Fatwa: Necrophilia Now Halal Says Sheikh Abdelbari Zamzami

Yes, of course. For Winds of Jihad readers nothing new here. Because Muhammad, profit of Islam, “Noblest of all humanity and the greatest of prophets”, practised it also,  and he was the perfect  man, al insan al kamil, as you can see here:

“This stuff is in your own books!”

Meet Sheikh Abdelbari Zamzami who just made confirmed that necrophilia is halal.

Sheikh Abdelbari Zamzami (via Blazing Catfur)

Don’t you wish you lived under sharia law?

More here: Zemzami justifies his ruling by means of analogy: Since a good Muslim couple will meet again in Heaven, and since death does not alter the marital contract (in his opinion) it is not a hindrance to the husband’s desire to have sexual intercourse with the corpse of his (freshly) deceased wife”

More:

• Father Zacharias Botros Interview
• Father Zachariah Botros, the Sixty Million Dollar Man —
• Father Zacharias Botros & the Koranic scriptures —
• Father Zacharias Botros & the Koranic scriptures — Winds Of Jihad …

Nothing that interfaith sessions, government handouts and an army of social workers can’t fix.  Most important is of course to assure the shocked, fearful  muslim community that there is no backlash to worry about, and that their clerics and their mosques are not under surveillance. Because that could cause  backlash. Police commissioner Simon Overland is already fully in tune with Islamic customs and is often seen apologizing to Islamic leaders, usually after some of the tiny minority of extremists  get caught doing their Islamic duty, which includes blowing up stoopid infidels like you and me.
Terror trial begins in Supreme Court: “nothing to do with Islam, Islam is not on trial here…”

“This is the road to paradise, I swear to Allah…”

Terror accused suffered cold feet

Cold feet terrorists?

The Australian/ Stuart Rintoul

A group of conspirators waited in Australia for an Islamic cleric in Somalia to grant them a fatwa.

They wanted his blessing to break into Sydney’s Holsworthy army base and kill as many people as possible.

But one of them expressed fears that it could be “a catastrophe”, the Victorian Supreme Court heard yesterday.

In a phone conversation intercepted by police in June last year, Abdirahmin Mohamud Ahmed told Saney Edow Aweys it would be easy for an “angry” sheik in the mountains of Somalia to tell them to “enter this place” and they had to ask “people with knowledge”.

“If the sheik says to the guys enter this place . . . it’s a catastrophe, brother,” Mr Ahmed said.

Mr Aweys, who has been identified in many recorded conversations repeatedly describing Australians as “infidels”, told Mr Ahmed he was “soft” and told him if a fatwa was granted, “I am included”.

He told Mr Ahmed, who in other intercepted calls had said he was “in revolt” from the teachings of local clerics: “Hey, it’s not our motherland. There is no motherland here.”

After reading the transcript of the intercept, prosecutor Nick Robinson told the jury that while Mr Ahmed might have expressed reservations, that did not absolve him of the conspiracy.

Mr Aweys, 27, of Carlton North, Mr Ahmed, 26, of Preston, Yacqub Khayre, 23, of Meadow Heights, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, 34, of Melbourne, and Nayef El Sayed, 26, of Glenroy, have all pleaded not guilty to conspiring to do acts in preparation for, or planning, a terrorist act.

“Dramatic Dawn Raids”

The men were arrested in dramatic dawn raids last August involving about 400 officers after an 11-month undercover operation by a terrorism taskforce.

Jurors were yesterday shown CCTV footage of Mr Fattal travelling to the Holsworthy base by train in March last year and walking along a perimeter fence.

Mr Fattal was then living in the southwestern Sydney suburb of Lakemba, having fled assault charges in Melbourne. He was arrested on that charge four days later and extradited to Victoria.

The prosecution has alleged that at the time he went to Sydney, Mr Fattal, Mr Sayed and Mr Khayre at least had already agreed to the conspiracy and that Mr Fattal and Mr Khayre exchanged text messages about the location of “Australian A”, alleged to be the army base.

The court heard that when the alleged conspirators spoke of their plan, they referred to it as “the work” or “our issue”.

During an intercepted call on April 1, Mr Fattal told Mr Sayed that he had seen “the situation” and “strolled” there. He told him, “the work, it’s easy”.

Mr Sayed, who was becoming increasingly certain they were being watched, told Mr Fattal he would “speak in riddles” and said that a “brother” was going “from here to there” to ask “a few scholars” whether something was “halal” (permissible in Islam) or “haram” (not permissible).

The prosecution claims this was a reference to Mr Khayre travelling to Somalia to receive a fatwa from radical clerics after Australian clerics refused to grant them one.

During an intercepted call between Mr Khayre and a man called Hashim on April 9, Hashim said: “You’re going . . . to dead man’s land, dead man’s land.”

