Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?
Is the islamofascist Saudi dictator "prince" Mohammad bin Salman the world's most dangerous man?

Is Mrs Theresa May digging a miserable "British" sharia "empire" under the Brexit cliff?

Mrs May plays sharia with the islamofascist Saudi dictator family - skipping Human Rights. Right?

Saudi islamofascism attacks Buddhists - again and again - backed by Mrs May.

When will the world finally turn on the hateful Saudi dictator family - rather than on its victims?

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd

The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses while FEEding Lnd
The islamofascist Saudi dictator family spreading its islamist hate and losses over you

How an organization of islamic crimes (OIC) violates Human Rights

The Viking phenomenon started with bilingual Finns raiding/trading sex slaves to Abbasid (ca 750)

Human Rights is diversity - sharia is the opposite

The evil of Sharia islam is what makes it incompatible with Negative Human Rights (i.e. why islamic OIC violates Human Rights by replacing them with Sharia, hence excluding women and non-muslims from equality). The evil of islam and its origin may be easier to grasp with historical examples, e.g. the Origin of Vikings.

It's racism and sexism even if proposed by a "god"! Klevius altruistic virtual volunteering for the world community in defense of Universal Human Rights . Yes, I know, it's unfair. Klevius vs islam, i.e. Universal Human Rights vs Sharia (OIC) racism/sexism! Of course Klevius will win. The question is just how long we should allow the dying beast to make people suffer. (Negative) Human Rights is not a ”Western” invention! It’s where you end up when you abandon racism and sexism, idiot! After you have abandoned islam! Your confused islamophilia and ignorance about Human Rights make YOU an accomplice to islam's crimes! Whereas Human Rights work as egalitarian and universal traffic rules (no matter who you are or what you drive you have the same rights as everyone else) islam/Sharia differs between muslim men and the rest (women and "infidels")!

Ask yourself, why can't racist islam (OIC) accept Human Rights? The answer reveals the difference between totalitarianism and freedom. And even if everyone converted to islam we'd still have Sharia sexism.
Have you noticed that when the history of slavery is (PC) debated islam is always excluded/excused? Atlantic slave trade and Roman slaves are eagerly mentioned while the world's by far worst, longest and most extensive one is blinked, as is the fact that islam not only sanctions slavery but is itself built on slavery and sex slavery (rapetivism)! The core idea of islam is the most thoroughly elaborated parasitism ever, i.e. what in 1400 yrs has made it the by far worst crime ever. But thanks to islamic teachings muslims are kept extremely ignorant about the evil origin of islam (institutionalized parasitism based on slave finance, rapetivism and pillage). Ohlig: The first two "islamic" centuries lie in the shadows of history. Klevius: There was no islam or islamic Mohammad (that's why the Saudis have levelled Mohammad's "grave" etc), only the evil murdering, pillaging and raping Aramaic-Arabic Jewish("Christian") led illiterate Arab thugs chasing for booty and sex. The "success" of this formula became later institutionalized and codified as a one way (Koran/Sharia) moral excuse (Allah) for further racist/sexist genocides. The bedrock and currency of this system was racist slavery. However, with Enlightenment the new idea of individual (negative) Human Rights emerged (incl. abolishing of slavery) and were, much later (1948), written down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone is equal no matter of sex, beliefs etc. Just like in traffic! But unlike traffic rules no one really seems to care about guarding our most precious asset as human beings. Instead racist sexist islamofascism (OIC and the Cairo Sharia declaration) is protected by Human Rights while they strive to undermine and eventually destroy these Human Rights! And most people don't seem to get it. Always remember, there is no islam without Human Rights violating racist/sexist Sharia. So a "vote" for Sharia-islam is AGAINST democracy and the freedom part of Human Rights!

Sayeeda Warsi (UK's non-elected OIC/Sharia politician) in essence doesn't differ from those muslim Saudi women who approve of sex slavery etc, other than that she is either ignorant or a traitor (against democracy and Human Rights) of the worst kind.

