At Truth Revolt today I discuss yet another article by a Muslim leader who insists that Islam doesn’t justify the abduction and enslavement of schoolgirls, while ignoring the evidence that it does:
Faheem Younus, an Ahmadi Muslim leader in Baltimore and a senior fellow at the Hoffberger Center for Professional Ethics at the University of Baltimore, has published a reassuring piece in the Huffington Post (starting off with a petty and gratuitous slap at Pamela Geller and me), claiming that Boko Haram, that is, the Congregation of the People of the Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad, is misunderstanding Islam and misinterpreting the Qur’an. The only problem with it is that he doesn’t mention the passages that are used to justify abducting girls and pressing them into sex slavery.
Younus says categorically that “nothing in Islam, today or 1,400 years ago, justifies the abduction of any human being, let alone innocent girls rejects “kidnapping young girls and threatening to sell them into sexual slavery.” He offers one verse to support this idea: “And when the girl-child buried alive is questioned about, for what crime was she killed?” (81:9-10). To this he adds a hadith that depicts Muhammad saying: “If a daughter is born to a person and he brings her up, gives her a good education and trains her in the arts of life, I shall myself stand between him and hell-fire.”
Neither of these passages, unfortunately, are precisely on point. Boko Haram is not burying these girls alive. And the statement attributed to Muhammad only insists that girls be educated. Boko Haram, however, is not against all education, but only Western education that is not Qur’an-based.
Younus decries “the common thread of ignorance and hatred between Boko Haram and Islamophobes. Both know zilch about the true Islamic teachings.” Yet there are some core Islamic teachings that he doesn’t mention. He doesn’t discuss the verses that Muslims like Abubakar Shekau point to in order to justify kidnapping young girls and selling them into sexual slavery — even to offer a mitigating explanation of them:
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)
And:
And also prohibited to you are all married women except those your right hands possess. (Qur’an 4:24)
(See also 33:50-52 and 70:29-30.) The mainstream Muslim commentary Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains that 4:3 tells Muslims to “marry only one, or, restrict yourself to what your right hands own, of slavegirls, since these do not have the same rights as wives.” The twentieth-century 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.”
Not only does Faheem Younus not mention the Qur’an verses used to justify this practice, even to offer an alternative understanding of them, but also he doesn’t acknowledge of the existence of Muslims like these authorities who believe that sex slavery is justified, even to explain how they’re wrong. Consequently, it must be concluded that, like so many other Muslim spokesman, he wants to give the appearance of moderation without the substance of reform. If Abubakar Shekau read his piece, he would immediately see the glaring omission, and realize that Younus is writing not to offer a genuine Islamic alternative to Shekau’s view, much less to refute that view, but to lull Infidels into continuing complacency regarding jihad and Sharia.
Younus thunders:
Don’t give me the “Boko Haram associate themselves with Islam, so what’s wrong with us doing the same?” argument. Can’t we see the wrong in legitimizing the words of a few hundred thugs over the beliefs of a billion-plus Muslims? Why didn’t we malign the faith of over a billion Christians because of Joseph Kony calling himself a “devout Christian”? Remember that Kony, the leader of the Ugandan Lord’s Resistance Army, also abducted thousands of children in Africa?
What Biblical verses does Kony invoke to justify violence? Why, none. In fact, the Lord’s Resistance Army, as beloved as it is of Leftists and Islamic apologists, is a client of the Islamic jihadists in Sudan, and has no support from churches of any kind, no basis in Christian tradition, and no international presence.
Anyway, Boko Haram does associate itself with Islam, and so what’s wrong with us doing the same? Nothing. To do so is simply accurate reporting. If Muslims who abhor Boko Haram’s actions believe that doing so maligns their faith, their best response would be to work for Islamic reform — for a new understanding of the Islamic texts and teachings that Boko Haram uses to justify their actions, not to whine about “Islamophobia” and pretend those teachings don’t exist.
Jaladhi says
Muslims lie, deceive, obfuscate, etc, etc, so that the infidels can never find out the truth about Islam. They have done it for last 1400 years and the continue doing it even today. Hey, why mess with a successful model to deceive the stupid infidel that has worked well in the past!!
JOHN SPIELMAN says
lying by muslims to unbelievers is sanctified( made holy) in Islam because muslims are ashamed to stand by islam’s true theology
MORE PROOF THAT ISLAM IS A DOCTRINE OF DEMONS!
Abdul says
Not all Moslems are liars, only Moslem spokesmen. We should never ever believe a Moslem spokesman. However, we can safely turn to Moslem religious authorities who are addressing other Moslems, not non-Moslems. We can learn the truth about Islam by turning to Islamic religious authorities to see how they define the doctrines of Islam for other believers.
