Recently in women's rights in Islam Category

This AP story uses "conservative" to refer to the pro-Sharia Muslims who blocked this women's rights law. That's in accord with common journalistic practice, which refers to religious people of any religion as "conservative" and to more secular types as "liberal." The common journalistic practice runs into a contradiction, however, with the global alliance between Islamic supremacists and the forces of the Left. That leads the mainstream media to term opponents of Sharia "right-wing" and even "far-right," their all-purpose term to semaphore to readers that we are bad people and decent folks should stay away from us. But that means that in the U.S., opponents of Sharia are "conservatives," while in Afghanistan, proponents of Sharia are "conservatives." If ever (and this will never happen) a counter-jihad, anti-Sharia movement arose in Afghanistan, AP's collective head would explode.

Anyway, note that the Sharia supremacists block a law banning child marriage. This is because Muhammad consummated his marriage with Aisha when he was 54 and she was 9, and he is the supreme example for conduct (cf. Qur'an 33:21), so his example is normative and cannot be questioned. And the law also would have prevented the prosecution of rape victims -- one of the most noxious manifestations of the fact that in Islamic law, men are not called upon to exercise any self-control at all. Their conduct is entirely the woman's responsibility. If she gets raped, it is her fault.

"Conservative Afghan lawmakers block legislation protecting women’s rights," from the Associated Press, May 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

KABUL, Afghanistan — Conservative religious lawmakers in Afghanistan blocked legislation on Saturday aimed at strengthening provisions for women’s freedoms, arguing that parts of it violate Islamic principles and encourage disobedience.

The fierce opposition highlights how tenuous women’s rights remain a dozen years after the ouster of the hard-line Taliban regime, whose strict interpretation of Islam once kept Afghan women virtual prisoners in their homes.

Khalil Ahmad Shaheedzada, a conservative lawmaker for Herat province, said the legislation was withdrawn shortly after being introduced in parliament because of an uproar by religious parties who said parts of the law are un-Islamic.

“Whatever is against Islamic law, we don’t even need to speak about it,” Shaheedzada said.

The Law on Elimination of Violence Against Women has been in effect since 2009, but only by presidential decree. It is being brought before parliament now because lawmaker Fawzia Kofi, a women’s rights activist, wants to cement it with a parliamentary vote to prevent its potential reversal by any future president who might be tempted to repeal it to satisfy hard-line religious parties.

The law criminalizes, among other things, child marriage and forced marriage, and bans “baad,” the traditional practice of selling and buying women to settle disputes. It also makes domestic violence a crime punishable by up to three years in prison and specifies that rape victims should not face criminal charges for fornication or adultery.

Kofi, who plans to run for president in next year’s elections, said she was disappointed because among those who oppose upgrading the law from presidential decree to legislation passed by parliament are women.

Afghanistan’s parliament has more than 60 female lawmakers, mostly due to constitutional provisions reserving certain seats for women.

There has been spotty enforcement of the law as it stands. A United Nations analysis in late 2011 found only a small percentage of reported crimes against women were pursued by the Afghan government. Between March 2010 and March 2011 — the first full Afghan year the decree was in effect — prosecutors filed criminal charges in only 155 cases, or 7 percent of the total number of crimes reported.

The child marriage ban and the idea of protecting female rape victims from prosecution were particularly heated subjects in Saturday’s parliamentary debate, said Nasirullah Sadiqizada Neli, a conservative lawmaker from Daykundi province.

Neli suggested that removing the custom — common in Afghanistan — of prosecuting raped women for adultery would lead to social chaos, with women freely engaging in extramarital sex safe in the knowledge they could claim rape if caught....

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.

In PJ Lifestyle yesterday I discuss the odd case of a female campaigner for the Islamic oppression of women in Saudi Arabia:

Some slaves prefer slavery: “A prominent Saudi female activist,” Emirates 24/7 reported last Thursday, has come out against Saudi Arabia’s lifting its ban on women driving cars.

Rawdah Al-Yousif complained that campaigns to give women the right to drive

“continue despite the clear response by the rulers of this country that any decision to allow women to drive cars is up to the community not to just 3000 people or to some articles in newspapers or online. I hope there will be no decision to allow women to drive at this stage because we have first to respect the wish of the people and the society…Women are also not ready yet to bear their responsibility and leave their homes at a time when news of blackmail against the women are widespread.”

Ah, yes. Women are not yet ready to bear their responsibility, just as we heard in the antebellum South that black Americans were not yet ready to bear the responsibilities of freedom, or in the Jim Crow South that they were not yet ready to bear the full responsibilities of citizenship. This is a common argument that oppressors make to justify oppression; it is unusual to hear it offered by one of the oppressed themselves.

Yet Rawdah Al-Yousuf is the prime mover behind a recent campaign in Saudi Arabia called “My Guardian Knows What’s Best For Me.” This involved, according to Emirates 24/7, “sending letters to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in which women confirmed their full support for an Islamic approach in administering the Kingdom.” Al Yousif expressed her “dismay at the efforts of some who have liberal demands that do not comply with Islamic law (Shariah) or with the Kingdom’s traditions and customs” and railed against what she characterized as “ignorant and vexatious demands” to abolish the guardianship system.

A manual of Islamic law certified by the foremost Islamic institution among Sunni Muslims, Cairo’s Al-Azhar University, as conforming to “the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community,” explains the guardianship system:

“A husband may permit his wife to leave the house for a lesson in Sacred Law, for invocation of Allah (dhikr), to see her female friends, or to go to any place in the town. A woman may not leave the city without her husband or a member of her unmarriageable kin accompanying her, unless the journey is obligatory, like the hajj. It is unlawful for her to travel otherwise, and unlawful for her husband to allow her to.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, m10.3).

This is based on a statement attributed to Muhammad, the prophet of Islam:

“It is not permissible for a woman who believes in Allah and the Last Day to allow someone into her husband’s house if he is opposed, or to go out if he is averse.”

In other words, a woman is her husband’s slave: he controls her movements, and if she dares to get out of line, another Sharia provision that is rooted in a Qur’an verse offers husbands a ready remedy:

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them.” (Qur’an 4:34)

Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur’an 33:21) – and according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim 2127) Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Sahih Bukhari 7.72.715)

The Qur’an commentary Ruhul Ma’ani reflects mainstream Muslim understandings of this verse when it gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

If these divinely sanctioned threats and terror don’t work on a woman so recalcitrant as to leave the house without a valid excuse, there is always the opprobrium of her peers like Rawdah Al-Yousuf, who love their slavery and want to make sure their Muslim sisters remain slaves. It is, after all, the will of Allah.

