Pope wielded both spiritual and temporal authority. Given this, Jessup’s remark about a “problem of Islam” involving combined religious and secular rule seems ironic, as similar practices were firmly established within the Papacy during this time.

Jessup also claims that the Caliph serves as “the Prophet, and King, and Priest.” While this may loosely align with titles like “King” and “Priest,” given the presence of Imams for religious guidance, his designation of the Caliph as “Prophet” is entirely inaccurate. Qur’an 33:40 makes this clear, explicitly stating that Muhammad is the “Seal of the Prophets,” indicating the end of prophecy in Islam. Given Jessup’s time spent in the Middle East, it would be surprising if he were unaware of this verse; he almost certainly knew it.

40. Muhammad is not the father of any of your men; but he is the Messenger of God, and the seal of the prophets. God is Cognizant of everything.

This verse underscores the finality of prophethood with Muhammad, affirming him as the culmination of the messages delivered by earlier prophets, including Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. It emphasizes that no prophet will succeed him, marking the completion of divine revelation in Islam. 

Hadith also reports:

Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “My similitude in comparison with the other prophets before me, is that of a man who has built a house nicely and beautifully, except for a place of one brick in a corner. The people go about it and wonder at its beauty, but say: ‘Would that this brick be put in its place!’ So I am that brick, and I am the last of the Prophets.“

Sahih al-Bukhari 3535 – Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions – كتاب المناقب – Sunnah.com 

Thus, Jessup’s assertion that the Caliph is also a Prophet is incorrect. This can be contrasted with the Apostle Paul, who, despite never meeting Jesus during his lifetime, claimed to have heard and spoken to him afterward. Islam has no equivalent claims, as the line of Prophets is understood to have ended definitively with Muhammad.

While some individuals have reported dreams (literally, while sleeping) in which they saw Muhammad, such experiences are personal and not considered “scripture” or sources of new revelation.

---

Jessup then reverts to the familiar trope of Islam being spread by the “scimitar.” However, let’s revisit the historical timeline: Muhammad didn’t establish a significant military force until the Battle of Medina in 629. By 630, he was focused on the defensive campaign at Tabuk, and he passed away just two years later. Where, then, in this brief period, did Muhammad himself have the extensive time Jessup suggests for conquest?

Simply put, this argument could be halted by referring to Qur’an 2:177, which states:

Righteousness does not consist of turning your faces towards the East and the West. But righteous is he who believes in God, and the Last Day, and the angels, and the Scripture, and the prophets. Who gives money, though dear, to near relatives, and orphans, and the needy, and the homeless, and the beggars, and for the freeing of slaves; those who perform the prayers, and pay the obligatory charity, and fulfill their promise when they promise, and patiently persevere in the face of persecution, hardship, and in the time of conflict. These are the sincere; these are the pious.

In any event, Jessup’s argument is curious, as there are direct references in the Bible where Jesus connects “outward bodily acts” — to borrow Jessup’s language — with spirituality.

Matthew 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Here, Jesus encourages believers to live in a manner that visibly reflects their faith, allowing their actions to glorify God and serve as an example to others. This aligns outward actions with inward devotion, emphasizing that visible expressions of faith are integral to spiritual integrity.

Matthew 5:19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus here emphasizes the importance of both teaching others and faithfully observing the commandments. This underscores that adhering to these principles and guiding others in the same way are vital aspects of living a devoted life.

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Avoiding lustful thoughts, as Jesus teaches, would indeed start with not looking at a woman in a lustful way—essentially, practicing restraint over one’s gaze. This approach aligns with a disciplined faith, where controlling one’s actions reflects inner devotion. Jesus even takes this further by saying it would be better to lose one’s sight than to risk eternal damnation. This statement underscores the seriousness of the matter, emphasizing that an active, committed practice of faith is required to maintain purity and avoid sin.

Luke 10:25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? How do you read?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live.”

After this, Jesus gave three examples of people on the road, as recounted in:

Luke 10:36 Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed mercy on him.” And Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”

Essentially, Jesus provided clear instructions that translate into outward rituals. For example: 

Matthew 19:21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

---

Jessup Repeats the Same Thing. . .Just in Different Ways

Perhaps Jessup believed these practices were different, yet they are essentially the same principles, just worded differently. For example: 

I won’t review those again, as they’ve already been discussed. The point here is that Jessup seems only capable of rephrasing the same argument repeatedly. It’s also evident below: 

Does this “prayer” seem familiar? It should, as Jessup already mentioned it. This kind of language is generally absent from any recognized Islamic supplication (du’a) or prayer authentically attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or core Islamic texts, such as the Qur’an or Hadith. In Islamic practice, formal prayers (Salah) and commonly recited supplications (du’a) center on seeking forgiveness, mercy, guidance, and peace, reflecting a tone and intent very different from what Jessup presents.

An excellent example is this Hadith:

Ibn Mas’ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: I can see the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) look like one of the Prophets of Allah whose people beat and made him bleed while he was wiping the blood from his face and supplicating: “O Allah, forgive my people because they know not.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Riyad as-Salihin 645 – The Book of Miscellany – كتاب المقدمات – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Regarding the above Hadith, per https://www.islamicity.org/hadith/search/index.php?q=39030&sss=1 

“This hadith speaks to the mercy and forgiveness of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ even when he was wronged and hurt by his own people. He showed compassion for them despite their actions towards him, supplicating to Allah for their forgiveness as they were unaware of what they were doing.”

Jessup continues to cite other supposed prayers, notably without naming who delivered these “prayers.”

---

Next, on page 34, Jessup states:

Yet on page 17 and 18 Jessup states:

So which is it? Do they “know little or nothing of geography,” or are there many Arabic manuscripts on the subject? Jessup’s assertion sounds strikingly similar to Columbus’s flawed perceptions and would come as quite a surprise to Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Idrisi (also known as al-Sharif al-Idrisi), who created the Tabula Rogeriana around 1154—a comprehensive map and geographical treatise. Remarkably, al-Idrisi’s work predates Jessup by over 700 years, demonstrating an advanced understanding of geography in the Islamic world long before Jessup’s time.

In 2022, the Library of Congress produced a special feature on Muhammad al-Idrisi’s work, highlighting the historical significance of his Tabula Rogeriana. This medieval map and accompanying text not only detailed the geography of the known world but also showcased the sophisticated cartographic knowledge in the Islamic world. Al-Idrisi’s contributions continue to be recognized as pivotal in the history of geography and mapping.

Al-Idrisi’s Masterpiece of Medieval Geography

https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2022/01/al-idrisis-masterpiece-of-medieval-geography

Here are some samples from that:

“Map of Sicily” 1325

“Map of the World” 

You can see the Library of Congress site and other resources for more of Al-Idrisi’s Masterpiece. 

---

Polygmany 

Jessup then launches into a diatribe against polygamy, going as far as to attack the entire institution of marriage in Islam.  

Do these familiar accusations from Jessup’s playbook still resonate in 2024? They certainly do, persisting over the centuries as recycled misrepresentations. Such claims are as unfounded and inappropriate now as they were in Jessup’s era. Jessup cites various points: The allowance for up to four wives, as well as concubines, slave-girls, and what he calls “right-hand possess” statements, and finally claims an unlimited number of wives! Divorce and “exchange” with minimal restraint. A husband’s supposed right to divorce without reason or notice. A husband’s alleged authority to rebuke, scourge, and imprison his wife. A dishonored wife’s supposed lack of redress. Jessup even claims that some “Muhammadans” continually change wives, asserting that some young men had 20 or 30 wives, changing every three months. Lastly, he quotes Sir William Muir, claiming that “women possessed more freedom, and exercised a healthier and more legitimate influence under the pagan institutions of Arabia than under the influence of Islam.”

Part 1 of 7 Regarding Marriage, Wives, Rights, Etc.
To recap, Jessup claimed that Islam permits the taking of up to four wives, concubines, slave-girls, “right-hand possess” statements, and even, he alleges, an unlimited number of wives.

Does Islam Permit Taking up to Four Wives?
This guidance is addressed in Qur’an 4:3, which states:

Quran 4:3 If you fear you cannot act fairly towards the orphans—then marry the women you like—two, or three, or four. But if you fear you will not be fair, then one, or what you already have. That makes it more likely that you avoid bias.

The key condition for taking multiple wives is the requirement of justice: the husband must treat all wives equally in financial support, time, and affection. If a man fears he cannot be just, the Qur’an explicitly instructs him to marry only one (Qur’an 4:3). Muhammad (PBUH) exemplified this principle, modeling fairness and respect within his marriages. For example: 

Narrated Qatada: Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet (ﷺ) used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet (ﷺ) the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet (ﷺ) was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

Sahih al-Bukhari 268 – Bathing (Ghusl) – كتاب الغسل – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

This principle of fairness was essential to Muhammad (PBUH), and he adhered to it, even during his final illness. Near the end of his life, he is reported to have repeatedly asked, “Where will I be tomorrow?”—not because he didn’t know, but because he wished to spend his final days in Aisha’s home. Understanding his gentle request, his other wives allowed him to stay there. This considerate approach reflects Muhammad’s kindness and respect toward his wives.

Narrated `Aisha: During his sickness, Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) was asking repeatedly, “Where am I today? Where will I be tomorrow?” And I was waiting for the day of my turn (impatiently). Then, when my turn came, Allah took his soul away (in my lap) between my chest and arms and he was buried in my house.

Sahih al-Bukhari 1389 – Funerals (Al-Janaa’iz) – كتاب الجنائز – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Additionally, as noted on Quran.com: “The Quran is the only scripture that explicitly instructs, ‘marry only one.’ Unlike previous faiths, Islam limits the number of wives a man can have. Under certain conditions, a Muslim man may marry up to four wives, provided he can support them and uphold justice among them—otherwise, it is unlawful.”

