Lizzie Dearden at the Independent has been reading IS propaganda so that you don’t have to.
A jihadi bride whose husband took a Yazidi girl as a slave has claimed sex with kidnapped women is never rape because it is an Islamic practice inspired by the Prophet himself.
Well that’s where she’s wrong. The prophet himself was not incapable of rape just because he was “the prophet” after all. If the prophet told men they could rape women captured in battle then he was telling them they could rape, end of story. It doesn’t magically become not-rape just because this one super-special guy endorsed it.
The article, by “Umm Sumayyah al-Muhajirah”, appears in the latest issue of Isis propaganda magazine Dabiq under the headline: “Slave-girls or prostitutes?”
In it, the writer claims that taking slaves like the Yazidi women through war (“saby”) is a “great prophetic Sunnah [teachings of Mohamed] containing many divine wisdoms and religious benefits”.
Nope. That’s what’s so wrong with your whole line of thinking. You’re starting with the idea that it’s all Holy and Divine and Inspired and yadda yadda, therefore whatever it is, it is good. That’s back to front, and wrong.
Umm Sumayyah puts reports of horrific abuse at the hands of Isis fighters down to “devious and wicked slave girls” who “made up lies and wrote false stories”.
Oh yes, those devious and wicked victims of war crimes who report how they were treated. How dare they.
A UN envoy who interviewed dozens of sexual abuse victims in the region reported earlier this month that Isis is using widespread and systematic sexual violence as a “terrorist” tactic to spread fear.
Zainab Bangura described how fighters would strip the victims naked and categorise them before trading them in “slave bazaars” and shipping them to other provinces.
And that doesn’t become acceptable simply because someone claims it’s inspired by a prophet.
Citing select Koran passages and hadiths, Umm Sumayyah wrote that slavery only befalls a people that have “left Allah’s favour” when he “has no need for them”.
She lashed out at the vast majority of Muslims around the world who have condemned Isis’ interpretation of Sharia law, massacres and violence.
“(A Yazidi woman’s) enslavement is in opposition to human rights and copulation with her is rape?!?” she writes dismissively.
“We indeed raided and captured the kāfirah (infidel) women, and drove them like sheep by the edge of the sword. And glory belongs to Allah, to His Messenger, and the believers.”
Nope. Your Allah and his messenger and his believers are all fascist bullies.
And that doesn’t become acceptable simply because someone claims it’s inspired by a prophet
They don’t seem to think it was acceptable for the crusaders to slaughter metric fucktonnes of muslims, but the crusaders thought* they were divinely inspired. I guess “deus vull’t” only works for ISIL in one direction, huh?
Not that I approve of any horrible crimes justified by religion. But if someone wants to say their crimes are justified by their imaginary playmate they’re opening the door to some other moral nihilist inflicting crimes on them using the same flimsy reasoning. Don’t they get it, that they’re making the scourge for their own backs?
(* in principle)
Wait, that rape apology was written by a woman? Silly me, I thought that the Duggars were the most loathsome human beings around!
Again, the apologists get the first word. Why, oh why, don’t we send Karen Armstrong, Glenn Greenwald, Resa Aslan and co. over to Syria and Iraq to explain to the poor widdle dears that they aren’t doing REAL Islam?
Wasn’t there also a female spokesperson/apologist for the Taliban before Sept 11? Whatever happened to her?