Posted on 10/03/2014 12:52:20 PM PDT by markomalley
Lefty “feminists” spend a lot of time talking about “objectifying” women. Islam reminds us of what that really means. Right down to the price tags.
The Islamic State is great if you’re a Sunni Muslim male. If you’re a non-Muslim woman, it’s hell on earth. But that’s true of Islam.
“[W]omen and children who refused to convert were being allotted to ISIL fighters or were being trafficked … in markets in Mosul and to Raqqa in Syria,” according to the UN report. “Married women who converted were told by ISIL that their previous marriages were not recognised in Islamic law and that they, as well as unmarried women who converted, would be given to ISIL fighters as wives.”
Nothing to do with Islam. Except it has everything to do with Islam.
It’s Islamic law that invalidates the previous marriages of captured non-Muslim women allowing Islamic Jihadists to rape them. That’s how Mohammed and his gang of thugs did it.
The FP story leaves out a key phrase from the UN report. “To be sold as sex slaves (‘malak yamiin’).” Malak Yamiin means that which your right hand possesses.
It comes from the Koran. “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess” (Koran 4:24). Media outlets, including Vice, have consulted various Islamic scholars who told them that ISIS is violating Sharia by doing so. It isn’t. It’s following Islamic law, plain and simple.
A market for the sale of abducted women was set up in the al-Quds neighborhood of Mosul.
“Women and girls are brought with price tags for the buyers to choose and negotiate the sale,” according to the report.
The West has consciously forgotten that slavery in the Muslim lingered on into recent times. The Saudis only officially banned it in the 1960s under pressure from JFK.
ISIS is just bringing back another Muslim tradition that the infidel West forced it to abandon.
“The buyers were said to be mostly youth from the local communities. Apparently ISIL was ‘selling’ these Yezidi women to the youth as a means of inducing them to join their ranks.”
Giving away captured women as an incentive was one of the ways that Mohammed recruited his band of murderers and rapists.
“The array of violations and abuses perpetrated by ISIL and associated armed groups is staggering, and many of their acts may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity,” the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, said in a statement accompanying the report’s release.
Zeid urged the Iraqi government to consider joining the International Criminal Court in order to provide the tribunal’s prosecutor with the authority to investigate and prosecute crimes in Iraq by perpetrators on either side of the conflict.
And once that happens, what will the ICC do to bring ISIS to justice? Write him an angry letter? The UN is barely managing to try some perps from genocides that happened generations ago.
I’m sure the Caliph of the Islamic State is shaking in his boots.
I would say that the NT neither approves nor disapproves of slavery. It simply takes it for granted as a fact of life that absolutely nobody had yet announced was a moral wrong.
I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that the Bible says slavery is immoral. Unfortunately, it doesn’t.
What the Bible did do, however, is proclaim more boldly than anything before it the common fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man. That principles eventually led to the demise of slavery.
My comment, however, was not about slavery as such, which sadly continued for almost 1500 years in “Christian” countries. It was about the practice of routinely enslaving and raping the women of conquered tribes or nations.
I believe this became illegal in Christian countries a lot sooner than slavery itself. For instance, while there was a lot of rape that no doubt went on during the 100 Years War, I don’t remember reading about chained coffles of French women being shipped back across the Channel as sex slaves for the English.
“All nations of the ancient world, including Israel, enslaved those they defeated in combat and took the women as sex slaves.”.........
Didn’t the American Indians do this as well?
I did say all nations.
To be fair, it depended on the level of “civilization.” Hunter-gatherer types had little economic use for slaves. They generally killed all the males or adopted them into the tribe. However, men can always use another women, and so women were enslaved or married (a distinction without much difference in many tribes).
That is, I think, a somewhat important fact it’s hard for us to grasp. For many women down through history, being enslaved after their men lost a was just didn’t change things that much for them. They were already slaves in many ways in all but name.
An interesting exception to the hunter-gatherer rule was in the Pacific NW, where the land was so productive they were able to develop a sophisticated society with slavery and human sacrifice despite no agriculture. The Haida and Tlingit of Alaska raided as far as California for slaves.
As societies moved up the ladder to chiefdoms and then states, slavery became, AFAIK, universal.
We would have to GIVE them money to take her...
Throw in the corpse of Helen Thomas and Chelsea Clinton... they will run away. Especially if you tell them Helen is one if the 72 virgins...
....Because the Christian faith believes all that is good, holy, and right.
Yes. And, although legal, socially-accepted sex slavery died out wherever Christianity spread, it persisted in societies where slavery still existed and concubinage had some sort of legal sanction, and until very recently, slavery or slave-like conditions, were a normal part of the fabric of every society since the development of agriculture. America and the countries of Latin America (including Brazil which also imported African slaves and didn’t get around to abolishing slavery until 1888, but somehow gets no guff about it from the left the way America does) had the misfortune of being the last new societies to arise before the most of mankind finally decided that the ownership of other human beings was unconscionable.
Sure, in much of Christendom, full on slavery had been replaced with serfdom a long time before, but it was basically in the 19th century that all that, both slavery and serfdom, came to an end, even in the Ottoman Empire, though the Muslim countries that arose when it broke up, Turkey and Syria, excepted, backslid and (on paper at least) only reabolished slavery in the 20th century — Ethiopia and a few bits of Hindu and Buddhist Asia only getting around to abolishing it in 20th century, as well.
Fixed it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