On April 15, when Mr Aweys spoke to Mr Khayre, who was then in Nairobi, he told him: “It’s very dangerous in Allah’s name, be careful.”

On April 24, when Mr Sayed visited Mr Fattal, who was in the Melbourne Assessment Prison facing assault charges, Mr Fattal told him: “This is the road to paradise, I swear to Allah.

2 stories here:

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America forbids Muslims to aid American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq

Of course.  For to do so would be “helping others in sin and transgression.”

“The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.*

“God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur’an our constitution, Jihad our way and dying for God’s cause our supreme objective. Different factions of the Muslim Brotherhood believe that an Islamic society can be achieved by violent means in the near term, or by education and “preparation” of society and “democratic” takeover.

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America says on its website: “AMJA recognizes that human brotherhood is the basic principle that should govern the relations between all peoples and nations. Therefore, the pursuit of peace and goodwill between all nations should be a desirable objective for all members of the human family. In this light, AMJA rejects any ideology or effort that aims to put the United States of America and Islam in conflict.” Apparently it intends to achieve this goal by making sure that U.S. troops cannot achieve anything in Islamic countries.

Expect Honest Ibe Hooper of CAIR to issue a thundering denunciation of this forthwith. Honest Ibe?

“US Muslim jurists forbid aid to aggressive troops,” from Iran’s Ahlul Bayt News Agency, via JW

Mohyeldeen Mohammed

Norwegian Muslim praises Afghan killings

The Foreigner

Mohyeldeen Mohammed, the outspoken Muslim, is in the news again. Reports from VG indicate he’s praised Allah in an open statement on his Facebook page for Sunday’s roadside bomb that killed four Norwegian soldiers.

At war

The controversial (what a dumb word, that “controversial”) 24-year-old from Iraq has previously advocated stoning homosexuals to death, and has warned of terrorist reprisals on Norwegian soil at a demonstration in Oslo in the wake of Dagbladet’s publishing of a Prophet Mohammed cartoon.

“These monsters aren’t soldiers, as Western Freemasonic media portrays them. Therefore, I wish death and misery upon ever single Norwegian, or other Western terrorist assailants, who travel to our countries and partake in an illegal occupation of and aggression against one of the world’s poorest countries,” writes Mohammed.

Arfan Qadir Bhatti agrees. Bhatti has recently been acquitted of charges of planning a paramilitary attack on the US and Israeli Embassies in Norway.

“Norwegian soldiers are terrorists and must expect to be assassinated. They’re at war and have probably killed civilians,” he says.

Setback

Several organisations and other Muslims have distanced themselves from Mohammed’s contentious remarks, calling them “tasteless”, and “sad”.

“It’s one thing disagreeing with Norwegian soldiers’ engagement in Afghanistan, but it’s quite different when you celebrate another person’s death,” says Norwegian convert Yousef Assidiq, who initiated February’s demonstration.

Tina Kornmo of the pro-integration network LIM (Likestilling, Integrering, Mangfold) says Mohammed is a lone wolf, and fears his comments could increase desegregation.

“I believe most Norwegian Muslims grieve for the loss of four of their countrymen. It will be very sad if his comments fuel an increased view by ethnic Norwegians that we’re bigoted and not part of society,” she says.

Afghan roadside bomb kills four norwegians

Innocent couple died ‘after wrong house was fire-bombed in bungled honour killing’

But you’re allowed to call people to Allah and spread Islam…..

Islam Q & A:

What is the ruling on traveling to kaafir countries as a tourist, and taking pictures of the women in one’s family on these trips?

Praise be to Allaah.

Taking pictures of women is not permitted at all, because of the temptation and evil that results from that, in addition to the fact that taking pictures is forbidden in and of itself. So it is not permissible to take pictures of women when traveling or for any other reason. The Council of Senior Scholars has issued a statement that this is haraam. With regard to traveling to kaafir countries or permissive countries, this is not permitted because it involves temptation and evil, and mixing with the kaafirs, and seeing evil things and being affected by that. It is only permitted within strict guidelines which have been set out by the scholars, namely:

1-     For necessary medical treatment which cannot be found in any Muslim country

2-     For business purposes which require travel

3-     To learn knowledge which the Muslims need and which cannot be found in their countries

4-     To call people to Allaah and spread Islam

In each of these cases, there is the condition that the traveler should be able to practise his religion openly and show pride in his beliefs, and keep away from places of temptation.

With regard to traveling solely for the purpose of a pleasure trip, or for a break, this is emphatically forbidden. I ask Allaah to make me, you and all the Muslims adhere to that which He loves and which pleases Him. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions.

Thanks to the RoP:

Once again, a fartwa, an Islamic ruling from a widely respected mufti. Is he a misunderstander of Islam? Are we Islamophobes because we dare to express reservations about the practice of raping women in captivity?

Here’s the esteemed mufti Ebrahim Desai:

“It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man’s legal wife, but once Shariat makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not.”

