Salwa Al-Mutairi: More on Sexual Slavery!
Readers will recall that I blogged on this 'clown' Salwa al-Mutairi several days ago, as well as -- more recently -- her comrade-in-arms, Abu-Ishaq al-Huwaini, but we now have a video of Salwa al-Mutairi's high hopes of introducing sex slaves to Kuwait. Here are excerpts, provided by MEMRI (Special Dispatch No. 3924, June 19, 2011):
"I asked [a Saudi mufti]: What is the law with regard to slave girls? The mufti told me that the law requires there to be a Muslim country raiding a Christian country -- sorry, a non-Muslim country -- and taking POWs. I asked him whether it was forbidden [to turn them into slaves], and he said that Islam does not prohibit keeping slave girls -- on the contrary."Let's see . . . Muslims raiding a non-Muslim country and taking POWs (prisoners of war), identified by Ms. Al-Mutairi as slave girls! Since when are civilians considered POWs? Oh, right -- we're dealing with categories formulated according to Salafi insistence on shariah, which has absolutely nothing to do with modern, secular understanding based on human rights and the laws of just warfare. Rather, shariah stipulates that:
"The law pertaining to slave girls is not the same as for free women. Free women must cover their bodies, except for their hands and faces. The slave girl must cover up from the belly button down."Well, that explains an image that I'd always assumed was a piece of Orientalist art, an Arab Bedouin posed with an Asiatic-looking girl naked from the waist up. I recall ridiculing the sketch as obviously an ignorant projection or Western assumptions about Arabs and sexuality since anybody with a modicum of knowledge on the Arabic world would know that the women were prudishly covered up. I was wrong. I hadn't reckoned on non-Muslim slave girls! As al-Mutairi kindly explains:
"There is a big difference between slave girls and free women. With a free woman, the man must make a marriage contract, but with a slave girl -- all he has to do is buy her. It's as if he married her. So there is a difference between slave girls and free women."But the ever-rigorous Ms. al-Mutairi wanted to be absolutely certain:
"Here in Kuwait too, I asked religious scholars and experts about this, and they said that for the average, good religious man, the only way to avoid forbidden relations with women is to purchase slave girls."Such a "good religious man" seems to lack sufficient self-control if this is his only way to avoid 'forbidden' relations. What can such a fellow do if he lacks sufficient money to purchase a slave girl? Well, there's always this . . . or is that solely for women? Nevertheless, Ms. al-Mutairi hopes for the best:
"I very much hope that such a law is legislated. Just like they allow servants, they should allow slave girls and legislate a proper law in this regard. We don't want our children to fall into the abyss of fornication and similar filth, God forbid. Allah willing, things will work out."Just look at the face of this woman at about 2 minutes and 20 seconds into the video, when she states this hope and calls on Allah to grant it. Such piety of expression! I say that without irony. The woman expresses herself with great reverence in appealing to Allah's will that sex slaves might be brought to Kuwait to prevent 'fornication'. What a twisted, despicable view of sexuality, marriage, human relations, and reverent religious piety. As if sexual slavery itself were not the depth of sexual depravity, deserving the label "fornication" if anything does. Yet, Ms. al-Mutairi imagines that she's doing those infidel women a favor:
"There are countries like Chechnya, which are at war with another country. In such a case, there must be POWs, so why not go and buy those prisoners? Is it better for them to be slaughtered over there? Go and buy them, and sell them to traders here in Kuwait."Ms. al-Mutairi forgets that if infidel women are being slaughtered in Chechnya, it's the jihadis who are slaughtering them.
The more I read what Islamists have to say, the more I wonder if Edward Said got things entirely wrong in his book Orientalism -- and if those whom he called 'Orientalists' got it right.