Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ISIS states it's justification for sex slaves

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ISIS states it's justification for sex slaves

    Another great sales pitch to those Indonesian lads who's mummy hasn't found a wife yet and can't get his end away in the kampung

    (CNN) -- In a new publication, ISIS justifies its kidnapping of women as sex slaves citing Islamic theology, an interpretation that is rejected by the Muslim world at large as a perversion of Islam.


    "One should remember that enslaving the families of the kuffar -- the infidels -- and taking their women as concubines is a firmly established aspect of the Shariah, or Islamic law," the group says in an online magazine published Sunday.


    The title of the article sums up the ISIS point of view: "The revival (of) slavery before the Hour," referring to Judgment Day.


    The fourth edition of the group's English-language digital magazine called "Dabiq" said that female members of the Yazidi sect, an ethnically Kurdish minority living mostly in Iraq, may legitimately be captured and forcibly made concubines or sexual slaves.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/12/wo...ery/index.html

  • #2
    Paging Dan, paging Dan...
    Sasa Bule is having a bayi!

    Comment


    • #3
      Dan's views on ISIS are clear.... off with their heads.
      "[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Helvetica Neue]I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.[/FONT][/COLOR]"
      George Bernard Shaw

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by lantern View Post
        Dan's views on ISIS are clear.... off with their heads.
        QFT.

        /endthread

        Comment


        • #5
          This is only a comment on my obsessions, not a comment on the content of the OP, but: the correct formulations are: ITS justifications, and WHOSE mummy. Not "it's" and "who's".

          The grammar Nazi will slink away in shame now...

          Comment


          • #6
            My view is different to Dan's ..... off with something else
            The answer is 42 .... any questions? .

            Comment


            • #7
              It is written ... (Where justification is needed, fill in your atrocity of choice.)

              Comment


              • #8
                ISIS is a huge fans of orgies , based on this article....
                Therefore , this musn't a religious organization. This is a satanic cult disguised as religious jihadist
                "The Beauty of Indonesia is located outside Jakarta"

                Comment


                • #9
                  Is this then a marriage to said sex slave? I'm not sure, but I thought it was a sin to have sex outside of marriage. So, maybe there is some sort of marriage before rape. If this is correct, as a wife, are there any rights afforded to said sex slave?
                  In other words, presupposing that ISIS is correct in that they may enslave these women (under their interpretation of their own Good Book), is there anything that they are doing wrong (in the context of the religious laws they claim to champion)? I'm looking for delicious hypocrisy or maybe just a bit pick-and-choose application of religious law that would help me in further despising these assholes.
                  I am not trolling, am in favor of dis-dismemberment of rapists, but would like to know if anyone can answer the hypothetical.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I thought this kind of barbaric practice died out 3 millennia ago: Judges 21:16-21.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                      Is this then a marriage to said sex slave?
                      No, they are "those your right hand possesses." No actual nikah, contract, is signed.

                      Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) says, "[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Georgia]And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. So for whatever you enjoy [of marriage] from them, give them their due compensation as an obligation. And there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise."[/FONT][/COLOR]

                      Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                      I'm not sure, but I thought it was a sin to have sex outside of marriage. So, maybe there is some sort of marriage before rape. If this is correct, as a wife, are there any rights afforded to said sex slave?
                      Adultery is a sin, but having consensual relations with your slaves is considered acceptable. Note that consent in the context of owning slaves is probably a forgone conclusion. However, that is it. A man may not rape a woman, even a slave, and such action against a slave is usually punishable by death. All rape, technically, is punishable by death under the shari'a.

                      However, slaves are not considered equals. They do have some rights, and are generally supposed to be afforded excellent care. They can do things like marry, they simply cannot own nor inherit property. Note that Islam is very keen on the term slave. The Muslims call themselves slaves, and names that hint at slavery are popular. Abdullah, literally abd Allah, slave of Allah and so on. So slave does not always have negative connotations in Muslim circles.

                      Edit: note that a slave woman is not required to receive a mahr or anything of the sort.

