Recently in slavery Category

Kidnapping infidels and releasing them for ransom or killing them, as well as enslaving them if that option is deemed most advantageous for the Muslims, is fully sanctioned in Islamic law: "As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)" — Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah (The Laws of Islamic Governance), trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192.

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Boko Haram timeline: From preachers to slave raiders," from the BBC, May 15 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Nigeria's President Goodluck Jonathan has declared a state of emergency in three north-eastern states as militant Islamists intensify their offensive against the government.

The insurgency, led by Boko Haram, has killed some 2,000 people since 2009. It has spread across the mainly Muslim north and central Nigeria.

With the attacks becoming increasingly sophisticated, there is growing concern that Boko Haram is receiving backing from al-Qaeda-linked militants in other countries.

Here, BBC Africa's Farouk Chothia looks at the changing nature of the conflict.

Boko Haram has increased its focus on smaller towns in north-eastern Nigeria in recent months after the military drove many of its fighters out of Maiduguri - the capital of Borno state, which was the group's main base.

Boko Haram militants have since infiltrated nearby towns, with little resistance from the army.

In a well-planned attack on 7 May 2013 in Bama, some 70km (44 miles) from Maiduguri, about 200 heavily armed men stormed a military barracks, police station and government buildings.

Fifty-five people were killed and 105 prisoners were freed in the raids. Significantly, the militants launched the attack in armoured vehicles mounted with machine guns.

It suggests that they are becoming better-resourced and they can adapt to the changing terrain. Easy to use motorcycles are the trademark for Boko Haram attacks in cities.
A Nigerian soldiers stands beside a burnt house after the army clashed with Boko Haram insurgents in Borno state. Photo: April 2013 The military attacked Baga, near Chad's border, where militants had reportedly built up a presence

The Bama violence came a few weeks after Boko Haram attacked a military patrol in Baga, a nearby town in which it is said to have also built a presence, forcibly recruiting youth into its ranks.

The military retaliated by launching a raid on the town, accusing residents of harbouring the militants.

Nearly 200 people died in the raid, and thousands of buildings were destroyed, leading to claims by rights groups that the military had used excessive force - an allegation it has repeatedly faced as it tries to quell the insurgency launched in 2009.

The army denied the allegation, and blamed Boko Haram for the deaths of 37 people.
First 'slaves captured': May 2013

Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau released a video on 13 May 2013, saying Boko Haram had taken women and children - including teenage girls - hostage in response to the arrest of its members' wives and children.

It is unclear whether the hostages are the relatives of government officials or civilians.

Mr Shekau said the hostages would be treated as "slaves", fuelling concern that Boko Haram is adhering to the ancient Islamic belief that women captured during war are slaves with whom their "masters" can have sex....

He says it is because they preach contempt for women and the concept of women as chattel, which (pace Hargey) is certainly found in Islam, with its polygamy (Qur'an 4:3), wife-beating (Qur'an 4:34), devaluing of a woman's testimony (Qur'an 2:282), etc. This is compounded, he says, by the further contempt of and hatred for Infidels, which is also certainly Islamic (cf. Qur'an 48:29, 98:6, etc.). He doesn't mention the permissibility in Islamic law of taking Infidel women as sex slaves, which is also a key motivating factor for these sex slavery gangs.

"‘Imams promote grooming rings’, Muslim leader claims," by Hayley Dixon in the Telegraph, May 16 (thanks to Twostellas):

The Oxford grooming ring was promoted by imams who encourage followers to think white women deserve to be “punished”, an Islamic leader has claimed.

Dr Taj Hargey, imam of the Oxford Islamic Congregation, said race and religion were inextricably linked to the recent spate of grooming rings in which Muslim men have targeted under-age white girls.

Earlier this week seven members of a child sex ring from Oxford were found guilty of forcing under age girls to commit acts of "extreme depravity".

Their victims, aged between 11 and 15, were groomed and plied with alcohol and drugs before being sexually assaulted and forced into prostitution. They targeted "out of control" teenagers.

Dr Hargey said that the case brought shame on the city and the community and is a set back for cross community harmony.

But worse still is the refusal to face up to its realities, he wrote in the Daily Mail.

The activities of the Oxford sex ring are “bound up with religion and race” because all the men - though of different nationalities - were Muslim and they “deliberately targeted vulnerable white girls, whom they appeared to regard as 'easy meat', to use one of their revealing, racist phrases”, Dr Hargey said.

That attitude has been promoted by religious leaders, he believes. “On one level, most imams in the UK are simply using their puritanical sermons to promote the wearing of the hijab and even the burka among their female adherents. But the dire result can be the brutish misogyny we see in the Oxford sex ring.”

People tiptoe around the issues and refuse to discuss the problems exposed by the scandals such as those “from Rochdale to Oxford, and Telford to Derby”, he wrote.

In all cases the perpetrators were Muslim men and the victims were under age white girls.

To pretend it is not a problem is the Islamic community is “ideological denial”, Dr Hargey said.

“But then part of the reason this scandal happened at all is precisely because of such politically correct thinking. All the agencies of the state, including the police, the social services and the care system, seemed eager to ignore the sickening exploitation that was happening before their eyes.

“Terrified of accusations of racism, desperate not to undermine the official creed of cultural diversity, they took no action against obvious abuse.”

