Lincoln was what?

The editorial writer Choi Sang-yeon ("Try Roh's way," JoongAang Daily, June 1-2, 2019) attempts to distinguish two Lincolns:

Lincoln was a skilled politician who attained emancipation rather than being a "great liberator."

The trouble with this statement is that it does not clearly state any opposition between emancipation and liberation. In fact, they are surely synonyms.

Islam and Sex Slavery in the Islamic State: A Memri Report

Memri Logo
Google Images

Writing for Memri, Y. Yehoshua, R. Green, and A. Agron report on "Sex Slavery in the Islamic State – Practices, Social Media Discourse, and Justifications" (Memri, Inquiry and Analysis Series, Report No. 1181, August 17, 2015). These three well-informed analysts illustrate how seriously the Islamic State's scholars take this issue of sex slavery by the rigor those scholars observed in determining whether the Yazidi women could be legitimately used as sex slaves according to Islamic law:

An article titled "The Revival of Slavery Before the Hour [of Judgment Day]," in . . . [the fourth] issue of [the Islamic State's magazine] Dabiq, explains that ISIS has extensively explored the religious justification regarding the policy towards Yazidis.
[According to the article, n]umerous scholars and sources were consulted . . . [before applying shariah, i.e., Islamic law]:
"Prior to the taking of [the] Sinjar [region, where Yazidis live], Shariah students in the Islamic State were tasked to research the Yazidis to determine if they should be treated as an originally mushrik [polytheists] group or one that originated as Muslims and then apostatized, due to many of the related Islamic rulings that would apply to the group, its individuals, and their families. Because of the Arabic terminologies used by this group to describe themselves or their beliefs, some contemporary Muslim scholars have classified them as possibly an apostate sect, not an originally mushrik religion, but upon further research it was determined that this group is one that [has] existed since the pre-Islamic Jahilyyah [ignorance], but became 'islamisized' by the surrounding Muslim population, language, and culture, although they never accepted Islam nor claimed to have adopted it. The apparent origin of the religion is found in the Magianism of Ancient Persia, but reinterpreted with elements of Sabianism, Judaism, and Christianity, and ultimately expressed in the heretical vocabulary of extreme Sufism. Accordingly, the Islamic state dealt with this group as the majority of fuqaha [scholars] have indicated how mushrikin should be dealt with. Unlike the Jews and Christians, there was no room for jizyah payment. Also, their women could be enslaved[,] unlike female apostates[,] who the majority of the fuqaha say cannot be enslaved and can only be given an ultimatum to repent, or face the sword."

In short, the Islamic State made certain that its enslavement of Yazidi women for sexual purposes was legitimate under Islamic law. Interestingly, the Muslim critics of the Islamic State don't deny the legality of forcing infidel women into sexual slavery, but merely argue that the conditions are not right:

Prominent Al-Qaeda ideologue and leader Attyat Allah Al-Libi (d. 2011) acknowledged that enslavement is permissible, but disapproved of the practice, based upon the fact that, "it would be impossible to regulate in the current situation [of the mujahideen] who are fighting a guerilla hit-and-run war [and it] would lead to actual abuses if it is allowed in the aforementioned situation."

Abu Basir - a member of Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, Jabhat Al-Nusra (JN) - agrees:

"Dawla [the Islamic State] will say that taking slaves is a sunnah [a tradition]. No doubt it is a sunnah, but it's not as simple as that . . . . Dawlah takes slaves. But once they withdraw from areas, the kuffar (may Allah destroy them ameen) come back and take our precious . . . women as sex slaves in revenge. So therefore I am concerned, as it directly impacts our Muslim women. You see how Dawlah pursued sexual intercourse (desires) and in return because of them, our women are now being humiliated (tortured and raped)."

Abu Basir accuses the 'infidels' (kuffar) of enslaving Sunni women in areas retaken from the Islamic State. While I don't think that such rape is happening systematically, this objection is the only argument made by Abu Basir against the sexual enslavement of infidel women, for he otherwise accepts that it is an authentic Muslim tradition (sunnah) practiced by the Muslim prophet Muhammad (the meaning of sunnah) and thus in principle legal according to Islamic law.