                      Originally posted by Happyman View Post
                      In other words, presupposing that ISIS is correct in that they may enslave these women (under their interpretation of their own Good Book), is there anything that they are doing wrong (in the context of the religious laws they claim to champion)? I'm looking for delicious hypocrisy or maybe just a bit pick-and-choose application of religious law that would help me in further despising these assholes.
                      I am not trolling, am in favor of dis-dismemberment of rapists, but would like to know if anyone can answer the hypothetical.
                      They are correct that they may make slaves of captives, at least in regard to the 7th Century. The Sunnah does, in truth, reflect a different path for Muslims to follow. Note that Muhammad (sallahu aleyhi wa sellam) freed captives generally rather than took them. He even adopted one as his son, and made him a commander of the Muslim armies. So the example for slaves is that they should be freed, and apologists for Islam will generally state that slavery existed as an institution in lieu of incarceration to reform individuals.

                      Obviously, that's a highly sanitized view of the practice.

                      What they may be doing wrong is forcing these women to engage in sex acts. They may also be enslaving Muslim women, which is totally haram. If the women are made slaves and then consent to relations with their owners, then that might be considered "acceptable" in a very literal, 7th Century understanding of the faith. It would be technically correct, let's put it that way.
                      Last edited by DanInAceh; 14-10-14, 13:57.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by martindo View Post
                        I thought this kind of barbaric practice died out 3 millennia ago: Judges 21:16-21.
                        Sexual slavery is sanctioned by the Semitic deity in Judaism, and by default also in Christianity. The most egregious example would be the girl children of Midian, whose siblings and parents were destroyed, who were to be "kept for yourselves." Note that this came from none other than Moses (aleyhi salaam). Personally, i don't believe divinely guided prophets say things so sickening, but ehhhh... it's in there.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          To consider this from a Sunnah (example) perspective, let's look at one of Muhammad's (sallahu aleyhi wa sellam) female slaves that we know of. Rayhana, a woman of the Banu Qurayza, was enslaved and later freed and married by Rasulullah.

                          If ISIS can be convinced of releasing captives, which they don't seem wont to do, then perhaps they can be reasoned with (ha!).

                          It will be telling if they release Peter Kassig. He has ostensibly accepted Islam, though only a genuine conversion would be accepted. Will they execute him? They technically cannot as it would violate Islamic law. I suspect they will kill him anyway.

                          And so it is unlikely that they will be freeing any slaves. THAT part of the Sunnah seems to be curiously missing...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks for the detailed response, Dan.
                            Bit of a ramble follows, but I mean it, so, stet.
                            Hey, there's definitely more than one horrifying tale of absolute and absolutely sanctioned barbarism in the Bible's old testament. I've forgotten the references, but there's not much point posting them anyways.
                            I have never read, and probably never will read the Al Quran. I was just feeling a bit hopeful there for a minute. Thought rape and slavery might not be justifiable in any logical way. Like my nutters to be good ol' 100% nutters, you know, where you can just say "I think you're crazy, and so does every other man, and his cat. Call it faith if you want to, but your only witness is that talking frog you were telling me about".
                            But then, afaik, the Al Quran is the world's most widely followed illuminating text. That's gotta mean something, right? And, this stuff is in the book... Frustrating, really. We have our own Christian nutters, I can't stand them. Same problem, most of the rules they talk about are in the book. It's a lot harder to argue why we shouldn't follow these rules than why we should, if you believe the book is true. I find it hard to accept that, "I'm gonna decide which parts are true, and which ones are fairy-tales". That's part of why you'll find me here, far from my roots,I got tired of having to argue from the basis of "It just doesn't feel right." when the other guy gets to say, "Look, they put it in the book, thousands of years ago. You said you believe the book is true, what's you're problem?"
                            In the end I'm always left saying, "Well, you can believe that stuff if you must, but when you act like a piece of crap, I will treat you like one." That's what it comes down to, way I see it. Good Book says the adulterer will be put to death. Doesn't say I have to be the ba*&ard to do it. If I volunteer, I'm still a *(**$*(%&@#&$%(.
                            Last edited by Happyman; 16-10-14, 03:59.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DanInAceh View Post

                              It will be telling if they release Peter Kassig. He has ostensibly accepted Islam, though only a genuine conversion would be accepted. Will they execute him? They technically cannot as it would violate Islamic law. I suspect they will kill him anyway.

                              I strongly expect that your suspicion will prove correct. From their point of view, the publicity / scare tactic value of executing Westerners surely trumps anything else, and they have shown their willingness to disregard injunctions and prohibitions regarding treatment of other Muslims. I really doubt that his mualaf status will convince them, or save his life, unfortunately.
                              [FONT=Comic Sans MS]Warden: "What we got here ... is failure to communicate."

                              The Dude: "Oh yeah? Well that's just, like, your opinion, man."[/FONT]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X