Right. Its a matter of taste. Now I got it! Well, thanks, mufti! Excuse my while I’m on my way to rape the next cute little hijabbed muslimah. After all; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, or is it not?

What is a slave girls in islam?

Harem

Q1. Is this a girl that a person buys or takes away from her family? Q2.Does this mean that they are slaves to that person? Q3.If so, isn?t that haram and against the mercy of allah? Q4.How can one have sexual relations with a slave girl if they are not married? Q5.I thought everyone is the same in allah?s eyes, then why should some be taken as slaves? Please clarify I am very confused on this issue.

Answer 14421
April 11, 2005

QUESTION: What is the Islamic law with regard to slave-women? Was It permissible to have relations with these slave-women without a formal marriage ceremony?

ANSWER: Firstly, it should be borne in mind that slavery was not something that was introduced by Islam; on the contrary, it was something that had its roots planted long before the advent of Islam. It would not be an exaggeration to state that slavery is probably as old as war itself, because it is one of the consequences of war. Thus, slavery apparently first reared its head with the first wars that took place an the face of earth. War is a factor that makes soft men stern, kind men harsh and delicate men rugged. A man who cannot bear to see the sight of blood under normal circumstances becomes capable of shedding the blood of hundreds under the pressure of war. Those who were not killed in warfare, used to be taken as prisoners of war. The pages of history will show that many alternative, expedient methods were used through the ages to deal with prisoners of war. Some used to be executed while others would be set free, with or without a ransom. Then, there were others who were neither executed nor set free. These were enslaved.

When Islam came and prospered, its power was challenged by the enemies of Islam and the need to go to war arose. By that time, slavery had virtually become an international custom. It was also rife among the Arabs from the days of darkness and ignorance. Thus, abolishing it instantateously would have caused chaos and pandemonium among the Arab people. Hence, a process of gradual extirpation had to be implemented. Moreover, if the Muslims would set all their enemy-prisoners free and tolerate their fellow Muslims being captured and enslaved by the enemies, it would have lead to a sharp decrease in the Muslim military force and given a great advantage to the enemy forces which was something that the Muslims could not afford. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that warfare tactics used by one side are often countered by the opposing side in order to maintain a balance of power. Hence, wartime diplomacy necessitated the enslaving of prisoners.

In the ?Jihaads? (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over which he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the ?Ameerul-Mu’mineen? (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, It became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man’s legal wife, but once Shariat makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariat, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta’ala has said in the Holy Quran: ?Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan? which means, more or less, that, “You have been given a very small portion of knowledge?. Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariat, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariat (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariat is contradictory to wisdom.

Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariat to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the ?Ameerul-Mu’mineen? (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be ‘possessed’, bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariat instituted a ‘marriage ceremony’ in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, ?Bismillahi Allahu Akbar? are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become ?Halaal? and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes ?Halaal? merely through ‘possession’ which substitutes for the slaughtering.

In other words, just as legal possession of a fish that has been fished out of the water, makes it Halaal for human consumption without the initiation of a formal slaughtering process; similarly legal possession of a slave woman made her Halaal for the purpose of coition with her owner without the initiation of a formal marriage ceremony.

In short, permission to have intercourse with a slave woman was not something barbaric or uncivilised; on the contrary, it was almost as good as a marriage ceremony. In fact, possession of a slave woman resembles a marriage ceremony in many ways and both have a lot in common with each other. One similarity is this that just as a free woman cannot have two husbands simultaneously, a slave woman cannot be used for intercourse by two owners. Another similarity is that a free woman whose marriage is on the rocks, cannot marry another man until her previous marriage is nullified through divorce, etc. Due to the discrepancies between husband and wife, the marriage sometimes reaches a stage where it becomes virtually impossible for the couple to live as man and wife with the result that divorce is brought into force to nullify marriage ties. Similarly, if a slave woman was married previously in enemy territory to a non-Muslim, and is then captured alone, i.e. without her husband, it is not permissible for any Muslim to have relations with her until her previous marriage is nullified, and that is done by bringing her to an Islamic country and making her the legal possession of a Muslim. Bringing her into Islamic territory necessitates the rendering of her previous marriage as null and void by Islamic law because with her husband in enemy territory and she in Islamic territory, it becomes virtually impossible for them to meet and live as man and wife. That is why it is not permissible to have intercourse with a woman whose husband is also taken into captivity and put into slavery with her. Another resemblance between the two is that, just as a divorcee has to spend a period called “Iddat” before another man is allowed to marry her, similarly, a slave woman has to spend a period called “Istibraa” before her owner can have coition with her.