Notably, most religious figures in the Bible had more than one wife, with the exception of Jesus Christ and John the Baptist (who were unmarried). According to the Bible, Solomon (PBUH) had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3), and his father, David (PBUH), also had numerous wives and concubines (2 Samuel 5:13). Islam, by setting a limit and prioritizing fairness, introduces clear regulations that are distinct from earlier traditions. Note also, Prophets had different rules as well, as evidenced by the Bible citations.

---

2. Islam Permits Concubines and Slave-Girls? 

Qur’an 70:29. And those who guard their chastity. 30. Except from their spouses or those living under their control, for then they are free of blame. 31. But whoever seeks to go beyond that—these are the transgressors.

In the Tafsir on Quran.com under Ma’arif al-Qur’an for Qur’an 4:3, background and commentary provide additional context and interpretation:

The truth of the matter is that a religion or law which aims to establish an infra-structure against adultery, serves as a remedial approach to the problem of comparatively larger female population in some areas as compared to that of men. If such permission was not granted, mistresses and prostitutes will proliferate. This is why nations which do not permit plurality of wives must live in. Rampant adultery–calling it ‘free sex’ hardly changes the reality. Even in our own time, if we look at the state of nations in Europe and America, we will see that they look down on what they call polygamy and put a ban on plurality of wives, but they permit a man to practice adultery with as many women as he can get under the cover of ‘friendship’, and unlimited are the euphemisms invented to give it other names, such as, ‘relationship’, ‘affair’, ‘consenting adults’, ‘union’, ‘partner’ to get around the ban. Saying no to marriage and yes to adultery is certainly very strange!

To be short, we can say that the custom of taking a large number of wives was prevailing before Islam without any imposition of limits. The history of nations and beliefs shows that no religion or law had drawn a line in this matter, neither the Jews and Christians, nor the Hindus and Aryans or the Zoroastrians.

During the early period of Islam, this custom continued without being limited. As a result, people initially took too many wives. Later on they could not do justice to all of them and these wives of theirs lived like prisoners bound in the chains of marriage. Under such conditions, the idea of an equitable treatment of wives was practically non-existent. It was all a matter of personal choice or whim which could make the darling of the day a history of tomorrow. The concern for standing rights was a far cry.

It was the Holy Qur’an which stopped this great injustice prevailing in the human society at large. It restricted the plurality or multiplicity of wives by declaring that keeping more than four women under the bond of marriage was forbidden (haram).

---

Regarding slavery, Islam introduced measures that aimed to improve the status of slaves, establishing a framework that, over time, would phase out the practice naturally. The Qur’an and Hadith emphasize the humane treatment, rights, and eventual emancipation of slaves, setting Islam apart from prevailing norms of the time.

Malik related to me from Nafi that a slave was in charge of the slaves in the khumus and he forced a slave-girl among those slaves against her will and had intercourse with her. Umar ibn al-Khattab had him flogged and banished him, and he did not flog the slave-girl because the slave had forced her.

Hudud – كتاب الحدود – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

To be clear, in Islam, freeing a slave—particularly one who is a believer—carries great spiritual reward and is highly valued as an act of faith. Islamic teachings emphasize that freeing slaves is a means of attaining divine favor, with numerous Hadith stating that such an act brings significant spiritual merit. 

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, “Whoever frees a Muslim slave, Allah will save all the parts of his body from the (Hell) Fire as he has freed the body-parts of the slave.” Sa`id bin Marjana said that he narrated that Hadith to `Ali bin Al-Husain and he freed his slave for whom `Abdullah bin Ja`far had offered him ten thousand Dirhams or one-thousand Dinars.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2517 – Manumission of Slaves – كتاب العتق – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Muhammad (PBUH) emphasized that, when freeing a slave, believers should prioritize the most valued one.  

Narrated Abu Dhar: I asked the Prophet, “What is the best deed?” He replied, “To believe in Allah and to fight for His Cause.” I then asked, “What is the best kind of manumission (of slaves)?” He replied, “The manumission of the most expensive slave and the most beloved by his master.” I said, “If I cannot afford to do that?” He said, “Help the weak or do good for a person who cannot work for himself.” I said, “If I cannot do that?” He said, “Refrain from harming others for this will be regarded as a charitable deed for your own good.”

Sahih al-Bukhari 2518 – Manumission of Slaves – كتاب العتق – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Before moving to the next part, it’s essential to define the concept of walāʾ, which reflects Islam’s efforts to improve the rights and status of freed slaves. In Islamic law, walāʾ refers to the “alliance,” “loyalty,” or “patronage” that forms between a freed slave and their former owner. When a slave is emancipated (freed) under Islamic principles, they enter into this specific legal and social relationship with their emancipator, establishing mutual support and accountability. 

• Walāʾ can be understood as a bond of loyalty or allegiance between a freed slave and the former master who granted them freedom. This relationship is not one of servitude but of legal rights and responsibilities that arise upon the act of manumission.
  • Inheritance Rights: One of the primary legal implications of walāʾ is in the area of inheritance. If a freed slave dies and has no other heirs, their former master (who freed them) may inherit from them. 
  • This right of inheritance is a unique aspect of walāʾ. This system provided an incentive for masters to free their slaves, knowing that they might still benefit legally if the freed individual had no family heirs.
• Social Support and Loyalty: Walāʾ also involves social and moral support between the former master and the freed individual. In many cases, the former master would continue to provide assistance to the freed person, particularly if they were in need.
  • This concept of mutual support ensured that freed slaves had a safety net, helping them transition into society with some measure of protection.
• Not a Return to Slavery: The concept of walāʾ does not imply ownership or a return to slavery in any way. The former slave becomes a fully free individual.
  • Walāʾ is a form of allegiance or kinship that does not reduce the freed person’s legal status. They remain free and equal in the eyes of the law.
• Religious and Cultural Context: In Islamic tradition, freeing a slave is considered a highly virtuous act. The concept of walāʾ was established to ensure that the freed individuals had continued support and that the act of freeing slaves was encouraged.

The Prophet Muhammad emphasized the importance of fair treatment of slaves and encouraged the act of emancipation. Walāʾ was part of this ethical framework, ensuring protection and loyalty to former slaves. With that in mind, we can explore the next two Hadiths. 

There is a Hadith that states, “Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade the selling or donating the Wala’ of a freed slave.” Then also: 

Narrated `Aisha: I bought Barirah but her masters put the condition that her Wala’ would be for them. I told the Prophet (ﷺ) about it. He said (to me), “Manumit (free) her as her Wala’ will be for the one who pays the price.” So, I manumitted (freed) her. The Prophet (ﷺ) called Barirah and gave her the option of either staying with her husband or leaving him. She said, “Even if he gave me so much money, I would not stay with him,” and so she preferred her freedom to her husband.

Sahih al-Bukhari 2536 – Manumission of Slaves – كتاب العتق – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

---

Furthermore, given that Jessup identifies as Christian, it’s essential to recognize that the Bible itself permits both the taking of concubines and the institution of slavery. 

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (RSV, Old Testament) RE: Female Captives

10 “When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hands, and you take them captive, 11 and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.

Numbers 31:7 (RSV, Old Testment) RE: Return from the War

Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Deuteronomy 20:14 

14 but the women and the little ones, the cattle, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourselves; and you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

---

Part 2 of 3 – Regarding Marriage, Wives, Rights, Etc. 

The two points Jessup raises—[2] “divorce and exchange with little restraint” and [3] “husband may divorce without any assigned reason or notice”—can be addressed together here.

First, the idea of “exchange of wives” is baseless in Islam. There is no concept of exchanging spouses, as this is explicitly contrary to Islamic principles, which uphold the sanctity of marriage, fidelity, and the integrity of the marital bond. Furthermore, while Islam does permit divorce, it is neither unrestricted nor encouraged lightly. The Qur’an outlines specific steps for reconciliation before divorce, including mediation and reflection, emphasizing that it should be a last resort. 

Quran 30:21 And of His signs is that He created for you mates from among yourselves, so that you may find tranquility in them; and He planted love and compassion between you. In this are signs for people who reflect.

This verse reflects the idea that marriage is intended for companionship, tranquility, and emotional connection, and not for transactional or exchange purposes. Further, Islam strictly prohibits any form of adultery (zina) or actions that compromise marital fidelity. 

Quran 17:32 And do not come near adultery. It is immoral, and an evil way.

This prohibition includes any form of relationship or arrangement that would violate the exclusive rights of a husband and wife within their marriage. 

Quran 4:19-26 lays out the boundaries of marriage clearly.

19. O you who believe! It is not permitted for you to inherit women against their will. And do not coerce them in order to take away some of what you had given them, unless they commit a proven adultery. And live with them in kindness. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike something in which God has placed much good.

20. If you wish to replace one wife with another, and you have given one of them a fortune, take nothing back from it. Would you take it back fraudulently and sinfully?

21. And how can you take it back, when you have been intimate with one another, and they have received from you a solid commitment?

22. Do not marry women whom your fathers married, except what is already past. That is improper, indecent, and a bad custom.

23. Forbidden for you are your mothers, your daughters, your sisters, your paternal aunts, your maternal aunts, your brother’s daughters, your sister’s daughters, your foster-mothers who nursed you, your sisters through nursing, your wives’ mothers, and your stepdaughters in your guardianship—born of wives you have gone into—but if you have not gone into them, there is no blame on you. And the wives of your genetic sons, and marrying two sisters simultaneously. Except what is past. God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

24. And all married women, except those you rightfully possess. This is God’s decree, binding upon you. Permitted for you are those that lie outside these limits, provided you seek them in legal marriage, with gifts from your property, seeking wedlock, not prostitution. If you wish to enjoy them, then give them their dowry—a legal obligation. You commit no error by agreeing to any change to the dowry. God is All-Knowing, Most Wise.

