The all-in-one Christian Web Site Community -
Skip to Content

From Jihad Watch

Quote Reply
From Jihad Watch
UK: Muslim rape gang in court over 170 charges of sexual exploitation of 18 children
April 13, 2017 12:45 pm By Robert Spencer

Not all the defendants have Muslim names; the two with Sikh names and the one other name could be converts to Islam, or non-Muslim degenerates who got in on the action. The other 26 are Muslim names, including two (hijabbed, and hence unmolested, cf. Qur’an 33:59) women who apparently helped the men use and destroy these non-Muslim girls.
Why would they do that? Perhaps because in Islamic law, it is normal: the seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess, for they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? 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, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)
It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)
The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:
Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. 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” [Koran 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. […] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.
Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.
A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”
The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”
“Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.
“Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”
Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Haeri said in April 7, 2016 that a man could offer slave girls to a friend for sex.
The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction.
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] From Jihad Watch In reply to
This amounts to rape and is proof that Allah is as immoral as the human race is. He is a false God and those who serve him must repent of their sins and turn to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation.
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] From Jihad Watch In reply to
I know that I have not been diligent in praying for the Muslims lately. I need to get back to it again. Thanks for the reminder!
Blessings ~ Sarah
Quote Reply
Re: [praizeop2] From Jihad Watch In reply to
He blesses me daily. I am not trying to start an argument in this post. I want to see the Muslims saved and with a true knowledge of the Lord Jesus and a relationship with Him. I pray God will show them the true creator of the Universe and the Savior of those who accept Him by faith

God bless you,
Quote Reply
Re: [ASCombs2662] From Jihad Watch In reply to
ASCombs2662: Hi. Hope all is well with family now Allen.

He blesses me daily. I am not trying to start an argument in this post. I want to see the Muslims saved and with a true knowledge of the Lord Jesus and a relationship with Him. I pray God will show them the true creator of the Universe and the Savior of those who accept Him by faith

You are quite correct that jihadist attitudes to women, prisoners of war, sex etc. is effectively slavery and rape. Slavery and rape are violations of human dignity and if, as in Islam it is ‘allowed’ rather than ‘condemned’, then it must be ‘allowed’ by a false and un-Christlike god, made in the image of sinful man. So the Jihadism associated with such sinful practices is by definition idolatrous.

The problem is that the laws of Islam were codified more than a millennium ago in a primitive patriarchal tribal culture when sexual slavery and violence were accepted as the norm. (As indeed they also were, to a slightly lesser degree in Christianity during that historical period).

The structure of Islam as a religion makes no allowance for reform because its ‘sacred’ texts are sacrosanct and cannot be changed. Those who choose not to ‘interpret’ them ‘contextually’, against the primitive background from which they emerged, but choose rather to go for ‘literal’ interpretations, as if that reveals superior truth or validity merely find in these texts justification for their own violent and sinful lusts. The attraction of Islamist fundamentalism is therefore appealing to some young Muslim men because it seems to be permissive of violent and sinful acts of abuse against a large class of women without any form of censure and without any need for guilt or repentance according to Islamic Law.

Judaism and its offshoot Christianity came originally from a similar primitive tribal culture but these religions are less hostile to reform which allows various contextual interpretations of their sacred texts. The same problem exists however among some fundamentalist cults who choose to rigidly apply Old Testament Law as if it were still appropriate after 3 millennia of reform and reinterpretation of the texts.

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. Det. 22:28-29.

This would be a first class way of raping a virgin and enslaving her into a life long marriage against her will, at the relatively trivial cost of fifty shekels of silver i.e. at today's prices about $600. And then only if they be found, i.e. he gets caught. In fact though, back in OT days that 50 sheks would have been equivalent to a years wages for an agricultural worker. Far more than any sensible grass comber would want to pay out for a full time, live in, housekeeper and sex slave, for life. Or would it? I don’t know.

Fact is though a fundamentalist reading of the text might indicate to some religious cult leaders that it’s perfectly OK to get a sex slave this way because it is sanctioned quite clearly in The Bible and God’s Laws don’t change. (This is where the Islamist Fundies are stuck right now with their own ‘sacred texts’. "It's there in the text, so it must be OK", they say.). That is the problem you get when your text is declared to be The definitive word of Allah through His final Prophet. (or for that matter the definitive word of God through His Messiah Jesus Christ and his Apostles). It leaves no room for anything but a 'literal' understanding of the words of scripture. It is easy to see where that kind of thinking might lead for some people.