We're all born unequal - that's why we need Human Rights, not islam!

Audi then built by Jewish slaves - today dangerous quality problems

Myth vs Truth

Japan's Hayabusa landed and returned to Earth many years before Europe's Rosetta failed to do so.

Saturday, January 11, 2014

Klevius question to BBC's islamofascist Sharia supporting presenter Mishal Husain: Why don't you see it?!






Why hasn't BBC's blood thirsty islamofascist* muslim Sharia presenter Mishal Husain told the Brits about how islam/Koran approves of slavery and rape?
  
* I.e. against the most basic Human Rights (see below about OIC - all muslims world Sharia) and ask yourself why you weren't properly informed about what was going on in UN behind your back!









Do the muslim test by asking them if they are against Human Rights. If they are not they are no real muslims, according to OIC and every possible form of Sharia!









 In other words, a true muslim is then per definition always a supremacist racist and sexist individual through the tie to islam and Sharia. And there is no real  islam without Sharia! Got it dude? And stop cheating yourself and others with that "moderate islam" crap, will you!





Sayeeda Warsi is Cameron's "minister of faith islam" and UK's representative in OIC, the islamofascist Sharia organization which in the UN has abandoned Human Rights and now wants Britain to implement Sharia compliance and making London a Sharia capital. And making national laws criminalizing anything critical of islam or muslims! All to satisfy islamofascists Arabs etc.


The Abu Qatada noise was deliberately used to make Brits hostile to Human Rights (which don't allow torture) so to pave the way for islamofascist Sharia money to London.



There can be no doubt that islam has been the worst slave ideology ever. Not only does islam approve of slavery, the scale of islamic slavery early on was such that no other interpretation is even possible!



Islam originated in the bloody enslavement campaign by Abu Bakr who became the first muslim caliph over the firtst islamic caliphate. As seen on the map below its Northern part followed almost exactly the campaign by its modern successor, the Saudi fueled al-Qaeda branch called the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria  and led by Abu Bakr Baghdadi (sic) aka Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai.







Islam's mosques, already more than 1,000 years ago, constituted the center for the worst slave finance the world had ever experienced - and it got worse!


Klevius comment: Do note that already more than thousand years ago in what is now Iraq, some 500,000 African Zanj slaves started a rebellion against their muslim masters! It gives a hint of the scale of muslim Sharia slave finance based on "infidel" racism - which is clearly also sanctioned in the Koran. In fact, it's the very root of islam!

The Zanj Rebellion or the Negro Rebellion took place near the city of Basra, located in present-day southern Iraq, over a period of fifteen years (869−883 AD). The insurrection is believed to have involved enslaved Black Africans (Zanj) that had originally been captured from the African Great Lakes region and areas further south in East Africa. It grew to involve over 500,000 slaves who were imported from across the muslim empire and claimed over "tens of thousands of lives in lower Iraq" - i.e. actually smaller numbers than today's islamic campaign in Iraq.


Islam today


Viktor Titov (July, 2013): The objective of Saudi Arabia in this game is crystal clear – to attain the uncontested control over the Arab world. For this reason Libya is lying in ruins today, for this reason Egypt found itself on the brink of collapse, for this reason Yemen obeys any order he gets from “Bandar Bush”, for this reason the regimes in Qatar and Kuwait are being suppressed, for which Iraq fails to attain stability, for which the war in Syria rages on. And when everything went just great for the Saudi “Godfather”, Assad managed to crack the resistance of the rebels. Which meant that all these intrigues and innocent human lives were a waste – since Saudi Arabia can’t get to its only rival in the region – Iran without breaking Syria’s back. Back in 2011 Henry Kissinger, a close friend of “Bandar Bush” said on a closed press-conference that “they” need to conquer seven more Middle Eastern countries in order to get their recourses. Syria was the sixth country in this list, and Iran was the last to go down.