Another similarity between marriage and possession of a slave woman is that just as the wife becomes a dependant of the husband and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her, a slave woman also becomes a dependant of her owner and he has to provide a home, food and clothing for her. Yet another similarity is this that just as marriage makes the close relatives of the wife Haraam upon the husband; i.e. he cannot get married to his wife’s mother, grandmother, sister, etc., similarly if a man has copulated with a slave woman the slave woman’s close relatives also become Haraam upon the owner. With all these similarities it does not make sense to regard copulation with a slave woman distasteful whilst copulation with one’s wife is not regarded as distasteful.

A question that may still arise is that why does the owner of a slave woman not marry her before having relations with her? Well, this is impracticable because of a few intricate technicalities. Firstly, we know that a man has to give ?Mahr? (dower-money) to his bride. The Holy Quran says:-

[ A r a b i c ]
Trans: “And allowed unto you is whatsoever is beyond that, so that ye may seek them with your substance (i.e. with your dower-money). ” – (4:24).

Thus, ?Mahr? is a conditional prerequisite of Nikah. If a man has to marry his slave woman, it would not be possible for him to abide by this condition of ‘Mahr’ because by Islamic law, a slave does not have rights over any property, i.e. she cannot own anything. In fact, whatever she has with her too, i.e. her clothing, etc., is all regarded as the property of her owner. Therefore, If he gets married to his slave girl and gives her the ‘Mahr’ she cannot become the owner of it because she has no right of ownership. The ‘Mahr’ would bounce back to the owner of the slave girl and it would tantamount to giving the ‘mahr’ to himself. Hence, the owner would become the payer as well as the PAYEE of the ‘mahr’ which would only result in the mockery of the whole system of ‘mahr’. It would be absolutely superflous to have such a marriage ceremony performed that makes a mockery of the ‘mahr’ system. Hence, the owner cannot get married to her while she remains a slave girl. However, if he sets her free, then he can get married to her on the basis of her having become a liberated woman.

Although the owner himself cannot get married to his slave woman, without giving her freedom, he can get her married to someone else. If he gets her married to someone else, then only her husband can now have intercourse with her and the owner’s right of having intercourse with her comes to an end. All these facts prove that the slave girl does not become an instrument of sex; on the contrary, her honour is upheld, in that only one man is allowed to have intercourse with her JUST AS only one man (the husband) is allowed to have intercourse with his lawfully wedded wife.

Islam ensured that the slave girl’s duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.

Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) enjoined his followers to treat the slaves kindly, gently, and, above all, to regard them as members of the family. In this way, they were made to feel wanted; which was far better than treating them as outcasts and leaving them to wander the streets of a strange society in a peniless, destitute condition. Such treatment would have ultimately forced them to take up evil occupations such as prostitution in the case of slave woman in order to fill their hungry stomachs. The First World War in 1914 was a clear reflection of the evils involved in setting captive women free to roars about in a strange society with strange surroundings. During that war, German and English women prisoners on either side were set free to roam the streets with no-one to feed them. The result was obvious that they resorted to other unrefined and uncivilised methods of income on the streets. Thus, it is evident that the Islamic treatment of women prisoners of war was conducive towards better social relations and led to the refinement of their overall social lives.

Over and above all this, History will show that Islam did not encourage slavery but rather encouraged moves towards the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam has said something to this effect in a Hadith, that: “Whosoever freed a Muslim slave, the Lord would redeem all his limbs – in compensation for each limb of the slave, so much so that the private parts for the private parts – from the Fire of Hell.

“If a slave woman becomes pregnant from her owner, and delivers his child, she automatically gets her freedom after the death of her master whose child she gave birth to.

Moreover, there are many wrongs and sins for which the liberation of a slave serves as a compensation and atonement. This was a further incentive for the extirpation of slavery. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also taught that whosoever teaches good manners to his slave girl, adorns her with politeness and good education, then frees her and gets married to her, for him there is double recompense and reward. These encouraging teachings served as incentives towards the emancipation of slaves and slaves were liberated by the thousands. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself freed 63 slaves, Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu freed 63, Hazrat Abdur-Rahman bin Auf Radhiallahu Anhu 30,000; Hazrat Hakim bin Huzam Radhiallahu Anhu 100; Hazrat Abbas Radhiallahu Anhu 70; Hazrat Ayesha Radhiallahu Anha 69; Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar Radhiallahu Anhu 100; Hazrat Uthman Radhiallahu Anhu used to free one slave every Friday and he would say that he would tree any slave who performed his prayers with humility. Hazrat Zul-Kilah Radhiallahu Anhu freed 8,000 slaves in a single day.

Hazrat Umar Radhiallahu Anhu passed certain laws during his Khilafat which led to the emancipation of thousands of slaves, and to the prevention of certain specific forms of slavery. Some of the edicts that he issued:
1. All the apostate tribes that were enslaved during the Khilaafat of Hazrat Abu Bakr Radhiallahu Anhu were to be freed.
2. A Zimmi (protected non-Muslim subject of an Islamic state) should not be enslaved.
3. Arabs will not be enslaved.
4. Those who had been enslaved during the days of ignorance (prior to the advent of Islam) and had lived to witness the Islamic era, should redeem themselves from slavery by paying their costs (their value) to their owners whether they were willing or not.