To understand the depth of depravity plumbed by the Islamic State's practice of sexual slavery, read the entire lengthy article.

Islamic State: 'Legitimating' sex slavery as part of "their own [lying] narrative of what Islam should be "?

Yazidi Slaves in Islamic State
Daily Mail

According to Memri (May 22, 2015) - which usually translates Islamist articles into English and summarizes them for anyone interested - issue 9 Of Islamic State's English-language magazine Dabiq offers an article justifying taking women as slaves: "Slave-Girls or Prostitutes," by Umm Sumayyah Al-Muhajirah.

Umm Sumayyah says that the Islamic State (IS) is "reviving a prophetic Sunnah," or tradition about Muhammad, in taking sex slaves, and she promises that "the slave markets will be established against the will of the politically 'correct'."

The Daily Mail also reports on Umm Sumayyah's defense of sex slaves but cites a critic, Richard Brennan, a political scientist at the counter-terrorism think-tank RAND, who says:

They [IS] have done an extremely good job of tainting what it is to be a Muslim. They've taken very specific verses of the Koran and used [these] . . . to create their own narrative of what Islam should be . . . . [but these verses used in this way] are lies . . . because there is no way to square these things - forcing people to be slaves and raping them - with the Koran. It's not Islamic, so they have to lie about that to make [those verses] . . . fit the narrative.

Is Brennan right? He acknowledges that the IS has cited verses from the Qur'an. He may be thinking of such verses as 23:6, which limits Muslim men from sex, "except from their spouses or their slave women, for then they are not blameworthy." Or 70:29-30, which warns believers to "guard their private parts except from their spouses and their slave women, for then they are not blameworthy."

We also read in the Hadith of Muslims having sex with captured women:

Sahih Muslim 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) mentioning al-'azl [coitus interruptus]? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger (May peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it [i.e., coitus interruptus], for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Similar reports are found in Sahih al-Bukhari 4138 and Sahih Muslim 3384. I could track down more sources if I tried, but I don't have time to spare.

At a minimum, though, one has to admit that Muslims of Muhammad's time took women captured in battle and used them for sex with Muhammad's tacit consent, if we can believe the hadith. At any rate, this report doesn't need much twisting to "fit the narrative."

Whether later rulings of sharia placed restrictions on the practice of taking sex slaves, I don't know.

More on Sex Slaves in the Islamic State

Sabaya, or Sex Slaves

Mark Schliebs, writing in The Australian (January 2, 2015), cites an Australian jihadist fighting for the Islamic State, Abu Khalid, on the view that "Female slavery [is] the biggest honour for non-Muslim women":

Abu Khalid - who in June appeared in an Islamic State propaganda video but did not speak in it - made the comments after a non-Muslim girl asked him about his dancing abilities. "You should come to the Islamic state!" he said to the girl. "You can be a sabaya (slave), much more honour then (sic) being used and abused."

He then told another man that non-Muslim women "know their men's ain't treating them well". "Being a sabaya is the biggest honour for them And Allah knows best!"

The comments were made after Islamic State forced women and children of the Yazidi ­religious sect to be slaves who are often subjected to rape.

At least four Australian fighters have been identified as having Yazidi slaves, and horrific stories of their treatment - ­including sexual abuse - have emerged in recent weeks.

Last month, former Sydney boxer Mohamed Elomar uploaded a photo of a woman he said was one of seven Yazidi slaves he owned, telling Twitter followers he would sell her for $2500 and that "she won't dis­sapoint (sic) you".

There is no honor in being subjected to slavery, and that goes double or more for sex slavery. Islamists never honor infidels; they humiliate infidels. There mere fact that this needs to be said, that a refutation has to be made, shows how retrograde Islamist thinking really is.

