Here we go again. Will one of the vaunted and lionized Moderate Muslim Spokesmen in the U.S. (Honest Ibe Hooper? Boy Reza Aslan? Man of Peace Rauf? Anyone? Anyone?) or anywhere in the West kindly explain how Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari, despite his membership in a Sharia council, has become a Misunderstander of Islam? Of course no one will do this, because no one can, because everything that Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari says here is an established element of Islamic law, and those Moderate Muslim Spokesmen know that full well.
"Fatwa Permits Mujahideen to Kidnap, Imprison, and Have Sexual Intercourse with Infidel Women," from MEMRI, November 30 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
On October 28, 2011, the jihadi forum Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad published a fatwa by Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari, a member of its shari'a council, in which he unequivocally permits mujahideen to capture the infidels' women and have sexual intercourse with them, even those who are married, on the claim that their marriage bonds to infidels are dissolved as soon as they are taken captive.Following are the fatwa's main points:
The inquiry in response to which Al-Athari issued the fatwa reads as follows:[1] "Is it permissible for mujahideen in jihad fronts to kidnap the infidels' women and hold them as their captives? What is the ruling regarding a captive in our times? How should they be divided [among the mujahideen]? Is it permissible to imprison [an infidel woman who has been taken captive] in an infidel land, or must she be brought to Dar Al-Islam [the abode of Islam]? How much time must one wait before having sexual intercourse with her, regarding both one who is a virgin and one who is not?"
Al-Athari replies: "There is no doubt that taking the women of the combatant infidels captive – whether they are from Ahl Al-Kitab [i.e., Christians or Jews] or pagans – is permitted according to the shari'a... That being said, it must be done only after [the spoils] has been divided by an imam in Dar Al-Islam; if there is no imam at hand, prisoners may not be taken..."
Al-Athari emphasizes that before deciding to take infidel women captive, "one must consider the gains and losses that will result from this deed, which is to say that if the imam of the Muslims in a given country believes that taking the infidels' women captive will lead the infidels to band together and rape the Muslims' women, and that the Muslims are in too weak a state to prevent this, he should forbid taking [infidel women] captive..."
Al-Athari notes that "there are too many proofs of the permissibility of taking the infidels' women captive to enumerate here, but we can divide them into two categories: 'general proofs' and 'concrete proofs.'" He explains that the "general proofs" are those which clarify that it is forbidden to violate the honor of Muslim women, but that this does not hold true regarding the infidel women, except in cases where they are assured protection. Al-Athari claims that the permissibility is absolute and anchored in the principles of the shari'a. Therefore, he says, it does not necessitate proof, and it falls rather on those who forbid taking infidel women captive to prove the legitimacy their claims.
In his discussion of "concrete proofs," Al-Athari quotes Al-Qurtubi, who says: "Most scholars, including Malik [ibn Anas], Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa,[2] and others, thought that taking [infidel women] captive removes the protection [they previously enjoyed], and permits whoever is holding them to have sexual intercourse with them." Al-Athari also quotes another scholar whose interpretation of Al-Qurtubi's ruling says that the latter uses the word "protection" to refer to married women, who are forbidden to men other than their husbands. That is, when these women are taken captive, their marriage contracts with their infidel husbands become void, and they become permissible to their captors. Al-Athari adds that the amount of time a captor must wait until having sexual intercourse with a captive infidel woman depends on her condition: if she is pregnant, he must wait until after she gives birth; if she is menstruating, he must wait until after her period is over; and if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture.
Endnotes:[1] Rather than providing a name or handle of the inquirer, the website mentions only that the inquiry was taken from forum correspondence.
[2] Al-Qurtubi ("The Cordovan," d. 671), Malik ibn Anas (711-795), Al-Shafi'i (767-820), and Abu Hanifa (699-767) are among the great Koranic scholars, and the last three are founders of major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
". . . if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture . . ."
musloids are still commanded to follow the example of their demonic, disgusting pedophile "prophet" mohammed (pig shit be upon him).
There is simply no place for these savage beasts in the Civilized World.
islam must be eliminated.
The Lord God rebuke these vile mujahideen.
Well, he's a very good ally of Western feminists in their struggle to liberate the world from nasty, mean Christianity. Don't hold your breath waiting or bet the farm that the MSM will carry this story.
These loathsome vermin use sex to humiliate the infidels as an essential method to demonstrate their supremacy
Sexual jihad, using rape and other forms of sexual humiliation and sadism, has been employed as a weapon of war against infidels since the time of Mohammed. Sex crimes, including gang rapes and pedophilic abductions of Christian children, continue unabated wherever Muslims come into contact with infidels.