Yet another indication of the fear and suspicion directed toward women in the culture established by Sharia. A few salient ahadith establishing Muhammad's view of women as essentially evil and contemptible:

It was narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that women will form the majority of the people of Hell. It was narrated from ‘Imraan ibn Husayn that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I looked into Paradise and I saw that the majority of its people were the poor. And I looked into Hell and I saw that the majority of its people are women.”

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3241; Muslim, 2737)

With regard to the reason for that, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was asked about it and he explained the reason.

It was narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “I was shown Hell and I have never seen anything more terrifying than it. And I saw that the majority of its people are women.” They said, “Why, O Messenger of Allaah?” He said, “Because of their ingratitude (kufr).” It was said, “Are they ungrateful to Allaah?” He said, “They are ungrateful to their companions (husbands) and ungrateful for good treatment. If you are kind to one of them for a lifetime then she sees one (undesirable) thing in you, she will say, ‘I have never had anything good from you.’” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1052)

It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri said:

“The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to the Musalla on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’”

(Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 304)

It was narrated that Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah said: “I attended Eid prayers with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). He started with the prayer before the khutbah, with no adhaan or iqaamah. Then he stood up, leaning on Bilaal, speaking of fear of Allaah (taqwa) and urging us to obey Him. He preached to the people and reminded them. Then he went over to the women and preached to them and reminded them. Then he said, ‘Give in charity, for you are the majority of the fuel of Hell. A woman with dark cheeks stood up in the midst of the women and said, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He said, ‘Because you complain too much and are ungrateful to your husbands.’ Then they started to give their jewellery in charity, throwing their earrings and rings into Bilaal’s cloak.”

(Narrated by Muslim, 885)

"Iran Cleric: Women to Blame for Earthquakes," by Elizabeth Sheld for Breitbart, May 4 (thanks to CGW):

A senior cleric in Iran says that the immodesty and whorish dress of women is responsible for Earthquakes. 

“Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes,” Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi told Iranian media.

Sedighi claims Iranian women are "owning and using a giant earthquake machine."

Apparently Iran is an earthquake prone country. (California is an earthquake prone state so..maybe he is on to something?)

Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad agrees: 

“As I have said before, the woes of Iran, and the earthquakes that threaten us in particular, can all be blamed on immodest women,” said Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leader recently predicted that Tehran was in imminent danger of an earthquake from "a giant earthquake machine to hold our populace hostage"  

Oddly enough, Western feminists are completely silent about this.

Actually, it isn't odd at all. I have taken feminists to task more than once not only for their failure to stand up for Muslim women, but for their active excuse-making for the oppression of those women. See, for example, my article in FrontPage, "Feminists Betray Muslim Women," on how the feminist writer Laura Briggs justifies the oppression of Muslim women.

See also "Two Women Stoned: Feminists Mum," by David Horowitz, Janet Levy and me; "A Response to Feminists on the Violent Oppression of Women in Islam," by David Horowitz and me; and my article "The Conservative Vanguard of the Feminist Movement" in National Review.

Other articles I've written in FrontPage on issues revolving around women's rights in Islam include "Covering Up the Plight of Muslim Women"; "There Must Be Violence Against Women"; "Muhammad Mended His Own Clothes!"; Open Season on Muslim Women"; "Women Are Treated Better in Islam?."

Also there are my articles in Human Events, "Unveiled Women and 'Uncovered Meat'"; "Media Ignore Abuses of Women in Islam."

I also coauthored the monograph "The Violent Oppression of Women in Islam," which was published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

"Pakistan's women face battle for the right to vote," by Tracy McVeigh for The Observer, May 4 (thanks to Richard Dawkins):

Fears over the safety of women voting in next week's elections in Pakistan are rising after letters have been circulated in regions of the country warning men not to allow their wives, sisters and daughters out to the polling stations.

In an increasingly fraught and violent runup to the 11 May vote, leaflets are appearing stating that it is "un-Islamic" for women to participate in democracy.

Now a group of young female activists are planning to challenge what they call the government's inability to protect women's right to vote by organising their own protection teams at individual polling stations in tense and volatile Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, one of the four provinces of Pakistan, formerly known as the North West Frontier Province.

In what is being called Pakistan's youth election – almost a third of the electorate is between 18 and 29 – a growing tide of young women are determined to overcome cultural and political obstacles to make their voices heard.

Saba Ismail, 23-year-old founder and director of Aware Girls, a peace group for and led by young women to train girls in leadership skills, said they already planned to monitor 30 polling stations with volunteers who would support women who came out to vote and hoped to reach many more.

Malala Yousafzai, the 15-year-old activist for girl's educational rights who became an international figure after being shot and badly injured in a Taliban assassination attempt last October, was one of those trained by Ismail's group.

"Malala is not the only one who has been so brave, but she is a hero to all of us now," Ismail said. "Such a strong young woman and a true role model, I was very impressed by her. Many women and girls will feel empowered by Malala to come out and vote. It has been made very clear that women in Pakistan should not vote and those in rural areas are the most vulnerable, so we will be putting volunteers out to try and help women feel they can come out on this important day.

"For the 2008 elections, many polling stations were torched and women were told it was vulgar for them to cast a vote. This time we want Pakistan to have a free and fair election and for women to be able to vote in secret, not be told who to vote for by her family.

"Even those few women who are inside the political system are ordered about by their family. They are wives or daughters of men who want them to do their bidding, they are there just to make up quota numbers and have to do what they are told. It would be better to have quality not quantity.

"Recently on Pakistan TV we had three female politicians in the studio for a debate. They were asked questions like 'Should women really be allowed to work because they take more time to come to the office because they put make-up on?'"

Girls going to school: offensive to Allah. Hitting the school with poison gas: pleasing to Allah. "Afghan girls' school feared hit by poison gas," by Folad Hamdard for Reuters, April 22:

TALUQAN, Afghanistan (Reuters) - As many as 74 schoolgirls in Afghanistan's far north fell sick after smelling gas and were being examined for possible poisoning, local officials said on Sunday.

While instances of poisoning are sometimes later found to be false alarms, there have been numerous substantiated cases of mass poisonings of schoolgirls by elements of Afghanistan's ultra-conservative society that are opposed to female education.

Local officials said the girls became ill after smelling gas at their school, Bibi Maryam, in Takhar province's capital, Taluqan. The city is about 250 kilometers north of the country's capital, Kabul.

The Takhar governor's spokesman, Sulaiman Moradi, blamed "enemies of the government and the country" for the mass illness and said the aim was to stop girls from going to school.

The girls were taken to the provincial hospital and most were released after being treated, though several remained in a critical condition on Sunday evening, the head of the hospital, Dr Jamil Frotan, said.