25. If any of you lack the means to marry free believing women, he may marry one of the believing maids under your control. God is well aware of your faith. You are from one another. Marry them with the permission of their guardians, and give them their recompense fairly—to be protected—neither committing adultery, nor taking secret lovers. When they are married, if they commit adultery, their punishment shall be half that of free women. That is for those among you who fear falling into decadence. But to practice self-restraint is better for you. God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.

. . .

al-Tabari’s Tafsir on ibnsabala.com regarding verse 4:24 is clear: “This verse means that when you marry a woman, you should give her a dowry as a gift, and not as a payment for something in return.” And repeated, “This verse means that when you marry a woman, you should give her a dowry as a gift, and not as a payment for something in return.” Further, his opinion was, “Abu Ja’far said: The most correct interpretation is that of those who interpreted it as: And those whom you have married among them and had intercourse with, give them their due. This is because the evidence has been established regarding Allah’s prohibition of mut’ah on women except through proper marriage or ownership, as stated by His Messenger.”

Mut’ah is the concept of temporary marriage, modern nay-sayers today claim it is allowed, Tabari is clear it is not.

---

What about divorce? 

First, let’s examine various Hadith to understand what they say on the subject. 

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar said, “If a man gives his slave permission to marry, the divorce is in the hand of the slave, and nobody else has any power over his divorce. Nothing is held against a man who takes the slave-girl of his male slave or the slave-girl of his female-slave.”

Muwatta Malik https://sunnah.com/urn/512100

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Rabi’ b. Sabra that Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) forbade to contract temporary marriage with women at the time of Victory, and that his father had contracted the marriage for two red cloaks.

Sahih Muslim 1406j – The Book of Marriage – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Khansa’ daughter of Khidham al-Ansariyyah reports that when her father married her when she had previously been married and she disapproved of that she went to the Apostle of Allah(ﷺ) and mentioned it to him. He (the Prophet) revoked her marriage.

Sunan Abi Dawud 2101 – Marriage (Kitab Al-Nikah) – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said: “A previously married woman has more right (to decide) about herself (with regard to marriage) than her guardian, and an orphan girl should be consulted with regard to marriage, and her permission is her silence.”

Sunan an-Nasa’i 3262 – The Book of Marriage – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that a man said to Abdullah ibn Abbas, “I have divorced my wife by saying I divorce you a hundred times. What do you think my situation is?” Ibn Abbas said to him, “She was divorced from you by three pronouncements, and by the ninety-seven, you have mocked the ayat of Allah.”

Muwatta Malik

Divorce – كتاب الطلاق – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Thawban narrated that: The Messenger of Allah said: “Whichever woman seeks a Khul from her husband without harm (cause), then the scent of Paradise will be unlawful for her.”

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1187 – The Book on Divorce and Li’an – كتاب الطلاق واللعان عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم 

Islamqa.info states:

What is meant by the words “for no reason” is without any urgent situation which makes it hard for the marriage to continue. If the wife is being harmed and the situation is too difficult for her because of the husband’s falling short in giving her her rights, or his withholding her rights from her, or because of his bad treatment and other similar reasons, then she has the right to ask for divorce, and she may refer to the qaadi and tell him what is happening, and he in turn can ask the husband to give her her rights or to divorce her. 

In summary, the understanding of divorce in Islam includes the following points:

1. A husband can pronounce divorce by declaring it three times (talaq), though this is a significant step with consequences, and traditionally, it is advised to do so thoughtfully over time, not impulsively in one sitting.
2. A husband may grant his wife the choice to seek divorce (tafwid al-talaq). If she chooses this option and requests a divorce, it is then valid and binding.
3. Certain conditions must be met for a marriage contract to be valid, including mutual consent, witnesses, and the proper dowry (mahr). Failure to meet these requirements renders the marriage invalid.
4. A wife can request a divorce (khula), provided there is a valid reason. This option allows her to initiate separation, with due process to ensure fairness.

---

Potential causes that could justify a wife’s request for divorce (khula) in Islam. 

1. Lack of Kind Treatment: While “kindness” may seem subjective, husbands are explicitly instructed to treat their wives with respect and compassion, as emphasized in Qur’an 4:19. Consistent unkindness or disregard for this principle could be grounds for divorce.
2. Failure to Provide Food and Clothing: A husband is obligated to provide for his wife’s basic needs, including food and clothing. If he neglects this duty without justification, it infringes on her rights.
3. Excessive Violence: Islam prohibits abuse within marriage. If a husband is excessively violent or abusive, this provides a clear and valid reason for a wife to seek separation.
4. Refusal of Reconciliation Process: If marital issues arise, a wife has the right to request mediation with an arbiter from each side of the family to explore possible reconciliation. Denying this process undermines the Islamic approach to resolving marital conflict.
5. Taking the Wife’s Personal Property: In Islam, a wife retains ownership of her own possessions, including her dowry and any assets she brings into the marriage. If a husband takes property that clearly belongs to her, it violates her rights and may provide cause for divorce.

‘Amr bin Al-Ahwas Al-Jushami (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that he had heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying on his Farewell Pilgrimage, after praising and glorifying Allah and admonishing people, “Treat women kindly, they are like captives in your hands; you do not owe anything else from them. In case they are guilty of open indecency, then do not share their beds and beat them lightly but if they return to obedience, do not have recourse to anything else against them. You have rights over your wives and they have their rights over you. Your right is that they shall not permit anyone you dislike to enter your home, and their right is that you should treat them well in the matter of food and clothing”. [At- Tirmidhi, who categorized it as Hadith Hasan Sahih].

Riyad as-Salihin 276 – The Book of Miscellany – كتاب المقدمات – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Qur’an 4:34 is often cited by critics, yet it’s crucial to consider not only this verse but also the one immediately following it (Qur’an 4:35) and to understand the surrounding context, along with the guidance on how these rules are to be applied.

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, as God has given some of them an advantage over others, and because they spend out of their wealth. The good women are obedient, guarding what God would have them guard. As for those from whom you fear disloyalty, admonish them, and abandon them in their beds, then strike them. But if they obey you, seek no way against them. God is Sublime, Great.

35. If you fear a breach between the two, appoint an arbiter from his family and an arbiter from her family. If they wish to reconcile, God will bring them together. God is Knowledgeable, Expert.

There is an insightful explanation on this translation from Ahmed Ali’s interpretation, as noted in: 

https://www.brandeis.edu/projects/fse/muslim/translation.html

“For the three words fa’izu, wahjaru, and wadribu in the original, translated here ‘talk to them suasively,’ ‘leave them alone (in bed – fi’l-madage’),’ and ‘have intercourse’, respectively, see Raghib, Lisan al-‘Arab, and Zamakhsari. Raghib in his Al-Mufridat fi Gharib al-Qur’an gives the meanings of these words with special reference to this verse. Fa-‘izu, he says, means to ‘to talk to them so persuasively as to melt their hearts.’ (See also v.63 of this Surah where it has been used in a similar sense.) Hajara, he says, means to separate body from body, and points out that the expression wahjaru hunna metaphorically means to refrain from touching or molesting them. Zamakhshari is more explicit in his Kshshaf when he says, ‘do not get inside their blankets.’ Raghib points out that daraba metaphorically means to have intercourse, and quotes the expression darab al-fahl an-naqah, ‘the stud camel covered the she-camel,’ which is also quoted by Lisan al-‘Arab. It cannot be taken here to mean ‘to strike them (women).’ This view is strengthened by the Prophet’s authentic hadith found in a number of authorities, including Bukhari and Muslim: “Could any of you beat your wife as he would a slave, and then lie with her in the evening?” There are other traditions in Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Ahmad bin Hanbal and others, to the effect that he forbade the beating of any woman, saying: “Never beat God’s handmaidens.””

Laqit b. Sabira told that he said, “Messenger of God, I have a wife who has something in her tongue,” [meaning foul speech]. He told him to divorce her, but when he replied that he had a son from her and she was a companion, he said, “Give her a command (meaning give her an exhortation), and if there is any good in her she will accept it; but do not beat your wife as you would beat your young slave-girl.” Abu Dawud transmitted it.

Mishkat al-Masabih 3260 – Marriage – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Narrated `Abdullah bin Zam`a: The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade laughing at a person who passes wind, and said, “How does anyone of you beat his wife as he beats the stallion camel and then he may embrace (sleep with) her?” And Hisham said, “As he beats his slave”

Sahih al-Bukhari 6042 – Good Manners and Form (Al-Adab) – كتاب الأدب – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

The statement “do not beat your wife as you would beat your young slave-girl” evokes the image of slave mistreatment. What, then, did Muhammad (PBUH) say about such behavior?  

Abu Mas’ud Al-Badri (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I was beating my slave with a whip when I heard a voice behind me which said: “Abu Mas’ud! Bear in mind…” I did not recognize the voice for the intense anger I was in. Abu Mas’ud added: As he came near me, I found that he was the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was saying, “Abu Mas’ud! Bear in mind that Allah has more dominance upon you than you have upon your slave.” Then I said: “I will never beat any slave in future.” Another narration is: The whip dropped from my hand in awe of the Prophet (ﷺ). Still another narration is: I said: “He is free for the sake of Allah.” He (ﷺ) said, “If you had not done this, you would have been singed by the Fire.” [Muslim].

Riyad as-Salihin 1604 – The Book of the Prohibited actions – كتاب الأمور المنهي عنها – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah never beat any of his servants, or wives, and his hand never hit anything.”

Sunan Ibn Majah 1984 – The Chapters on Marriage – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Zadhan reported that Ibn Umar called his slave and he found the marks (of beating) upon his back. He said to him: I have caused you pain. He said: No. But he (Ibn Umar) said: You are free. He then took hold of something from the earth and said: There is no reward for me even to the weight equal to it. I heard Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: He who beats a slave without cognizable offense of his or slaps him (without any serious fault), then expiation for it is that he should set him free.