Demoralising and humiliating the infidels by sexual degradation of both adults and children is one of the most repulsive tactics of Islamic supremacism. There should be no place for scum like these in a civilized society... http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/02/sexual-jihad-demoralising-and.html
What Crap-i-stan is he in?.. I need to go castrate him...
Hey C!
Check the end of the "Iranian Nuke Site Site" thread, if you have time.
:)
Shouldn't Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari's fatwa be condemned by the World Court in The Hague? Calling for such rape is clearly a violation the human rights of non-Muslim women and calls for his arrest should be made.
Are "moderate" Muslims embarrassed by this? Especially since it is grounded in the awful Qur'an. And we are supposed to respect Islam and Muslims?
"Islamic cleric [...permits...] rape infidel women"
The Quran permits it, Muhammad permits and indeed does it in the Hadith and Sira, the jihadists did it, the major Islamic scholars permitted it, Islamic law permits it, modern-day Islamic scholars either permit it or refuse to reject it.
The Islamic permissibility of rape of non-Muslim females is definitely a blind spot for the apologists. They won't touch it.
If Christian organization really want to show their love for other Christians they would start arming all Christian women especially those in Islamic majority countries with a concealable gun. Nothing says, "Take your hands off me. " better than a bullet to the heart.
On October 28, 2011, the jihadi forum Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad published a fatwa by Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari, a member of its shari'a council, in which he unequivocally permits mujahideen to capture the infidels' women and have sexual intercourse with them, even those who are married, on the claim that their marriage bonds to infidels are dissolved as soon as they are taken captive.
.....................................
Where did this pious "Sheikh" get such ideas? Why, from the "Prophet" of Islam himself. Muhammed raped and "married" several women right after he had murdered their male relatives—including young Safia, whose husband he had just had tortured to death in an effort to compel him to reveal the whereabouts of his victims' treasure.
More:
Following are the fatwa's main points:
The inquiry in response to which Al-Athari issued the fatwa reads as follows:[1] "Is it permissible for mujahideen in jihad fronts to kidnap the infidels' women and hold them as their captives?
...Al-Athari also quotes another scholar whose interpretation of Al-Qurtubi's ruling says that the latter uses the word "protection" to refer to married women, who are forbidden to men other than their husbands. That is, when these women are taken captive, their marriage contracts with their infidel husbands become void, and they become permissible to their captors.
.....................................
"The infidels' women"—women are not even considered fully human—as Muslims see it, they are the property of Infidel men—until Muslims seize such property, humiliating the infidels in the process. The infidel women themselves have no say in the matter, of course.
More:
What is the ruling regarding a captive in our times?
.....................................
Of course, the good "Sheikh" holds that this has always been Halal—nothing has changed from the Dark Ages to now...
More:
Al-Athari replies: "There is no doubt that taking the women of the combatant infidels captive – whether they are from Ahl Al-Kitab [i.e., Christians or Jews] or pagans – is permitted according to the shari'a... That being said, it must be done only after [the spoils] has been divided by an imam in Dar Al-Islam
.....................................
"An Imam". Can you imagine a Priest or a Minister or a Rabbi divvying up *human chattel*—*for the purpose of rape*? It is simply inconcievable.
More:
Al-Athari emphasizes that before deciding to take infidel women captive, "one must consider the gains and losses that will result from this deed, which is to say that if the imam of the Muslims in a given country believes that taking the infidels' women captive will lead the infidels to band together and rape the Muslims' women, and that the Muslims are in too weak a state to prevent this, he should forbid taking [infidel women] captive..."
.....................................
Of course, most Infidels would never do such a thing. Notice that there is no moral issue in the kidnap and rape of Infidel women in and of itself at all.
More:
He explains that the "general proofs" are those which clarify that it is forbidden to violate the honor of Muslim women, but that this does not hold true regarding the infidel women, except in cases where they are assured protection. Al-Athari claims that the permissibility is absolute and anchored in the principles of the shari'a.
.....................................
Absolutely—rape is *an intrinsic part* of the barbarism of Shari'ah. Someone should clue in Oklahoma Federal District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange, who blocked the attempted ban on Shari'ah law in that state.
More vileness:
if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture.
.....................................
Because as horrific as the rape of women is, it is never enough for Muslims. Here, they have to condone *the rape of pre-pubescent girls*. What could be more pious *than the rape of children*?
**God, I hate Islam**.
In core Islamic texts, Muhammad allows his soldiers to rape captive women:
From Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 008, Number 3371:
Notice that Muhammad did not say, "do not compel your captive women to have sex with you." He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.
From Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:
Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers' queries Muhammad doesn't say "You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you." He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.