"We have already sent samples of their blood to the Ministry of Public Health and it will soon become clear what the reason for their illness was," Frotan said.

The apparent poisoning came three days after more than a dozen students fell ill in another girls' high school in Taluqan. No-one has claimed responsibility for either incident.

Between May and June last year there were four poisoning attacks on a girls' school in Takhar, prompting local officials to order principals to stay in school until late and staff to search the grounds for suspicious objects and to test the water for contaminants.

Takhar has been a hotbed of militancy and criminal activity since 2009, with groups such as the Taliban and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan active.

Since the 2001 ousting of the Taliban, which banned education for women and girls, females have returned to schools, especially in Kabul.

But periodic attacks against female students, their teachers and their school buildings, continue.

Afghan women have won back basic rights in education, voting and employment since 2001, but fears are growing that such gains could be traded away as Western forces prepare to leave and the Afghan government seeks peace talks with the Taliban.

Earlier this week a video began circulating on Arabic-language websites purportedly showing a crowd of Muslims in Egypt assaulting and raping two Christian women—on a crowded street and in broad daylight. The video opens with Muslim men repeatedly shouting the word “Nasara”—the Koran’s derogatory appellation for “Christians”—as they identify two Coptic women who proceed to scream and run, only to be knocked to the ground by several Muslim men who savagely attack them, strip their clothing, and try to gang rape them. Throughout, the women scream in terror while the men shout “Allahu Akbar,” that is, “Allah is Great," as well as chant the shehada, or Islamic profession of faith: la ilaha illa Allah (“There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah"). None of the many passersby intervene in any way.

Little other information about the video accompanies the Arabic sites posting it. So I did some searching; apparently the events recorded in the video occurred in 2009. As for the context, I found a pro-Muslim article titled (in translation) “The truth about the video of Coptic girls raped in the street.” Here I expected to encounter denial and dissemble, claims that the video was a “hoax,” that these are not even Egyptians, etc., etc. Surprisingly, the article confirmed the authenticity of the video and what it depicts. The main quibble it offered was that the video was in fact made in 2009 and that the Coptic activists who recently uploaded it are troublemakers trying to create “sectarian strife.”

Much more interesting are the arguments the article makes to justify the rape of Christians: it claims that Muslim rage (for this particular incident) was prompted by accusations that a Coptic man had raped a Muslim girl. Accordingly, Muslims were merely retaliating in like manner (along with raping Christian girls, Muslims also rioted, burned, and destroyed Christian shops and homes, as is customary).

Of course, even if all this is true—if Muslims were merely exercising “an eye for an eye” logic—the ultimate significance of the video is this: If a Coptic man raped a Muslim woman, he certainly did not do so in accordance to any Christian teaching. He did it as a base man exercising base instincts—instincts which have nothing to do with race or religion.

On the other hand, what are we to make of Muslims screaming Islam’s two most distinct slogans—“Allahu Akbar” or “God is Great” and Islam’s very profession of faith, “there is no god but Allah”—while raping Christian women?... Continue reading and/or to see the brief video.

Temporary marriage, or mut'a, is the practice of entering into a marriage with a time limit: the couple is married only for a night, or a week, or whatever time period their agreement specifies. So in other words, it is prostitution under the guise of morality. Temporary wives are found in large numbers in seminary towns where young clerics-in-training are away from home and lonely.

This is a Shi'ite concept that mainstream Sunnis ostensibly reject; the Shi'ites point out that Muhammad allowed it, while the Sunnis maintain that he later abolished the practice. Shi'ites also justify it by reference to Qur'an 4:24, which says: "And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done)." They see in that reference to "what ye do by mutual agreement" the allowance of a time limit.

Sharia in action in India: "Teenager exposes India's 'one month wives' sex tourism," by Dean Nelson for the Daily Mail, April 14

Campaigners for Muslim women's rights said while short term 'contract marriages' are illegal in India and forbidden in Islam, they are increasing in Hyderabad, in southern India, where wealthy foreigners, local agents and 'Qazis' – government-appointed Muslim priests – are exploiting poverty among the city's Muslim families.

The victim, Nausheen Tobassum, revealed the scale of the problem when she escaped from her home last month after her parents pressurised her to consummate a forced marriage to a middle aged Sudanese man who had paid around £1,200 for her to be his 'wife' for four weeks.

She told police she had been taken by her aunt to a hotel where she and three other teenager girls were introduced to a Sudanese oil company executive. The 'groom', Usama Ibrahim Mohammed, 44 and married with two children in Khartoum, later arrived at her home where a Qazi performed a wedding ceremony.

According to Inspector Vijay Kumar he had paid 100,000 Rupees (around £1,200) to the girl's aunt Mumtaz Begum, who in turn paid 70,000 Rupees to her parents, 5,000 Rupees to the Qazi, 5,000 Rupees to an Urdu translator and kept 20,000 Rupees herself. The wedding certificate came with a 'Talaknama' which fixed the terms of the divorce at the end of the groom's holiday.

"The next day he came to the house of the victim girl and asked her to participate in sex but she refused. She is a young girl and the groom is older than her father," Inspector Kumar told The Telegraph.

Her parents reassured him they would persuade their daughter and told her she would be punished if she did not. Instead she ran out of their tiny one room home in Hyderabad's Moghulpuri neighbourhood and was rescued by a police patrol. The police arrested the groom, the victim's aunt and the Qazi, and issued a warrant for her parents' arrest – Nausheen is a minor under Indian law and cannot marry until she reaches 18. Her parents are now in hiding but will be charged with arranging a child marriage, 'outraging the modesty' of a woman, and criminal conspiracy.

Inspector Kumar said there are dozens of illegal short term contract marriages in the city, and that the Sudanese man they arrested had come to Hyderabad after a friend in Khartoum told him he had taken a '40 day wife' during an earlier visit.

"If a Sudanese wants to have sex, he has to pay three times more [in Sudan] because there are far fewer girls there, or he takes a second wife. In India the girls are coming for a cheaper rate and they are beautiful. Even if they are only staying for a few days they are doing this kind of illegal marriages for sex," he said.

He said the visitors want to marry because they believe prostitution is forbidden under Islam. Poor families agree to contract marriages because they have many daughters and cannot afford to pay for all their weddings.

Instead, they have a series of one-month contract 'marriages' to fund their own genuine wedding.

Shiraz Amina Khan of Hyderabad's Women and Child Welfare Society, said there were up to 15 'contract marriages' in the city every month and that the number is rising because. [sic]

The Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves -- and slaves, by definition, must act at their master's behest, whether or not they wish to perform the action or not. So sex slavery is essentially an Islamic justification for rape. The Qur'an says:

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.

