Could one of the world’s "great religions" actually approve of this barbarity?
One of the leftist establishment’s flagship propaganda outfits made a remarkable admission on Thursday: Hamas’ mass rapes of captive Israeli women abducted on Oct. 7 could have been in accord with Islamic law. This is the first time, as far as I know, that any establishment outlet has acknowledged this fact, as important and full of implications as it is, and it’s all the more extraordinary that the acknowledgment would come in a far-left rag such as the UK’s Guardian.
The Guardian reported that “mounting evidence of rapes and genital mutilation” on Oct. 7 “pointed to possible crimes against humanity.” Then came the big admission, although it was hedged around in various ways: “Israeli intelligence officials, experts and sources with direct knowledge of interrogation reports of captured Hamas fighters believe units that attacked were beforehand given a text that drew on a controversial and contested interpretation of traditional Islamic military jurisprudence, claiming that captives were ‘the spoils of war.’ This potentially legitimised the abduction of civilians and other abuses, without being an explicit instruction to do so.” It also noted that “in at least two unsourced videos of interrogations of alleged Hamas members,” the jihadis “are heard talking about instructions given to rape women.”
Is this plausible? Could one of the world’s great religions actually approve of this barbarity? The Guardian attributes this suggestion to “Israeli intelligence officials,” which for the publication’s leftist audience undercuts it immediately. Then they call this idea a “controversial and contested interpretation.” In reality, I would love to see any Islamic source contest this, but it would be hard to find one, as it’s all straight from the Qur’an.
The Qur’an first raises the possibility of taking infidel women for sexual use in the context of the permission for polygamy: “And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry the women who seem good to you, two or three or four, and if you fear that you cannot do justice, then one, or those that your right hands possess. In this way it is more likely that you will not do injustice” (4:3).
Who are “those that your right hands possess”? The Tafsir Anwarul Bayan, a modern Islamic commentary on the Qur’an, explains: “During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph—an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr)” (I, 501). --->READ MORE HERE
 |
| Photo by abdulmeilk majed on Pexels.com |
Rape is not a sin in Islam, but worse than this, it has two laws that allow it. First, husbands can have sex with their wives whenever they want (marital rape); [Q2:223] Second, a divorced “child wife” who has NOT had a period must wait 3 months before remarrying (this assumes statutory rape has occured); [Q65:4] Also, the Hadith shows that Muhammad did not stop soldiers who wanted to have sex with their female captives, this implies that he condoned their rape. In Islam captives, wives, and child wives can be raped. Rape in Islam is not a cultural problem, it is a problem with Islam!
[...]
Muslim men can rape their captives
Most Muslims assume that Muhammad would never have allowed rape. However, here is an incriminating “authentic” hadith that clearly implies that after a battle Muhammad allowed his soldiers to rape the female captives of the war booty who were alloted to them:
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, Book 008, Number 3371]
This could be called the “Rape Hadith”. The Arab women were not the soldiers’ wives because they intended to ransom them, and permission to rape is implied because Muhammad does not say, “Rape is haram, rape is forbidden by Allah,” when he was given the perfect opportunity to do so. Instead, Muhammad explains that they don’t need to use any contraceptive methods, because a child will only be born if it is destined to be born.
Muhammad seems to have given his fellow Muslim rapists some faulty advice by saying that the rape would not be the cause of the raped women getting pregnant and reducing their ransom price.
The Quran does not explicitly say that a Muslim slave owner can rape their slaves, but the Quran does appear to confirm the above Rape Hadith when it says Muslim men can have sex with their captives / slaves in the Quran’s ‘Concubine Verse’:
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.
--->READ MORE HEREFollow link below to a related story:
+++++Slavery: The ISIS Rules+++++
If you like what you see, please "Like" and/or Follow us on FACEBOOK here, GETTR here, and TWITTER here.
No comments:
Post a Comment