The men were allowed, he said, to come and go from care homes by the authorities, and if the situation had been reversed with gangs of white men preying on Muslim teenagers ”the state's agencies would have acted with greater alacrity.”

True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached - “one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt,” the Imam said.

The men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority," he claims in the column.

“The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.

“Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.”

Such cases can only be prevented in the future if Britain abandons the blinkers of political correctness, he concludes.

Indeed.

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

An update on this story. "UK: 7 men convicted of sex crimes against girls," by Gregory Katz for the Associated Press, May 14 (thanks to all who sent this in):

LONDON (AP) — Seven men were convicted in London on Tuesday for sexually abusing underage girls, including one who was just 11, by plying them with alcohol and drugs before forcing them to commit sex acts.

The guilty verdict followed five months of testimony indicating the pedophile sex ring exploited girls between 2004 and 2012 in the Oxford area, some 60 miles (95 kilometers) northwest of London. Charges include rape, trafficking and child prostitution.

The case follows several other high-profile ones of sex rings that took advantage of underage girls.

Chief prosecutor Baljit Ubhey said the girls were subjected to "truly appalling" abuse by a network of perpetrators.

"No one, let alone a child, should ever be exploited as these young victims were," she said. "The men who have been convicted have still failed to accept any responsibility for their crimes. They are nothing less than vicious sexual predators."

Prosecutors said seven of the men on trial were of Pakistani descent and two had family roots in North Africa. Other recent high profile cases, including one in Rochdale that involved a similar sex ring, have also involved Pakistani men convicted of abusing young white girls, in some cases sparking ethnic tensions and protests.

On Tuesday, Judge Peter Rook told the men that long prison sentences are "inevitable" because of the serious nature of the offenses.

This case was slightly different in that it involved many instances of child prostitution. The girls were taken to various parts of Britain and forced to have sex with men who paid the convicted men for access to the girls. But as in the Rochdale case, it appeared the police missed opportunities to stop the cycle of abuse.

Most of the victims — whose names cannot be released for legal reasons — gave evidence from behind a curtain at the five-month trial, describing forced encounters, physical abuse and intimidation.

One described how she was even threatened with arrest for wasting police time when she tried to report the abuse. She wept as she recounted how the gang threatened to burn her brother alive unless she had sex with them, saying that nothing happened after she went to police when she had decided to break away from her abusers.

"They threatened on a number of occasions to arrest me for wasting police time for turning up at a police station in a state after running away," she told the court. "Any self-respecting police officer would have seen something was wrong. If you pick up a child who is covered in cigarette burns and bruises, something is fundamentally wrong."

One victim said she was "branded" with a hairpin after it was heated up to show that she was the property of one of the abusers.

Another victim said the men told her she would be shot if she did not have sex with them. She was 14 at the time.

The girls were generally from troubled families and many were living in "care homes" where administrators ignored their frequent absences and their substance related problems.

Oxford County Council chief executive Joanna Simons said she was "incredibly sorry" authorities were not able to stop the abuse earlier.

One teenager who said she was groomed at the age of 11 and turned into a sex slave described being followed into a bathroom and raped by one of the men convicted Tuesday. Her rapist later introduced her to other men and told her to perform sex acts on them. At the age of 12, she told the court, she was forced to undergo an illegal abortion on a living room floor.

The men convicted include Akhtar Dogar, 32, who was found guilty of five counts of rape and other charges and his brother Anjum, 31, who was convicted of three counts of rape and other charges.

Another set of brothers, Mohammed Karrar, 38, and his brother, Bassam, 33, were also convicted of rape involving a child under 13 and other charges, including facilitating child prostitution.

Kamar Jamil, 27, was convicted of multiple rape charges and other crimes; Assad Hussain, 32, was convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child; and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27, was also convicted of two counts of sexual activity with a child....

Ahdel, Mubarek, Mohammed, Tanveer, Mohammed, and Mohammed

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Telford gang is jailed for sexually abusing girls," from the Shropshire Star, May 10 (thanks to Alan of England):

Seven men were jailed after a series of complex court cases, the reporting of which has been banned until now while legal battles raged on.

We can reveal details of those court cases following a hearing in the High Court today in which a judge upheld a decision that another man accused of child sex abuse offences was not mentally fit to be retried.

The man, Noshad Hussain, 23, was cleared of trafficking a girl, 14, at a trial last year, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict on four charges of engaging in sexual activity with her.

Today’s High Court ruling brings to an end a three-year investigation into a child prostitution ring in Telford.

Youth workers first raised the alarm when teenage girls in Wellington, some as young as 13, started telling them the same stories about men they were seeing.

The subsequent police investigation, dubbed Operation Chalice, revealed details of a network of men from the Muslim community who targeted young and vulnerable teenage girls.

After West Mercia Police’s investigation into suspected under-age sex and child prostitution, seven men were finally convicted in cases stretching over two years.

Four experienced judges have heard distressing evidence from four young women, who were aged 13 to 16 when they were abused during a two-year period between 2007 and 2009.

The leading players in the abuse were brothers, Ahdel and Mubarek Ali, of Regent Street, Wellington, who received long jail sentences after an eight-week trial.

