I have only recently become aware of this, but MEMRI reports that the gentlemen from the Islamic State have been considerate enough to put out a pamphlet which describes, in question and answer form, the rules for the enslavement of women:
Here is some clarification for your edification and possible future use.The Research and Fatwa Department of the Islamic State (ISIS) has released a pamphlet on the topic of female captives and slaves. The pamphlet, which is dated Muharram 1436 (October/November 2014) and was printed by ISIS's publishing house, Al-Himma Library, is titled Su'al wa-Jawab fi al-Sabi wa-Riqab ("Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves"). It was presumably released in response to the uproar caused by the many reports this summer that ISIS had taken Yazidi girls and women as sex slaves. Written in the form of questions and answers, it clarifies the position of Islamic law (as ISIS interprets it) on various relevant issues, and states, among other things, that it is permissible to have sexual intercourse with non-Muslim slaves, including young girls, and that it is also permitted to beat them and trade in them.
So, women from ahl al-harb (the People of War), otherwise known as all non-Muslim women, are considered al-sabi, i.e., sex slaveable material.
It is, of course, permissible to have intercourse with one's property, although in the West - due to our racism - we tend to think of such arrangements as rape... but what do we know? Besides, as Obama has pointed out, it's all relative. I mean, sure the Islamic State buries children alive, but there was the Crusades, so get off of your high horse.
You should know, if any of you guys decide to join up, that it is not permissible to sell, and thereby separate, a pre-pubescent girl from her slave mother. It is only when she passes the age of pre-pubescence - usually around the age of thirteen - that it is permissible to sell or otherwise dispose of such a slave.
So, please, do not think that there are no rules. There are rules and I do not think that I have to remind you how the Islamic State deals with people who violate their terms.
It is also impermissible for a master to have intercourse with his slave if he does not own that slave exclusively. In other words, if Jay and I were to join up and pool our resources to purchase a slave girl, it would be impermissible for either of us to intimately enjoy the young lady's company. Likewise, if either of us were to marry a Muslim woman, it would be forbidden for us to have intercourse with one of the wife's slaves, because the slave would not be our exclusive property.
Furthermore, if you get one of your slaves pregnant and she has a baby it is then forbidden to sell her... which I think is a bit intrusive of property rights and should probably be rescinded, but, sadly, it is not up to me.
The rules on the dress of female sex slaves is a bit more liberal than you sometimes find elsewhere among the deeply spiritual. She may allow her feet and hands to be uncovered, as well as her neck and her entire head so long as their is no enticement of men happening. If there is then, apparently, she must be covered from head to toe in a potato sack and allowed, basically, to hop around the house.
It is permissible to beat one's slaves, of course, but even here there are limits to property rights. You may beat your female sex slaves, but only for purposes of discipline, never for the shear fun of it... which, as far as I am concerned, takes all the fun out of.
In any case, I want to thank the gentlemen of the Islamic State for clarifying their rules on such matters. I know that after they conquered the Yazidis and chopped off a bunch of heads and buried people alive, and so forth, some of the guys were concerned about the Islamic rules for their female sex slaves and the document above lays it out in a readable and accessible manner.
Now you know.
I understand they had to clear this up as a first step to being recognized by the UN, and being considered for a seat on the Human Rights Council.
ReplyDeleteDo Mauritanians adhere to these guidelines as well, or is this a matter to be hashed out amongst Islamic slavery scholars at a future date? Perhaps the next Netroots Nation / Yearly Kos gathering can even arrange for a special panel to settle this important matter before it divides anti-racists in an important election year!
LOL!
DeleteTerrific comment.
I tell ya, man, the failure of the west to stand up against political Islam is a betrayal of their own values.
Further, of course, you cannot defeat an enemy until this enemy is named and clearly defined and this administration has done neither.
Obama speaks of "violent extremism."
Well, that could mean neo-Nazis in the Northwest or perhaps ELF, the Earth Liberation Front.
Who knows what the problem is or, even, if there is one?
Get off your high horse, for chrissake.
;O)
Oh great, I just reposted the diary from here over at Daily Storm Kos Front (DSKF), and I see this. While I am in 100% agreement with this story, the accusations from DSKF will be extreme if they read this!
ReplyDeleteFor a nice follow up on my reposting the Anti Zionists article.
ReplyDeleteA member of TEAM SHALOM, yes TEAM SHALOM has asked in my diary that I be BANNED for posting a diary from and i quote
livosh1
"The diarist should be banned. (0+ / 0-)
For posting an article from an anti-Arab hate site.
by livosh1 on Mon Feb 09, 2015 at 11:22:57 PM EST "
WTF? And we wonder how there can be so many self-hating Jews! We stumble over ourselves at times to tear each other down!
Daily Storm Kos Front (DSKF) is by far more of a hate site!
What's interesting to me is how they conflate anti-Islamist with anti-Arab?
DeleteIt is, in fact, they who are the prejudicial ones or the "racists" as they say.
I oppose an Islamic political philosophy and movement that is slaughtering people throughout the Middle East.
Meanwhile, they treat people of color like little children with no agency.
It's disgusting and very reminiscent of 19th century notions of "White man's burden."
