The devout Master
Seventeen paragraphs down, the Telegraph & Argus gets around to telling us this: “Master, clutching a religious book as he gave evidence, told the jury he was a devout Muslim from a traditional Indian family who had been married for 30 years.”
Hmm, I wonder which “religious book” he was clutching. Could it have been the one that tells him to “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)? “What your right hands own” — that is, sex slaves.
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?”Â
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 in the UK and elsewhere cravenly ignore.
This is all terrible, of course, but even worse would be to let non-Muslims who oppose it all into the UK. Please contribute to our legal fund to overturn the unjust ban on Pamela Geller and me entering the UK here.
And sign the petition asking that the ban be overturned here.
“Internet groomer rapist is jailed for six and a half years,” from the Bradford Telegraph & Argus, July 6 (thanks to Paul):
A 52-year-old Bradford businessman used his mobile phone to film himself sexually abusing a young woman in a motel room after grooming her on a social network site.
Husaini Master also raped another woman he met online and photographed her as she lay asleep and naked on a bed after the attack.
Both victims later complained of “˜passing out” after drinking alcohol and told police they believed their drinks had been “˜spiked”.
The two victims — from County Durham and Shropshire — were among at least 30 vulnerable and troubled young women across the country the defendant regularly “˜chatted” with online.
At Birmingham Crown Court yesterday Master was jailed for a total of six and a half years and will be the subject of sexual offences prevention order for an indefinite period.
Judge Peter Barrie said Master had been involved in a long course of abusive behaviour and involved sexual abuse that was despicable.
He said both victims felt they had been drugged and described feeling unwell, dizzy and extremely sleepy and that Master had “revelled” in filming and photographing the women when they were unclothed and asleep.
“While tests did not reveal any drugs, I am sure that you found a way to put something in the drinks to make them insensible for you to abuse them sexually” said Judge Barrie.
He said Master was involved in a carefully planned course of conduct, befriending the women, even giving money to one of them for her to repair her computer.
Master, of Sandymoor, Allerton, Bradford, who has a food import business, was convicted of rape and two other sexual offences last month.
The prosecution said West Mercia police found material on Master’s mobile phone and computer after a complaint from the 28-year-old Shropshire victim.
He said the 21-year-old woman in County Durham, who until then was unaware that she was the victim of sexual abuse, was identified and contacted by the police.
During the trial the jury heard Master had travelled to Stockton-on-Tees in September, 2011, to meet the younger victim and took her to a service area on the A19 at Billingham.
He paid cash for a room at a Premier Inn where he filmed himself sexually abusing the victim which was played for the jury.
A few months later, in January last year, Master drove to Telford to meet the second victim who was aged 28.
Again he paid cash for a room at a Premier Inn telling the young woman there was to be a party for the victim’s birthday. However, there were no other guests and the victim drank vodka and Red Bull before twice being sexually assaulted by Master, who took photographs of her when she was being sick and when naked and asleep.
Master, clutching a religious book as he gave evidence, told the jury he was a devout Muslim from a traditional Indian family who had been married for 30 years.
He denied he been grooming the victims and claimed any sexual activity was consensual, but could give no reason for the filming or taking of photographs.
Simon Mills, mitigating for Master, said that his client and his wife had recently been through an Islamic divorce and he had been shunned by members of his community.