ISIS and the Theology of Rape (and the Rubbish Responses by Muslims)

Asharis: Assemble


Okay, so I think he’s joking…but not really. In any case, it’s an opinion piece and I think there are some important points.

DECLARATION: I don’t think he likes Jonathan Brown. Or Salafis. Or Salafis who like Jonathan Brown.

No real Jonathan Browns were harmed during the writing of this article. I think.

Recently on this site, ‘The Sultans Jester’ posted an article about most ‘public’ Muslims’ ambiguity and ambivalence towards ISIS and its violence. He posited that this may be due to the fact that they – the Salafi speakers and ISIS – both in fact venerate the same authorities, with ISIS practicing what Salafis in fact only preach. You can see if his argument was convincing here:

I was expecting a robust discussion on the issue of whether Salafis and ISIS do indeed use the same narrations, but to my surprise, no one was able to respond…

View original post 4,468 more words

Categories: Islam

5 replies

  1. Another fresh article. Only one problem. How the hell am I an islamPhobe if this is what is being taught by muslims to muslims. Shouldn’t any same rational person fear such teachings?


  2. Yeah. and tell your government to stop supporting the people who teach this stuff!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. As the article above shows there according to the opinion attributed to Ibn Abbas, a very respected companion of the Prophet who was known for his Quranic exegesis and also some outstanding classical commentators, and the erudite scholar Muhammad Asad, those who you are in that category of “ma malakat aymanukum” are “women whom your right hand possesses through wedlock” thus…it is are meant who are lawfully married….rather than illegal relationships and thus not connected to your right hand…right hand denotes legitimacy….and left hand is a symbol for something illegitimate.

    However, even if it means slaves, they cannot be raped.

    Sorry for resending what I sent before but I think the following is also appropriate here.

    “Serve God, and join not any partners with Him ; and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbours who are near, neighbours “who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (ye meet), And what your right hands possess : for God loveth not the arrogant, the vainglorious”
    (Qur’an, 4, 36)

    Certainly this explicit commandment to be good to your slaves (if that is whom your right hand possess refers to) clearly implies that one cannot do harm to slaves and raping them is obviously among the worst of harms.

    On the This issue of rape has come up because of the Yazidis enslaved and raped by ISIS.

    Allah forbade the mafia ISIS from attacking, let alone enslaving, and then raping the Yazidis as the following verses show.

    Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. (Qur’an, 60, 8)

    Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. (Qur’an, 4, 90)

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Sorry for long comment but I ask everyone to carefully read the following interesting article written by someone who says he is NOT Qur’an Only but Quran’Centric. He claims that the Qur’an prohibits sex with slave girls.

    Thde following is from

    The articles on this website may be reproduced freely as long as the following source reference is provided: Joseph A Islam

    Salamun Alaikum (Peace be upon you)

    joseph islam.jpg
    Printer Friendly Version
    Copyright © 2009 Joseph A Islam: Article last modified 13th March 2012

    To get a proper understanding of this topic, one has to rely on the Quran first and foremost. Any good Muffassir (Quranic exegetic) takes this approach whether modern or classical.

    The common interpretation of the term ‘those that your right hands possess’ as captive girls (with whom one can have free sex) is not warranted by the Quran.

    To enable a truer understanding of the Quranic position, one must be willing to divorce themselves from the plethora of extra-Quranic material which not only poses theological problems but also at times stands contradictory to the Quran itself.

    Firstly, the term ‘ma malakat aymanukum’ (Literally: What your right hands possesses) is not gender specific and as an idiomatic expression, applies to ‘those that one keeps in protection and honour’. This can include captives, slave girls, maidens, servants (fatayatikum 4:25) etc. Please note that the ‘right hand’ has a somewhat glorified meaning in the Quran which is apparent from its usage in different contexts (e.g. those on the right hand in heaven; books of one’s deeds given to the right hand etc).

    It is also apt to note that affluent women would have also most likely to have possessed men slaves. This is confirmed by the usage of the idiomatic expression ‘ma malakat aymanuhunna’ when used in reference to women’s possession. It would be inconceivable to conclude on the basis of this expression, the permissibility of women to engage in ‘free sex’ with their male slaves or captives.


    ‘Malakat aymanukum’ which can literally be rendered as ‘right hands possess’, appears many times in the Quran and in a variety of contexts.

    Ma malakat aymanukum
    What your right hands possess (2nd person masculine plural) *
    (4:25; 4:36; 24:33)

    Ma malakat yaminuka
    What your right hands possess (2nd person masculine single)
    (33:50; 33:52)

    Alazeena malakat ayymanukum
    Those whom your right hands possess * (2nd person masculine plural)

    Ma malakat aymanuhum
    What their right hands possess * (3rd person masculine plural)
    (16:71; 23:6)

    Ma malakat aymanuhunna
    What their right hands possess (3rd person feminine plural)
    (24:31; 33:55)

    * Please take note that masculine plurals can also be a reference to a group of both males and females. Therefore, restricting the interpretation of the term to just ‘females’ is unwarranted from the Quranic Arabic.