Klevius comment: Saudi supported Sunni muslims linked to Al Qaeda have gained control of territory in western Iraq's Anbar province in two of Anbar's main cities, Falluja and Ramadi, that were the sites of crucial battles during the Iraq war. On Friday, militants waving the Al Qaeda flag blew up key government buildings in Falluja. More than 8,000 Iraqis died in the fighting last year, according to United Nations, making it the bloodiest year since 2008, when Saudi islam bowing muslim born (apostate?!) Mr X Barry Barakeh Husain Obama Dunham Soetoro (or whatever) via a media coup d'etat mainly based on racist prejudice became an unconstitutional* "president" of the US.

* You can't possibly approve of islamic Sharia, which is distinctly (OIC/UN) against the US Constitution and US obligations to Human Rights, while being a US president.





Aftonbladet and Jan Hjärpe reveal total ignorance about islam - or bottomless hypocrisy! 


Scandinavia's biggest news paper Aftonbladet together with an old and confused (?!) professor emeritus in "islamology" (sic), Jan Hjärpe, try to dismiss a less educated islam critic belonging to Sweden's only islam critical party Sverigedemokraterna, by stating that there is 'nothing in the Koran that says rape can be used as a penalty' against women. Klevius comment: Of course not, but that doesn't change the fact that islam/Koran clearly approves of rape - and slavery! Do whatever you llike with what your right hands possess (sex slaves).

Linus Bylund allegedly said that it's written in the Koran that rape can be used as a penalty against women.


Jan Hjärpe: It's a myth.

Peter Klevius to Jan Hjärpe, Aftonbladet and BBC: You're not only pathetic but also endangering the lives of millions and prolonging the suffering caused by the worst racist/sexist ideology ever!



No wonder so many are misled about islam!

Two young British girls got acid thrown in their face because of islam. But no one, except the muslims who caused it, say so!



Klevius: Yes, it's perfectly normal. What a pity no one has told you before. Islam is the very essence of ultimate racism! This is why muslims are so sensitive about criticism against islam while showing extreme contempt and insensitivity against non-muslims and "wrong-muslims". And this is also why OIC (all muslims world organization) not only has abandoned and even criminalized Human Rights (via UN) but also made it a crime to criticize islam (the worst ideological crime history knows about).


Rape in the Koran


Klevius acknowledgement: Before reading about rape in the Koran, do keep in mind that there was no Mohammed before he was inserted in the islamic/Koranic fairy tale.

The evilness of islam explained in simple English

There are no Human Rights in islam - only islamic "human rights" (Sharia)

Because islamofascists and their supporters lack any credible argument in favor of islam, but 1,400 years of historical evidence* for the very opposite, they have to use the lowest of means to blur the picture of the evil medieval slave Leviathan. So, for example, are those who dare to criticize this pure evilness

* Not to mention the extremely obscure origin of islam. According to Britain's (and the world's - after Klevius) foremost islam researcher when it comes to its extremely violent early stages, Hugh Kennedy, "Before Abd al-Malik (caliph 685-705) Mohammed (allegedly dead 632) is never mentioned on any official document whatsoever".

The main reason that Klevius considers himself the world's foremost expert on the origin of islam is that he (sadly) still happens to be the world's foremost expert on sex segregation/apartheid, i.e. what constitutes the basis for rapetivism and islam's survival (and which is the main reason OIC abandoned Human Rights in UN and replaced them with islamofascist Sharia).


Only truly pious (so called "extremist") muslims are truly evil. However, all non-extremist (secularized) "muslims" aren't necessarily good either if they knowingly use the evilness of islam for their own satisfaction. Only ignorant "muslims" can be excused.



There is no equivalent term for ‘rape’ in the Koran. However, neither is there a single verse in the Koran which even remotely discourages forced sex. In contrast, there are several verses in the Koran which give the green light to rape and other sexual crimes against women.