Ahdel Ali, 25, known as Eddie, was given a 26-year extended sentence – 18 years’ immediate custody with an additional eight-year period on licence after release.

His 29-year-old brother, Mubarek Ali, known as Max, was given 22 years, 14 years’ immediate custody and eight years on licence, for seven offences – four of controlling child prostitution, causing child prostitution and two offences of trafficking in the UK for the purpose of prostitution, involving two of the victims. Both men were made the subject of lifelong Sexual Offences Prevention Orders.

Also convicted were Mohammed Ali Sultan, 26, of Victoria Avenue, Wellington; Tanveer Ahmed, 40, of Urban Gardens, Wellington; Mohammed Islam Choudhrey, 53, of Solway Drive, Sutton Hill; Mahroof Khan, 35, of Caradoc Flats, Kingshaye Road, Wellington, and Mohammed Younis, 60, of Kingsland, Arleston....

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Young Christian Girls Trafficked into Forced Labor and Sex Slavery," by Corey Bailey for Persecution.org, May 5 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

5/5/2013 Washington D.C. (International Christian Concern)-More than 140 children have been rescued from Islamic training centers (madrassas) in the last nine months, with a majority of the children targeted because of their Christian faith. The females, accounting for nearly half of those rescued, report that they were used for forced labor and sex slavery.

New information has come to light regarding the treatment of the young girls rescued from madrassas earlier this year. “They were forcefully converted to Islam,” said Akash, a contact for International Christian Concern (ICC) whose name is changed for security reasons. “The girls were made to wear veils at all times. Some girls were also forced to work as slaves in the homes of Muslim families and were only fed one time a day.”

The rescued girls were told they would study at a Christian school and receive training to become beauticians. However, after completing the grueling travel from their villages to the capitol city, Dhaka, they discovered it was all a lie. “Instead of training in the Beautifying Parlor, we were forcefully sent to hotels for the sex trade,” explained one of the girls.

Suspicions Lead to Rescue

Last year Akash was selling bus tickets for a transportation company in Bangladesh when he noticed that a man named Norbert Tripura frequently traveled to Dhaka with groups of children. When asked what he was doing, Norbert replied that he was taking the children to a Christian missionary school “where they can eat and live in comfort with a good education.” Hoping for his daughter to have the opportunity for a quality education, Akash asked Norbert to take her to the Christian missionary school, and became suspicious when he was refused. “Doubt was created in my mind when Norbert continued to avoid me,” said Akash.

Akash began to investigate the matter and soon discovered that countless families had sent their children with men, including Norbert, who were later discovered to be traffickers. With the help of an ICC ministry partner, Akash arranged for the rescue of the first twelve children in July 2012. More were rescued in October 2012, followed by over 100 rescued since January 2013.

How Does This Happen

As Christians, these children and their families are a marginalized minority in a country that is over 90% Muslim. As minorities, Christians find it difficult to locate jobs and obtain quality education. They are sometimes even banned from using community wells in the villages. As a result, many Christians, specifically the Tripura people, are extremely poor and desperate for a better life for their children. This, in turn, leaves them vulnerable to traffickers like Norbert.

Reports by The Kapaeeng Foundation and ICC’s partner in Bangladesh indicate that there may be as many as 138 children from Rangamati, 42 from Banderban and six from Khagrachari that are still missing. “We think they are also sold to madrassas and we are searching for them,” said Akash. “It is my dream that all the children will be rescued and receive a higher education so that they can stand on their own two feet.”

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Five men jailed for sexually exploiting maid," by Bassam Za’za’ for Gulf News, May 4 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Dubai: Five men were jailed for five years for human trafficking after they left a critically injured woman at a hospital entrance and absconded.

The 30-year-old Bangladeshi woman fell and fractured her back and legs while she was escaping from a third-floor flat, where she said that the five Bangladeshi men confined and forced her into prostitution.

The Dubai Court of First Instance convicted the five men of sexually exploiting the 30-year-old woman, abusing her neediness and forcing her into the sex industry.

“The defendants will be deported following the completion of their imprisonments,” said presiding judge Maher Salama Al Mahdi.

According to the judgment, a 29-year-old defendant, A.A., and a 24-year-old, S.M., were accused of sexually exploiting the woman and coercing her into the sex industry with beatings and threats. The court also convicted 26-year-old N.H., a 32-year-old S.A. and a 28-year-old A.H. with aiding and abetting A.A. and S.M. to commit a human trafficking crime.

A.A. and S.M. locked the woman in a flat in Naif where she was forced to have sex with strangers. The suspects were also accused of running a brothel. The defendants pleaded not guilty. The 30-year-old woman said she came to work as a housemaid for an Emirati family in Fujairah after she was hired through a manpower supply company in 2011.

“I worked for my sponsor for nearly 17 months and when their treatment worsened I absconded. My Ethiopian coworker provided me with A.A.’s contact details. He picked me up from Fujairah and promised to help me find a job in Dubai.

“He kept me in a studio in Naif. When he told me that I would work in prostitution, I refused. … I was beaten and coerced to have sex with up to ten men per day.”

Why on earth would someone in the Saudi diplomatic compound get involved in such a thing? Well, maybe because the Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"Possible Human Trafficking Investigated at Saudi Diplomatic Compound in Virginia," by Jackie Bensen for NBC Washington, May 1 (thanks to all who sent this in):

A case of "possible human trafficking" at a Saudi diplomatic compound in Virginia is under investigation, Homeland Security confirmed to News4.