And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money. Ex. 21:7-11.

Likewise if a Christian fundamentalist cult leader decides to invoke the above Lawthen he can assume first that slavery is endorsed by The Bible. Second that male and female slaves can be treated differently, according to The Bible. Third that once bought by a third party the daughter can be disposed of according to the rules laid down or she can be ‘sent back’ but her 'owner' is not allowed his money back. (No Refunds on used women), according to The Bible.

A pretty good deal all round for everyone except the daughter, who is treated as mere goods and chattels, raped against her will, possibly married off to someone she detests and if the men she has been sold to don’t like the look of the ‘goods’ she just gets kicked out to go back to a father who wanted rid of her for money in the first place and will probably 'sell' her again, if he can pass off 'used goods' to some unsuspecting 'customer'. And this is ‘The Law’ that not one jot or tittle of will be dropped until the end of time.

Fortunately Christians have long since ceased to abide by such archaic and primitive tribal ‘Laws’ and both Judaism and Christianity have methods of interpretation which render such anachronisms a thing of the past, replaced by the enlightened thought and teaching of the Rabbis or Jesus Christ and his Apostles.

If only it were the case that the faith of Islam were more capable of reform and enlightenment. It must be a constant embarrassment to peaceful and moral adherents of Islam that so many violent and lustful male morons use Islamic texts to justify their sinful treatment of women.

Just as it would be with shameful embarrassment that I hear of the exploits of the likes of David Coresh, Jim Jones-(James Warren), Charles Manson, Warren Jeffs, Theodore Rinaldo, Tony Alamo and others who had hijacked the Holy Scriptures to use them for their own sinful ends to sexually and physically abuse, enslave, subjugate and murder their cult members.

Christianity has managed, as a religion and code of ethics, to distance itself from past misogynistic patriarchal attitudes and practices, (by and large at least), and is now able to condemn violent, lustful, sexually exploitative behavior as abominably sinful. Those who commit such acts are deemed to be criminally abhorrent.

Unfortunately Islam, as a religion, has not yet developed sufficiently to be able to credibly tackle the problem of male sexually predatory behavior among many of its adherents. It has not yet developed a widely enough accepted theology and moral stance to effectively condemn such behavior as sinful.

And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. Num. 31:9.

And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, . . . . And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Num. 31:15 . . . . Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Num. 31:17-18.

So what exactly is so different about the treatment of captives and enslavement for sex of captured girls in Islamic Fundamentalism from what was allowed and even sanctioned by Moses, acting on behalf of God, in the Old Testament for Israel?

Answer: Nothing at all. Its probably where Islam got the idea from. Moses directed exactly the same policy that we now find so abhorrent. As you so rightly stated: This amounts to rape [and murder] and is proof that Allah [and therefore Moses or even perhaps the God he claimed to speak on behalf of] was as immoral as the human race is.

Islam is still a primitive religion compared to 2000 years of Christianity but both Judaism, Christianity and Islam still have a lot to learn about how God expects men and women to conduct themselves when human behavior is concerned, in accordance to the teaching of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Of course all this needs to be kept in perspective. It would be as irresponsibly wrong to imply that all Muslims believe they have a right to rape and enslave captive women, just because the Quran allowed it, as it would be to imply that all Bible following Christians feel free to sell their daughters to the highest bidder as sex slaves, just because God's Law says they can, or that in time of war they should kill all captive non virgin women, men and boy children, while taking their pleasure with the remaining virginal girls as unwilling sex slaves, according to Moses' supposedly divinely ordained command.

The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine sanction.

Actually this statement is simply not true. As I have shown The Bible, (if read literally), does also carry divine sanction for the savage exploitation of girls and young women. It is merely that the 'sanction' is regarded by most Christians and Rabbinic Jews as a historical anachronism of a by gone age, not a legitimate excuse for lascivious, violent male supremacy and female subjugation.

Regards Chris.
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet.4:8b.

Last edited by:

rdrcofe: Apr 18, 2017, 9:16 AM