"Lawyer: Recognize Victims of ‘Terrorist Rape,’" by Maayana Miskin for Israel National News, April 10 (thanks to all who sent this in):

There is a clear trend of Arab men sexually assaulting Jewish girls and women as a form of anti-Israel terrorism, attorney Roni Sadovnik said Wednesday, speaking to Arutz Sheva.

Israel’s courts prefer to treat such crimes as solely criminal in nature rather than as crimes motivated by nationalist hate, she said. Changing the status of such crimes would give victims a wider array of services and assistance.

Currently, victims of sex crimes perpetrated by Palestinian Authority men are left to handle the trauma without special help from the state, she explained.

Sadovnik noted a particularly extreme case in which four PA resident teenagers grabbed a 13-year-old Jewish girl from the side of a road north of Jerusalem, beat her and raped her. The girl managed to escape after throwing sand in the eyes of one of her attackers.

The four rapists were convicted, but each will serve just two years in prison due to their young age.

Details of the case, including the attackers’ focus on humiliating their victim, show that the attack was motivated by anti-Jewish hate, Sadovnik said. The crime should have been treated as terrorist attacks are, she added.

Another example is the brutal rape last May in the Gan Ha'Ir mall in Tel Aviv, she said. In that attack, a PA resident man who had entered Israel illegally attacked two Jewish youths over the course of four hours, beating the male and beating and raping the female.

Again, the particular focus on humiliation shows that the motive “was clearly hatred between the peoples,” she said.

When such cases come to court, it is the girls and women who were attacked who are called on to prove that the attack was motivated by nationalism, she said. Prosecutors reach plea bargain arrangements with rapists and other sex attackers which do not include a confession of the attackers’ motives – a confession which could lead to the recognition of the victims as victims of terrorism.

Sadovnik noted that there is a conflict of interests at play. The State Prosecution is essentially part of the government, she said, and the government would be required to fund additional help for victims if the prosecution were to recognize them as victims of terrorism.

There is international precedent for recognizing rape as a crime of war, she said. Regarding the theory that the state may be deliberately reducing prosecution of PA residents for diplomatic reasons, Sadovnik said that she, too, believes it is time for peace – but that peace must not come at the expense of girls and young women attacked by rapists.

Rape has been an element of Arab attacks on Jews in the Land of Israel dating back to the 1929 Hevron Massacre and even earlier. Harassment of Jewish women has become a major issue in the Negev and in parts of Jerusalem, among other places.

In recent years several gang rapes committed by Israeli Arab men have been found to have been motivated by anti-Israel hate. Terrorists who murdered an American Christian female tourist in Israel were found to have committed rape in a separate attack.

The issue of Muslim rape of non-Muslim women has caused controversy outside Israel’s borders as well, including in Norway, where a stormy public debate erupted after police revealed that Muslim immigrants were responsible for nearly all rapes in Oslo.

Muslim Women Against Femen claims that Femen's protest against the oppression of Muslim women tarred all Muslims as either oppressors or oppressed. Their Leftist allies even claim that Femen was being "racist." Note that they're using in this case exactly the same tactics that Islamic supremacists and Leftists use against Pamela Geller and me, and any foe of jihad and Islamic supremacism who dares to speak out against Sharia-justified oppression: that we're "painting all Muslims with a broad brush," that we're "racist," etc. No one who speaks out will be exempted from this treatment -- as the atheist writer Sam Harris recently found out when, after fastidiously distancing himself from all the supposedly "right-wing" and supposedly "fascist" and supposedly "Christian extremist" foes of jihad and Islamic supremacism, he found himself charged with exactly the same things they're charged with. No one, no one, will be spared.

"Muslim women who enable sisters' oppression," by Pamela Geller in WND, April 9:

A group of courageous women have come out against the oppression of women under Islamic law – and Muslim women are siding with their oppressors.

Last week I reported deep concern for a young Tunisian Muslima who had disappeared after she posted topless photos of herself to protest the Shariah oppression and subjugation she suffered as a Muslim girl. One controversial image showed the young Muslimah, Amina Tyler, smoking a cigarette, baring her breasts, with the message in Arabic written across her chest: “My body belongs to me, and is not the source of anyone’s honour.”

A Muslim cleric in moderate Tunisia called for her stoning death. Tunisian newspaper Kapitalis quoted preacher Almi Adel, who heads the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, saying: “The young lady should be punished according to Shariah, with 80 to 100 lashes, but [because of] the severity of the act she has committed, she deserves be stoned to death.” And: “Her act could bring about an epidemic. It could be contagious and give ideas to other women. It is therefore necessary to isolate [the incident]. I wish her to be healed.”

There were rumors that her family had her locked up in an asylum. Amina now fears for her life.

Such is the life of millions of Muslim girls who want to be free in Islamic society. Thankfully, Amina’s story went viral and gained international attention. One of the more outrageous reactions was from the Ukraine-based feminist group, Femen, which staged a Topless Jihad Day to stand in solidarity with Amina. It’s not what I would do, but I loved the moxie and in-your-face action to call worldwide attention to misogyny under Muslim rule. These feminist activists held “International Topless Jihad Day” in major European cities, including Berlin, Kiev and Paris. They painted their bodies with slogans such as “bare breasts against Islamism,” and they protested outside of mosques in various cities.

“We’re free, we’re naked, it’s our right, it’s our body, it’s our rules, and nobody can use religion, and some other holy things, to abuse women, to oppress them,” Femen member Alexandra Shevchenko said during a demonstration outside a Berlin mosque on a freezing day.

Finally, a well-publicized response to the crushing subjugation of women under the Shariah. But what happened next was … unforgivable. Reminiscent of the Muslim women who hold down their daughters for FGM (clitoridectomy), a group of Muslim women came out against the Amina Tyler supporters. “Muslim Women Against Femen” was formed to show that Femen “does not speak for all members of their community.”

The members of Muslim Women Against Femen encouraged other self-defeating supporters to participate in Muslimah Pride Day. They are posting pictures of themselves on social media, declaring that they are not oppressed. Well, bully for them. Are they really that selfish? Self-absorbed? Inhuman?

If they are not oppressed, then this campaign has nothing to do with them.

Millions of women under Muslim rule are oppressed like Amina Tyler and suffer unspeakable brutality under the honor violence code of Islam. What about them? How can these Muslimahs turn their back on their sisters?

“Muslim Women Against Femen” may very well choose to wear the niqab or burka or hijab, but that is their choice. They can wear purple hair for all we care. But what about the millions of Muslimahs who are forced to wear it? What about the millions of Muslimahs who are forced into marriage, beaten or honor-killed?