Agents from U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement/Homeland Security Investigations and Fairfax County police were called to a home in the 6000 block of Orris Street in McLean overnight and, in the words of a source familiar with the investigation, "rescued" two women. One woman reportedly tried to flee by squeezing through a gap in the front gate as it was closing.

It's not clear if the women, who sources say are from the Philippines, called investigators to the home themselves or if someone else did.

"Homeland Security Investigations DC did encounter two potential victims of trafficking and the investigation is ongoing," a D.C.-based spokesman for ICE/Homeland Security investigations told News4.

The investigation is in its very early stages and complicated by the possibility some of those involved may have diplomatic immunity.

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

The Qur'an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community and the mainstream media cravenly ignore.

"'You treated her like a piece of meat': Judge's fury as he jails trio of men who abducted girl, 13, and forced her to be their sex slave," by Steve Robson for the Daily Mail, April 26:

Three men who abducted a vulnerable 13-year-old girl from the streets of London and forced her to become their sex slave have been jailed.

The girl, who was described as being from a broken and troubled family, was subjected to sexual abuse over four days after being persuaded to travel with the men to Ipswich in Suffolk in July last year.

Mohammed Sheikh, Hamza Ali and Suran Uddin were all convicted of trafficking and sex offences following a trial.

Today at Norwich Crown Court, Judge Nicholas Coleman said the girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had been left traumatised by the ordeal.

'Instead of helping this girl find refuge, you were all intent on sexually exploiting her for your own ends,' he added.

'She was taken to a town she'd never visited, a house she had never been to, in the company of men she had never met.

'All three of you treated her like a piece of meat and passed her about. This happened over four days until she was finally rescued by police.'

Uddin was jailed for 15 years, Sheikh will serve eight years and Ali five years.

All three were placed on the sex offenders register and Sheikh and Ali could face deportation to Somalia, their home country.

Jurors heard how the men took advantage of the girl's 'youth and naivety' to persuade her to get into a van, driven by Uddin.

They took her to a house in Chevallier Street, Ipswich.

Prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones said: 'They plied her with drugs and alcohol and made promises that they would take care of her and give her anything she wanted.

'She was treated as little more than a skivvy and she was raped over the course of four days.'

Maria Denine, mitigating for Sheikh said the defendants had not been aware of her background or how vulnerable she was.

Mitigating for Uddin, Scott Ivill said his client was married with two children, aged eight and one, and any custodial sentence would cause his family to suffer.

Lindsay Cox, for Ali, said his client was also a married man.

Uddin, 26, of Bethnal Green, London; Sheikh, 32, of Hackney, London; and Ali, 39, of Waltham Forest, London, were all found guilty of conspiracy to traffic in the UK.

Uddin was also convicted of two counts of rape and supplying a class B drug to the victim.

Sheikh was convicted of causing a child to engage in sexual activity and supplying a class B drug.

Ali was found guilty of a sexual assault.

A fourth defendant, Abdul Hammed, 46, of Wellington Street, Ipswich, was cleared of supplying a class B drug, two counts of rape and trafficking.

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves:

If you fear that you will not act justly towards the orphans, marry such women as seem good to you, two, three, four; but if you fear you will not be equitable, then only one, or what your right hands own; so it is likelier you will not be partial. (Qur'an 4:3)

This verse is the basis for Islamic polygamy, allowing a man to take as many as four wives, as long as he believes he is able to “deal justly” with all of them. But justice in these circumstances is in the eye of the beholder. Ibn Kathir says this the requirement to deal justly with one’s wives is no big deal, since treating them justly isn’t the same as treating them equally: “it is not obligatory to treat them equally, rather it is recommended. So if one does so, that is good, and if not, there is no harm on him.”

The verse goes on to say that if a man cannot deal justly with multiple wives, then he should marry only one, or resort to “what your right hands own” – that is, slave girls.

Slave girls? Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice, and longs for the good old days:

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).

He goes on to explain that this is not ancient history:

None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community cravenly ignores.

"Ipswich: Three guilty in Chevallier Street teen sex slave case," from EADT24, February 27 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

THREE men have been convicted today of abducting a 13-year-old girl and forcing her to become their sex slave.

The girl, from a “troubled” family, was subjected to a string of assaults over four days after being trafficked from her home in London to a house in Chevallier Street, Ipswich, prosecutor Riel Karmy-Jones had told Norwich Crown Court.

Suran Uddin, 28, of St Matthew’s Row, Bethnal Green, London; Mohammed Sheikh, 31, of Seaton Point in Hackney, London; and Hamza Ali, 38, of Chilford Road, Waltham Forest, London, denied various sex offences during a three-week trial.

But following three days of jury deliberations, Uddin, Sheikh and Ali were today all found guilty of conspiracy to traffick in the UK, and supplying a class B drug to the victim.

Uddin was also convicted of two counts of rape.

Sheikh was convicted on a charge of causing a child to engage in sexual activity but was cleared of two counts of rape.

Ali was found guilty of a sexual assault but not guilty of rape.

The men will be sentenced at a later date.

