[Muslim] Fatwa Permits Mujahideen to Kidnap, Imprison, Have Sexual Intercourse w/ Infidel Women

MEMRI ^ | November 30, 2011

[Righting]

Fatwa Permits Mujahideen to Kidnap, Imprison, and Have Sexual Intercourse with Infidel Women MEMRI

On October 28, 2011, the jihadi forum Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad published a fatwa by Sheikh Abu Humam Al-Athari, a member of its shari'a council, in which he unequivocally permits mujahideen to capture the infidels' women and have sexual intercourse with them, even those who are married, on the claim that their marriage bonds to infidels are dissolved as soon as they are taken captive.

Following are the fatwa's main points:

The inquiry in response to which Al-Athari issued the fatwa reads as follows:[1] "Is it permissible for mujahideen in jihad fronts to kidnap the infidels' women and hold them as their captives? What is the ruling regarding a captive in our times? How should they be divided [among the mujahideen]? Is it permissible to imprison [an infidel woman who has been taken captive] in an infidel land, or must she be brought to Dar Al-Islam [the abode of Islam]? How much time must one wait before having sexual intercourse with her, regarding both one who is a virgin and one who is not?"

Al-Athari replies: "There is no doubt that taking the women of the combatant infidels captive – whether they are from Ahl Al-Kitab [i.e., Christians or Jews] or pagans – is permitted according to the shari'a... That being said, it must be done only after [the spoils] has been divided by an imam in Dar Al-Islam; if there is no imam at hand, prisoners may not be taken..."

Al-Athari emphasizes that before deciding to take infidel women captive, "one must consider the gains and losses that will result from this deed, which is to say that if the imam of the Muslims in a given country believes that taking the infidels' women captive will lead the infidels to band together and rape the Muslims' women, and that the Muslims are in too weak a state to prevent this, he should forbid taking [infidel women] captive..."

Al-Athari notes that "there are too many proofs of the permissibility of taking the infidels' women captive to enumerate here, but we can divide them into two categories: 'general proofs' and 'concrete proofs.'" He explains that the "general proofs" are those which clarify that it is forbidden to violate the honor of Muslim women, but that this does not hold true regarding the infidel women, except in cases where they are assured protection. Al-Athari claims that the permissibility is absolute and anchored in the principles of the shari'a. Therefore, he says, it does not necessitate proof, and it falls rather on those who forbid taking infidel women captive to prove the legitimacy their claims.

In his discussion of "concrete proofs," Al-Athari quotes Al-Qurtubi, who says: "Most scholars, including Malik [ibn Anas], Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa,[2] and others, thought that taking [infidel women] captive removes the protection [they previously enjoyed], and permits whoever is holding them to have sexual intercourse with them." Al-Athari also quotes another scholar whose interpretation of Al-Qurtubi's ruling says that the latter uses the word "protection" to refer to married women, who are forbidden to men other than their husbands. That is, when these women are taken captive, their marriage contracts with their infidel husbands become void, and they become permissible to their captors. Al-Athari adds that the amount of time a captor must wait until having sexual intercourse with a captive infidel woman depends on her condition: if she is pregnant, he must wait until after she gives birth; if she is menstruating, he must wait until after her period is over; and if she is young and has not yet begun menstruating, he must wait a month from her capture.

 

Endnotes:

[1] Rather than providing a name or handle of the inquirer, the website mentions only that the inquiry was taken from forum correspondence.

[2] Al-Qurtubi ("The Cordovan," d. 671), Malik ibn Anas (711-795), Al-Shafi'i (767-820), and Abu Hanifa (699-767) are among the great Koranic scholars, and the last three are founders of major schools of Islamic jurisprudence.

[rightwingextremist1776]

So I guess what's good for the Mussie is good for the Infidel?

[DonaldC]

Was there ever a time Christians, or any other group for that matter, was as barbaric?

[FreedomProtector]

marking...

[samtheman]

Who is he and what country is this in?

Some of us don’t really follow muzzie celebrities and need a cheat sheet.

Sorry.

[driftdiver]

Pretty much been happening ever since their camel lover prophet was around.

Islam is at war with the rest of the world. Its high time we admitted it.

[varyouga]

Since the beginning of time, spoils of war have included the women of those conquered. Women were considered de facto property until very recently and sexual consent is a very new concept.

An extreme example we see today is how women from “Viking” regions are considered very attractive. It is because the Vikings traveled to every land they could reach and captured all the attractive women they could. The same thing with Mongols, early Romans and countless other civilizations.

Barbaric behavior by man is not new. Civilized behavior is. Unfortunately, most people on the planet are still in the learning phase.

[G Larry]

Such a civilized and misunderstood culture....

No wonder this administration goes to such lengths to apologize and promote Islam...

Of course hatred for America and Christianity is a possible alternate motive....

[varyouga]

I forgot to add that this has been going on as recently as WWII. Codes of conduct for soldiers are a 20th century concept.

The Japanese were the worst offenders in WWII as they systematically enslaved women in occupied lands and moved them around like cattle.

The Germans and Soviets were a close second. While not outright enslaving, the rapes and murders of occupied women happened on a large scale. Even some Americans and Brits were guilty of this. The difference is that the US prosecuted many, while the Soviets never did.

[mas cerveza por favor]

Massive Islamic immigration and the emasculation of European fathers has resulted in widespread pimping out of underage European girls by Muslim “loverboys.” This article demonstrates that the pimps can be “good” Muslims as long as they leave Muslim girls alone.

Westerners are being raped not only by Muslims, but also by their own leaders who continue to promote Islamic immigration. Bringing “democracy” to Muslim countries does nothing to resolve this problem.

[patriot08]

bump

[DonaldC]

I guess in times of war crap happens, so if they are thinking they are at war with us, then I guess we need to look at them very differently.

[Moose Burger]

Before Abraham, mostly everybody. Let’s just say this arab behavior is small beans compared with Amalek. Nobody can prove that, of course. It was vanished from history for good reasons.

[SES1066]

I can agree with you about the general case of treatment in pre-modern times and many areas involving recent conflicts But I believe that you are comparing apples and oranges. We in the Judeo-Christian-Greek civilization(s) have developed rules and standards of ‘civilized’ behavior that we deem governable even in warfare. While violations have occurred like Abu Ghraib and My Lai, the violators are punished.

Islam, in its writings and teachings and as the theocracy that is inherit in its very structure, greatly reflects the nomadic raiding culture that was its genesis under Mohammed and his successors. In the 3 centuries from Mohammed to Islam stretching from the Atlantic to India, all of the instructing teachings and commentaries were written as a conquering civilization with the right to take from the non-Muslim and for the most part, the morality of the culture froze in that pattern.

Thus we now face an alien viewpoint that uses the lessons and teachings of a successful conquering raider culture to associate in our modern world where modern technology gives the individual far more power than was ever dreamed of by the Sultan in Baghdad. We come from a cultural viewpoint that has been as much instructed by being the conquered as by being the conquerors.

Thus my argument with your posts is that you are not citing comparable examples. We of the West do not accept the precepts that allowed pirates to go a ‘Viking’ nor do we accept the idea that skin color or religious belief designates innate social and economic status. Neither are we accepting of genocidal war or ethnic cleansing. Unfortunately, we face an activist theological culture that has never accepted religious reform in better than a 1,000 years and believes in the majority of its beliefs that it is an innately superior and conquering civilization. In our time and technological capability, this leads to nuclear nightmares and beheaded and raped innocents.