Sahih Muslim 1657b – The Book of Oaths – كتاب الأيمان – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Under Tafsir on Quran.com, Ma’arif al-Qur’an provides a clear summary of Qur’an 4:34-35. 

1. Resolve family disputes within the house using one method after the other.

2. When this is not possible, government officials or the kinsfolk make peace between the disputing parties through two arbitrators, so that the dispute does not go out of the larger family circle, even if it goes out of the house itself.

3. When this too is not possible and the matter goes to the court finally, it is the duty of the judicial authority to investigate into the case background of both parties and come up with a decision which is just.

It may be noted that by saying إِنَّ اللَّـهَ كَانَ عَلِيمًا خَبِيرً‌ا (Surely, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware) warning has been given to the two arbitrators as well to the effect that they should keep in mind that no injustice or crookedness from them will go unnoticed for they shall be appearing before the Being who knows all and is aware of everything.

The author personally views family mediation as a significant right for the wife. In such an arbitration, all that has transpired would likely come to light, making the families aware of any issues. Imagine a brother, mother, father, or sister learning of violence against someone they love—how would they respond?

Only a fool would risk exposing inappropriate behavior in such a setting, where both families could become fully informed. This structure appears to offer a strong safeguard, and involving the families is a sensible approach.

In comparison, the U.S. system often reveals troubling cases within family courts. Here’s just one article highlighting these issues: 

The Underlying Problem with Our Family Law System

. . .Our adversarial family law system is not designed to resolve the emotional/psychological issues of divorce – including “bad behavior” of an ex-partner. . .

. . .The inherent problem with our current family law system is that it is not designed to therapeutically resolve the issues facing families in today’s society. The breakup of marriages and the resultant issues arising with custody of children, financial support of children and spouses, and the behavior of all concerned are not properly addressed by our traditional confrontational legal system. . .

. . .I find that most people going through the divorce process are already traumatized by the breakdown of their marriage, and going through the courts only adds to that trauma. Appearing in front of a black-robed judge separated from the parties by a high bench is nerve-wracking. . .

. . .Judges are trained on how to try cases, not how to solve family problems. If the parties have a chance to meet and discuss their issues with a panel of experts who have the bigger picture in mind, their experience would be more therapeutic than traumatic. . .

. . .The ultimate goal is to shift the resolution of psychological and behavioral problems to people who know how to deal with them. The dissolution of a marriage (unlike the dissolution of a corporation or partnership) is not a legal matter, and trying to force a round peg through a square hole has not been a satisfactory experience for most divorcing couples. . .

Thus, Jessup’s claim of “rebuke, imprison, and scourge” is thoroughly disproven by the evidence discussed above. Both rebuke and scourge were directly addressed, showing they are not in line with Islamic teachings as he suggests, and imprisonment is likewise invalid. Clearly, a wife has the right to seek redress, request arbitrators, and approach family mediators. Historical accounts also demonstrate that wives approached Muhammad (PBUH) for guidance and support regarding their own marriages. Logically, a husband would not have the right to deny his wife such avenues of support.

---

Jessup Feels He Is Living In A Better System?

First, let’s start with the Bible and review some of the commandments directed at women. To clarify, this is not presented as a critique or personal view of “good” or “bad” but rather as an exploration of elements within the text that outline the roles, responsibilities, and limits for wives. You are encouraged to draw your own conclusions based on these passages. 

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

“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.”

Ephesians 5:22-24

“Wives, submit to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.”

1 Timothy 2:11-12

“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.”

1 Peter 3:1-2

“Wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.”

Genesis 3:16

“To the woman he said, ‘I [God] will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.'”

Proverbs 31 “Ode to a Capable Wife” 

10 A good wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels. 11 The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. 12 She does him good, and not harm, all the days of her life.

13 She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands. 14 She is like the ships of the merchant, she brings her food from afar. 15 She rises while it is yet night and provides food for her household and tasks for her maidens. 16 She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard. . .27 She looks well to the ways of her household, and does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: 29 “Many women have done excellently, but you surpass them all.” 

---

Let’s now examine some notable cases related to women’s rights and marital roles, beginning with the U.S. Supreme Court case Bradwell v. The State (1873). In this case, Myra Bradwell, a married woman, sought a law license in Illinois. Here are key excerpts: 

1. The Supreme Court of Illinois having refused to grant to a woman a license to practice law in the courts of that state, on the ground that females are not eligible under the laws of that state. Held that such a decision violates no provision of the federal Constitution.

. . .that she was born in the State of Vermont; that she was (had been) a citizen of that state; that she is now a citizen of the United States, and has been for many years past a resident of the City of Chicago, in the State of Illinois. . .

And with this affidavit she also filed a paper asserting that, under the foregoing facts, she was entitled to the license prayed for by virtue of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, and of the fourteenth article of amendment of that instrument.

Whether, in the existing social relations between men and women, it would promote the proper administration of justice, and the general well being of society, to permit women to engage in the trial of cases at the bar, is a question opening a wide field of discussion, upon which it is not necessary for us to enter. . .It is to be remembered that at the time this statute was enacted we had, by express provision, adopted the common law of England. . .

It is to be also remembered that female attorneys at law were unknown in England, and a proposition that a woman should enter the courts of Westminster Hall in that capacity, or as a barrister, would have created hardly less astonishment than one that she should ascend the bench of bishops, or be elected to a seat in the House of Commons.

That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make, apply, and execute the laws, was regarded as an almost axiomatic [unquestioned] truth.

In view of these facts, we are certainly warranted in saying . . . that when the legislature gave to this Court the power of granting licenses to practice law, it was with not the slightest expectation that this privilege would be extended to women.

And in a concurring opinion Judge Bradley, photo above, stated:  So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states.

---

In 1890, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on polygamy in Davis v. Beason. This case did not involve a Muslim but rather Samuel D. Davis, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who sought to practice polygamy according to his religious beliefs. 

The Court rejected the notion that polygamy was a valid religious practice protected under the First Amendment, stating: 

“To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community.” The opinion specified that, in the context of the First Amendment, “religion” refers primarily to “one’s views of his relations to his Creator” and “modes of worship,” not as a defense against legislation punishing acts “inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.”

Justice Field, writing for the Court, argued, “Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade women, and to debase men. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment.”

---

Furthermore, in State v. Oliver (1874):

Defendant came home intoxicated one morning after breakfast was over. . .he threw the coffee cup and pot into the corner of the room, and went out. . . [when he returned stated] that he was going to whip her, for she and her d_____d mother had aggravated him near to death. He then struck her five licks with the two switches, which were about four feet long, with the branches on them, about half way, and some leaves. One of the switches was about half as large as a man’s little finger, the other not so large. He had them in both hands, and inflicted bruises on her arm, which remained for two weeks, but did not disable her from work. One of the witnesses swore he struck as hard as he could. Others were present, and after defendant had struck four licks, told him to desist. Defendant stopped, saying if they had not been there he would have worn her out. Upon these facts the Court found defendant guilty, and fined him $10. Defendant appealed.

We may assume that the old doctrine, that a husband had a right to whip his wife, provided he used a switch no larger than his thumb, is not law in North Carolina. Indeed, the Courts have advanced from that barbarism until they have reached the position, that the husband has no right to chastise his wife, under any circumstances.

Ultimately the court upheld the guilty finding of the husband, but in doing so also noted some interesting aspects.  They acknowledged the common law rules (“old doctrine”) had existed, yet here they were settling the law on the matter.  Jessup was alive during the time of this ruling. Did he have anything to say about this in his own home country? 

Imagine an Islamic framework in place here. While this isn’t a divorce case, it’s clear that under Islamic law, the husband would not have had the legal authority to act in this way—Islamic law settled these principles over 1,200 years ago. Whether or not these laws were perfectly upheld in courts and society over time is beside the point; the core issue is, what does the law actually say? 

First, under Islamic law, the husband would have been guilty of intoxication, as alcohol is strictly prohibited. Next, any complaint he had with his wife would have required a respectful and kind approach. Following that, if he wished to express dissatisfaction, he would have needed to “not share the bed” for a period, without resorting to physical harm. Even if he believed striking was warranted, he could not leave any bruises or marks. Additionally, he failed to involve arbiters from both families to attempt reconciliation. In an Islamic legal context, he would likely be guilty of far more than the minor $10 fine ($276.58 adjusted for inflation in 2024) imposed here. 

Jessup’s assertion that wives have no recourse under Islam is contradicted by even a basic comparison. A look at State v. Oliver (1874), alongside the relevant Hadith and Qur’anic principles, makes the matter plain. It doesn’t take an expert to see the discrepancy. 

---

Jessup was also alive for the well-known 1908 Muller v. Oregon Supreme Court case. 

“On February 19, 1903, the legislature of the state of Oregon passed an act. . .no female (shall) be employed in any mechanical establishment, or factory, or laundry in this state more than ten hours during any one day. . .A trial resulted in a verdict against the defendant, who was sentenced to pay a fine of $10. The supreme court of the state affirmed the conviction. . .”

Then when it went to the Supreme Court of the U.S. they stated:

“. . .single question is the constitutionality of the statute under which the defendant was convicted. . .” 

The defendant claimed a 14th amendment protection. The court relied heavily upon the following, per a footnote in the case: 

“. . .follow extracts from over ninety reports of committees, bureaus of statistics, commissioners of hygiene, inspectors of factories, both in this country and in Europe, to the effect that long hours of labor are dangerous for women, primarily because of their special physical organization. . .”

This was called “The Brandeis Brief” and was submitted to support the State of Oregon. 

