Over at Catholic.com I discuss the frequently-repeated claims that Boko Haram is violating Islamic law:
One thing we know about Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group that has appalled the world by abducting and enslaving 300 schoolgirls, is that what it has done is completely contrary to the tenets of Islam.
Or at least that’s what everyone is saying.
“The Nigerian terrorist group that kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls has nothing to do with Islam, and it’s grotesquely irresponsible of the media to suggest it does.” So wrote Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah in the Daily Beast. Ahmadi Muslim spokesman Qasim Rashid wrote at FoxNews.com that “Boko Haram’s claim that Islam motivates their kidnappings is no different than Adolf Hitler’s claim that Christianity motivated his genocide. This terrorist organization acts in direct violation of every Islamic teaching regarding women.” The nation’s two Muslim Congressmen, Keith Ellison (D-MN) and André Carson (D-IN), wrote, along with a host of U.S. Muslim leaders, a scolding open letter to Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau, telling him: “Your actions have shocked Muslims across the world and have disrespected Islam and the teachings of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).”
The only problem with these and all other Islamic disavowals and condemnations of Boko Haram’s actions is that none of them have addressed the Islamic justifications for them. For Boko Haram itself has expressly and avowedly said that its actions are based on Islamic teaching.
Shekau said in a video in February that his group was “fighting Christians wherever we meet them,” following the Qu’ran’s command to wage war against “the People of the Book” (its term for Jews, Christians, and some others) “until they pay the jiza [poll tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (9:29).
And as for the abduction of the schoolgirls, the Qur’an tells Muslims to take captives when they meet unbelievers (90 percent of the girls are Christian) in battle: “Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens” (47:4). It also refers to slave women belonging to the Islamic prophet Muhammad as spoils of war: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50).
What can be done with such captives? Islamic law has elaborated from these passages four options:
As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first, to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, ‘When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [Islam] then strike [their] necks’ (Qur’an sura 47, verse 4) (Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance).
The first of these options, putting captives to death, is such a live possibility that it is stymieing a rescue operation. As for exchanging them, Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau offered to exchange the girls who have refused to convert to Islam in return for Boko Haram prisoners held by the Nigerian government. As for the third option, enslavement, Shekau has gloated in a video: “I abducted your girls. I will sell them on the market, by Allah…There is a market for selling humans. Allah says I should sell.” That is in line with the option of enslaving captives. The girls may be sold—if they haven’t been already—and then forcibly married to their new owners, all in accord with the Qur’an’s direction on the sexual enslavement of those taken as spoils of war:
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 that such “enslavement is the penalty of disbelief,” and expresses a longing for the good old days:
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!
Read the rest here.
Salah says
OT
It’s official, El-Sisi decalared new president of Egypt.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/egypt-plans-tahrir-celebration-election-result-23973693
Islamic thugs fear such leaders.
Michael Copeland says
“When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture” (Manual of Islamic Law, o9.13).
Keith Ellison and Andre Carson are presumably critical of this, too.
Champ says
islam = religion of slavery
And hell’s bells are ringing!
Walter Sieruk says
The Bible teaches “Whoever steals someone to sell as a slave or to keep them for their own slave must be killed.” Exodus 21:16. [ERV]
Michael Copeland says
“it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty”
Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500
“There is no dispute (among the scholars) that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one’s slave woman…”
Ibn Qudaamah [al-Ma’aarij 70:29-30]
Islam QA http://islamqa.info/en/10382
Ellison? Carson? Anyone there?
bobm says
Boy oh boy. .. talk about the fox in the hen house; you mention in your commentary the Roman Catholic interest; Mr. Spencer… my readings have led me to believe THE RC empire was fundamental in the early support of islams beginnings and literally shielding Mo in his childhood as they began their attempt to engrave3 the arabs into their crown and to pursue their wet dream of Jerusalem under their authority with their bastard childs help… kinda blew up in their holy faces though dint it?… where is the line of separation twixt these two antichrist.
gsk says
You might want to read a little more carefully, bobm. There was no “RC empire” in the area where M. was growing up, rather a collection of heretical sects (Nestorians, Arians, etc.) who were very confused about who Jesus was. The Christian derivatives that seeped into the Qur’an reflect this confusion, and the Christians who supported him were hardly ‘RC,’ but followed a pastiche of religious idiologies. All of the sects were squabbling and committing ‘razzia’ (raiding each others’ property), which meant that when M. arrived on the scene, it took a while before they realised that he was not simply another player, but a whole new religion.
Jay Boo says
@bobm
Just what we need another troll trying to cause division with tainted bait.
get lost
Jon MC says
“That is in line with the option of enslaving captives. The girls may be sold—if they haven’t been already—and then forcibly married to their new owners, all in accord with the Qur’an’s direction on the sexual enslavement of those taken as spoils of war…”
In fact marriage is not necessary.
the Koran speaks of “[that] which your right hand possess” as being legitimate for sex in several verses (K.4:3, 24; 23:6; 33:50-52; 70:29-30).
Thus a female slave is the sex-slave of her ‘master’ without marriage.
Thus once these girls are sold as slaves to Mussalmen they “automatically” become sex-slaves, there is no need for a “Nikah ceremony” (lit. penetration ceremony) aka Islamic “marriage”.
They can also be traded between Muslim masters and used by multiple ‘men’ for sexual purposes according to Sharia.
Julian says
They who truly believe in the Day of Reckoning are they who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and slave girls for these are lawful for them: transgressors are those who lust after other than these).
The Nit Beard Bible 70:30-35.
Abhorrent but quite clear.
bobm says
Gee Jayboo .. see me run; and GSK too .. flummox us with Roman bafflegab.. my point being essentially that deception will soon were a world crown and He will not just be muslim.. Seek the Lord whilst He may be found.. … He alone can SAVE.