Straining at gnats while swallowing camels is increasingly how Islam’s apologists rationalize away the violence and hate Sharia engenders for the “infidel,” the non-Muslim.
Consider the true significance of yet another learned Muslim justifying the enslavement and rape of non-Muslim women.
Suad Saleh, a female professor of Islamic doctrine at Al Azhar University, correctly defined the Arabic phrase melk al-yamin —“right hand possession” (Koran 4:3)—by saying non-Muslim “female prisoners of wars are ‘those whom you own.’ In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the [Muslim] army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.”
Ms. Saleh’s comments are not new. Countless Muslims, beginning with Muhammad himself, have confirmed that Islam permits the sexual enslavement of non-Muslim women seized during the jihad. Saleh cannot even take the “honor” of being the first Muslim woman to support this inherently misogynistic creed.
No, what is of interest here is how the Al Azhar professor swallows a camel by claiming that the Islamic institution of sex slavery is fair and just, but then she strains at gnats by complaining that some Muslims exploit it to the detriment of Islam:
Some [Muslim] opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: “I will bring a woman from East Asia, as [as a sex slave] under the status of ‘right hand possessions.’ And with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slave girl.” This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slave girl. Legitimately-owned slaves come from among prisoners of war.
Saleh is correct that some Muslim men twist the “right hand possession” law in ways that allow them to have nonconventional sex. For instance, some years back in Egypt a Muslim scholar formally took a woman to be his “right hand possession,” even though she wasn’t conquered in a jihad and in fact entered the agreement willingly.
Yet what Professor Saleh and many other Muslim apologists fail to understand is that aninherently unjust and uncivilized law—such as one that permits the sexual enslavement of women simply because they are non-Muslims—will by nature always be “abused.”
For example, Saleh and others will insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit the literal definition of “right hand possessions.” But other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims and to see women—especially infidel women—as little more than sex objects (or, in the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex, “Christian girls are only meant for one thing: the [sexual] pleasure of Muslim men.”
Moreover, Islamic clerics routinely encourage Muslims to migrate to the West and help empower Islam anyway they can—including through propaganda, proselytization, apologetics, births, theft, etc.—and not just through violent jihad. If they do any of these, they technically become jihadis (after all and as the apologists are fond of insisting, jihad literally means “striving” on behalf of Islam.) Thus many Muslim rapists in Europe believe it is their Islamic right and reward to molest and rape infidel women.
The “exploitation” of Islam’s already unjust and uncivilized laws is common and inevitable. Muslims are not supposed to coerce non-Muslims to convert (Koran 2:256)… Keep reading
mortimer says
Islam is duplicitous, conspiratorial, shape-changing, disingenuous, conspiratorial, deceitful, scheming, underhand, wily, Machiavellian, sneaky, sly, circuitous, tricky, conniving, roundabout, cunning, crafty, shrewd, false-hearted, faithless, fraudulent, lying.
Only the naïve, gullible, uninformed, willfully blind and childish trust Muslims.
mortimer says
Muslims do not even trust one another.
Jay Boo says
Satanic inspired rule Rules are made to be abused.
Historical fact — Muhammad was a flat out PIG.
He said four wives was Allah’s max but, when he lusted for more he changed his revelation and showed Allah is ass.
Jerry Springer would love to have Muhammad as a typical guest with Muhammad’s 9 year old child bride sex partner and marriage to his son’s wife.
“…..l enslavement of women simply because they are non-Muslims—will by nature always be “abused”
RodSerling says
Suad Saleh’s apologetic claim that male Muslims, according to Islamic law, can only acquire female slaves through warfare does not seem credible. Qur’an 23:5-6 and 70:29-30, which regulate and permit sexual slavery, are Meccan verses, revealed before Allah gave Muhammad and his followers permission (22:39, Medinan) to wage jihad. The Meccan sexual slavery verses assume Muslims already had female slaves. Secondly, Muhammad received Maria the Copt (and another woman) as a gift from an Egyptian ruler, not through warfare. Since no Islamic law can properly be made that is contrary to Muhammad’s legal precedent-setting conduct (i.e., conduct that, in this case, received no disapproval from Allah), I doubt that there is any such law or rule in sharia proper as, implied by Suad Saleh, prohibiting the acquisition of female slaves through all means except physical warfare.
Bending rules? I don’t think so. Where is this rule she’s alluding to? The fact that large numbers of females were taken as sex slaves as part of jihad warfare does not mean that Muslim males can’t, Islamically speaking, acquire them through other means. In the hadiths, jihadists sometimes reportedly sold the slaves they acquired. Slaves were traded, bought and sold, by Muslims. Clearly, if someone acquires a slave through trade (money or literal exchange of slaves), they have not acquired the slave through physical warfare. Historically, for over a thousand years, Muslims received non-Muslim slaves in their markets through the slave trade, and acquired them through raiding specifically for that purpose (not just jihad warfare). It further strains credulity to suppose that Muslims established an elaborate institution, lasting over a thousand years, obtaining tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of women and girls, all in violation of Islamic law. The idea that Muslims are only allowed to acquire slaves through warfare is an ahistorical fairy tale which Suad Saleh is free to believe, but which she should not be allowed to spread unchallenged.
Georg says
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Klingon_%281305760507%29.jpg
Angemon says
Indeed. It’s the same kind of apologism we find, for example, with communist apologists. “USSR? Cuba, China? Millions of dead? No, that was not real communism. They ignored some rules and took liberties with others.”
A Fool says
There is only One God Who said His names is: “I am Who AM!” period! There is no other God! Our God is the Father Creator of all that is good and He is LOVE! He creates, He builds, He sanctifies, he transmuts what is not holy to what is Holy! He is both Just and merciful! He never allowed murder, rape, thieft, lie… He is the Author of the Ten Commandmants, which is His Law for every human! Islam included! See how many of the Ten some of the Islamists are violating daily across the globe? God have mercy on them all! May they wake up and see the works of their Heartless Hatreds toward Our Father’s other Children! God have mercy on them all!
Michael Copeland says
The First Commandment does not say, “There is only one god”.
It says “Thou shalt have no other gods before me”.
Carolyne says
Yes, whatever “I am Who AM,” might mean, there are countless examples in the Old Testament of a God not only allowing but perpetrating actions not holy and indeed, rape, destroying, lying, are certainly neither merciful nor holy. yet are described in the Old Testament as God’s doing and God’s will. Christians ceased such uncivilized behavior a couple of hundred years ago so and such inhumane acts are no longer a part of Christianity. Islam, on the other hand has not and will not change, no matter how many preachers are sent to show them the error of their ways or to tell them what God really meant.
I do not believe Islam can be defeated by insisting one religion is better than another, but by the only means they know, brute force. In the end, it has nothing to do with religion.