As a result of all these laws, there came a time when slavery was totally extirpated. But of course, this extirpation came about after a gradual process because that was the only safe and expedient way of tackling the problem.

Because of the prevalence of slavery in the initial stages of Islam the necessity of educating the people about the treatment of slaves also arose. Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam taught his followers how the slaves should be treated with kindness, etc. In fact, Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam himself possessed slave girls. In this way, he was able to demonstrate practically how kindly and politely the slave should be treated. Because it is relevant to the topic, it would be appropriate to mention here that Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam also had four slave girls. One was Hazrat Maria Qibtiyya Radhiallahu Anha who was the mother of Rasulullah Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam’s son, Ibrahim Alayhis Salaam who passed away in infanthood. The others were, Hazrat Rayhaan binte Samoon; Hazrat Nafisa and a fourth, whose name has not been recorded in History.

One question that still remains is whether slavery still legally prevails anywhere in the Islamic world and whether it can be successfully implemented in this age. Well, there is no prevalence of lawful slavery in the Islamic world today and it would be difficult to implement it because of the stringent conditions attached to it. Firstly, the prisoners have to be captured in ‘Jihaad’ in the true sense of the word. Then again, If true ‘Jihaad’ did break out somewhere, there are still a number of other laws and conditions to abide by which are far too stringent for any Islamic country in the world to abide by in this time and age when people’s personal gains and whims and desire are being given preference to over Islamic Law. According to Islamic Law, captive female prisoners are also part and parcel of the booty. One fifth of the booty has to be first distributed to the needy, orphans, etc. The remaining four-fifths should then be distributed among the soldiers who participated in the war. The distribution can only take effect after the booty is brought into Islamic territory. The Ameerul-Mu’mineen (Head of the Islamic State) remains the guardian of the female prisoners until he allocates them to the soldiers. Only after a soldier has been allotted a slave girl, and made the owner of her, will she become his lawful possession. After she spends a period called ‘Istibraa’, which is the elapse of one menstrual period, It becomes permissible for her owner to have relations with her. After possession of the slave too there are a number of other laws that affect the master and slave. There is hardly any Islamic country today that can abide to all these conditions, with the result that it is quite difficult to implement slavery in this time and age.

The subject of slavery in Islam is quite comprehensive and there are many laws that pertain to slaves which the Jurisprudents of Islam have outlined. It is, however, hoped that the above mentioned facts will be adequate enough to answer your question.

Ml. Khalid Dhorat

————————————————————

Update:

In core Islamic texts, Muhammad allows his soldiers to rape their captive women:

From Sahih Muslim, a canonical hadith collection:
Book 008, Number 3371:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger [Muhammad] (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.

Notice that Muhammad did not say, “do not rape your captive women.” He merely says it does not matter if his soldiers withdraw before ejaculation, because souls destined by Allah to be born will be born regardless.

From Sahih Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:
Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:
I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa [battle at which Muhammad was present] of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”

Again notice that, in answer to his soldiers’ queries Muhammad doesn’t say “You must not force your captives to have intercourse with you.” He says only that coitus interruptus, withdrawing prior to ejaculation, is pointless, because souls predestined to exist will exist regardless.

Again in Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”

Thus Muhammad does not forbid his men to rape their captives, but merely says that it’s better not to do coitus interruptus. His men were to keep going till coitus was complete.

Look out for Muhammad worshippers who will pop up to tell us its a “cultural thing”-  and that many other religions and African tribes do it too…. nothing to do with Islam etc etc….

What does Islam (Holy Quran, Shariah, Hadith) say , if at all, about the female circumcision or FGM – Female Genital Mutilation? Is it permissible or not permissible?

Assalaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullaahi Wa Barakaatuhu

1. Circumcision for males is Waajib (compulsory) according to Imaam Abu
Hanifa. If circumcision will hinder a person from accepting Islam then
accepting Islam should be given preference over circumcision.
2. It is Mustahabb (commendable) for females to circumcise. It is narrated
in an authentic Hadith quoted from Abu Dawood Shareef that during the
Prophet (Sallallaahu ?layhi Wasallam)’s time there was a woman in Madinah
who used to perform circumsicion for women (Fathul Bari vol. 16 p. 353)

and Allah Ta’ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
FATWA DEPT.

The greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian ideology. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it. Ayn Rand

U.K.: Islamic scholar issues fartwa against “terrorism” — is anyone safer?

A leading Muslim scholar in Britain issued a fatwa on Tuesday condemning terrorists and suicide bombers, saying they had no justification in the name of Islam.

Pakistan-born Dr Tahir ul-Qadri …  said his 600-page fatwa, or religious ruling, was an “absolute” condemnation of terrorism without “any excuses or pretexts”.