At least, we can see the mental poverty of the dangerous fools focused upon in this article. We have to worry all the more, however, about the even more dangerous, intelligent Islamists out there, and not fall into a false sense of security based upon stupid Islamists like Abu Khalid and Mohamed Elomar.

Pleasant Jihadi Dreams . . .

Glorious Jihad
Memri

Memri (November 4, 2014, Clip No. 4585) recorded the words of "Islamic scholar [Hussein Muhammad Hussein] Pledg[ing] Allegiance to ISIS Emir Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Live on Al-Jazeera TV," and the man said a number of politically incorrect things about Islam that we aren't supposed to believe, let alone mention, but that he can say because he's an Islamist:

[A]ll the Arab peoples yearn for the rule of Islamic law . . . . Allah be praised, he gave me the honor to pledge allegiance to the Emir of the Believers, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, whether people like it or not . . . . Jihad is a duty carried out by the Caliphate . . . . Capturing infidel women is permitted by Islamic law . . . . Islam functions as both a religion and a state . . . . [The plan of ISIS is to] establish the Islamic State . . . . [in] all the Muslim countries . . . . The world is divided into two camps - the camp of heresy and the camp of faith. The infidels are the enemies of the Muslims . . . . If the whole world is infidel, we will be hostile toward it . . . . The world consists of Muslims and infidels. We are here, and they are there. We rule the Muslim lands, but if you attack us, you will see nothing but war - you and your lackeys . . . . The peoples that are not yet governed by the Caliphate yearn for it . . . . All of them, without exception. They yearn for the rule of Islamic law. Yes, [they yearn for] the beheading of the infidels, lowlifes, and criminals.

Very pleasant dreams . . . for Hussein Muhammad Hussein and other Islamists. Very unpleasant nightmares for the rest of us, but good to know what Islamists want. They certainly aren't trying to hide their aims, though they still practice deception. Hussein says that if non-Muslims attack the Islamic State, there will be war against the non-Muslims, but he doesn't add that there will be war against the non-Muslims anyway.

It's a game of heads I win, tails you lose . . .

Foreign IS Fighters Banter Cruelly About Sex Slaves

Muthana Tweet on Yazidis
Google Images

In Special Dispatch No. 5833 (September 3, 2014), Memri reports that "French, British IS Fighters Discuss Use Of Yazidi Women As Sex Slaves." Memri first offers some context:

During its takeover of large parts of northern Iraq in the summer of 2014, the Islamic State (IS) captured many Yazidi villages, and reportedly took many Yazidi women to be sold and used as sex slaves. Chatting on social media, foreign IS fighters have bantered about the issue and discussed various points of the Islamic law regarding slavery. Their discourse reveals that, according to their understanding of these laws, Muslims may own and sell non-Muslims as slaves, especially women, whom the master may use and even rape as he pleases.

A Facebook discussion on the matter was launched on September 3, 2014 by a French IS fighter named "Abou Jihad," who is in Syria and is one of the main propagators of IS materials in French.

Now that we understand the circumstances, let's read what these heroic, manly, holy warriors have to say about sex slavery - and as not to quote too much, I'll post only the French jihadists' remarks (translated):

French IS Fighters And Supporters On Facebook, September 3, 2014

Abou Jihad: "350 dollars for the Yazidi girl in Mosul if you want LOL" [...]

Abu Selefie: "I heard there were slaves in Raqqa is it true?"

Abde-Rahman: "I saw it was around 180 dollars per slave LOL"

Abou Muhammad: "You have revived a tradition"

Abou Jihad: "Yes I heard brothers say there are some in Raqqa as well [...] 180 dollars must be [the price] for the ugly ones"

Abde-Rahman: "LOL I am laughing so hard"

Shinobi: "LOL And how much is it in spare parts? Check and see if you can get kidneys or livers there is demand."

Dawla: "What are the slaves for? Is it like your wife but without a marriage contract?"

Amine: "If they become Muslim are they freed?"

Abou Jihad: "It's not really like your wife, they can be used for intercourse [the writer uses a vulgar French expression for sex], you make her work in the house, and you send her to work at your parents', stuff like that."