The utter disregard of these Muslimahs for the fate of their sisters in other lands is either a depraved lack of humanity or a strange Stockholm syndrome. The mission statement of these supremacists is: “We are making our voices heard and reclaiming our agency!” This exclusive self-reference, typically encountered among adolescents, accounts for the scorched-earth policy of Islamic supremacists. These Muslim women have no interest in the fate of Muslimahs victimized by the Shariah, because what happens to those unfortunate Muslimahs has no impact on the daily life or goals of Islamic imperialists.

Why are these Muslim women fighting those who wish to help Muslim women? Femen was not demanding Muslimahs remove their cloth coffins or head pieces. They were trying to help the oppressed.

Here’s the thing – this whole “Muslim Women Against Femen” is based on a false premise. Nobody is stopping these girls and women from wearing head and body coverings. But what about women who don’t have the liberty to choose? That’s the point.

Victims of rape, beatings, forced marriage, and more -- and they end up in prison, because in Afghanistan, in accord with Islamic law, women are little more than commodities. But remember: it's "hate" to oppose this savagery.

"Afghan women in Kabul prison over 'moral' crimes," by Kathy Gannon for the Associated Press, April 9 (thanks to all who sent this in):

KABUL (AP) — Lost and alone in a strange city Mariam called the only person she knew, her husband's cousin. She worried he wouldn't help her because she had left her home in Afghanistan's northern Kunduz province, fleeting to the capital Kabul to escape his relentless and increasingly vicious beatings. But he promised to help. Too busy to come himself he sent a friend who took her to "some house", held a gun to her head and raped her.

Finished with her he settled in front of a TV set, the gun on a table by his side. Choosing her moment, Mariam picked up the gun shot her assailant in the head and turned the gun on herself.

"Three days later I woke up in the hospital," she said, slowly, shyly removing a scarf from her head to reveal a partially shaved head and a long jagged scar that ran almost the length of her head where the bullet grazed her scalp.

From the hospital Mariam was sent to a police station and from there to Badam Bagh, Afghanistan's central women's prison where she told her story to The Associated Press. For the past three months Mariam has been waiting to find out why she is in jail, the charges and when she can leave.

"I haven't gone to court. I am just waiting."

Hugging a ratty brown sweater to protect her from the damp cold of the prison, Mariam is one of 202 women living in the six- year- old jail. The majority of the women packed are serving sentences of up to seven years for leaving their husbands, refusing to accept a marriage arranged by their parents, or choosing to leave their parent's home with a man of their choice __ all so-called "moral" crimes, says the prison's director general Zaref Jan Naebi.

Some of the women were jailed while pregnant, others with their small children. Naebi says there are 62 children living with their imprisoned mothers, sharing the same grey steel bunk-beds, napping in the afternoon hidden behind a sheet draped from an upper bunk, oblivious to the chatter and the crackling noises from the small fussy television sets shoved off to one side of the rooms.

The Taliban were thrown out 12 years ago ending five years of rule and regressive laws that enforced a tribal tradition and culture more than religious compulsions denying girls schools, ordering women to stay indoors unless accompanied by a male, and in some of the more severe cases even blackening the first story windows so prying eyes could not see women within. Women were forced to wear the all- encompassing burqa or suffer a public beating.

In the first years after the Taliban's December 2001 removal strides seemed to be made for women, schools opened, women came out of their house, many still in the burqas but appearing on television and getting elected to Parliament.

But women's activists in Kabul say within a few years of the Taliban's ouster the ball was dropped, interest waned and even President Hamid Karzai began making statements that harkened back to the Taliban rule saying women really should be accompanied by a man while outside their home. A new law was enacted called the Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW), but its implementation is erratic and rare, says the United Nations Assistance Mission on Afghanistan, whose human rights arm monitors such things.

An UNAMA report issued in December last year says it is difficult to even get information about violence against women from the authorities partially because they don't want to look bad if it showed that little was being done and little, if any, official documentation on violence against women exists.

While it might not be against the law to run away or escape a forced marriage, the courts routinely convict women fleeing abusive homes with "the intent to commit zina (or adultery)" which are most often simply referred to as "moral crimes," says the report.

"Perceptions toward women are still the same in most places, tribal laws are the only laws followed and in most places nothing has changed in the basics of women's lives. There are policies and papers and even laws but nothing has changed," said Zubaida Akbar whose volunteer Haider organization fights for women's rights and sends lawyers and aid workers to the women's prison to defend the inmates in court.

In the overwhelmingly male dominated legal system, Akbar said even when an inmate gets in front of the judge, "he says 'it is her husband, she should go back and make it work. It is her fault and not her place to leave him __ not in our society.'"...

When these Sharia courts opened in the U.K., British officials assured the public that wherever Sharia law conflicted with civil law, it would give way. But that almost immediately proved not to be the case, and here is further confirmation of the warnings we gave about these courts at the time: that they would become the legal system for a Muslim state within the state -- one that would continue to grow and expand.

The Sharia court here is acting in accord with Islamic law:

"Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them." (Qur'an 4:34)

Muhammad’s example is normative for Muslims, since he is an “excellent example of conduct” (Qur'an 33:21) – and according to a canonical hadith, Muhammad’s favorite wife, his child bride Aisha, reports that Muhammad struck her. Once he went out at night after he thought she was asleep, and she followed him surreptitiously. Muhammad saw her, and, as Aisha recounts: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you?” (Sahih Muslim 2127) Aisha herself said it: “I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.” (Sahih Bukhari 7.72.715)

The Koran commentary Ruhul Ma’ani reflects mainstream Muslim understandings of this verse when it gives four reasons that a man may beat his wife: “if she refuses to beautify herself for him,” if she refuses sex when he asks for it, if she refuses to pray or perform ritual ablutions, and “if she goes out of the house without a valid excuse.”

"Sharia court tells 'abused wife' to stay," by James Fielding for the Express, April 7:

Dr Suhaib Hasan told the undercover reporter that she should only contact police “as a last resort”, but she would be forced to leave her marital home if she did so.

The shocking exchange, filmed by the BBC’s Panorama programme for a special report into Sharia courts, has infuriated equal rights campaigners.

Baroness Cox is trying to take ­forward a private members’ Bill in the House of Lords to make it an offence for Sharia councils to set themselves up as courts.

She said: “It is a system which, in its gender discrimination causing women such suffering, is utterly incompatible with our country’s ­values. It is time to draw a line in the sand and say ‘enough is enough’.”