Abdul Hammed, 46, of Wellington Street, Ipswich, was cleared of supplying a class B drug and two counts of rape.

The judge had earlier instructed the jury to find him not guilty of trafficking.

Muhammad owned slaves, and the Qur'an takes the existence of slavery for granted, even as it enjoins the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances, such as the breaking of an oath: “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom” (5:89).

While the freeing of a few slaves here and there is encouraged, however, the institution itself is never questioned. Slavery was taken for granted throughout Islamic history, as it was, of course, in the West up until relatively recent times. Yet the impetus to end slavery moved from Christendom into Islam, not the other way around. Because the Qur'anic word cannot be questioned, and the book does not contain the Biblical principles that led to the abolition of slavery in the West, there has never been a Muslim abolitionist movement. Slavery ended in Islamic lands under pressure from the West.

"UAE officer ordered to pay $1.2M to former worker," from the Associated Press, December 27 (thanks to Kenneth):

PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — A federal judge has ordered a naval officer from the United Arab Emirates to pay $1.2 million to a former domestic worker for his family in Rhode Island who accused him of forcing her to work long hours for little pay.

U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell in August ruled Col. Arif Mohamed Saeed Mohamed Al-Ali in default for failing to appear in court in a lawsuit brought by Elizabeth Ballesteros, who cared for Al-Ali’s family in East Greenwich when he was studying at the U.S. Naval War College.

On Wednesday, McConnell ordered Al-Ali to pay Ballesteros for forcing her to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and for what he called outrageous and inhumane conduct.

Al-Ali was previously acquitted of criminal charges.

Muhammad owned slaves, and the Qur'an takes the existence of slavery for granted, even as it enjoins the freeing of slaves under certain circumstances, such as the breaking of an oath: “Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but He will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons, on a scale of the average for the food of your families; or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom” (5:89).

While the freeing of a few slaves here and there is encouraged, however, the institution itself is never questioned. Slavery was taken for granted throughout Islamic history, as it was, of course, in the West up until relatively recent times. Yet the impetus to end slavery moved from Christendom into Islam, not the other way around. Because the Qur'anic word cannot be questioned, and the book does not contain the Biblical principles that led to the abolition of slavery in the West, there has never been a Muslim abolitionist movement. Slavery ended in Islamic lands under pressure from the West.

In fact, when the British government began pressuring other regimes to abolish slavery in the nineteenth century, the Sultan of Morocco was incredulous. “The traffic in slaves,” he noted, “is a matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the sons of Adam...up to this day.” He said that he was “not aware of its being prohibited by the laws of any sect” and that the very idea that anyone would question its morality was absurd: “No one need ask this question, the same being manifest to both high and low and requires no more demonstration than the light of day.”

Sadiq al-Mahdi, former prime minister of Sudan, would agree. On March 24, 1999, he wrote to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, that “the traditional concept of JIHAD does allow slavery as a by-product.” And so slavery persists in some areas of the Islamic world. The BBC reported in December 2008 that “strong evidence has emerged of children and adults being used as slaves in Sudan’s Darfur region.”

Mauritanian human rights crusader Boubakar Messaoud asserted that in that country, people are born and bred as slaves: “A Mauritanian slave, whose parents and grandparents before him were slaves, doesn’t need chains. He has been brought up as a domesticated animal.” Three years later, nothing had changed. Messaoud explained in March 2007: “It’s like having sheep or goats. If a woman is a slave, her descendants are slaves.” Likewise in Niger, which formally abolished slavery only in 2003, slavery is a long-standing practice. Journalist and anti-slavery activist Souleymane Cisse explained that even Western colonial governments did nothing to halt the practice: “The colonial rulers preferred to ignore it because they wanted to co-operate with the aristocracy who kept these slaves.”

Islamic slavery has not been unknown even in the United States. When the Saudi national Homaidan Al-Turki was imprisoned for holding a woman as a slave in Colorado, he complained that “the state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors. Attacking traditional Muslim behaviors was the focal point of the prosecution.” Where did he get the idea that slavery was a “traditional Muslim behavior”? From the Qur'an.

"Yemen’s hidden slaves," by Ibrahim Jadelkarim for AFP, December 19 (thanks to Lookmann):

Slavery is still being practiced in parts of Yemen, with men, women and children all falling victim to the practice. And according to local human rights activists, the government would prefer to simply sweep the problem under the carpet.

An investigation by the Wethaq Foundation, based on six months of field studies, has revealed 190 cases of slavery in three provinces in the north west of the country. The organisation also found evidence of people being bought and sold, and its report is raising questions about just how widespread slavery is in Yemen.

Yemeni Human Rights Watch had already documented its first case of enslavement in 2008, when activists found evidence of a slave being traded for around 2.000 euros. The case was discovered via local documents used to register real estate which included the phrase: “the slave Qenaf, son of slave Sara, was legally purchased”.

Charity
According to activist Najeeb Al-Saadi, it is not uncommon for individuals from the Arab Gulf to buy slaves in Yemen and then set them free. This, he says, is seen as a charitable act, in accordance with the teachings of Islam.

Al-Saadi also claims his group was able to free a slave called Naseem during its research. The terms of release included keeping the identity of the seller confidential and keeping the slave away from the media. Naseem has now been brought to the capital Sana'a, and the Foundation is searching for someone to adopt him.