Again in Sahih al-Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:
Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it's better not to do coitus interruptus. His men were to keep going till coitus was complete.
------------------------------------------
The heading of Chapter 29 of Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection, is
The hadiths in Chapter 29 say that after a victory for the Muslims at the Battle of Hanain, and in response to the fact that Muhammad's soldiers "seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women," Muhammad produced Qur'an 4:24's statement about slave girls/captive women,Get it? Muhammad's Allah is telling his soldiers, "go ahead, boys, you can do the captives, including the married ones."
I sure hate to try to convince the likes of Alan Colmes, John Espisoto, Karen Armstrong and all the Kool Aid drinkers they have influences, but this is Islam straight from the source.
Meanwhile.....
"United Nations has recognized Islamophobia, and taken great steps to confront and challenge it"
How much more sick can a world get?
I say - let the rapes begin with the daughters of the U.N. kings. Maybe that'll get their attention.
And let it be known that amongst the millions of Muslims already present in various non-Muslim countries, and amongst the thousands and indeed millions still being permitted to enter, whether as 'immigrants' or as 'asylum seekers' and 'refugees', there will be - there have to be - a percentage (and it may well be a high percentage) who agree with this impeccably-Islamic, classically-Islamic sharia principle: that it isn't adultery if the married woman that a Muslim man rapes, is a non-Muslim and the wife of a non-Muslim.
That any non-Muslim woman - married or not, and pubescent or not - is simply...prey.
Rape fodder.
Muslims **do not respect** the sanctity of non-Muslim marriage vows.
So WHY THE HELL are we allowing swarms of Muslims into our previously-free countries? When we KNOW that their diabolical cult sacralises rape and does not respect the sanctity of marriage?
I am reminded of the story of the Jewish girl from Iraq, Hannah Menashe.
She had just **married** a fellow Jew and he, and she, and her family, were preparing to make aliyah to Israel, this being the 1950s and Muslim hostility and violence against Iraqi Jews being ever-present and escalating.
Her Muslim neighbour simply snatched her.
**He kidnapped a married woman and stuffed her into his harem and kept her as a slave-wife** - presumably threatening her and quite probably beating and abusing her in various ways, so as to keep her frightened and submissive - for years; she was so intimidated by him that she did not even try to contact her family, who thought her dead.
But he had not quite managed to break her spirit entirely: when at long last he died, after some *fifty* years, she escaped.
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3554723,00.html
Passage from Iraq
'Hannah Menashe was only 21 when she was abducted from her family in Baghdad ahead of their immigration to Israel. Decades later, Hanna is finally making aliyah to reunite with her family who had lost hope of ever seeing her again'
Itamar Eichner
Here are the first four reasons why Muslims think this kind of behaviour is all right. Regarding the rape of captives:
1. Rayhana.
2. Juwairiya.
3. Safiya.
Regarding the rape of prepubescents:
4. Ayesha.
I have heard Muslims plead that Ayesha was probably an early developer who went to live with Mohammed after she reached puberty. So just to set the record straight: Ayesha did us the favour of leaving us a hadith with all the intimate details of exactly when she reached menarche. As it happens, she was a late developer. She did not reach menarche until she was fifteen years old, more than six years after she married Mohammed.
What century is this, again?
...."one must consider the gains and losses that will result from this deed, which is to say that if the imam of the Muslims in a given country believes that taking the infidels' women captive will lead the infidels to band together and rape the Muslims' women, and that the Muslims are in too weak a state to prevent this, he should forbid taking [infidel women] captive..."
AS IF "infidels" would band together to rape muslim women. The muslim propensity for projecting their evil ways onto others is breathtaking.
Al-Athari explains, without meaning to, the rape statistics in countries Muslims have “captured”: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and France. Also Britain. For all intents and purposes, these countries have been invested (infested?) by Islam. Ergo, it’s “permissible” for Muslims to kidnap, rape and degrade the infidel women, with little opposition from the authorities, who refrain from identifying the culprits or the problem lest they be accused of bigotry, racism, and discrimination. But it is precisely those ugly policies Muslims practice on infidels, and Islam encourages and sanctions it.
There was once a pacifist religious sect that left Europe and settled in colonial Pennsylvania. They built a town close to the frontier (before the Revolution). One day Indians raided the town. They raped, mutilated, scalped, and killed all the women and slew the children, as well, while the men stood by, stymied by their pacifist principles and praying. The Indians, knowing something about their religion, left them alone and laughed. The Indians also set fire to the town. When they left, nothing was left standing and the place was littered with corpses. The pacifist men were the only survivors. Of course, that religious sect vanished.