Cara: "If she becomes Muslim it seems to me that you don't have to free her. It's obligatory if you have a child with her..." [...]

Dawla: "You can have children with her?"

Cara: "Yes but . . . she would then be free." [...]

Abou Jihad: "It's the child that is free, not the woman (if she is not Muslim)"

Mehdi: "Personally does not sound appetizing [...] I prefer my future wife rather than a dirty slave."

Dawla:" So you can be intimate with her without a marriage contract? And you can have more than one?"

Abou Jihad: "Yes [...] they are idolaters, so it's normal that they are slaves, in Mosul they are closed in a room and cry, and one of them committed suicide LOL and Yes I have 350 dollars LOL" [...]

Abou Selma: "And what if the slave refuses the intercourse? And what if your wife refuses to let you have intercourse with the slave?

Mehdi: "Wow those are good questions..."

Dawla: "Women are so jealous, they will never agree" [...]

Abou Jihad:" A woman that stays at your house and that doesn't want you, after a while she will crack, she will have to have sex with you. And also the slaves are scared of the mujahidin so they feel that they have to LOL"

Abou Selma: "Second question: what if your wife refuses?"

Abou Jihad: "She can't refuse [...] It's a tradition" [...]

Mouhamad: "I have 3500 dollars to spare, I am going to buy 10, who wants one?"

The word "tradition" - which I have bold-fonted and underlined - means that the use of sex slaves is Sunnah (or "well-trodden path"), specifically, that Muhammad and his fellow Muslims used sex slaves and that having slaves for sex is thus acceptable.

As for these jihadis, just consider their level of 'humor,' the quip by Shinobi, for example: "[H]ow much is it [i.e., the slave girl,] in spare parts? Check and see if you can get kidneys or livers there is demand." Or Abou Jihad's use of LOL to laugh at a Yazidi girl who committed suicide rather than be used as a sex slave. Or his LOL to laugh at the enslaved woman so frightened that she accepts being raped.

And I always thought real men were supposed to protect women . . .

Yazidi women held in Islamic State prison . . . as sex slaves

Flag of The Islamic State
Wikipedia

According to Chris Pleasance, "Hundreds of Yazidi women [are being] held in Islamic State prison . . . as sex slaves or sold off as jihadi brides" (Daily Mail Online, 28 August 2014; updated 29 August 2014):

Hundreds of Yazidi women being held prisoner [in Badush Prison] by Islamic State fighters in Iraq are being sold off as brides for as little as $25 or repeatedly raped if they refuse, it has been claimed. Survivors have told how beauticians were brought in to put makeup on the women before they were attacked, and said some victims were forced to call their families after to explain what had happened. According to those who escaped Badush Prison, in Mosul, northern Iraq, the number of women held there could be in the thousands and include Christians and Turkomens - a largely Muslim group closely related to the Turks . . . . According to Pakhshan Zangana, an official in The Kurdish Regional Government, women arriving at the jail are given two choices: convert to Islam and be sold off for between $25 and $150, or refuse and be subjected to rape and slow death. She [said] . . . that one girl called her mother from inside the jail and described being raped by dozens of men in the space of just a few hours . . . . 'It's complete psychological warfare. These families are already destroyed by the loss of their loved ones, and now ISIS has them calling to tell them of the atrocities they have suffered.'

I've previously noted the fact that Islamists defend their 'right' to use women taken prisoner as sex slaves. For instance, I blogged on Salwa al-Mutairi's desire to introduce sex slaves to Kuwait (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 . . . . 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."

Apparently, Ms. al-Mutairi thought that this would be an excellent way to prevent fornication among Muslims. One Muslim whom I blogged on who would agree with her is the Egyptian Salafi Shaykh Abu-Ishaq Al-Huwaini, who tells us:

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur'an by the name milk al-yamin, "that which your right hands possess" [Qur'an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur'an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn't need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point -- there is no disagreement from any of them.