Mohammed Naji Allaw is an activist and former member of parliament. He says most slaves were set free back in the 1960s after the September 26 Revolution. They remained hugely disadvantaged though because of their low economic status.

No hope
The new findings by the Wethaq Foundation are backed up by research conducted by the Al-Masdar website in 2010. This confirmed that local communities in the North-West are comfortable with slavery. For those enslaved the situation is grim. In interviews conducted by the website, the slaves said they have not received any education and believed they had little chance of improving their situation.

According to Al-Saadi, the Yemeni authorities have been happy for the slavery question to remain hidden, and the publication of his organisation’s report is raising awkward questions. When Al-Masdar previously wrote about the issue, the authorities’ response was to deny slavery existed and to send troops to the North-West to intimidate those who had spoken out. Al-Saadi hopes his group’s new research will make it impossible for the issue to be swept aside again and that the government will be forced to take action.

Slavery is banned and all people are equal under Yemeni law, but experts say extreme poverty fuels the practice as poor people in rural areas are often totally dependent.

Yes, of course. Throw money at it. That will fix it. It fixes everything. It will change Qur'anic teaching on slavery.

CNS News adds: "Ruled by a former military coup leader, Mauritania is a North African Islamic state where conversion to another faith is punishable by death. The country’s criminal code provides for a three-day period of reflection and repentance for any Muslim found guilty of apostasy. 'If he does not repent within this time limit,' it states, 'he is to be condemned to death as an apostate and his property will be confiscated by the Treasury.'"

Both slavery and the death penalty for apostasy are prescribed by Islamic law, so it is no surprise that an Islamic state would have both. But that such a state should be elected to the UN Human Rights Council just show how compromised are the clowns who run the UN.

"Human Rights Day Marred by Election of Slave-holding Mauritania as VP of UN Human Rights Council," from UN Watch, December 10 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

GENEVA, Dec. 10 – UN Watch condemned today's election of Mauritania, a country that allows 800,000 of its citizens to live as slaves, as Vice-President of the UN Human Rights Council.

In addition, the Geneva-based group also announced the failure of its yearlong campaign, with 55 MPs and NGOs, to get UNESCO to remove Syria from its human rights committee.

1. Mauritania Elected Today as VP of UN Human Rights Council

The UN Human Rights Council met today in Geneva and elected Mauritania as its Vice-President and Rapporteur for the next year, the second highest position at the world's top human rights body.

"It is obscene for the U.N. to use the occasion of Human Rights Day, when we commemorate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to elect the world's worst enabler of slavery to this prestigious post," said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director.

"The U.N. is making an arsonist head of the fire department. It defies both morality and common sense."

According to a recent report by the Guardian, "up to 800,000 people in a nation of 3.5 million remain chattels," with power and wealth overwhelmingly concentrated among lighter-skinned Moors, "leaving slave-descended darker-skinned Moors and black Africans on the edges of society."...

No surprise here. Sharia denies free speech and equal rights for women, and allows slavery. So this is just more indication of Egypt's slide toward Sharia. "Disputed articles in Egypt's draft constitution," from AP, November 30:

CAIRO (AP) -- An Islamist-dominated panel is voting on Egypt's draft constitution, the country's first charter after the uprising that toppled Hosni Mubarak. The draft largely reflects the conservative vision of the Islamists, with articles that rights activists, liberals and Christians fear will lead to restrictions on the rights of women and minorities and civil liberties in general.

Omissions of certain articles, such as bans on slavery or promises to adhere to international rights treaties, were equally worrying to critics of the new draft, who pulled out from the panel before the vote.

Here are some of the disputed articles:

- As in past constitutions, the new draft says that the "principles of Islamic law" will be the basis of law. Previously, the term "principles" allowed wide leeway in interpreting Shariah. But in the draft, a separate new article is added that seeks to define "principles" by pointing to particular theological doctrines and their rules. That could give Islamists the tool for insisting on stricter implementation of rulings of Shariah.

- A new article states that Egypt's most respected Islamic institution, Al-Azhar, must be consulted on any matters related to Shariah, a measure critics fear will lead to oversight of legislation by clerics.

- An article underlines that the state will protect "the true nature of the Egyptian family ... and promote its morals and values," phrasing that is vague and suggests state control over the contents of such arts forms as books and films.

- The draft contains no article specifically establishing equality between men and women because of disputes over the phrasing. However, it maintains that a woman must balance her duties toward family and outside work, suggesting that she can be held accountable if her public role conflicts with her family duties. No such article is mentioned for men.

- An article bans insulting or defaming the prophet and messengers, but is vague about what constitutes an insult, raising concerns of restrictions to freedom of expression.

- An article seeking to ensure people's dignity bans "insulting humans", a vague phrasing that rights activists say contradicts freedom of expression.

- An article maintains that the state supports the arts, science and literature and works to implement them in a way that serves society. That has raised concerns that some arts deemed not in the service of society may be restricted or censored....

The Qur’an forbids Muslim men to have sexual relations with “wedded women, save what your right hands own.” (4:4) “Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (23:1-6)

Those whom their “right hands own” are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Qur’an stipulates that a man may take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “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” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community cravenly ignores.