The programme, to be screened tomorrow night, highlights the problems faced by Muslim women who are pressured to stay in abusive marriages. Posing as a woman seeking a divorce from her violent husband, the reporter consults Dr Hasan of the Leyton Islamic Sharia council in east London.

His first response is to ask if she has done anything to provoke her treatment.

He asks her: “I think that you should be courageous enough to ask this question to him. Just tell me why you are so upset, huh? Is it because of my cooking? Is it because I see my friends, huh? So I can ­correct myself.”

The reporter asks if she should report the violence to the police but is warned: “You involve the police if he hits you but you must understand this will be the final blow.

“You will have to leave the house. Where will you go then? A refuge? A refuge is a very bad option. Women are not happy in such places.”

Dr Hasan goes on to suggest counselling, adding: “Don’t think about the police because if the police is involved then think, your family life is going to break.” Leyton Sharia council handles 50 cases a month, mainly marital disputes brought by Muslim women. For many couples a Sharia divorce is the only option because they have a Sharia marriage not a British civil one.

Dr Hasan told the BBC: “We try to facilitate for the Muslim community something which they badly need because there’s no other institution [which] can provide such services so we are providing it.

“We are not just here to issue divorces. We want to mediate first.”

However, Chief Crown Prosecutor for the North West Nazir Afzal, who tackles domestic and honour-based violence for the Crown Prosecution Service, said: “What I’ve witnessed is so dangerous because if there is early intervention we know people’s lives can be saved.”

There are thought to be at least 85 Sharia councils in Britain.

Family Law barrister Charlotte Proudman, who has attended many Sharia hearings, said: “There’s no accountability and many of them are not operating in accordance with UK law.”

What a surprise.

Things were better under Mubarak because in those days Egypt did not fully enforce Sharia. Now it is moving toward doing so. "Egypt: activist Ziada, sad to say things better under Mubarak," from ANSAmed, April 5 (thanks to Insubria):

Women are 'an integral part of Egyptian society' though they are suffering the most from the economic crisis which is getting worse every day in Egypt, said in an interview with ANSAmed Dalia Ziada, a human rights activist, blogger and the director of the Ibn Khaldum Center for Democratic Studies. Ziada is in Marseille to attend the Forum promoted by the Anna Lindh Foundation.

'Over 30% of women are 'caring women' like widows or divorcees who are working to support their families', said the activist. 'They work at a time when men are having a hard time finding a proper job'.

In the past, said Ziada, poor women benefited from measures supporting their businesses, which were sponsored by Suzanne Mubarak, wife of the president who was toppled in the January 25 revolution. Now 'they have no one sponsoring them', she said.

The activist, who was awarded a prize in 2010 by the Anna Lindh Foundation, told ANSAmed that 'it is sad to say that the situation for women was much better during the Mubarak era'. 'It was not the best possible but it was still better than today because there was a state which supported women's rights', she noted. 'Suzanne Mubarak was a women's rights activist before being the president's wife and a staunch supporter of new laws in favour of women', continued the activist. 'Now we have a regime which is very hostile to women, an extremist regime of the Muslim Brotherhood which doesn't like women, least of all in public life and the economy'. The regime is so hostile, the activist noted, that it accuses women of 'causing men's unemployment' based on the conviction that if they stayed home their jobs would go to men. 'However it's a problem of qualifications', noted Ziada, which has nothing to do with being women or men.

Ever since stepping into power, President Mohamed Morsi has started a sweeping campaign to abolish all laws supporting women, the activist also noted, on the grounds that they were passed under the Mubarak era and are therefore 'meaningless'.

Though it is true that many women close to the regime benefited from them, Ziada said that 'many programmes of the National Council for Women were aimed at poor women living in rural areas, and their objective was to enable them to help change the condition of their families'. This has been the aim pursued by the Ibn Khaldum center for a number of years in a project 'which has been successful but does not have any support now'.

Talking about genital mutilation, still a widespread practice in rural areas, she said 'the issue exists from previous eras and I, a sort of survivor, have always fought to abolish it. But we are threatened by the fact that the laws making this practice a crime could be abolished. The Muslim Brothers have started a major campaign among the poorest saying it is in agreement with Islamic customs, which is not true, and stating that people should be free to carry it out', she concluded. (ANSAmed)

It isn't true? Really?

"Circumcision is obligatory (for every male and female) (by cutting off the piece of skin on the glans of the penis of the male, but circumcision of the female is by cutting out the bazr 'clitoris' [this is called khufaadh 'female circumcision'])." -- 'Umdat al-Salik e4.3, translated by Mark Durie, The Third Choice, p. 64

"Islamic law permits by definition, by prophetic statement and by practice female circumcision" -- Australian Imam Afroz Ali

Now this should be interesting. Cultural differences? This guy is actually going to claim that he raped because his culture allows for it? His culture as an Afghan is thoroughly Islamic. And the Qur'an allows for the owning of sex slaves -- and slaves, by definition, must act at their master's behest, whether or not they wish to perform the action or not. So sex slavery is essentially an Islamic justification for rape. The Qur'an says:

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.

"Sex attacker wins right to appeal over cultural differences," by Meagan Dillon for the Herald Sun, April 1 (thank to Blazing Cat Fur):

AN AFGHAN refugee who argued cultural differences led him to rape a drunken girl has won a bid to appeal against a 14-year jail term.

Esmatullah Sharifi, 31, was given a total 11-year non-parole term for two rapes committed within days of each other in December 2008.

Over at Human Events, via RaymondIbrahim.com, I discuss the latest Islamic decree allowing jihadis to enslave and rape women:

Yet another Islamic cleric recently made it permissible for the Islamic fighters waging a jihad in Syria—politely known as “the opposition”—to rape the nation’s women.

Salafi Sheikh Yasir al-‘Ajlawni, a Jordanian of origin who earlier lived in Damascus, Syria for 17 years, posted a YouTube video last week where he said he was preparing to issue a “legitimate fatwa” making it legal (in the eyes of Islam) for those Muslims fighting to topple secular president Bashar Assad and install Sharia law to “capture and have sex with” all non-Sunni women, specifically naming Assad’s own sect, the Alawites, as well as the Druze and several others, in short, all non-Sunnis and non-Muslims.

The sheikh used Islam’s legitimate Arabic term for these hapless, non-Muslim women, melk al-yamin, a phrase that appears in Islam’s sacred book, the Koran, and which is simply a reference to non-Muslim sex-slaves. For example, Koran 4:3 commands Muslim men to “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four… or what your right hands possess.” Islam’s ulema, or “scholars,” are unanimously agreed that “what your right hands possess” is, according to Islamic law, simply a sex-slave. Linguistic evidence further suggests that she is seen more as an animal or a possession than a human—hence this inhuman fatwa.