Guest says
The gist of articles in the MSM hardly matters anymore, they usually pander and appease. Of reas interest is what the comments section says, and which opinions get the most votes, and even on HuffPo the majority sees that there is a problem with islam. The tide is turning.
Jax Tolmen says
I whole – heartedly concur; the tide of popular opinion I’d increasingly turning against Islam throughout the internet. This is a wonderful sign, people are waking up to the dangers that these deviant beliefs represent to the core tenets of modern civilisation.
In the face of Leftist tripe, you’d assume the worst. But, as always, common sense will eventually triumph over evil. I have hope for the future because of the people on this site, and the comments I see on other sites.
Mojoman says
I fully agree, the tide is turning. There was an article in the British ‘The Guardian’ yesterday that blames islamic terror and Boko Haram on global warming, no kidding. The comments destroyed the author, some taqiya muslim, and a few hours later, most of the comments got deleted. I got banned from posting on the Guardian just because I posted verses from the koran and the hadiths that justify/promote slavery. I then used another account to post these verses there and got banned again. They don’t want people to know that islam condones slavery.
The Guardian’s readers are mostly leftie Brits, but it was almost impossible to find a comment that defended islam.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/09/behind-rise-nigeria-boko-haram-climate-disaster-peak-oil-depletion?commentpage=1
BTW: There’s a similar apologetic article in the liberal Daily Beast today. Also there, it is impossible to find one single positive comment regarding islam and muslims. They are in full damage control mode.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/12/the-boko-haram-terrorists-are-not-islamic.html
mojoman says
BTW: I think now would be a good time for people like Robert Spencer who know all about slavery and islam, to run an add campaign, showing koran and hadith verses promoting/justifying slavery in order to make it impossible for muslims and their appeasers to claim islam is not associated with islam. This would totally destroy their narrative.
“Prophet, We have made lawful to you the wives to whom you have granted dowries and the SLAVE girls whom God has given you as booty.”Koran 33:50
“And marry those among you who are single and those who are fit among your male SLAVE Sand your female SLAVES…” Koran 24:32
“And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those whom your right hands possess [=SLAVE ].” Koran 4:24
“Mohammed had many male and female SLAVES. He used to buy and
sell them, but he purchased more SLAVESthan he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He once sold one black SLAVE for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of SLAVESwere more than he sold. He was used to renting out and hiring many SLAVES, but he hired more slaves than he rented out.” Zad al-Ma’ad, p. 160
“Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported: There came a SLAVE and pledged allegiance to Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) on migration; he (the Holy Prophet) did not know that he was a SLAVE. Then there came his master and demanded him back, whereupon Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) said: Sell him to me. And he bought him for two black SLAVES, and he did not afterwards take allegiance from anyone until he had asked him whether he was a slave (or a free man)” Sahih Muslim 10:3901
“Narrated Jabir bin Abdullah: A man decided that a SLAVE of his would be manumitted after his death and later on he was in need of money,
so the Prophet took the SLAVE and said, “Who will buy this slave from
me?” Nu’aim bin ‘Abdullah bought him for such and such price and the
Prophet gave him the slave.” Sahih Bukhari 3:34:351
Guest says
The gist of articles in the MSM hardly matters anymore, they usually pander and appease. Of reas interest is what the comments section says, and which opinions get the most votes, and even on HuffPo the majority sees that there is a problem with islam. The tide is turning.
dumbledoresarmy says
Same here.
Something has *got* to give. Soon.
mortimer says
Faheem Younus is an Ahmadi heretic who is condemned by classical, orthodox Sunnite Islam.
Sunna is the allegedly flawless (and eternal) example of Mohammed that is the model for all practicing Muslims.
The Ahmadis are heretics who have ‘improved’ Mohammed’s Sunna!
However, Ahmaddiya does not include the Golden Rule anymore than classical Islam. The hadiths are interpreted by Al-Nawawi amongst others and conclude that a Muslim may pray that a disbeliever become Muslim, but not to pray for his health, wealth or happiness or that he may be forgiven his sins.
Even prayer in Islam is SUPREMACIST.
eib says
There is no way any human can make a profane thing holy.
The Ahmadiyya have suffered much for their interpretation of Islam, but they have not suffered bravely enough to open their minds and abandon the satan-warlord to his own devices.
Still, for even one of them to favor the Jihad and enslavement is truly disgusting.
Dee says
They sound like Obama. Did he take lessons from them or did they take lessons from them?