The Islamists seem to agree that sex slaves are legitimate according to Shariah, so the Islamic State (IS) of course practices sexual slavery. Indeed, the IS publicizes it, just as the IS publicizes all its atrocities. My only way to understand their openness about their atrocities is that they intend to strike terror into the hearts of infidels everywhere.

U.K. Islamist Women Agree: "Slavery is Freedom"

U.K. Islamist Woman (Left Photo)

Memri

In a recent article, "U.K. Islamist Women: Kidnapped Nigerian Girls' Conversion to Islam Is No Surprise – Islam Liberates Women" (Memri, Special Dispatch No. 5750, May 20, 2014), we learn the views of two Islamist women who feel 'liberated' by 'Islam' and explain that the kidnapped Nigerian girls who were forced to convert to Islam also assuredly feel liberated:

[An anonymous] U.K. Islamist woman, face covered by niqab . . . [is questioned about the] kidnapping of 276 schoolgirls in Nigeria by Boko Haram[, which] has once again focused the world's attention on Islam and the treatment of women. Images of the girls covered in khimar [head scarf] and jilbab [robe], declaring the Testification of Faith, have raised the question of whether these girls have been forced to convert to Islam . . . .

"The U.S., Israel, Britain, France, and others have offered their support and assistance in locating the girls[," says the first Islamist woman, speaking through her niqab. "]But why are they so bothered about 276 Nigerian girls? . . . The truth is that the allies fear the growing support in African countries for the establishment of an Islamic state. The truth is that the U.S. and the U.K. don't care about the welfare of women even in their own countries."

[A s]econd U.K. Islamist woman, face [also] covered by niqab . . . [adds,] "In light of this, it is no surprise that tens of thousands of women around the world embrace Islam every year -- because Islam is the only religion that liberates women from the shackles of slavery, and subservience to human beings . . . . [No] one should be surprised at the conversion to Islam of the Nigerian schoolgirls."

Right. No surprise there, because "slavery is freedom," as George Orwell noted in describing totalitarian ideologies. And obviously, as these two Islamist women also demonstrate very well, "ignorance is strength," for their ignorance is surely invincible. And, of course, "Islam" means "peace," but "war is deceit," so "war is peace," and we simply have to accept these equivocations in a humiliating state of submission, or else . . .

Jihadis on the Kidnapping of Nigerian Girls

Girls Kidnapped by Boko Haram
Image from Memri

Memri reports that jihadis are debating Boko Haram's action in kidnapping over 300 girls and threatening to sell them as slaves:

Reacting to the uproar over the kidnapping nearly a month ago of hundreds of high school girls by Boko Haram . . . in Nigeria, some online jihadis criticized the kidnapping, while others justified it as the legitimate use of the tactic . . . . Abdallah Muhammad Mahmoud, a frequent writer on the jihadi forums, wrote a post on the Al-Fida' forum urging Boko Haram to free the kidnapped girls, saying that the tactic may harm Muslims in general. In the post, titled "An Appeal . . . : Release the Girls," Mahmoud wrote: . . . . "From the supporters of jihad and mujahideen to the brothers . . . in Nigeria, peace be upon you. The peoples of the [Islamic] nation . . . . hear from the channels news that [which] we never hoped to hear -- namely, the kidnapping of Muslim and non-Muslim girls and your announcement that you intend to sell them as slaves . . . . [I]f you proceed with [this,] it . . . will become a dangerous precedent and will bring about grave calamities such as the nation of Islam has never heard of for centuries. Your announcement of 'imprisoning' hundreds of girls will not benefit Islam and the Muslims in any manner. On the contrary, it will reflect tragically . . . on their image . . . . Do not open the gates of evil, . . . protect your religion's reputation . . . . [and k]now that not everything that is permitted in Islam is proper to do at all times and in any manner without considering its advantages and disadvantages . . . . Preventing harm takes precedence over making gains, according to famous jurisprudential principle. We do not know what advantage for Islam and the Muslims will be gained if you do this.