Jordanian Sheih Yasir al-‘Ajlawni is certainly not the first cleric to legitimize the rape of infidel women in recent times. Calls to capture and rape non-Muslim women are appearing with increasing frequency from all corners of the Islamic world...

Women's rights? Positively un-Islamic! "Bomb explosion: Office of NGO targeted in Hayatabad," from the Express Tribune, March 31 (thanks to all who sent this in):

PESHAWAR: After the brutal killing of its executive director last year, Sawera – an NGO working to promote women’s rights – once again came under attack on Saturday.

A bomb was planted by unidentified militants near the gate of the NGO’s office in Hayatabad Phase-I. The device, weighing six kilogrammes, rendered heavy losses to the building, furniture and a vehicle used by the organisation, but no loss of life was reported. “The blast also damaged two other houses in the area,” said a police official.

Sawera’s technical advisor Lal Jan Afridi said the NGO, which stands for Society for Appraisal and Women Empowerment in Rural Areas, is presently working on voters’ education and mobilisation in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). He added they are also providing livelihood to displaced persons not residing in refugee camps.

Jan said despite the murder of their colleague in Jamrud, Khyber Agency on July 4, 2012, they have continued with their operations fearlessly.

Sawera’s Executive Director Farida Afridi was shot dead while she was on her way to office from her house in Hayatabad, Peshawar. “She was a great loss for us, but that didn’t deter us from working for the welfare of poor people,” Jan told The Express Tribune.

He added they had not received any prior warnings of an attack on them, saying it was “sudden and tragic.”

Jan claimed they have now been compelled to suspend operations as their office has been completely destroyed. He said they will talk to donors to provide funds to compensate for the losses they have sustained. “We will do everything we can to ensure the organisation keeps running.”

He said the lives of the NGO’s employees were at stake and appealed to the government to provide them security. “We have 15 staff members, most of whom are females. They are gripped with fear after this blast.”

Pakhtunkhwa Civil Society Network (PCSN) Coordinator Idrees Kamal strongly condemned the attack.

“The terrorists are targeting these people because they don’t want the residents to come out from the clutches of darkness. We demand the government to compensate the organisation,” he said in a statement.

“The lukewarm response of Pakistani forces and their constant failure to catch the culprits are providing a safe haven for terrorists in tribal areas. These attacks are now happening on a daily basis. The caretaker government should chalk out a proper strategy to rid Pakistani soil of these militants,” he added....

Sheikh Alami Adel heads the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. Posting topless pictures: vice. Murdering a girl who posts topless pictures: virtue.

"‘Quarantine her!’ Top Tunisian Islamist says topless girl needs stoning," from Al Arabiya, March 23 (thanks to Voice of the Copts):

A Tunisian Salafi preacher has called for a 19-year old girl who posted her topless pictures on Facebook to be “quarantined” and stoned to death before she starts “an epidemic.”

Tunisian newspaper AssabahNews quoted Salafi preacher Alami Adel, who heads the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, saying: “According to God’s law, she deserves 80 to 100 lashes, but what she committed is worth much more than that. She deserves to be stoned to death and she must be quarantined because what she did is an epidemic.”

“She is like someone suffering from a serious and contagious illness and she must be secluded and treated,” he added.

The young Amina, who is part of a feminist movement and group called FEMEN can be seen smoking a cigarette topless with Arabic words written across her chest in black that reads in English “My body belongs to me.”

FEMEN is a Ukrainian based feminist group that gathers women together in Europe in topless protests in support of women’s rights.

Amina has been delivered by her parents to a psychiatric hospital in Tunis, according to reports received by FEMEN leader Inna Shevchenko in Paris and reported by the U.S. based magazine the Atlantic.

Tunisian media said that if Amina committed the offence in Tunisia, she could be punished by up to two years in prison and be given a fine between $60 and $600.

A petition and an international day of action on April 4 to highlight the threats against Amina have been organized by activists.

More than 10,000 people have signed the petition that called for those who threatened Amina’s life to be prosecuted.

On Thursday reports FEMEN’s Facebook account was hacked emerged. The page had reportedly been infiltrated with videos and pictures on the site being replaced by verses from the Koran.

“Thanks to God we have hacked this immoral page and the best is yet to come,” read one message signed by “al-Angour,” an apparent hacker.

FEMEN has released a statement condemning “barbarian threats of the Islamists about the necessity of reprisals against the Tunisian activist Amina.”

“We are afraid for her life and we call on women to fight for their freedom against religious atrocities” it added.

Last month, FEMEN brought together Iranian women in Sweden, who took to the streets of Stockholm demonstrating against the Hijab (Islamic headscarf).

And yet Western feminists don't dare stand up against Sharia misogyny. That would be "Islamophobic."

"He wrote ‘Talaaq’, three times on his wife’s Facebook wall." Why not? We hear that "The accused man is still absconding. According to the police this is case is a first of its kind. City Qazi Sayeed Mushtaq Ali Naqvi has ruled that this way of divorcing a wife is against Shariyat" -- that is, Sharia. However, Sharia courts have already determined that Muslims can divorce their wives via text messaging.

But what if hubby decides he wants her back? "If he divorces her finally, she shall not be lawful to him after that, until she marries another husband. If he divorces her, then it is no fault in them to return to each other, if they suppose that they will maintain God's bounds. Those are God's bounds; He makes them clear unto a people that have knowledge." (Qur'an 2:230)

The only catch is that the new husband must consummate the marriage before divorcing the woman. Only then can she return to her first husband. Muhammad made this clear: "Narrated 'Aisha: A man divorced his wife and she married another man who proved to be impotent and divorced her. She could not get her satisfaction from him, and after a while he divorced her. Then she came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! My first husband divorced me and then I married another man who entered upon me to consummate his marriage but he proved to be impotent and did not approach me except once during which he benefited nothing from me. Can I remarry my first husband in this case?' Allah's Apostle said, 'It is unlawful to marry your first husband till the other husband consummates his marriage with you.'" (Bukhari 7.63.190)

"Man divorces wife on Facebook," from BhaskarNews, March 17 (thanks to Daniel Greenfield):

Bhopal: In a bizarre case, a man is said to have divorced his wife on Facebook. He wrote ‘Talaaq’, three times on his wife’s Facebook wall. The man also obtained a fatwa in favor of his action.

Following her husband’s action the woman filed a police complaint, acting on the complaint the police arrested the family members of the man.

The accused man is still absconding. According to the police this is case is a first of its kind. City Qazi Sayeed Mushtaq Ali Naqvi has ruled that this way of divorcing a wife is against Shariyat.

