He wants to be returned home because he is almost certain not to remain imprisoned for this in Saudi Arabia. The Qur’an allows sexual slavery:
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)
The twentieth-century Qur’an commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains:
During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu”minin [leader of the believers, or caliph — an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).
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 cravenly ignore.
“Appeal likely in Saudi man’s Colorado sex offense,” from the Associated Press, January 4 (thanks to Creeping Sharia):
A Saudi man convicted in Colorado of sexually abusing his Indonesian housekeeper and keeping her as a virtual slave will probably appeal after a judge denied his request to be released and sent home, a defense lawyer said Friday.
Another lawyer said he is considering a new legal challenge on separate grounds.
Denver attorney Hal Haddon said he has not been allowed to speak to Homaidan al-Turki since a state judge ruled Thursday he had no authority to grant his release, but Haddon said he expects his client will want to appeal.
The judge didn’t rule that it was inappropriate for al-Turki to be released on probation, only that the judge did not have the power to do so, Haddon said.
He said the ruling was devastating for al-Turki’s wife and children in Saudi Arabia.
Al-Turki, a linguist who was living and working in Colorado, was convicted in 2006 of unlawful sexual contact by use of force, false imprisonment and other counts. He was sentenced to eight years to life in prison.
He denied the allegations, saying he was a victim of anti-Muslim sentiment.
Probation would have allowed him to serve the rest of his sentence in Saudi Arabia. Saudi officials promised to enforce whatever terms Colorado imposed.
Yeah, surrrrrre.
Colorado prosecutors said there was no way to ensure Saudi Arabia would carry out the sentence.They also said al-Turki was not eligible for release because he refused to participate in a required prison program for sex offenders.
Al-Turki’s lawyers said his religion prevented him from participating in the program because it would require him to look at photos of women in bathing suits or undergarments. They also said he would have to confess to the crimes, which they say he cannot do because he is challenging his conviction.
Another attorney for al-Turki, John Portman of Denver, said he is considering another challenge based on court rules that allow people whose appeals have been denied to contest convictions on several grounds, including newly discovered evidence.
Portman declined to say what grounds were being considered and when a challenge might be filed.
Last year, state prison officials denied al-Turki’s request to be transferred to Saudi custody under an international treaty.
The prisons director at the time, Tom Clements, was ready to approve the transfer but denied it after an FBI agent contacted prison officials, according to testimony during court hearings last year. The officials haven’t said why Clements changed his mind or what the FBI agent said.
About a week after the treaty transfer was denied, Clements was shot and killed. Prison officials said they investigated but found nothing linking al-Turki to the crime.
Still, prosecutors said in November that al-Turki remained a person of interest in the Clements investigation.