Note that Abdallah Muhammad Mahmoud couches his words only in terms of not harming Islam's reputation, that he apparently accepts Boko Haram's Islamic right to kidnap and enslave, objecting only "that not everything that is permitted in Islam is proper to do at all times." Other jihadis were not so liberal:

[O]ne prominent writer on the forum, who goes by the handle rooooh, objected to this criticism. He wrote: "Honorable brothers, we are in an Islamic forum, and you are discussing an issue of Islamic law which has rules written in the Koran and Sunnah . . . . [and we know that i]mprisonment is permissible according to the consensus among Muslim scholars. Likewise, there are texts in the Quran and the Sunnah that permit it. It is not allowed to forbid something that Allah permitted . . . . [I]t remains in our law, and the international laws do not nullify it" . . . . Another member wrote in support of Boko Haram's actions: "On the contrary, [we should] imprison [as much as we can]. Ripping out the hearts of the infidels who have no morals in war is a legitimate administration of justice. As a Muslim, I think that the brothers, the mujahideen in Nigeria, did a good thing. I pray to the great Allah to give them victory and power throughout the land."

And thus stand things among jihadis, as both the liberal and radical wings agree on the permissibility of kidnapping and enslavement in Islamic holy wars.

Amanda Lindhout learns about "those whom your right hand possesses"

Amanda Lindhout
Steve Carty
NYT

I recently read a review, "Journey Into Darkness" (NYT, September 6, 2013), by Eliza Griswold, of a book, A House in the Sky, by Amanda Lindhout and Sara Corbett, that I'll likely never read. The review dips into the book to tell of Lindhout's captivity in Somalia, an imprisonment for 460 days! At one point, fearful of being raped by her captors, she expresses interest in converting to Islam, but in reading the Qur'an, she encounters some troubling verses, as noted by Griswold:

Conversion was, at first, a gambit to save their lives. Reading and memorizing the Koran, however, became a form of solace. They studied not as believers, but as prosecutorial lawyers looking for chapters and verses with which to make a case for their safety. As Lindhout puts it: "I read the book in hopes of using their religion to talk my way out." She searched desperately to find words that forbade her captors from violating her. Instead, she discovered verses that suggested the opposite. The first of her rapists arrived.

Apparently, she didn't convert (though the review doesn't clarify), or she might have avoided rape. Anyway, here's what Lindhout herself says in her book about what she read in the Qur'an:

The Arabic phrase for captives or slaves was "those whom your right hand possesses." The book [i.e., the Qur'an] was explicit about what possession meant: You were basically owned by your captors. There were verses instructing that captives be treated with kindness and granted freedom if they were well behaved. There were others that made clear that a female captive was fair game sexually. In a couple of verses where the Koran forbade men to have sex outside of marriage, there was a worrisome little clause tacked on at the end: "except with those whom your right hand possesses." (A House in the Sky, page 170)

I expected as much, for I'm familiar with the verses. Captive women who are non-Muslims can be used as sex slaves, according to Sharia, a point I've noted before on this blog. Female journalists who are non-Muslims must therefore be especially wary of reporting in unstable Muslim countries where Islamists are fighting for Sharia enforcement . . .

Caution: 'Islamophobic' Post . . .

Slave Market in Zadib, Yemen (13th Century)

Artist: al-Wâsitî

In al-Harîrî, Maqâmât

Manuscrit arabe 5847, fol. 105, Maqâma 34:

al-Hârith au marché aux esclaves, Bibliothèque nationale de France

(Image from Wikipedia)

Two years ago, in a comment to one of my posts on Islamism, I happened to post a remark on the decline of Judaism and Christianity under Islam:

Islam has traditionally 'tolerated' Christians and Jews, but the pressure of being restricted in the practice of Christianity and Judaism and of being restricted in their rights as non-Muslims -- along with the 'infidel tax', various humiliations, and the occasional massacre -- led to the demise of Christian and Jewish communities over time.

A certain 'Maria of Spain' recently took umbrage:

Mr Hodges says <>, which is, simply, not true. There are millions of Christians in the Middle East, some of the oldest Christian communities. Occasional persecutions and massacres have occurred, of course, but there have been no "demise" (except for the Jews, who after the creation of the state of Israel went to live there). As for the restrictions in religious practice, non-Muslims were forbidden to practice proselytism, and had to pay a special tax (at least here, in Spain, during the Middle Ages). These has been thus for centuries, until our own times when intolerance and violence are getting extreme, in part thanks to "scholars" like Mr. Hodges, who spread misinformation and hatred under the appearance of "scholar knowledge."

I had no idea that I was so influential, but I'm not sure what my terrible words specifically were since 'Maria' left those angular brackets blank, perhaps having neglected to preview before publishing (and also not even checking what she'd published). I responded anyway:

Maria states:

"Mr Hodges says <>, which is, simply, not true."

Something was left out, so I don't know what you're objecting to.

Anyway, there has been a radical decline in the numbers of Christians in Muslim lands, and the consequent likelihood of its demise. I'm surprised that you would insist on the contrary.

The restrictions were not limited to what you state. Christians were also forbidden to rebuild churches that had fallen into disrepair.

And we haven't even mentioned the original Muslim conquest.

In your view, however, everything was fine "until our own times when intolerance and violence are getting extreme, in part thanks to 'scholars' like Mr. Hodges, who spread misinformation and hatred under the appearance of 'scholar[ly] knowledge.'"

I have no idea what misinformation and hatred you are referring to in my post that would have driven Islamists to their radicalism. Please be specific when you make such claims, and give examples.

Since 'Maria' was so unforthcoming in examples of my habit of spreading "misinformation and hatred," I suppose that I'll just have to supply my own. I have, of course, recently posted several blog entries criticizing Islamists for defending the enslavement of prisoners of war -- for example, Salwa al-Mutairi and Abu-Ishaq al-Huwaini -- particularly of non-Muslim women taken prisoner and forced to serve as sex slaves. My attempt to call attention to such Islamist views is, of course, a dreadful thing to do since I'm thereby spreading "misinformation and hatred." Why just look at the sort of anonymous Islamist comment such a blog post elicits:

Though I am not an Islamic scholar and have no authority to say anthing, but there is no doubt in the statement of Salwa that POW women can shared bed (consumation) without any Nikah [i.e., without a marriage contract]. This is not against Islam. The Quranic Ayats are clear and I myself read it from a very great Islamic scholar who taught me the Holy Quran with Tafseer. I woyuld like any Scholar (Islamic) to explain whether these ayat were superseded with others in the life of Our Holy prophet or the ayats are still valid. If valid, then there is no right of non-Muslims to give negative comments or deal the holy book like their common school, college or university books. The Divine law is superior always and we believe in it. May be the social sciences scholars will think in their own way. They should realized the importance of religion.

See how terrible my posts on Islamism are? They draw anonymous Islamists out of the woodwork to make comments like this one insisting that sex slaves are "not against Islam." Naturally, in my desire to spread more "misinformation and hatred," I responded with a comment:

Anonymous wrote:

"[T]here is no right of non-Muslims to give negative comments" (about Islam).

Anonymous speaks courteously enough, but he is saying that Muslims have the right to rape women that they have taken as prisoners of war and that non-Muslims have no right to criticize this.

Might I ask what the punishment is for the non-Muslim who nevertheless does criticize?

But perhaps I should turn at this point to even greater Islamophobes than I, Raymond Ibrahim and Zakaria Botros:

[Raymond Ibrahim tells us that the Coptic priest Father Zakaria Botros] discussed Sheikh Huwaini's recent assertions that Islam advocates plundering, enslaving, buying, and selling infidels. Many have written about this anecdote either to show that Islam is intrinsically violent, or that "radical Islamism" is spreading, or that Islamic teachings are incompatible with the West.