“. . .Not only did the brief help Brandeis [Oregon] win the case but it also became a legal landmark in its own right. Briefs that cited non-legal data quickly became commonplace and became known as “Brandeis briefs.” However, the brief for Muller v. Oregon is the original Brandeis Brief. . .”

https://louisville.edu/law/library/special-collections/the-louis-d.-brandeis-collection/the-brandeis-brief-in-its-entirety

Here are some snippets from that, remember, this was within the lifetime of Jessup. 

Page 18

Page 22

Page 30

. . . it goes on to eventually read . . .

Page 36

Page 38

Page 41 “the falling of the uterus.” 

Page 44, women who work will start drinking and taking drugs.

Page 113

The U.S. Supreme Court considered “evidence” from various sources in the above report, not only from within the U.S. but also from “experts” in England, Germany, and France. These sources included opinions from politicians, government reports, doctors, business people, and more. The prevailing view, per the report, held that women were the “weaker” gender (their words, not this author), with bodies more prone to breakdown, and that their domestic roles would suffer if they took on demanding work.

And Jessup dares to compare societies?

---

Suffrage is another lengthy discussion – of both black and white women – whom did not have the right to vote until 1965 in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 Suffrage is a long and important history globally that is important to learn about regarding the rights of women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage – and is outside the scope of this book. This author believes the point to be well made here in contrasting Jessup’s criticism against the times. 

Women generally speaking had a long battle of achieving rights globally. 

---

What about Jessup and his own relations, family, kids, wives? 

We can make an approximation of Jessup’s family:

Jessup, it seems, had no objection to having multiple wives—provided they were one at a time—as he himself was married three times. Yet, Jessup also claimed that wives in heaven would be second-class to husbands due to men having multiple wives. If that’s his view, then by his own logic, even sequential marriages would lead to his wives competing for his attention in the afterlife, creating the very hierarchy he criticized.

In his book, as noted in comment [6] above, Jessup claims that “some Muhammadans continually change their wives,” even alleging that “some young men had 20 or 30 wives, a new one every three months.” 

This statement not only exaggerates but also highlights a double standard, given Jessup’s own personal marital history.

The chart above illustrates the absurdity of Jessup’s claim, beginning with a young man at age 14, supposedly taking a new spouse every three months. Now, let’s consider the practicality of this scenario. Where would this so-called serial husband obtain the resources for a constant stream of new brides? What family would consent to such an arrangement, knowing their daughter would be replaced within months? Jessup actually expects people to believe this? The frightening part isn’t just his blatant misrepresentation—it’s that someone might actually take it seriously.

Let’s run an experiment. Imagine a city with 50,000 people, split evenly between men and women. Now assume that 5% of men are marrying 20 wives–not even the exaggerated 30 Jessup claims.

5% of 25,000 men = 1,250 men marrying 20 wives each.

1,250 men × 20 wives per man = 25,000 wives.

This means that these 5% of men would effectively marry the entire pool of eligible women, leaving the remaining 23,750 men to marry only divorced women—likely women with children.

Clearly, this makes no sense.

For perspective, the population of New York City in 1850 was 590,000, and Washington, D.C. had 51,687 people. Jessup’s scenario would lead to absurd social consequences, with nearly every woman bound to the same few men—an outcome that defies basic logic and was certainly forbidden under Islamic law, as discussed earlier.

Jessup later cites examples from sultans or kings as if they represent the average person. This is as absurd as comparing the Japanese imperial court to their common citizens, each group having vastly different customs and practices. Jessup’s comparisons show either a profound misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Which do you suppose? 

---

Jessup Says Women Were More Free Before Islam

Finally, Jessup cites Sir William Muir, claiming that “women possessed more freedom, and exercised a healthier and more legitimate influence under the pagan institutions of Arabia than under the influence of Islam.”  A fitting response to this assertion is found in Qur’an 4:19-21, which states:

19. O you who believe! It is not permitted for you to inherit women against their will. And do not coerce them in order to take away some of what you had given them, unless they commit a proven adultery. And live with them in kindness. If you dislike them, it may be that you dislike something in which God has placed much good.

20. If you wish to replace one wife with another, and you have given one of them a fortune, take nothing back from it. Would you take it back fraudulently and sinfully?

21. And how can you take it back, when you have been intimate with one another, and they have received from you a solid commitment?

Tafsir Ma’arif al-Qur’an from Quran.com has great commentary on this. Snippets follow: 

• The most glaring of these was that men used to act as owners of the life and property of women, so much so, that a woman taken in marriage was passed on as a piece of property after her husband’s death, on to his heirs. They were considered as the new owners and inheritors of the property, plus the wife. They could, if they wished to, marry her or give her in marriage to somebody else against payment.
• If any woman, so out of her mind, approves of being owned by somebody, the Islamic law is not willing to concede this position.
• The Holy Qur’an . . . has expressed the element of prohibition by negating the lawfulness of this act by saying: ‘it is not lawful for you.’ Here, in addition to stressing upon the severe sinfulness of this matter, the purpose may also be to indicate that, should it be that someone does go on to marry an adult woman without her consent and permission, the marriage thus entered into shall not be lawful and, in fact, it is null and void. Being totally non-sequitur, no husband-wife relationship between the man and woman gets established from such a marriage, nor do the injunctions of inheritance or lineage follow from it.
• Forc[ing a] woman to return the dower amount already paid or forc[ing] her to forgo the dower still outstanding, both are impermissible and patently Haram (forbidden). Similarly, whatever has been given to the wife as [a] gift, or something of which she has become the ‘owner’, cannot be taken back by the husband, or the heirs, for it is not lawful for them to do so.

This assumes, of course, that a girl was even permitted to live beyond birth in the pre-Islamic era—a time when female infanticide was tragically common. Islam directly ended this practice, prohibiting it and affirming the value and dignity of girls.

Quran 81:8-9 When the girl, buried alive, is asked: For what crime was she killed?

Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If anyone cares for three daughters, disciplines them, marries them, and does good to them, he will go to Paradise.

Sunan Abi Dawud 5147 – General Behavior (Kitab Al-Adab) – كتاب الأدب – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Mughira b. Shu’ba reported Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) as saying: Verity Allah, the Glorious and Majestic, has forbidden for you: disobedience to mothers, and burying alive daughters, withholding the right of others in spite of having the power to return that to them and demanding that (which is not one’s legitimate right). And He disapproved three things for you; irrelevant talk, persistent questioning and wasting of wealth.

Sahih Muslim 593f – The Book of Judicial Decisions – كتاب الأقضية – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Infanticide was not unique to pre-Islamic Arabia; it was a grim practice observed across various cultures and eras worldwide. Societies from ancient Greece and Rome to parts of Asia practiced forms of infanticide, often due to economic pressures, social customs, or gender preferences.

The Republic, Book 5 “On Matrimony and Philosophy” by Plato (375 BCE) 

…but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.

Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vol. 21

As to exposing or rearing the children born, let there be a law that no deformed child shall be reared; but on the ground of number of children, if the regular customs hinder any of those born being exposed, there must be a limit fixed to the procreation of offspring, and if any people have a child as a result of intercourse in contravention of these regulations, abortion must be practised on it before it has developed sensation and life…

Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (4 BC – AD 65), was a Stoic philosopher of Ancient Rome, a statesman, dramatist, and in one work, satirist, from the post-Augustan age of Latin literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger

Does a man hate his own limbs when he cuts them off? That is not an act of anger, but a lamentable method of healing. We knock mad dogs on the head, we slaughter fierce and savage bulls, and we doom scabby sheep to the knife, lest they should infect our flocks: we destroy monstrous births, and we also drown our children if they are born weakly or unnaturally formed. To separate what is useless from what is sound is an act, not of anger, but of reason.

Further, ancient Chinese texts document female infanticide as a common practice, particularly among poorer families. In Confucian societies, where carrying on the family line was paramount, sons were highly valued, while daughters were often seen as less essential. This cultural emphasis contributed to a lower valuation of daughters and, tragically, to the practice of female infanticide in some communities.

---

What about the influence of women?

Regarding the influence of women, we need only look to the time of Muhammad (PBUH) as an exemplary model. The lives of women around him reveal the dignity and authority afforded to women under Islamic principles.

The Influence of The Ladies Around Muhammad 

It is well known that Muhammad’s first marriage was to Khadijah bint Khuwaylid, a union that holds significant historical and social insight. Notably, Khadijah was entirely independent in her choice; no one could compel her to marry. In fact, she had turned down numerous marriage proposals. At 40, she was considerably older than Muhammad, who was 25, and it was she who proposed to him, using female intermediaries to convey her intentions. 

Khadijah was a successful businesswoman, leading a prosperous trade and living with the full freedom to remain unmarried if she chose. She is honored as the first Muslim, standing as Muhammad’s initial and steadfast supporter after the first revelations of his Prophethood. When he was overwhelmed by the experience, it was Khadijah to whom he turned, finding comfort and encouragement in her unwavering support. This relationship underscores not only Khadijah’s influence but also the deep respect and partnership that characterized their marriage, highlighting her unique role in the earliest days of Islam. 

Snippet from: https://www.al-islam.org/khadijatul-kubra-short-story-her-life-sayyid-ali-asghar-razwy/chapter-4-marriage 

It is reported that one of the close friends of Khadija was a high-born lady of Makka called Nafisa (or Nufaysa) the daughter of Munyah. She was aware that Khadija had turned down many proposals of marriage. . .Nafisa (or Nufaysa) also happened to know that there was such a man in Makka and his name was Muhammad. It is reported that one day Muhammad was returning home from the Kaaba when Nafisa stopped him, and the following exchange took place between them:

Nafisa: O Muhammad, you are a young man and you are single. Men who are much younger than you, are already married; some even have children. Why don’t you marry?

