Straining at gnats while swallowing camels is increasingly how Islam’s apologists rationalize away the violence and hate Sharia engenders for the “infidel,” the non-Muslim. Consider the significance of yet another video of yet another learned Muslim justifying the enslavement and rape of non-Muslim women.
Suad Saleh, a female professor of doctrine at Al Azhar University, correctly defines the Arabic phrase melk al-yamin — “right hand possession” (see Koran 4:3):
[Non-Muslim] female prisoners of wars are “those whom you own.” In order to humiliate them, they become the property of the [Muslim] army commander, or of a Muslim, and he can have sex with them just like he has sex with his wives.
Saleh cannot even take the “honor” of being the first Muslim woman to support this inherently misogynistic creed.
Of interest here to the West is how the Al Azhar professor claims the Islamic institution of sex slavery is fair and just — it’s just that too many Muslims exploit it, to the detriment of Islam:
Some [Muslim] opportunists and extremists, who only harm Islam, say: “I will bring a woman from East Asia, as [as a sex slave] under the status of ‘right hand possessions.’ And with the consent of my wife, I will allocate this woman a room in the house, and will have sex with her as a slave girl.”
This is nonsense. This is not prescribed by Islam at all. Islam says that a woman is either a wife or a slave girl. Legitimately owned slaves come from among prisoners from a war.
Saleh is correct in saying that many Muslim men twist the “right hand possession” law in ways that allow them to have extramarital sex. For example, some years back in Egypt a Muslim scholar formally took a woman to be his “right hand possession,” even though she wasn’t conquered in a jihad and in fact entered the agreement willingly.
Yet what Professor Saleh and Muslim apologists fail to understand is that an inherently unjust and uncivilized law — such as one that permits the sexual enslavement of “infidel” women — will, by nature, always be “abused.”
For example, Saleh and others would insist that the mass rape and sexual abuse of European women by Muslim men in Cologne and elsewhere does not fit the literal definition of “right hand possessions.”
However, other interrelated Islamic doctrines command Muslim men to hate all non-Muslims, and to see women — especially “white,” infidel women — as little more than sex objects. In the words of a Muslim who recently murdered a Christian girl in Pakistan for refusing him sex:
Moreover, Islamic clerics routinely encourage Muslims to migrate to Europe to help empower Islam anyway they can — including through propaganda, proselytization, apologetics, births, theft, etc. — and not just through violent jihad. If they do any of this, they technically become jihadis. After all — and as the apologists are fond of insisting — jihad literally means “striving” on behalf of Islam.
Thus, many Muslim rapists in Europe believe it their Islamic right and reward to sexually abuse infidel women.
The “exploitation” of Islam’s already unjust and uncivilized laws is common and inevitable.
Because based on the hate that Islam engenders for non-Muslims, “compelling” infidels (especially female ones) to embrace Islam can — and often is — rationalized as an altruistic act. After all, how bad can it be to force hell-bound infidels into the true religion? Moreover, it helps the growth of Islam, and so it can also be seen to fall into the jihad category.
As one human rights report explained while discussing the rampant sexual abuse and forced conversion of Christian girls in Pakistan:
The dark side of the forced conversion to Islam is not restricted only to the religious Muslim groups but also involves the criminal elements who are engaged in rape and abduction and then justify their heinous crimes by forcing the victims to convert to Islam. The Muslim fundamentalists are happy to offer these criminals shelter and use the excuse that they are providing a great service to their sacred cause of increasing the population of Muslims.
Likewise, Islamic law (based on Koran 9:29) calls for the leaders of state to extort money (jizya) from Christian and Jews who live under their authority. Most Muslim countries, thanks to European pressure in the colonial era, abolished this practice and its strictures. However, Muslims around the world know the basics, namely that the non-Muslim is meant to provide the Muslim with wealth and resources. In the words of one caliph to his general in Christian Egypt:
Milk the camel [the Copts] until it gives no more milk, and until it milks blood.
Nearly 1600 years later, a Muslim cleric in the UK receiving welfare referred to British taxpayers as “slaves.” He explained:
We take the jizya, which is our haq [“right”], anyway. The normal situation by the way is to take money from the kafir [“infidel”], isn’t it? So this is the normal situation. They give us the money — you work, give us the money, Allahu Akbar. We take the money.
Unsurprisingly, all over the Muslim world non-Muslims are being kidnapped and held for ransom, or just robbed and plundered.
The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning the sexual enslavement of infidel women, but rather that Islam allows non-Muslim women to be enslaved in the first place.
The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning conversion, but rather that Islam calls for nonstop enmity and war against non-Muslims in the first place.
The problem isn’t that Muslims aren’t strictly following Islam’s rules concerning who has the ultimate right to collect jizya from infidels, but rather that Islam allows non-Muslims to be plundered in the first place.
It is no solace for non-Muslims to learn that Islam bans their being enslaved, raped, converted, and plundered in certain circumstances while allowing them to be enslaved, raped, coerced, and plundered in others.