But Fr. Zakaria takes it a step further -- takes it right to the heart of the matter. After asserting that "God created mankind in his image," he sincerely addressed his Muslim viewers: "Would God truly want you to kill your neighbor, to enslave him? Would the Almighty truly want believers to buy and sell other human beings like animals? Think people! Use your minds, listen to your hearts -- for your souls are at stake!"

My interlocutors 'Maria' and the anonymous Islamist who rejects the "right of non-Muslims to give negative comments" about Islam would doubtless be appalled at such an Islamophobic attempt by Father Zakaria to spur Muslims to think for themselves and not let the Islamists tell them what they have to believe. I am sorry to say that I share such Islamophobic brazenness. I, too, am critcal of Islamists and suggest that Muslims think for themselves and not allow Islamists to bully them into submission.

Incidentally, on the Muslim view that human beings were made in God's image, see this post, which notes the doctrine and some of its Islamic complications.

Salwa Al-Mutairi: More on Sexual Slavery!

Salwa al-Mutairi

aka Salwa al-Mteiri

(Image from MEMRI)

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.

Sex Slaves -- Useful Not Just Against Adultery!

Abu-Ishaq al-Huwaini

(Image from God Knows Where!)

Readers will recall that Ms. Salwa al-Mutairi advocated sex slaves for randy rich men to keep them from committing adultery -- so long as the slaves weren't Muslim and the men were. As one might expect, the Egyptian Salafi Shaykh Abu-Ishaq Al-Huwaini (or Huwayni), whom I referred to previously as a supporter of slavery, turns out to include sexual slavery as one of the categories:

Do you understand what I'm saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars -- there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.

When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur'an by the name milk al-yamin, "that which your right hands possess" [Qur'an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur'an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn't need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point -- there is no disagreement from any of them.

But this is all for a good reason, better even than sex!

These did not convert to Islam except in the chains of war. If they had not been chained, bound, and had their freedom taken from them, they would not have converted to Islam.

You see? Sex slavery is a good thing, a very good thing!

What a relief . . .

Going to Great Lengths to Prevent Adultery

Salwa al-Mutairi

(Image from The Voice of Russia)

Some women take adultery very seriously, but choose a different solution than Lorena Bobbitt might suggest if she were to be asked about the issue. According to A. Saleh of the Kuwait Times, the political activist Salwa al-Mutairi has proposed a solution to adultery: "Female activist calls for legalizing sex slavery" (June 4, 2011):

A female political activist and former parliamentary candidate has recommended the introduction of legislation to legalize the provision of enslaved female concubines for Muslim men in Kuwait in a bid, she says, to protect those men from committing adultery or corruption.

The activist, Salwa Al-Mutairi, suggested apparently seriously in a video broadcast online that she had been informed by some clerics that affluent Muslim men who fear being seduced or tempted into immoral behavior by the beauty of their female servants, or even of those servants 'casting spells' on them, would be better to purchase women from an 'enslaved maid' agency for sexual purposes.

She suggested that special offices could be set up to provide concubines in the same way as domestic staff recruitment agencies currently provide housemaids.

"We want our youth to be protected from adultery," said Al-Mutairi, suggesting that these maids could be brought as prisoners of war in war-stricken nations like Chechnya to be sold on later to devout merchants.

"This is not religiously forbidden," she added, indicating that Caliph Haroun Al-Rashid (766-809 AD) was married to one woman but possessed 200 concubines.

One can see why the good Caliph had no time for adultery! There's simply nothing like a little sexual enslavement of women to circumvent corruption. And no wonder that Bin Laden wanted to restore the Caliphate, given the great good that it offered. Perhaps he even hoped to assume the noble position himself? No matter now, for he's gone on to his reward of 70 perpetual virgins.

But speaking of adultery, why isn't Salwa al-Mutairi doing her own part to preclude it? If she really trowels on the make-up and tricks herself out in clownsuits as she appears to do in the above photo -- if that's not just a photoshopped image -- then no wonder she worries about her husband straying from the strait-and-narrow path . . . if she even has a husband.

But to be serious about this issue of sex slavery, note that it already exists.