"Ethiopia woman tells of sex slavery in Saudi Arabia," by Mohammad Awad for Bikya Masr, November 11 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

ADDIS ABABA: An Ethiopia woman revealed that she was the victim of sex slavery after she attempted to find work as a domestic worker in Saudi Arabia.

For H, who asked that her identity remain anonymous, her ordeal began after she took a boat to Yemen, where after two months she was able to cross into Saudi Arabia and was hired by what she told Bikyamasr.com was a “nice couple” for a “decent salary.”

But that is when her horrific experience began. She continues to look down at her hands, ever moving, as she retells what she was forced to endure at the hands of her Saudi bosses.

“I don’t think the wife knew anything that was going on,” she is quick to point out. “But if she did hear my screams and did nothing, I hope she doesn’t sleep well.”

After three weeks of relative calm, H was finding life in southern Saudi Arabia comfortable and she was hoping that much of her first paycheck would be sent back to her family in Addis Ababa. Instead, no money came.

“When the fourth week came around, I was excited because I was being treated well and was doing my job I thought very good,” she continued.

But the day she asked when she would receive money, the husband, who she described as a construction manager, began grabbing her and forced her to the wall. She said she was screaming, but knew that nobody would come to her aid because the wife was out shopping and the two children were at school.

“He ripped my dress off and forced himself onto me. He raped me. This was just the beginning,” she said, tears beginning to form in her eyes.

“He would find me almost daily and rape me. He would force me to work naked in his office if nobody was home. He would tie me up and repeatedly force himself onto me over and over for hours if the wife was out of the house. I can’t imagine that I experienced this,” she added.

After four months of constant rape and sexual violence, H was able to escape late in the night after she found her door was unusually unlocked. She met up with three other Ethiopians and they fled back across the border into Yemen, where they were flown out of the country this fall as part of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) flights.

Her story is not unusual, she says, revealing that at least three other Ethiopian women were raped while working in Saudi Arabia.

“I would never wish any woman to work in Saudi Arabia, the stories I hear are horrific and I know how we are treated. We are slaves to whatever they want,” she added....

The Qur’an forbids Muslim men to have sexual relations with “wedded women, save what your right hands own.” (4:4) “Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (23:1-6)

Those whom their “right hands own” are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Qur’an stipulates that a man many take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “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” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

...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” [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. [...] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.

Right around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.”

While the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction. Here is yet another human rights scandal occasioned by Islamic law that the international human rights community cravenly ignores.

"Asian" is British PC media-speak for "Muslim." "New grooming scandal: Girls in care homes 'gang-raped,'" by Justin Penrose in the Mirror, November 3 (thanks to all who sent this in):

POLICE are investigating shocking new claims that gangs of Asian men gang-raped and abused vulnerable under-age girls from CARE HOMES in the North West.

The new grooming scandal emerged after a 27-year-old mum claimed she was a victim of a horrifying catalogue of sexual abuse while in care as a teen.

Her account of how care workers allegedly turned a blind eye to predatory paedo­philes echoes the findings of a report into a sex ring in Rochdale, which highlighted “missed opportunities” to halt abuse.

Claire, not her real name, says she was one of many vulnerable young girls who were treated like “pieces of meat” by men who hung around the care homes she lived in in Lancashire and Liverpool.

She says she was groomed and molested in return for alcohol, cigarettes and drugs. On one harrowing occasion when she was 14, she was drugged and gang-raped.

A farmer found her naked in a field covered in blood and bruises, but she was returned to her home without medical help. “My social worker told me I deserved what I’d got because I’d been drinking,” she says. “I hadn’t... I was drugged.” Claire says even though she told staff at Briar’s Hey Residential Home in ­Rainhill, Merseyside, which closed in 2005, there was no medical examination or police probe.

“I was given the morning-after pill ‘to avoid any more mess’,” she says.

Claire, who now lives with her ­partner and four children, claims her experience was the norm for many teens at the homes. “Sex was the going ­currency for girls like me,” she says. “The men would hang round the gates. If we ­complained to staff we were told to just ignore them.”

In May this year, when nine men from the paedophile gang in Rochdale were jailed, Claire contacted police in the hope they would finally investigate her ordeal....

Islam sanctions sex slavery for Infidel women, and Shabir Ahmed was making it his business. But true to form for Islamic supremacists, he has claimed victim status, saying he is a victim of "Islamophobia."

"Rochdale grooming gang leader gets 22 years," from the BBC, August 2 (thanks to David):

The jailed leader of a Rochdale sex ring has received a further term of 22 years for 30 child rape charges.

Shabir Ahmed, 59, of Oldham, was one of nine men convicted of sex offences against children at Liverpool Crown Court in May.

He was not named at the time because he faced further charges, but was jailed for 19 years.

Ahmed was convicted at Manchester Crown Court in June of raping and sexually abusing a girl for more than a decade....

Judge Mushtaq Khokhar was forced to have Ahmed removed from the dock before passing sentence because he was persistently interrupted by the defendant.

Before his ejection, Ahmed shouted: "It's all lies. It's all concocted by the police."

He then looked over at journalists covering the case and shouted: "What are you looking at?"

The jury was told that Ahmed, of Windsor Road, had treated his victim as a "possession" using her for his own sexual gratification and that the girl had been abused on "an almost weekly basis"....