In other news:

• Thirteen terror suspects arrested
• Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri’s keynote address at “National Peace Conference”

Fatwa Wars

from Harry’s Place

I’m afraid, Brian Whittaker in The Guardian(well, CiF, actually) may be right.

The whole idea of waging “fatwa wars” with extremists is not only futile but anti-progressive and further entrenches the authoritarian tendencies in Islam. Issuing fatwas and promoting them, even in a good cause, is damaging because it ends up reinforcing the importance attached to fatwas in general.

He is of course responding to the story that an influential Muslim scholar has issued a global ruling against terrorism and suicide bombing.

Whittaker disagrees with Ed Hussein who also writes in The Guardian’s CiF that “Fatwas can be a force for good”.

Back to reality:

Saleh al Munajjid is a Saudi preacher. He thinks freedom is very dangerous and brutal corporal punishment in the name of Islam is fantastic.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpweeeFlVs4[/youtube]

• He is so keen on jihad that he says “neglecting” it is a “major sin”:
• As for Jews, best kill them, really:  More here Jihadis For The IFE Youth

A commenter on JW nails it:

More Taqiyya and Samosas.

Al-BBCeera have been whoring this all day, along with their permalink to the MCB statement on terrorism… yes you know the one, you must have heard it so many times from other Muslims:

“Muslims everywhere consider all acts of terrorism that aims to murder and maim innocent human beings utterly reprehensible”

Except when it doesn’t…..

Imams issue fatwa against terrorists

From The National Post/Vlad Tepes

By Charles Lewis

Twenty imams have issued a “fatwa” against any Muslim who would attempt to commit an act of terrorism in Canada or the United States.

Syed Soharwardy, (pic thanks to Tundra Tabloids) an imam at the Al-Madinah Calgary Islamic Centre, who organized the initiative, said on Friday that any attack by foreign elements should also be considered a direct affront to the 10 million Muslims who call either Canada or the United States home.

Check out Syed Soharwardy:

a vicious, anti-Semitic bigot who trivializes the Jewish Holocaust, spreads blood libels against the Jewish Talmud, says Israel is perpetrating a Holocaust of its own against Palestinians, publicly calls for sharia law to be implemented in Canada, and participated in a pro-terrorist rally in the Jewish neighbourhood of Calgary, replete with a flag of Hezbollah.

I first came to know this odious man up close, when he hauled me before the Alberta human rights commission for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Before that, the little thug actually tried to have me arrested by the Calgary Police Service for publishing those cartoons, as if we were back in his beloved Saudi Arabia, where the police take care of the infidels.

Syed Soharwardy is anti-Semitic scum.

Ezra Levant has more, including death threats:   Syed Soharwardy: admires Muslim Brotherhood terrorists, threatens me that I’ll “soon pay”

Spencer:   Now what do you think a man like Syed Soharwardy might be trying to accomplish by issuing this fatwa?

Here is the text of the fatwa itself.

“We want Muslims around the world who would dare to commit terrorism on our soil to know that we stand together with all Canadians and Americans.

“We are asking Muslims here not only to condemn terrorism but to also see these events as attacks on themselves.”

Imam Soharwardy said he thought of the initiative just after a Nigerian man was charged with trying to blow up a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day. At that point he began calling religious leaders here and in the United States to join his effort.

Nineteen Canadian imams and one American have signed the fatwa to date.

“The Koran teaches us that we have an obligation to stop violence. We live in a non-Muslim country called Canada where Muslims and others live side by side and this is our country, too.

Tell us, Soharwardy: where in the Koran does it say you have an obligation to stop violence? Page and verse please…..

“Our children are born here. Our future children will live here. That’s why we have to oppose this violence.”

Since the threats against Salman Rushdie several years ago, most people think of fatwas as death threats. But in fact, the imam notes, the vast majority of fatwas are condemnations or even non-binding directives that are meant to teach fellow Muslims the proper religious response to a given situation.

“Non binding” means its meaningless drivel…
He said many Muslims he has spoken to say there lives have grown miserable and have suffered societal backlash because of the perceived association between violence and Islam.
But since 9/11, he added, it has become imperative for Muslims to vocally condemn violence — even though they have no personal responsibility for those heinous acts.
Muslims who live in this country should also stop fighting the battles that they left behind when they came to live here, he added.
“We are Canadian now. This is where our energy should be directed.”

Canada: Our man Syed Sohawardy; fatwas, fables and other follies

Vlad Tepes Blog

Canada’s Imam Syed Sohawardy can’t understand why some eyebrows are being raised at his fatwaissued recently against terrorism. I think I can help. Firstly, fatwas are dished out all over the Muslim world everyday, ruling on everything from whether it is permissible to wipe over one’s socks before prayer if a man has put the right sock on before the left, the secrets of the number 7, or whether men and women are equal in Islam. The fatwa business is a busy one, keeping Imams and self proclaimed Islamic scholars fully engaged in the business of speaking for God aimed at those who they wish to see cloistered in the 7th century, fully devoted to religious seclusion.