It is condescending as hell.
A prime example of what Mike notes in the other thread. Some are so blinded by fanatical partisanship that they shut down all critical thinking capacity when it comes to those they perceive as enemies. Mike is extremely critical of that person's party, which of course can never do any wrong (I say this as one who is still a Democrat and who has never voted for a Republican, btw), ergo [insert smear here].
DeleteWhy bother with facts and nuance when hurt feelings demand more satisfying action, like childish name-calling?
Perfect response, Mannie. Pretty sad pandering, indeed.
One of the criticisms of my own style of advocacy is that I am too harsh in criticsms... or come across with too much of an attitude.
DeleteI know that Jon Haber, who I have considerable respect for, did not like my use of the ostrich image, for example.
From my perspective, I just tell it straight as I see it.
And the way that I see it is that the Democratic party and the American Left have made homes of themselves for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists who legitimate political Islam.
These people can never really stand up for the Jewish people because they cannot really find it within themselves to stand against the Jihad.
I simply do not see how anyone can be either pro-Israel or pro-Jewish without being explicitly anti-Islamist.
It simply makes no sense other than as a very sad example of cognitive dissonance.
This site is pro-Israel, thus its name.
DeleteHas livosh ever called for banning an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish diary?
Seem like someone filled with rage against a perceived "enemy" that he really does not know much about, but has heard a lot.
When I talk to may progressives, and hear them talk about non-progressives, I hardly ever recognize the people they universally stereotype from my own interactions.
When one has stepped through the 'progressive' looking glass into a place where racist attitudes are praised as 'anti-racism,' etc, it's hardly a surprise that they would conflate opposition to a violent and extremist political ideology derived from the worst aspects of a racist medieval supremacist movement with somehow being 'anti-Arab.'
DeleteThe hope is that those who hold these positions are in the minority on my side of the political aisle, which I believe is still the case, yet at the same time their numbers unfortunately appear to be growing.
Either that, or they're just becoming louder anymore for some reason.
Perhaps social media amplifies their voices in a way that wasn't possible before? But if that's the case, then they must have been far more numerous than we ever realized, right? Which doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Fuck if I can figure out what the attraction to such a morally bankrupt view of the world is, but there must be one. Combating it is the key, and I don't see a better way to do that than to tell it like it is.
Keep givin' 'em what for, partner. ;)
Gee, here I am before dawn, getting ready to take Laurie back to the hospital to have that legged checked out by a specialist.
DeleteShe's only on a splint, now, but my guess is that I will be transferring her home in a cast.
Anyways, the reason that some on the Left favor Jihadis over Jews is because they consider it a form of righteous resistance to western imperialism.
Many of them would think that burning a man alive in a cage is a bad thing, but not nearly so bad as Jews building housing for themselves in Judea.
They are, in fact, bigots.
Will do Jay. I totally understand your progressive through the looking glass metaphor. It is sadly all too real
ReplyDeletebtw, one of the things that I respect least about Jewish Left advocacy is the tendency among many to simply shun rather than argue, discuss, or fight it out.
ReplyDeleteSo, instead of coming over here and telling us how we are wrong, they call us snide names and hide.
It's cowardice.
Chickenshit, really.
As the Obama administration has called Bibi chickenshit (was in a DSKF diary), You don't know just how spot on you are.
DeleteThe cowards even applauded that!
The left can NOT discuss this or argue it out, as it would expose their hypocrisy and bigotry. As such, they hide behind the palestinians.
Kind of ironic as palestinians hide behind children to fire guns and rockets!
When you refer to "Palestinians" which ones are you talking about?
DeleteEveryone who resides in what was the British mandate is a "Palestinian," if we insist upon using such outmoded terminology.
Suggesting that only certain types of people can be "Palestinian" is unjust on its face. Not that I am saying that you do so, but it is widespread, as you are well aware.
Of course, the Jews voluntarily gave up the attribution in 1948. However, before that when people referred to "Palestinians" they generally meant Jews.
The only reason the local Arabs adopted "Palestinian" identity was to challenge Jewish claims to autonomy and self-defense on historically Jewish land.
Thus it is a new and artificial "ethnicity" designed specifically to rob the Jews people of our ancient home.
What would be the proper name then for the residents of Gaza and the West bank? Not Israelis or Arab-Israelis as they advocate for the destruction of Israel
DeleteI do agree the whole mythological "country of palestine" is a lie repeated so often, people believe it to be true!
DeleteI call Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, "Arab residents of Judea and Samaria."
DeleteI gave up the term "West Bank" at least a year ago, probably more, because it is a Jordanian term designed to erase almost 4,000 years of Jewish presence on the land of the Jewish people.
Naomi Wolf is a huge fan of the Taliban. Smith college cancels "The Vagina Monologues" because it's not feminist enough. Gay rights advocates protest Israel and root for Hamas. American left wing 'women of color' call the hijab 'liberating'. Code Pink is a fully financed arm of women and child murdering psychopaths. Saudi Arabia's UN representative screams about how Israel treats women on the same day her own government considers arresting her for appearing w/o a hijab.
ReplyDeleteI think we're done here. We can stop putting retard chemicals in the water.