Over at Atlas Shrugs I discuss the increasingly common phenomenon of sex slavery sanctioned by the Qur'an:

Bikya Masr reported last week that “a new report from George Washington University professor Michele Clark and Coptic rights activist Nada Ghaly has argued that thousands of young Coptic Christian girls in Egypt are the victim of kidnapping and forced servitude by Muslims in the North African country.” Meanwhile, every day seems to bring fresh reports of Muslim gangs in Britain forcing young non-Muslim girls into prostitution and sex slavery. Muslims from the Twin Cities area ran an interstate sex trafficking ring until they were caught and indicted in late 2010. The dirty secret behind such reports is that this behavior is sanctioned in Islam.

The Qur’an forbids Muslim men to have sexual relations with “wedded women, save what your right hands own.” (4:4) “Prosperous are the believers who in their prayers are humble and from idle talk turn away and at almsgiving are active and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hands own then being not blameworthy.” (23:1-6)

Those whom their “right hands own” are slaves, and inextricable from the concept of Islamic slavery as a whole is the concept of sex slavery, which is rooted in Islam’s devaluation of the lives of non-Muslims. The Qur’an stipulates that a man many take four wives as well as hold slave girls as sex slaves. These women are captured in wartime and are considered the spoils of war. Islam avoids the appearance of impropriety, declaring that the taking of these sex slaves does not constitute adultery if the women are already married, for their marriages are ended at the moment of their capture. A manual of Islamic law directs: “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” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.13).

This is by no means an eccentric or unorthodox view in Islam. The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that as they waged jihad warfare against infidels, Muslims would take slaves. He clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:

…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.

There is more.

On this week’s Glazov Gang, Nonie Darwish, Eric Allen Bell and Dr. Nancy Bonus gathered to discuss Islamic Slavery. The discussion shed light on the continuing barbaric practice of slavery in the Islamic world and its roots in Islamic theology. Below is Part II of a three part series. To see Part I, which dealt with When Egypt Fell, click here.

Slavery is taken for granted in the Qur'an (see 2:178, 2:221, 4:92, 5:89, and many more), so this should come as no surprise. "Migrant workers in Qatar risk forced labour, human rights group says," from AFP, June 13 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Doha: Human Rights Watch (HRW) warned on Tuesday that migrant construction workers in Qatar, which is preparing to host the 2022 World Cup, risk serious abuse amounting to ‘forced labour’.

“The government needs to ensure that the cutting edge, high-tech stadiums it’s planning to build for World Cup fans are not built on the backs of abused and exploited workers,” said HRW Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson in a statement released at a news conference in Doha.

The New York-based watchdog said construction workers, mostly South Asians, “risk serious exploitation and abuse, sometimes amounting to forced labour,” as it released its report: ‘Building a better World Cup: Protecting migrant workers in Qatar ahead of Fifa 2022.’

The 146-page report was based on interviews with 73 migrant construction workers, as well as meetings and correspondence with government officials, employers, contracting companies, recruitment agents, diplomats from labour-sending countries, and worker advocates, HRW said.

I am not in favor of book-burning as a symbolic act, but the significant points here are that Islamic legal manuals justify slavery, contrary to the claims of Muslim spokesmen in the West, and that slavery still exists in Mauritania, justified by those legal texts, despite the protestations of authorities to the contrary. "Activists Arrested in Mauritania Following Burning of Islamic Jurisdiction Books Legitimizing Slavery," from MEMRI, April 30 (thanks to David):

Following are excerpts from a report on the movement for abolishing slavery in Mauritania, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on April 30, 2012 :

Reporter : The issue of slavery has taken center stage in Mauritania once again. A human rights organization fighting slavery burnt books of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, prevailing in Mauritania, claiming that they provide a religious justification for continuing slavery. The act took place at the end of a special prayer of slaves, which emphasized their right to lead Muslims in prayer. The burning of the books sparked fury among the public.

Sheik Hamad Ould Al-Tah, head of the Islamic Scholars Association in Mauritania : There has not been much slavery in Mauritania for a long while. A fatwa that was issued by the country's scholars, and was ratified by the authorities, abolished slavery.

Reporter : Demonstrations erupted throughout the country in condemnation of what was perceived as an affront to [Islam's] sanctities.

The affront to Islam's sanctities, mind you, was the opposition to slavery, not the slavery itself.

The president of Mauritania met with the protestors, and promised to implement the [penalties] of Islamic law upon the leaders of the manumission movement, who burnt the books. The president ordered them arrested and handed over to the courts.

The anti-slavery movement apologized to the Mauritanians for the burning of the Maliki books. The movement explained that this was a symbolic act, in order to draw attention to jurisprudent views legitimizing slavery....

Reporter : The activists deemed the reactions to the burning of the books to be extremist, and said that [the protestors] failed to see the connection between some religious texts and the suffering of slaves in Mauritania.

[…]

Anti-slavery activist Abeid Ould Amigin : I cannot accept the claim that slavery does not exist. After all, a slave-owner was found guilty, a few months ago, of enslaving two minors. I cannot accept that slavery does not exist, when the state legislated a law in 2007 criminalizing slavery. A state does not legislate laws for things that do not exist.