Secondly, most Canadians couldn’t care a whit what a fatwa has to proclaim, because most Canadians are not Muslim. For many, a fatwa is indistinguishable from a falafel. And for many who are Muslim, they too couldn’t care less, because most are working to adapt to a society in which sharia has no bearing, having long waved good riddance to Islamic law. Nevertheless, I suppose many of us have waited long and hard for some condemnation of terrorism from the front men of Islam since so little of it has come before, and that which did was by way of dribs and drabs in the form of a few halfhearted, rank and file denouncements.

Eyebrows have been lifted because quite simply Syed Sohawardy (a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed,  so he says) has led us down the garden path before with his holy ‘proclamations’ of peace, justice and inter-faith dialogue. Would it be unusual to be suspect of a man who initiated anddefended the call for sharia law in Canada and pass it off as a respectable parallel legal system in Canada? Would it be as equally unreasonable to be wary of a man who hauled journalist Ezra Levant before the Human Rights Commission because he felt Lavant’s republishing of the Danish cartoons were a provocative affront to Muslims everywhere? And what of the human right’s complaint lodged against Syed himself, by some Muslim women within his own community alleging directdiscrimination toward them in their mosque? (I won’t even bother to mention that he accused Christian aid workers of kidnapping children during the tsunami of 2004 or that he claimed the Talmud is hate literature). Yet, Sohawardy seems miffed that his fatwa has been condemned, citing his detractors as ignorant buffoons.

So who is this fatwa really for? I suspect it is primarily for Sohawardy and the other 119 Imams whobridge build relying on the engineering of taqiyya. It may also be for dupes like John Cowan, former head of the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, who feels the good Imam is ‘a man still in the midst of transition, a man from Pakistan still learning of western culture’. Twenty five years in Canada is mighty long in transition considering that most babies can learn a language (or two), walk, eat and go to the toilet themselves by the age of 4.

Tarek Fatah wonders why the good Imam’s fatwa only condemns terrorism directed at North America. He asks, ” Why isn’t he denouncing armed jihad no matter where it takes place?”. “Ask him that”. The answer comes from Sohawardy himself - “I don’t want to condemn jihad because this word has been used in the Quran in every place. Jihad means struggle against evil”. “It is armed struggle based upon principles of justice set out in the Quran”.

This fatwa is insincere and makes a mockery of the thousands who have fallen victim to violent Islamic jihad. It is another half-baked attempt to make nice by a man who keeps each foot in a separate pond. You simply cannot denounce terrorism without denouncing violent jihad and likewise, you cannot denounce terrorism by limiting its horror to one continent without denouncing it around the globe. Sorry Syed, your fatwa is rooted in fable and is yet, another folly.

Yesterday we posted this fatwa here, today this:

Iranian top dog’s rep misunderstands Islam, tells Muslims to quit British Armed Forces

In the West saying this will get you called an “Islamophobe.” The Ayatollah Moezi must be an “Islamophobe.” “Muslims must quit British Forces, says Iranian envoy Abdolhossein Moezi,” by Richard Kerbaj in the Times, November 14:

The Iranian Supreme Leader’s representative in Britain has told Muslim servicemen and women to quit the Armed Forces, saying that their involvement in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is forbidden by Islam.

• American Muslims vs. the U.S. Military
• Muslims in the US army

Muslim Chaplain James Yee, spy and infiltrator, still running around free

The cleric, personally appointed by Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to be his special envoy to the UK, also urged Muslims to defeat the opposition to the Iranian regime and keep the 30-year-old Islamic Republic alive.

In his first interview with an English language newspaper, Ayatollah Abdolhossein Moezi, director of the Islamic Centre of England, said he regretted that protesters were killed by the Iranian security forces after the presidential election in June but that their deaths were “unavoidable”.

Of course!

Ayatollah Moezi, the most senior Iranian spiritual leader in Britain with thousands of followers from the Shia sect, said that it was wrong for followers of Islam to serve in the Armed Forces, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq where Muslims were being killed.

“Not only do I not accept it for Muslims to go there, I don’t accept non-Muslims to go there as well,” Ayatollah Moezi told The Times through an interpreter provided by him. “We say that Muslims are not allowed to go and kill Muslims. Do you think that Christians are allowed to go and kill Muslims?”

The cleric, 65, condemned the massacre in Texas last week of 13 American soldiers at the Fort Hood base by a Muslim military psychiatrist and insisted that it should not be used to tarnish the image of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslim population.

He said the September 11 attacks and the London bombings were wrong but accused the forces of “Zionist imperialism” of using the atrocities to smear Islam and its followers….

Of course!