Muhammad: I cannot afford to marry; I am not rich enough to marry.

Nafisa: What would be your response if you could marry a woman of beauty, wealth, status and honor, notwithstanding your present poverty?

Muhammad: Who could be such a woman?

Nafisa: Such a woman is Khadija the daughter of Khuwayled.

Muhammad: Khadija? How is it possible that Khadija would marry me? You know that many rich and powerful princes and chiefs of tribes proposed to her, and she rebuffed them all.

Nafisa: If you are agreeable to marry her, you just say so, and leave the rest to me. I shall arrange everything.

Next, two points are noteworthy. First, Muhammad at one point gave his wives the choice to seek a divorce, but they declined, choosing to remain with him. Second, Aisha became a significant narrator of Muhammad’s life, and after his passing, she was widely respected as an authority on his teachings and personal conduct.

Narrated ‘Aishah: It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “The Messenger of Allah gave us the choice, and we chose him, so there was no divorce.”

Sunan an-Nasa’i 3203 – The Book of Marriage – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Below is a famous story illustrating a time when people feared Muhammad might be divorcing. Notably, there is no mention of him harming his wives in any way. Instead, in line with Qur’anic guidance, he distanced himself temporarily. Upon his return, he gave his wives the choice to either remain with him or leave. The narrator also remarks on the changing times, noting how women were becoming more outspoken and assertive, reflecting a shift in their societal roles.

---

Nobody told “Sir William Muir” or Jessup this story? 

Narrated Ibn `Abbas: I had been eager to ask `Umar bin Al-Khattab about the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet regarding whom Allah said ‘If you two (wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) namely Aisha and Hafsa) turn in repentance to Allah, your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet (ﷺ) likes). . .Then I said to him, “O chief of the Believers! Who were the two ladies from among the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding whom Allah said: ‘If you two (wives of the Prophet) turn in repentance to Allah your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet (ﷺ) likes)?” (66.4) He said, “I am astonished at your question, O Ibn `Abbas. They were `Aisha and Hafsa.” . . . We, the people of Quraish used to have the upper hand over our wives, but when we came to the Ansar, we found that their women had the upper hand over their men, so our women also started learning the ways of the Ansari women. I shouted at my wife and she retorted against me and I disliked that she should answer me back. She said to me, ‘Why are you so surprised at my answering you back? By Allah, the wives of the Prophet answer him back and some of them may leave (does not speak to) him throughout the day till the night.’ The (talk) scared me and I said to her, ‘Whoever has done so will be ruined!’ Then I proceeded after dressing myself, and entered upon Hafsa and said to her, ‘Does anyone of you keep the Prophet (ﷺ) angry till night?’ She said, ‘Yes.’ I said, ‘You are a ruined losing person! Don’t you fear that Allah may get angry for the anger of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and thus you will be ruined? . . .`Umar added,”At that time a talk was circulating among us that (the tribe of) Ghassan were preparing their horses to invade us. My Ansari companion, on the day of his turn, went (to the town) and returned to us at night and knocked at my door violently and asked if I was there. I became horrified and came out to him. He said, ‘Today a great thing has happened.’ I asked, ‘What is it? Have (the people of) Ghassan come?’ He said, ‘No, but (What has happened) is greater and more horrifying than that: Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ); has divorced his wives. `Umar added, “The Prophet (ﷺ) kept away from his wives and I said “Hafsa is a ruined loser.’ I had already thought that most probably this (divorce) would happen in the near future. So I dressed myself and offered the morning prayer with the Prophet (ﷺ) and then the Prophet; entered an upper room and stayed there in seclusion. I entered upon Hafsa and saw her weeping. I asked, ‘What makes you weep? Did I not warn you about that? Did the Prophet (ﷺ) divorce you all?’ She said, ‘I do not know. There he is retired alone in the upper room.’ I came out and sat near the pulpit and saw a group of people sitting around it and some of them were weeping. I sat with them for a while but could not endure the situation. . .Then I entered upon Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and saw him Lying on a bed made of stalks of date palm leaves and there was no bedding between it and him. The stalks left marks on his side and he was leaning on a leather pillow stuffed with date-palm fires. I greeted him and while still standing I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Have you divorced your wives?’ He looked at me and said, ‘No.’ I said, ‘Allah Akbar!’ And then, while still standing, I said chatting, ‘Will you heed what I say, O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)? We, the people of Quraish used to have power over our women, but when we arrived at Medina we found that the men (here) were overpowered by their women.’ The Prophet (ﷺ) smiled and then I said to him, ‘Will you heed what I say, O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)? I entered upon Hafsa and said to her, “Do not be tempted to imitate your companion (`Aisha), for she is more charming than you and more beloved to the Prophet.’ ” The Prophet (ﷺ) smiled for a second time. When I saw him smiling, I sat down. . .Then the Prophet (ﷺ) kept away from his wives for twenty-nine days because of the story which Hafsa had disclosed to `Aisha. The Prophet (ﷺ) had said, ‘I will not enter upon them (my wives) for one month,’ because of his anger towards them, when Allah had admonished him. So, when twenty nine days had passed, the Prophet (ﷺ) first entered upon `Aisha. `Aisha said to him, ‘O Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ)! You had sworn that you would not enter upon us for one month, but now only twenty-nine days have passed, for I have been counting them one by one.’ The Prophet (ﷺ) said, ‘The (present) month is of twenty nine days.’ `Aisha added, ‘Then Allah revealed the Verses of the option. (2) And out of all his-wives he asked me first, and I chose him.’ Then he gave option to his other wives and they said what `Aisha had said.” 

Sahih al-Bukhari 5191 – Wedlock, Marriage (Nikaah) – كتاب النكاح – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

---

Speaking Up And Sharing Opinions 

Narrated ‘Aishah: that a group of Jews entered upon the Prophet (ﷺ) and they said: “As-Samu ‘Alaik (death be upon you).” So the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “Wa ‘Alaik (And upon you).” So ‘Aishah said: “I said: ‘ [Rather] upon you be death and the curse.'” So the Prophet (ﷺ) said: “O ‘Aishah! Indeed Allah loves gentleness in every matter.” ‘Aishah said: “Did you not hear what they said?” He said: “And I replied: ‘And upon you.'”

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2701 – Chapters on Seeking Permission – كتاب الاستئذان والآداب عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم 

---

Women Participated In Battles

There was:

The Battle of the Camel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Camel

The Battle of the Camel was fought between the forces of Ali and an opposing army led by Aisha. Ali, a cousin and son-in-law of Prophet Muhammad, faced Aisha, who was one of Muhammad’s widows. Aisha entered the battlefield in an armored palanquin atop a red camel, which gave the battle its name. 

Women Warriors
During and after Muhammad’s time, there are accounts of Muslim women warriors. Here is one notable example: 

Umm ‘Umara at the battle of ‘Uhud: “…she defended the Prophet of Allah with it, using also the bow and arrow along with a sword. She was attacked by horsemen, but never wavered nor felt fear. She later boldly claimed, “if they had been on foot as we were, we would have trounced them, Allah willing”. . . That day, she received thirteen wounds, and was treated for her neck wound for a complete year. She also participated in the Battle of Yamama, where she received eleven wounds and lost her hand. . .On the day of ‘Uhud, I heard the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam say, “Whenever I looked to the right or left I saw her fighting in front of me.”

https://sunnahonline.com/library/history-of-islam/357-umm-umara-the-prophets-shield-at-uhud

Respect for His Daughters

`A’isha, the Umm al-Mu’minin said, “I did not see anyone who more resembled the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, in manner of speaking than Fatima. When she came to him, he stood up for her, made her welcome, kissed her and had her sit in his place. When the Prophet came to her, she stood up for him, took his hand, made him welcome, kissed him, and made him sit in her place. She came to him during his final illness and he greeted her and kissed her.”

Al-Adab Al-Mufrad 971 – Greetings – كتاب السَّلامِ – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

I saw ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab (when he was stabbed) saying, “O ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar! Go to the mother of the believers Aisha and say, ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab sends his greetings to you,’ and request her to allow me to be buried with my companions.” (So, Ibn ‘Umar conveyed the message to ‘Aisha.) She said, “I had the idea of having this place for myself but today I prefer him (‘Umar) to myself (and allow him to be buried there).” When ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar returned, ‘Umar asked him, “What (news) do you have?” He replied, “O chief of the believers! She has allowed you (to be buried there).” On that ‘Umar said, “Nothing was more important to me than to be buried in that (sacred) place. So, when I expire, carry me there and pay my greetings to her (‘Aisha) and say, ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab asks permission; and if she gives permission, then bury me (there) and if she does not, then take me to the grave-yard of the Muslims.

Hadith No: 475

Narrated/Authority of Amr bin Maimun Al-Audi

---

Who Is William Muir?

Who is “Sir” William Muir, image above, who said this quote: “women possessed more freedom, and exercised a healthier and more legitimate influence under the pagan institutions of Arabia than under the influence of Islam.”

Muir aligns with Jessup in exhibiting a similar pattern of Islamophobic views.  Shocking, as late as 2021 there are articles defending him and reviewing his work.  For example, Adam Roberts goes on to state that Muir spoke kindly of Muhammad, “…his portrait of Mohammed himself returns over and again to the prophet’s ‘pensive and meditative character’…” 

Robert’s article cites another article by Maxime Rodinson, who wrote: 

A 19th-century example of this type of ‘scholarship’ was Sir William Muir’s The Life of Muhammad from Original Sources, first published in 1861, soon after the British brutally suppressed the Great Uprising of 1857 in India, particularly targeting the Muslims among its leaders. The nominal leader of the revolt, the last Mughal emperor, was exiled to Burma, and some of his sons were executed. ‘The sword of Muhammad and the Koran are the most stubborn enemies of Civilisation, Liberty and Truth which the world has yet known,’ Muir wrote, a sentiment still shared by many Western politicians.

It’s intriguing that figures like Muir continue to reappear in contemporary articles and discussions, their views resurfacing as though part of an enduring “playbook.” Here, this author examines Jessup’s rhetoric not merely as a historical curiosity, but to demonstrate how such narratives persist and influence perceptions of Islam even today. By selecting a figure from the past, this author aims to dissect these harmful ideologies without inadvertently amplifying modern individuals who might share or propagate similar prejudices. Focusing on Jessup allows for an objective examination of these ideas while avoiding the risk of driving attention—and potentially followers—to current figures who capitalize on divisive or sensationalist views in social media spaces like YouTube or TikTok.

Next Jessup states.

The author has found no evidence supporting this claim, which also reflects a lack of thoughtful consideration regarding the concept of Heaven. 

There is an extensive Hadith at this link: https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:4336 and the key points from this discussion are highlighted below, including how the people of Heaven see one another: 

• Chairs of light and chairs of pearls and chairs of rubies and chairs of chrysolite and chairs of gold and chairs of silver will be placed for them. Those who are of a lower status than them, and none of them will be regarded as insignificant, will sit on sandhills of musk and camphor, and they will not feel that those who are sitting on chairs are seated better than them.
• Abu Hurairah said: “I said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, will we see our Lord?’ He said: ‘Yes. Do you dispute that you see the sun and the moon on the night when it is full?’ We said: ‘No.’ He said: ‘Likewise, you will not dispute that you see your Lord, the Glorified.”
• A man of elevated status will meet those who are of lower status than him, but none shall be regarded as insignificant, and he will be dazzled by the clothes that he sees on him. He will not finish the last of his conversation before better clothes appear on him. That is because no one should be sad there.

The question is straightforward: could God grant something in Heaven that would be inherently inappropriate or cause distress? Would Heaven, as divinely designed, encompass experiences of anxiety, pain, tension, hunger, or jealousy? Clearly, the answer is no—Jessup’s portrayal conflicts with the very nature of Heaven.

Consider, hypothetically, if one were to have 1,000 companions in Heaven, akin to Solomon’s relationships on Earth as described in the Bible. This arrangement would be inherently harmonious, as Heaven is, by its divine essence, free from any sense of impropriety or negative emotion.

Ascribing earthly flaws and human anxieties to a state of heavenly perfection reflects a fundamental misunderstanding. Yet, Jessup attempts exactly this, projecting flawed human perceptions onto a realm defined by divine peace and purity.

---

“Moslem women are not instructed in religion.” 

Next, Jessup on page 40 says:

This argument is highly disingenuous. Women, like men, are required by faith to observe the Five Pillars of Islam— foundational practices that apply equally to all believers. These pillars encompass prayer, fasting, charity, pilgrimage, and the declaration of faith. How could women fulfill these duties to God without adequate guidance and instruction? 

Regarding Hajj, it is unequivocally clear that this obligation applies to women as well as men. 

‘Aisha said she asked the Prophet’s permission to take part in jihad, and he replied, “The jihad of you women is the pilgrimage.” Bukhari and Muslim.

Mishkat al-Masabih 2514 – The Rites of Pilgrimage – كتاب المناسك – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

How could anyone undertake an expensive, lengthy, and complex journey like Hajj without clear guidance? Hajj involves a series of precise rituals, each with specific meanings and requirements, making it essential for all pilgrims to be thoroughly instructed on each step.

Prayer is to be done five times a day, how can one do prayer without guidance? In fact here is a 2021 book on Amazon specifically for women and their prayer.  To purchase or see for yourself, visit: https://a.co/d/iMoWsVe This author is not associated with the writer of the noted book; it was simply typed in an Amazon search for citations purposes here, and this is what came up. 
[It does look well illustrated.]

---

“That Most Repulsive Practice” 

On page 44 Jessup goes on to discuss:

We have already examined the treatment and kindness extended toward women in Islam, finding Jessup’s claims inconsistent with foundational Islamic principles. Jessup frequently recycles the same arguments in varied forms.

Now, he turns his attention to Osman Beg (pictured above), also known as Osman I or Osman Ghazi, the founder of the Ottoman Empire. According to Wikipedia, under “Consorts,” it states, “Osman had two known consorts, who were both his legal wives, and some unknown concubines.” Jessup further discusses Beg’s supposed disciplinary measures with his wives. The issue here is straightforward: Osman Beg was not a Prophet. His actions, therefore, do not serve as a religious or moral model for Islamic conduct, rendering Jessup’s comparison fundamentally flawed.

Whatever life decisions Osman Beg made were his own choices, for which he alone is accountable to God. His actions do not represent religious doctrine or serve as a model for Islamic teachings, as each individual is responsible for their own conduct before God. 

It would be akin to treating the following figures as if they were pillars and models of Christianity: 

	Edgar, King of the English, had children with three different consorts.Most historians agree that he married the third, though there is debate about whether he married the first or second. Historian Barbara Yorke suggests there may be grounds to recognize all three as marriages, alongside possible temporary liaisons.	Edgar (or Eadgar; c. 944 – 8 July 975) was King of the English from 959 until his death in 975. He ascended to the throne following the death of his brother and became the ruler of all England. Edgar was the younger son of King Edmund I and his first wife, Ælfgifu.
Henry I (c. 1068 – 1 December 1135), also known as Henry Beauclerc, ruled as King of England from 1100 until his death in 1135.	“Henry had a number of illegitimate children by various mistresses.” – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_I_of_England
	Edward IV (28 April 1442 – 9 April 1483) served as King of England from 4 March 1461 to 3 October 1470, and then again from 11 April 1471 until his death in 1483. He played a pivotal role in the Wars of the Roses, a series of English civil wars between the Yorkist and Lancastrian factions that spanned from 1455 to 1487. Edward IV had several documented mistresses, among them Jane Shore and Elizabeth Lucy.  →	He also fathered children by unknown mothers. The legitimacy of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was questioned, as they were secretly wed in May 1464 and did not disclose their union to Parliament until five months later. This secrecy led to doubts regarding the validity of their marriage, an issue that would later influence the political landscape and claims to the throne.
In Confessions, St. Augustine’s mother, Monica, arranges a marriage for him based on social status, not love (allegedly).  His bride-to-be is only 10, while Augustine is 30—an age gap typical in arranged marriages of the era.  As a result, Augustine sends his concubine back to Africa, though their son, Adeodatus, remains with him. .	Augustine of Hippo (13 November 354 – 28 August 430), also known as Saint Augustine, was a theologian and philosopher of Berber origin who served as the bishop of Hippo Regius in Numidia, Roman North Africa.  His extensive writings shaped Western philosophy and Christianity, making him a significant Church Father of the Latin Church during the Patristic Period. His contemporary, Jerome of Stridon, remarked that Augustine “established anew the ancient Faith.”	Saint Augustin by Philippe de Champaignec. 1645
Richard and Isabella married in 1396. Richard was 29 years old, while Isabella was just six.	Richard II (6 January 1367 – c. 14 February 1400), known as Richard of Bordeaux, was King of England from 1377 until his deposition in 1399.This author makes no judgment on Richard’s marriage to Isabella, who was six at the time. Such arrangements were accepted social norms, agreed upon by the families and parties involved. This context highlights how Jessup’s “playbook” of Islamophobia has evolved to misrepresent historical norms, projecting modern biases onto Muhammad’s (PBUH) time to support baseless claims.	In 1396, negotiations began for the marriage of six-year-old Isabella to the widower Richard II, King of England (1367–1400), who was 22 years her senior.  The marriage aimed to secure peace between their nations. Though her young age was noted, Richard remarked that time would resolve this issue, viewing it as an advantage, as he could “shape her in accordance with his ideal” and expressed willingness to wait given his own youth.

But to be clear about Jessup’s argument about wife-beating.  What was Christian ruling on the matter? To begin, we turn to Cynthia O. Ho who was a Professor Emeritus at University of North Carolina, Asheville. In a snippet document entitled “SPARE THE ROD, SPOIL THE BRIDE” she states:

Page 19

Further, just in case one were to think that perhaps Professor Ho was wrong, or, it was merely the opinion of one person, a basic search against Graitian’s canon law and “chastise his wife” will provide an army of matching historical statements. 

One other example is in a 1990 paper entitled “Battered Wives, Religion, & Law: An Interdisciplinary Approach” by Kathleen A. McDonald as indexed by the Yale Journal of Law & Feminism: 

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/6986?show=full

Based on the evidence presented in this book and through your own independent research, would Muhammad himself have acted in this way or accepted such behavior? What were his own actions with his wives? Indeed, if people had truly followed Muhammad’s example, women would have experienced far greater protection and safeguarding through history. 

---

Sodomy in Hamath?

Next, we turn to page 48 of Jessup’s book, where yet another outright falsehood from Jessup appears. 

Hamath is an ancient city located in modern Syria, within about a seven-hour drive to the nearest “Israeli” town, potentially shorter if routed through Lebanon. Historically significant, Hamath is cited in biblical texts and is notable enough to be listed on religious sites like jw.org, which references it with specific Bible verses to indicate its ancient location. Jessup’s focus on this city raises questions about his intentions as a Christian missionary. Why isolate a particular place like Hamath? Regarding conduct, Islam’s stance is clear: sodomy is impermissible, as specified in Islamic law. The foundation of Islamic practice is rooted in the laws established by the Qur’an and Hadith, which form the basis of religious principles and moral guidance. Therefore, to understand Islamic positions, one must look directly to these sources rather than rely on selective, external interpretations like Jessup’s.

For example:

Malik related to me that he asked Ibn Shihab about someone who committed sodomy. Ibn Shihab said, “He is to be stoned, whether or not he is muhsan.”