    The following points must be noted with regards to ‘those that your right hands possess’ from the Quran.

    (1) Be good to them as you are with your parents, orphans, needy, neighbours and free them if you can
    (2) Do no compel them to whoredom or force them
    (3) You can only have sex with them through marriage / wedlock


    And serve God and do not associate anything with Him and be good to the parents and to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the neighbour of (your) kin and neighbour who is not of kin, and the companion in a journey and the wayfarer and those whom your right hands possess; surely God does not love him who is proud, boastful


    “Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing, give them such a deed if you know any good in them and give them from the wealth of God which He has given you. But force not your slave girls (Arabic: fatayatikum) to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them)”

    Note: Those that cannot marry need to stay chaste, attempt to free those that their right hands possess and certainly not force them to sex or prostitution. However, if the poor unfortunate slave girls are forced, they will still find mercy from God, bounties which extend to all His creatures.


    “If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God has full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”

    It was better if one practiced self restraint. But if one couldn’t marry free believing women, then the directive was given to marry from what their right hands possessed. Not for prostitution, not for lust, but for wedlock.
    Notice here that although one can ‘marry’ a woman from one’s right hands possess, her status is not that of a ‘Free believing woman’ (as can be seen from the half punishment she can potentially exact for the same sin). This is the reason why women that form part of those whom your right hands possess are referred to as a separate category. However, they do not form an exception to the marital rule in terms of who is lawful for sex. See 23:6 & 70:30. In other words, they still have to be married.
    One logical question bears asking keeping in view any appetite for carnal desires. If one has wives along with many hand maidens with whom one could potentially have free sex, then what kind of sexual predator and maniac does one have to be to still commit adultery? The Quran imparts a consistent message with regards abstention from any unrighteous lust. What is the purpose of having sex with captives if it is not for lust?

    “Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess”

    · From this verse, it is clear that one can marry women who are already married if they constitute those from what your right hands possess (taken captive). Again, focus is on marriage, not sex for lust and they have to believing captives (Not pagans). See 4.25 above.

    (Continued 004.024) “…Thus has God ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers as prescribed (Arabic: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan); but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree mutually, there is no blame on you, and God is All-knowing, All-wise”

    This verse makes it clear that all married women are forbidden apart from a specific exception.


    Those women who are married but have come to be captured or possessed (Ma Malakat Amanakum) are lawful are in marriage. Note this exception. But the question still remains – lawful to one in what way?

    The rest of the verse clearly states that all women (including the exception – Right hands possess) have to be married (in wedlock). The legality being wedlock. Note the Arabic term: faatuhunna ujurahunna faridatan (give them their bridal due as obligation).

    It is clear therefore that the intention is of wedlock not of fornication, or lust.

    This seals the fate of sex with women from the category of ‘right hands possess’ outside marriage. These women are only lawful to one in marriage.

    “If you fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two or three or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice”

    · Marry one if you cannot deal justly or from what your right hands possess, but still take those whom your right hands possess in marriage.

    “And marry those (Arabic: wa-ankihu) among you who are single and those who are righteous among your male slaves and your female slaves; if they are needy, God will make them free from want out of His grace; and God is Ample-giving, Knowing”

    “And those who guard their chastity”

    “Except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess (in wedlock), for (then) they are not to be blamed”


    Women who are from the category of ‘right hands possess’ are not ‘free’ women in the same sense. They are either slaves or captures. When one takes them in marriage, all the rules of responsibility of wedlock on part of the male applies to the one he marries. However, this spouse still has reduced answerability such as her punishment in the case of ‘Fahisha’ (lewdness).

    There remains a crucial difference between a marriage based on complete freedom of choice exacted by a ‘free believer’ without circumstantial influence and one based on compromises, incentives such as freedom, status and financial stability gained through a compromise marriage. These differences in choices based on free and non-free parties are clearly recognized. Hence the noted difference in answerability as well.

    “And whoso is not able to afford to marry free, believing women, let them marry from the believing maids whom your right hands possess. God knows best (concerning) your faith. Ye (proceed) one from another; so wed them by permission of their folk, and give to them their portions in kindness, they being honest, not debauched nor of loose conduct. And if when they are honourably married they commit lewdness they shall incur the half of the punishment (prescribed) for free women (in that case). This is for him among you who fears to commit sin. But to have patience would be better for you. God is Forgiving, Merciful”


    Scripture has never permitted men to engage in sex outside the institution of marriage whether this is from the category of free believing women, or from the category of ‘right hands possess’.

    Joseph Islam
    © 2010 All Rights Reserved

    Liked by 2 people

  5. “If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And God has full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women.”

    So if the punishment for a free woman is stoning, how does this make sense?

    Salafism = Drugs


Please leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: