Amid a great deal of obfuscation, the horrifying truth has
emerged: a five-year-old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho, was gang-raped by
three young Muslim migrant boys. Her parents are still encountering
tremendous difficulties in trying to get justice -- apparently because
the incident conflicts with Barack Obama’s agenda to flood the country
with Muslim migrants.
The victim’s mother
told Pamela Geller
what the little girl told her: “This is what my daughter has told me:
that they grabbed her at knifepoint and forced her into the laundry room
and told her that if she tried to leave, they would kill her. The
seven-year-old boy took her clothes off. She tells me he put his private
in her mouth and peed in her mouth, and put it in her private, and then
peed all over her.”
According to Idaho law, that is rape: “Rape is defined as the penetration, however slight, of the oral, anal or vaginal opening with a penis…”
The mother continued: “And she said they recorded her, too… She also
told the emergency room CARES doctor that they had a knife as well, and
they found on her neck a cut. Then the day after, they claimed it was a
scratch, when in fact it looked like a cut.”
The girl’s father
told Geller what he saw on the video that one of the attackers took of
the rape, and triumphantly showed him: “I watched the 8-year-old boy
push my daughter up against a wall and pull her pants down and his pants
down; he then attempted to penetrate her from behind. She was able to
run away and crouch in a corner shaking in fear while the boy danced
around naked laughing at her. I stopped watching after that.”
Amid all the controversy surrounding this terrible incident and the
solicitude of Idaho officials for the attackers, not the victims (Wendy
J. Olson, the Obama-appointed U.S. Attorney for Idaho,
threatened:
“The spread of false information or inflammatory or threatening
statements about the perpetrators or the crime itself reduces public
safety and may violate federal law”), one question has never been
answered: why would these boys do this to this girl?
The
answer lies where few analysts dare to look: in Islamic culture, and the
Islamic theology that underlies it. The seizure of Infidel girls and
their use as sex slaves is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to
Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an
4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful
to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom
your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of
war” (33:50). 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in
general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with
these slave girls: “The believers must win through, those who humble
themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in
deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them
in the marriage bond, or whom their right hands possess, for they are
free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O
Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him)
mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s
Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq
and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we
were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we
also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse
with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ
before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing
an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we
asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does
not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to
the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)
It
is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they
become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage
is immediately annulled.” (
Umdat al-Salik O9.13)
The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni
declared
in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims
would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:
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” [Koran 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.
Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti 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.”
Iraqi Ayatollah Al-Haeri
said in April 7, 2016 that a man could offer slave girls to a friend for sex.
The savage exploitation of girls and young women is, unfortunately, a
cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry divine
sanction. And now it has come to Idaho.
Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.
No comments:
Post a Comment