The woman had earlier also filed a complaint against that her in-laws harassed her and were also demanding Rs. 2 lakhs and a car in dowry.

“A woman needs to be confined within a framework that is controlled by the man of the house.” When I report that Muslims say this, and that they base the idea on Islamic teaching, I'm a greasy Islamophobe. When the New York Times does it, they're the paper of record.

"Muslim Brotherhood’s Statement on Women Stirs Liberals’ Fears," by Tara Todras-Whitehill for The New York Times, March 14:

CAIRO — During its decades as an underground Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood has long preached that Islam required women to obey their husbands in all matters.

“A woman needs to be confined within a framework that is controlled by the man of the house,” Osama Yehia Abu Salama, a Brotherhood family expert, said of the group’s general approach, speaking in a recent seminar for women training to become marriage counselors. Even if a wife were beaten by her husband, he advised, “Show her how she had a role in what happened to her.”

“If he is to blame,” Mr. Abu Salama added, “she shares 30 percent or 40 percent of the fault.”

Now, with a leader of the Brotherhood’s political arm in Egypt’s presidential palace and its members dominating Parliament, some deeply patriarchal views the organization has long taught its members are spilling into public view. The Brotherhood’s strident statements are reinforcing fears among many Egyptian liberals about the potential consequences of the group’s rise to power and creating new awkwardness for President Mohamed Morsi as he presents himself as a new kind of moderate, Western-friendly Islamist.

In a statement Wednesday on a proposed United Nations declaration to condemn violence against women, the Brotherhood issued a list of objections, which formally laid out its views on women for the first time since it came to power.

In its statement, the Brotherhood said that wives should not have the right to file legal complaints against their husbands for rape, and husbands should not be subject to the punishments meted out for the rape of a stranger.

A husband must have “guardianship” over his wife, not an equal “partnership” with her, the group declared. Daughters should not have the same inheritance rights as sons. Nor should the law cancel “the need for a husband’s consent in matters like travel, work or use of contraception” — a reform in traditional Islamic family law that was enacted under former President Hosni Mubarak and credited to his wife, Suzanne....

Some Egyptian feminists, though, called the statement a vindication of their warnings that the Brotherhood might lead Egypt in a more conservative and patriarchal direction.

“They do not believe that when domestic violence is present, the women should resort to the justice system or the legal process,” said Ghada Shahbandar of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. “It should be kept at home and under the protection of the family — that is their claim. And there is no such thing as marital rape because a husband is entitled to have sex with his wife any time that he wants.”

“This is the first time we have heard it said publicly on the world stage,” she said, “but this has been in their rhetoric for ages.”

In his seminar for prospective Islamist marriage counselors, Mr. Abu Salama justified the group’s approach to marriage by explaining that Islam also required husbands to be compassionate, just as it required women to be obedient.

Quoting Muhammad’s injunction that a man “must not fall on his wife like an animal,” a textbook in Mr. Abu Salama’s class said Islam instructed men to engage in foreplay before sex and attend to their partner’s satisfaction. As for inheritance, Islamic scholars have argued that a son should have a greater share, but also an obligation to look after the financial well-being of a sister.

But Mr. Abu Salama also argued that husbands should keep their wives under tight control. “It’s the nature of the weak to overstep the required framework if she is given the space and the freedom, like children,” he said in the seminar. Most of the women nodded in agreement.

Closing its statement on the proposed United Nations declaration, the Brotherhood appeared to go even further. The provisions discussed are “destructive tools meant to undermine the family as an important institution,” the statement concluded, and “would drag society back to pre-Islamic ignorance.”

They'd prefer their own ignorance, thank you very much.

Just like the Mufti of Libya. How did this Tiny Minority of Extremists get into positions of authority?

Passages referring to sexual violence seem to be the points of contention here. And it is no wonder: when the Qur'an mandates the beating of disobedient women (4:34) and Muhammad forbids women to refuse sex to their husbands under any circumstances (cf. Bukhari 4.54.460 and Ibn Majah 1854, etc.), how can the Muslim Brotherhood oppose sexual violence?

"Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood says UN document on violence against women violates Islamic rules," from the Associated Press, March 13:

CAIRO — Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood sharply criticized an anticipated U.N. document on combatting violence against women, saying on Wednesday that it was “deceitful,” clashed with Islamic principles and undermined family values.

The text of the document has not been published because negotiations are continuing, regarding how to address sexual violence and rights of women to control their sexuality as well as sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Diplomats and observers tracking the debate are optimistic of agreement before the two-week meeting of the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women wraps up Friday in New York. One participant said Egypt is seeking to introduce an opt-out clause to allow each country to implement the document according to its own traditions.

According to the Brotherhood, which has emerged as the most powerful political faction in Egypt since the 2011 uprising, the draft under discussion advocates sexual freedoms for women and the right to abortion “under the guise of sexual and reproductive rights.”

In its strongly worded statement, the Brotherhood also decried the document’s defense of homosexual rights, which are not recognized in Islam, and the equating between children born in and out of wedlock.

It said the title of the document addressing violence is “deceitful.”

“It contains articles that clash with Islamic principles and its basics mentioned in the Quran (Islam’s holy book) and in Islamic traditions,” the Brotherhood statement said. “It eliminates Islamic values, and seeks to destroy the family ... which would lead to social disintegration.”

The Brotherhood, which won Egypt’s presidency and controls parliament, called on other Muslim nations, women’s groups and Islamic organizations to reject the document. It called it an infringement on the thought, culture and uniqueness of Islamic societies.

The Brotherhood urged women’s rights groups not to be “lured by phony calls for civilized behavior and by misleading and destructive processes.”

Libya’s top cleric also raised similar concerns, rejecting the document for violating Islamic teachings.

The head of the U.N. women’s agency, Michelle Bachelet, said she hoped the meeting would produce a document that becomes a tool to improve the fight against violence against women.

When the commission took up the issue a decade ago, governments were unable to reach agreement. Differences over sex education, a woman’s right to reproductive health, and demands for an exception for traditional, cultural and religious practices stymied an accord.

The Brotherhood’s statement appeared to reflect those persistent differences, saying that religious traditions and values are threatened by such a universal document.

Francoise Girard, executive director of the New York-based International Women’s Health Coalition, a nonprofit organization which promotes the reproductive and sexual rights of women and young people, told The Associated Press she expected “strong” conclusions to the debate.

Girard said a range of issues in the text are still unresolved including several references to sexual violence, the connection of violence against women and sexual and reproductive health and rights, and what governments need to do to prevent sexual violence.