JasonP says
Robert, do you have the reference for the Maulana Bulandshahri quote?
JasonP says
The reference is:
“Illuminating Discourses on the Noble Quran,” Tafsir Anwarul Bayan, by Mufti Muhammad Aashiq Elahi Muhajir Madani, published by Darul Ishaat, 2005.
volume I on page 501-2 (526-7 in the reader): http://archive.org/stream/IlluminatingDiscoursesOnTheNobleQurantafseerAnwarulBayan/IlluminatingDiscoursesOnTheNobleQurantafseerAnwarulBayan-Volume1-ByShaykhAshiqIlahiMadnir.a-Islamicbookslibrary.wordpress.com#page/n525/mode/1up
Columba Nnorom says
I firmly believe that the internet and the widespread of social media will destroy Islam. But 1400 years of lies, rapes, and destruction will not be reversed overnight. It will take time. However, as these secretive, brutal and closed-up Islamic countries continue to lose control over information in their respective countries, not even the use of fear and physical coercion will be powerful enough to maintain Islamic bondage over the benighted faithful. One of my Saudi Arabian students once told me that the cell phone has already neutralized the ban on contacts between men and women who are not related by blood or marriage. He said that it is now common for Saudi girls in burqas to text or call their male friends; and there is nothing the religious police can do about it.
However, one of the best ways to confront Islam is a revived, revitalized and a more aggressive Christianity in the West, especially in the US; and this should include the formation and promotion of an ecumenical, unapologetic, fearless and well-organized evangelization movement aimed at Muslim countries; we should make it politically and religiously acceptable in the West to spread Christianity in Islamic countries just as Islam is presently spreading Islam in the West and in Africa. Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques in the West as long as Saudi Arabia bans Christianity in the country.
Salah says
“..fearless and well-organized evangelization movement aimed at Muslim countries..”
It’s already happening, and it’s already bearing fruits!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xS9qcYhdls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdVnILalpeo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnh8kdnfYyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTpvaEWjXWs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO8BH9D7US8
Al-Jazeera TV:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/05/dying-islam-lislam-mourant.html
eib says
When Miriam was struck with sores, Moses did not say “it is the will of Allah” and walk away.
He shouted, “Heal her!”
In the same spirit, I ask that God heal Muslims, who are struck with a gnostic, profane disease.
Pedro López says
An idea that perhaps can improve the Islam-rest of world relations that I have submitted to Mrs.Michelle Obama:
To the attention of First Lady of USA, Mrs. Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama
Dear Mrs. Obama:
I have seen your participation in the campaign related with the kidnapping of girls in Africa. I believe in your good will but I think that, in purely Islamic terms, the behavior of Boko Haram is probably not censurable at all. It is true that the Prophet freed slaves (Zayd and Bilal are two notable examples) but he possessed slaves (and sexual ones) and sold prisoners of war as slaves with profit. The Q´uran allows the enslaving of prisoners of war, particularly women: Qu´ran, 33:50 ”We have permissible for you…whom God has awarded you as spoils of war“. Furthermore it is well know that Muhammad married a prepubescent girl (Aisha). In my opinion the first step to freed Islam of its warlike tinge is making a new edition of Q´uran. I think that Uthman made a bad mistake with his arrangement of the verses. You have the power and influence to make this possible: to split the Q´uran in two separate books, the Q´uran of Mecca and the Q´uran of Medina. If you do so (and I would like to recommend you Mrs. Karen Armstrong for the task) you will see that the Muhammad of Mecca (first thirteen years of predication) is barely distinguishable of Jesus. It is not necessary to change anything nor to bring any new translation or interpretation out.It would be a simple arrangement of standard edition´s version in a chronological way .The Islamic scholars know perfectly well when and where Muhammad uttered one thing or another and as the decision of present arrangement was a human one I don´t see any theological problem in this proposal.
Sincerely yours:
Pedro López.
Edward Cline says
Faheem Younus: Liar, liar! Hijab on fire!
eib says
Dr. Younus, your people are being dispossessed and slaughtered this very minute by orthodox Muslims.
How dare you embrace the Jihad that has killed so many of your people.
All of whom were innocent.
How dare you.
eib says
Quote:
Don’t give me the “Boko Haram associate themselves with Islam, so what’s wrong with us doing the same?” argument.
end
Boko Haram is Islam.
They worship and read their scriptures truly.
And they slaughter truly from what they read.
Do not embrace a warlord with hopes of heaven in the next world.
All a warlord can bring you is power here and damnation later.
Islam is profane.
And Boko Haram is the truth you cannot face.