Hudud – كتاب الحدود – Sunnah.com – Sayings and Teachings of Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) 

Quran 11:79 states, regarding the People of Prophet Lot (PBUH): 

79. They said, “You know well that we have no right to your daughters, and you know well what we want.”

Tafsir commentary on Quran 11:79 is clear:

• (They said: “Surely, you know that we have no need of your daughters…”) This means, “Verily, you know that we do not want our women, nor do we desire them.”
• (and indeed you know well what we want!) This means, “We only want males and you know that. So what need is there for you to continue speaking to us about this”

Then God’s consequence towards those people is well known in Quran 11:82 stating: 

“When Our command came, We turned the cities upside down and rained down on them clustered stones of baked clay…” 

Jessup’s statement would be like claiming that everyone in the U.S. who displays “gay pride” slogans represents the entire U.S. population or even all Christians. Once again, it’s inaccurate to generalize an entire group based on the actions or symbols of a few. Given Jessup’s extensive exposure to Muslim communities, he undoubtedly understood this distinction. Yet here, we find Jessup deliberately misrepresenting Islam for his own personal agenda. 

---

Honesty 

Page 49 and 50 of Jessup’s book is about honesty. 

Interestingly, Jessup seems to acknowledge that he has heard numerous accounts—about Muslims being truthful. Yet, he continues to conflate the principles of a religion with the actions of individuals, judging an entire faith based on selective behavior. This repeated blending of religious doctrine with personal choices reveals Jessup’s persistent attempt to frame Islam through his own biased lens, rather than recognizing the distinction between faith and individual decisions.

Quran 25:71-75 is one place that discusses bearing witness. 

71. Whoever repents and acts righteously—has inclined towards God with repentance.

72. And those who do not bear false witness; and when they come across indecencies, they pass by with dignity.

73. And those who, when reminded of the revelations of their Lord, do not fall before them deaf and blind.

74. And those who say, “Our Lord, grant us delight in our spouses and our children, and make us a good example for the righteous.”

75. Those will be awarded the Chamber for their patience, and will be greeted therein with greetings and peace.

The Qur’an clearly instructs believers to avoid bearing false witness and warns against becoming “deaf and blind” to God’s revelations. This expectation is a personal responsibility; individuals are accountable for upholding truth and integrity. If someone chooses to ignore or reject this guidance, it becomes a personal burden they must answer for in God’s judgment. Each soul is individually responsible for their actions under divine law.

An interesting abstract from, “Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages John V. Tolan” reads:

This chapter discusses how some Latin writers portrayed Saladin stereotypically as a cruel scourge, sent by God to punish Christian sins. Over the course of the Middle Ages, however, European authors saw him more often as an embodiment of chivalric virtues, a model knight, and a just prince. Due to the numerous and colorful legends that surrounded him, tension formed between two tendencies: some writers who presented him as living proof that one need not be Christian or European to be a near-perfect knight and prince, while other writers forged bogus genealogies that made Saladin the direct descendant of French knights and affirmed that he secretly converted to Christianity.

Per Wikipedia: Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (c. 1137 – 4 March 1193), commonly known as Saladin, was the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty. Hailing from a Kurdish family, he was the first sultan of both Egypt and Syria. An important figure of the Third Crusade, he spearheaded the Muslim military effort against the Crusader states in the Levant.

Perhaps no one provided Jessup with a history lesson on the renowned chivalry of Saladin?

---

Turning to page 51, Jessup begins making direct religious comparisons—an area where belief resides in the heart and remains a personal choice for each individual. 

First Jessup remarks about Quran 5:116 which states:

And ˹on Judgment Day˺ Allah will say, “O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you ever ask the people to worship you and your mother as gods besides Allah?” He will answer, “Glory be to You! How could I ever say what I had no right to say? If I had said such a thing, you would have certainly known it. You know what is ˹hidden˺ within me, but I do not know what is within You. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Knower of all unseen.

Jessup does not dispute the existence of hymns and prayers dedicated to Mary (peace be upon her), which is just as well, as their presence is well-documented and undisputed. Such practices are even noted on Wikipedia. 

The Hail Mary is the last prayer in Appendix V of the Roman Missal, the last of seven prayers under the heading “Thanksgiving After Mass.” 

Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Muslims would see this as conflicting with Islamic beliefs on at least two major points. First, the title “Mother of God” is used, which directly contradicts Islam’s core tenet of tawhid, the absolute oneness and uniqueness of God. In Islam, God has no parent, child, or equal, making such titles incompatible with Islamic doctrine.

Chapter 112 “Al-Ikhlas”

1. Say, “He is God, the One. 2. God, the Absolute. 3. He begets not, nor was He begotten. 4. And there is none comparable to Him.”

Muhammad said about Al-Iklas:

Narrated Abu Hurairah: that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Gather and I shall recite to you one third of the Qur’an.” He said: “So whoever was to gather did so, then the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) came out and recited Qul Huwa Allahu Ahad. Then he went back in. Some of them said to each other: “The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: ‘I shall recite to you one third of the Qur’an’ I thought that this was news from the Heavens.” Allah’s Prophet (ﷺ) came out and said: “Indeed I said that I would recite to you one third of the Qur’an, and it is indeed equal to one third of the Qur’an.”

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2900 – Chapters on The Virtues of the Qur’an – كتاب ثواب القرآن عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم 

Pointing this Hadith out underscores the significance of this concept in Islam—so much so that simply reading Surah Al-Ikhlas, which encapsulates God’s oneness, is regarded as equivalent to reading one-third of the Qur’an. This highlights the foundational importance of tawhid (the oneness of God) within Islamic teachings.

The second part is where it says “pray for us sinners.” Where the Quran says:

255. God! There is no god except He, the Living, the Everlasting. Neither slumber overtakes Him, nor sleep. To Him belongs everything in the heavens and everything on earth. Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission? He knows what is before them, and what is behind them; and they cannot grasp any of His knowledge, except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and their preservation does not burden Him. He is the Most High, the Great.

To this author’s knowledge, only a few known individuals per Hadith hold intercession privileges which will come “later” (i.e. judgement day), further, others will “find out later” on Judgment Day when they are given permission to take people out of the fire—a topic beyond the scope of this book.

Even if someone were granted such a privilege, it remains inappropriate (wrong, completely a sin) to pray to them directly. Intercession, as permitted in Islam, is solely by God’s allowance, and any prayer directed to an intercessor would bypass the essential acknowledgment of God’s supreme authority and is not acceptable.

---

Jumping Ahead to Page 117, Jessup Writes

What was going in in 1857 India? The East India Company (“EIC”) was being rocked by the Sepoy Mutiny (aka The Uprising or First Indian War of Independence), which started with Indian soldiers (sepoys) in the EIC army rebelling against their officers. The causes of the rebellion were many and ranged from discrimination against Indian cultural practices to Indian princes not being allowed to pass on their territories to an adopted son, but the initial spark came from the sepoys.

Sepoys protested against (amongst other things) their much lower pay compared to British EIC soldiers. . .and it goes on to say, “The British Crown took full possession of EIC territories in India with the Government of India Act of 2 August 1858. The EIC armies were absorbed into the British Army, and the EIC navy was disbanded. The most aggressive and utterly ruthless private company ever yet created was effectively [nationalized].” 

---

Jessup was born in 1832, a terrible year for the Native Americans of the U.S.  By the time he was around five years old the U.S. was knowingly mass murdering Native Americans:

In the winter of 1831, under threat of invasion by the U.S. Army, the Choctaw became the first nation to be expelled from its land altogether. They made the journey to Indian Territory on foot–some “bound in chains and marched double file,” one historian writes, and without any food, supplies or other help from the government.

Thousands of people died along the way. It was, one Choctaw leader told an Alabama newspaper, a “trail of tears and death.” The Indian-removal process continued. In 1836, the federal government drove the Creeks from their land for the last time: 3,500 of the 15,000 Creeks who set out for Oklahoma did not survive the trip.

Jessup passed away in 1910 when, in 1907, Oklahoma became a state and Indian Territory was considered lost.

But Jessup was too busy praising Columbus and criticizing “Muhammadens.” 

---

Coming To A Close

In conclusion, a comprehensive review of Jessup’s work proves both unnecessary and unworthy. His book, spanning about 150 pages, alongside his other writings, is filled with distortions and bias that unravel even when scrutinizing small segments. Examining less than 50 pages requires double or triple the writing space—incorporating narratives, research, logical analysis, commentary, and at times, even basic math—to dismantle his claims. His consistent dishonesty in these brief excerpts alone casts serious doubt on the credibility of his entire body of work.

This book aims to encourage readers to exercise reason, engage critically, and use modern tools to seek genuine understanding. In a time when access to information is unparalleled, the pursuit of truth is not only feasible but essential. 

The phrase “The Truth Is Out There,” popularized by the 1990s show The X-Files, captures this idea well: truth indeed exists, but it is absent from Jessup’s handbook of prejudice and antiquated narratives. Instead, it resides in thoughtful analysis, open-minded exploration, and a commitment to surpassing the outdated biases that, regrettably, still echo in the present.

---

Above is a 16th century Latin oil painting of Hürrem Sultan titled Rosa Solymanni Vxor (Rosa, Süleyman’s Wife). Hürrem Sultan (1504 – 1558), also known as Roxelana was the chief consort and legal wife of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. 

She became one of the most powerful and influential women in Ottoman history, and a prominent figure during the period known as the Sultanate of Women. The Sultanate of Women was a period when some consorts, mothers, sisters and grandmother of the sultans of the Ottoman Empire exerted extraordinary political influence. This phenomenon took place from roughly 1534 to 1683.

– Keep learning! 

Sincerely,

Kamel Ibn Sabala 

---