Islam Online

suzanne   – United Kingdom

I Need to Move on From My Husband

Please can you help me, I am having such a dilemma. I met and married my husband 19 years ago. We have three daughters aged 17, 15 and 7. I am a revert to Islam. My husband, although knows a lot about Islam, doesn’t pray and I have always felt quite alone in my worship.

Two years ago, my husband who was 39, went to a nightclub in Morocco and met a 17 year old prostitute, slept with her that night and then because of his guilt, married her by Fitra (I don’t really know what this means or what it consists of, all I know is that he sees it as marriage). I was here in the UK and all this was done behind my back. He came home and told me and I was devastated. Although very firey, our marriage was passionate and he had never been with any other woman since marrying me. I loved him with all my heart and to this day don’t understand why he did this. He told me he still loves me and never wants to lose me or the kids. I just couldn’t accept this. He told so many lies, sent money to her and gave me nothing, used to talk to her on the phone in front of me and tell her he loves her. I found it really hard to cope.

• New York: Muslim women confront domestic violence, but deny Islam plays a role in it: As usual, conspicuously absent from the discussion is any acknowledgment of Islam’s role in encouraging and perpetuating spousal abuse. By lacking the will to face those texts and teachings forthrightly, Robina Niaz is only hobbling her own efforts to help other Muslim women. “Her ‘duty’ is helping Muslim women heal after abuse,” fromCNN, September 25:

We later went to Morocco as a family and he pushed me to meet this girl and her family. they are very poor and the mother is also supposedly a prostitute (only Allah knows. Once, we got into an argument in front of the girl and the family because I felt they were trying to force me to accept the marriage when I honestly felt it was all wrong. He beat me up in-front of everybody including my children. My husband and the girl then got arrested a few days later when they came out of a nightclub, for being together but not legally married in Morocco.

Anyway, he claimed he finished with her as he couldn’t stand to lose me and I decided to give him a chance. I always felt he was hiding something, and I really couldn’t forgive him although I did try so hard. About 7 weeks ago, I found out he is still with her and that he had lied to me for 2 years, he had been sending her money, sleeping with her when he went to Morocco. he has spent the last 2 ‘Eids with her, and nothing with myself and the kids. I feel disgusted at the thought of him sleeping with her and then coming to me.

It hurts me so deeply, I just can’t explain. I have been such a good wife to him. I always loved him even though he has a horrible temper and hit me sometimes. After I found out he was still with her, I asked him to leave — he is so arrogant and when I start to get angry, he started to get aggressive and frighten me. Anyway he eventually left and went to Morocco. He then told me 2 weeks ago that the girl is 5 months pregnant. This is just too much for me to cope with. What did I do wrong to deserve this kind of hurt?

Video about wife beating/German with English subtitles

WARNING: Portions of this video are graphic, and may be disturbing to sensitive viewers:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiJ8Dmi-9qo[/youtube]

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

Finally the last straw is that she has been staying with my husband in the house we built together. We bought all the furniture together, and I feel they have completely violated something that was mine. He upsets me when he tells me he made a mistake and by marrying the girl he is pleasing Allah and that it is my duty to accept the situation.

I love Allah more than anything, and I feel Allah loves me. Allah always reveals everything bad that my husband has done and does to me. In Islam am I supposed to accept a horrible situation like this and be so miserable with a man who can’t even support one wife let alone 2, and he thinks just because I have a job, that he doesn’t need to support myself and the kids or am I within my rights to divorce him and move on?

I feel nothing but hate and anger towards him. I don’t want to see him or talk to him. I don’t have a problem with the kids seeing him, and for them to have a relationship with his new baby when it is born. I just don’t want to be involved in his life anymore and not think about what he is doing or have to answer to him. I so much want a divorce.

His mum and Dad are devastated, and don’t want to speak to him. They are very hurt by what he has done, and are very supportive to me. His mum is convinced the girl and her family have done black magic on my husband. My personal opinion is he is not the man he was, but if he is stupid enough to go into a night club and pick up a prostitute in a town where these kind of things happen all the time, then I have no sympathy for him.

I feel my husband is trying to emotionally blackmail me by trying to make out that it is me who is destroying the family by not wanting to stay with him. I can’t take this dilemma anymore and i beg Allah to end it. I am trying to be patient though and I know Allah is with me. Please can you give me some advice, I need to move on emotionally and in my life.

Wife beating in Islam

On November 7 2008 Martin Beckford, in the UK newspaper The Telegraph, reported as follows: “Muslim men ‘think they have God-given right to beat wives’, claims female Muslim medic”. The doctor stated that she had seen pregnant Muslim women with huge bruises on their bellies, inflicted by their husbands.

“The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child.

“Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously.

“In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, *Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic* {my emphasis – dda}.

And – “In 2004, an imam in Spain, Mohammed Kamal Mustafa, was found guilty of “inciting violence on the basis of gender” for his book Women in Islam, which discussed the methods and limits of administering “physical punishment” of women.”

More>>