The same tragedy can occur in the West.
This "cleric combatant" clearly made this statement to incite further jihadist action against non muslims. He is giving incentive by telling jihadist operatives that there won't be any repercussions.
What comes to mind are the Christian communities in northern Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere. What also comes to mind are surgical assassinations of these combatant savages of Allah, including their American based counterparts.
The Muslim Brotherhood, from an obscure fragmented society, to a world power. Unless we pro actively resist with actions not unlike those used by them since 1929, and purge them from American society, they will continue to further their sinister agenda.
I'm not convinced that we will be able to do it in time, through our present liberal political policies.
Maybe this is why the Pennsylvania Quakers sold frontier land to Irish Presbyterians--people they knew would fight against the "Papists--oops, heathen"?
Then again, what is a Quaker? A fire-breathing, violent Ranter or Leveller who's had an unhappy run-in with Cromwell's Ironsides.
You surely discern the Godly way to dispatch these pious sheiks and zealous Muslims to the fateful, terrible rewards that they so labor to heap up for themselves, K.
Diana, could you give me the hadith citation? I'd like to see the one to which you refer.
You said "I need to go castrate him..."
I say: "Go for it Falcon. And when you are through tell him he should change his name to Claude Balls."
As Hitler conquered and used the media, so the Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad and Obama's Sharia-compliant socialism conquered and used the media (read Hitler's speeches and you will see the parallels). The Muslim Brotherhood's global jihad brags they will win where Hitler failed. They use the media to spread the baseless rhetoric about Islam and the New World Order to the Leftist (supremacist) elitists who enable them. They use the media to send messages to the global jihadists. Now that they think they are invincible they use the media to declare nations for Islam and to send out their evil fatwas to the Muslim world to enforce (per Sharia law). That is how they want Sharia law to rule the world.
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 293. Narrated Al-Qasim:
Ayesha said, "We set out with the sole intention of performing Hajj and when we reached Sarif, I got my menses. Allah's Apostle came to me while I was weeping. He said 'What is the matter with you? Have you got your menses?' I replied, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is a thing which Allah has ordained for the daughters of Adam. So do what all the pilgrims do with the exception of the Circumambulation round the Kaaba."
Bukhair, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 302: Narrated Ayesha:
We set out with the Prophet for Hajj and when we reached Sarif I got my menses. When the Prophet came to me, I was weeping. He asked, "Why are you weeping?" I said, "I wish if I had not performed Hajj this year." He asked, "May be that you got your menses?" I replied, "Yes." He then said, "This is the thing which Allah has ordained for all the daughters of Adam. So do what all the pilgrims do except that you do not circle round the Kaaba till you are clean."
There is ample external attestation that the date of this incident was March 629.
I am fairly sure this incident refers to menarche and not just to an ill-timed menstruation. Ayesha seems upset about the fact of menstruation and not merely its implication for her religious rituals. By contrast, this is how she describes an otherwise similar incident three years later, by which time she would be accustomed to sexual maturity.
Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 313. Narrated Ayesha:
In the last Hajj of Allah's Apostle I assume the Ihram for Hajj along with Allah Apostle. I was one of those who intended to perform Hajj and Umra and did not take the sacrificial animal with me. I got my menses and was not clean till the night of 'Arafa. I said, "O Allah's Apostle! It is the night of the day of 'Arafat and I intended to perform the Hajj ritual with 'Umra." Allah's Apostle told me to undo my hair and comb it and to postpone the 'Umra. I did the same and completed the Hajj. On the night of Al-Hasba (i.e. place outside Mecca where the pilgrims go after finishing all the ceremonies Hajj at Mina) the Prophet ordered 'Abdur Rahman [my brother] to take me to At-Tan'im to assume the lhram for'Umra in lieu of that of Hajj-atTamattu' which I had intended to perform.
P.S. I'd like to qualify my earlier statement that "Muslims think this is all right."
Of course not all Muslims think it's all right. Many would be utterly horrified by the idea. Moderate Muslims have published on the internet convoluted explanations of why these parts of the Qur'an do not apply to any situation that could arise today.
I meant that among those Muslims who do think rape is all right, the reason is found in the example of their prophet.
we1 wrote:
I say - let the rapes begin with the daughters of the U.N. kings. Maybe that'll get their attention.
....................................
I understand your frustration, we1—but I wouldn't wish this Muslim barbarity *on anyone*.
Diana, thank you so much for posting the Hadith on Aisha's menarch. That is very important information. I had previously searched for it in Islamic texts, but had been unable to find it.
And the Hadith having been compiled by Bukhari, it is considered "Sahih" or reliable.