Rape Jihad Fartwa

Over the years we’ve published quite a few fatwas by South Africa’s mufti Ibrahim Desai, who is quite straightforward. Like Australia’s catmeat sheik Hilali, he usually tells the truth, when he doesn’t lie, with a bit of taqiyya, of course: few rapists have ever been taken to task under the Islamic system. Its usually the women who cop it, as we can see here, just a few samples from last week:

Legacy of Rape Haunts Islam

Muhammad’s warriors killed men, enslaved their children and raped their women. And that’s straight from the horses mouth…

Fatwa #  13983  from United States     
   I just wanted to express my disgust and repulsion towards this statement. Rape is about power, about violence, not about whether you were wearing your hijab or not
   I am writing regarding one fatwa that is posted on your internet:         

 If a female was raped due to her not maintaining the laws of 
 Hijaab, she is partly to be blamed as the rapist will be 
 considered as being seduced by her revealing form and shape. 
 She should make Tawbah (sincerely repent) by also adhering to 
 the laws of Hijaab.

I just wanted to express my disgust and repulsion towards this statement. Rape is about power, about violence, not about whether you were wearing your hijab or not. The rate of rape in Afghanistan (where women are all covered) is 1.3 times higher than the rape rate in the US. Statements as the one posted on your website make all educated muslims ashamed. In addition it has no basis in sharia. 

As a PhD in Islamic studies with many scholar friends, I will give your website the largest advertisement so everyone can know the extent of the atrocities said in South Africa. With things like this, it’s no wonder the state of the Ummah is in such poor condition. We need to stop blaming women for men’s barbaric behavior. If not, they’re never gonna improve.

   It is important to understand the Fatwa in context. There are generally two types of women. Those that cover and yet have become victims of rape. That is surely no fault of the woman. That is clearly an open violation on behalf of the rapist who should be dealt with severely. Such a woman requires our help and sympathies.         

However, if a woman does not cover properly and wears revealing clothing, which seduces men, if such a woman is raped, would it be correct to excuse her? Yes, the man has violated Shari’ah and will be dealt with. The answer should be read in conjunction with the question. It does not deal with man’s power or a fully clothed woman. After all, why is a woman required to cover herself? Do you think a woman’s revealing body does have no effect on a man and she will not be partly responsible for being raped under those circumstances? Both the man and woman will be responsible. She, for her immodest dressing.

You are welcome to advertise the Fatwa with your objection and my response unlimited advertisement. I will be happy to respond to anyone on condition it is on an academic level. I thought phd’s had that approach and do not follow emotions.

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai


We also have a Mermaid Fatwa, here:

Jihad against…mermaids!

It’s permissible for Muslims to eat them.

Say it ain’t so!

“Ruling on eating mermaids: Is there any such thing as a mermaid?,” from the popular Saudi Sheikh Muhammad Saleh Al-Munajjid’s Islam QA (thanks to Jihad Watch):

Praise be to Allaah.A mermaid is a creature that lives in water and looks like a human. As to whether it really exists or it is a mythical being, that is subject to further discussion.

It says in a footnote in al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (5/129): From the modern academic resources that are available to us, it may be understood that the mermaid, which is called Sirène in French, is a mythical creature that is described in fairy tales as having an upper body like a woman and a lower half like a fish.

See the French Larousse encyclopédique on the word Sirène.

The encyclopaedia goes on to say: The widespread notion in ancient times was that the wonders and animals of the sea were more and greater than the wonders of dry land, and that there was no kind of animal in the sea that did not have a counterpart on land. This was confirmed by Prof. Muhammad Fareed Wajdi in his encyclopaedia, quoting from modern academic sources. See: Daa’irah Ma’aarif al-Qarn al-‘Ishreen: Bahr – Hayawiyan. End quote.

Al-Dumayri said in Hayaat al-Haywaan al-Kubra: Mermaid: it resembles a human but it has a tail. Al-Qazweeni said: Someone brought one of them in our time. End quote.

Many of the fuqaha’ mentioned mermaids and differed on the ruling concerning them. Some of them said that they are permissible (to eat) because of the general meaning of the evidence which says that whatever is in the sea is permissible. This is the view of the Shaafa’is and Hanbalis, and is the view of most of the Maalikis and of Ibn Hazm and others. And some of them regarded it as haraam because it is not a kind of fish. This is the view of the Hanafis and of al-Layth ibn Sa’d.

Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Muhalla (6/50): As for that which lives in the water and cannot live anywhere else, it is all halaal no matter what state it is in, whether it is caught alive and then dies, or it dies in the water and then floats or does not float, whether it was killed by a sea creature or a land animal. It is all halaal to eat, whether it is the pig of the sea (i.e., a dolphin), a mermaid, or a dog of the sea (i.e., shark) and so on. It is halaal to eat, whether it was killed by an idol-worshipper, a Muslim, a kitaabi (Jew or Christian) or it was not killed by anyone. The proof of that is the verses in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And the two seas (kinds of water) are not alike: this is palatable, sweet and pleasant to drink, and that is salt and bitter. And from them both you eat fresh tender meat (fish)” [Faatir 35:12] and “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water game and its use for food — for the benefit of yourselves and those who travel” [al-Maa’idah 5:64]. Allaah spoke in general terms and did not exclude anything, “and your Lord is never forgetful” [Maryam 19:64]. End quote.

Al-Durayr – a Maaliki scholar – said in al-Sharh al-Sagheer (2/182): Sea animals in general are permissible, whether it is dead meat or a ‘dog’ (shark) or a ‘pig’ (dolphin), and they do not need to be slaughtered properly. End quote.

Al-Saawi said in his commentary on that: The words “or a ‘dog’ or a ‘pig’ also include a ‘human’, referring thereby to mermaids. End quote.

Al-Nawawi – who was a Shaafa’i scholar – said in al-Majmoo’ (9/33): As for that which does not appear in the well known form of a fish, the correct view according to our companions is that everything (from the sea) is permissible, because the correct view is that the name fish may be applied to all of it, and Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water game and its use for food” [al-Maa’idah 5:64]. Ibn ‘Abbaas and others said: Its game is that which is hunted and its food is that which the sea throws out. And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in the saheeh hadeeth: “Its water is a means of purification and its dead meat is halaal.” End quote.

Al-Mardaawi – who was a Hanafi scholar – said in al-Insaaf (10/364): All sea animals are permissible, except frogs, snakes and crocodiles. End quote.

Al-Kaasaani – who was a Hanafi scholar – said in Badaa’i’ al-Sanaa’i’ (5/35): As for that which lives in the sea, there is no animal in the sea that is haraam to eat except in the case of fish, it is permissible to eat it except that which floats. This is the view of our companions (may Allaah be pleased with them). End quote.

Ibn ‘Aabideen – who was a Hanafi scholar – said in Radd al-Muhtaar (6/307): Anything other than fish and the like, such as mermaids and dolphins, is impure and remains prohibited.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, after stating that it is more likely that it is permissible to eat crocodiles and sea snakes: The correct view is that nothing is excluded from that, and that all the sea creatures which can only live in water are halaal, alive or dead, because of the general meaning of the verse – i.e., “Lawful to you is (the pursuit of) water game and its use for food” [al-Maa’idah 5:64]. End quote from al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (6/327). Fajr edition.

And Allaah knows best.

2 thoughts on “Rape Jihad Fartwa”

  1. Pakistani Muslim rapist admits women have no rights or opinions in Islam

    A practicing Muslim man raped and threatened a young Norwegian girl for several hours. Numerous rapes in Sweden over the past several years have been committed by “non-Western men,” e.g., Muslims. In fact, in the past year, all rapes in Oslo have been committed by non-Western men.

    “He said that he had the right to do exactly as he wanted to a woman. Why? Because that is how it was in his religion. Women did not have rights or opinions. He was in charge.”

    Islam teaches utter disrespect for women, who are mere possessions of savage men, to be raped whenever the beasts feel like it. At least this rapist admitted that fact of Islamic misogyny and sexism, which should be obvious to anyone with eyes to see.

    “Women are your fields: go, then, into your fields whence you please.” Quran 2:223

    “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them.” Quran 4:34

    “A male shall inherit twice as much as a female.” Quran 4:11

    “Call in two male witnesses from among you, but if two men cannot be found, then one man and two women whom you judge fit to act as witnesses…” Quran 2:282

Comments are closed.