One has also to remember that although islam/the Koran sees all women as inferior to men, non-muslim women are even worse off. That's why so many non-muslim women convert if they are stupid enough to fall in love with a muslim man. Stupid if they do it while knowing they have to give up their most basic Human Rights!

Surah an-Nisa discusses lawful and forbidden women for pious muslims. Before we delve into the particular verse, it should be noted that it is not easy to understand what is being suggested using the verse alone. Therefore, relying on authoritative Tafsirs (Koran interpretations) and Sahih (authentic) Hadiths associated with it, are necessary to get the exact picture.

Koran verse 4:24: Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. Koran 4:24

What we see in the beginning of this verse as “forbidden” refers to sexual intercourse. The Koran dictates, women already married are forbidden for muslims except those whom their right hands possess (sex slaves).

It is important to know the context of this verse, as it sheds light onto the nature of allowance. If we go through a Sahih Hadith in Sunan Abu Dawud:
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Koranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Koran verse is 4:24]

Abu Dawud 2:2150

Here in the above hadith, we are told why verse 4:24 was revealed to Muhammad. It was to encourage his muslim fighters, who were reluctant, to have sexual contacts with female captives even while their husbands were alive as prisoners of war. This is made clear when we read:

    "Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers."

The Abu Dawud hadith is confirmed by the two Sahih collections, namely Sahih Bukhari and Sahih muslim.

In Sahih Bukhari we read:

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 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 interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle 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."

Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459

Similarly in Sahih muslim:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Koran 4:. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).

Sahih Muslim 8:3432

There is an entire chapter devoted to this in the Sahih Muslim collection. The title of the chapter speaks in volumes as we read:

    Sahih Muslim. Chapter 29: Title: It is permissible to have sexual intercourse with a captive woman after she is purified of menses or delivery. In case she has a husband, her marriage is abrogated after she becomes captive.

Ibn Kathir, the most prominent of all Koran interpreters, had this to say in regards to verse 4:24:

The Ayah (verses) means Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.), you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah (verse) was revealed, Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Accordingly, we had sexual relations with these women." (Alternate translation can be: as a result of these verses, their (Infidels) wives have become lawful for us) This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.
Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves
Tafsir Ibn Kathir

Similarly in Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Koran interpretation by two Jalals namely: Jalaluddin Mahalli and Jalaluddin Suyuti):

And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]; this is what God has prescribed for you.
Koran 4:24

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

The tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's paternal cousin, further confirms:

And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation. (It is a decree of Allah for you) that which I have mentioned to you is unlawful in Allah's Book.
Koran 4:24

Tafsir 'Ibn Abbas
Further Verses
Verses 23:1-6

There are other verses in the Koran similar to verse 4:24. For example, Surah al-Mumenoon makes mention of successful muslims and their characteristics:
Successful indeed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers and who keep aloof from what is vain and who are givers of poor-rate and who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blamable.
Koran 23:1-6

Guarding private parts is denotative of abstaining from sexual activities. The Qur'an points out successful believers are those who are indulging in sexual activities only with their wives and sex-slaves.
Verses 70:29-30

This is confirmed again in Surah al-Maarij:
And those who guard their private parts, except in the case of their wives or those whom their right hands possess-- for these surely are not to be blamed,
Koran 70:29-30
Muhammad

This practice of raping war captives was practiced by islam’s very own prophet Muhammad, in his life. On two occasions, he married (for the sake of sexual gratification only) war captives and raped them. Those victims were namely Safiyah and Juwairiyah.
Safiyah

Safiyah the daughter of Huayy was the wife of a Jewish Rabbi named Kinana. When Muhammad conquered the Jewish village of Khaibar, he tortured and killed the Rabbi and took captive his wife. Sahih Hadith in Bukhari testify to this fact:

Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz: Anas said, 'When Allah's Apostle invaded Khaibar, we offered the Fajr prayer there yearly in the morning) when it was still dark. The Prophet rode and Abu Talha rode too and I was riding behind Abu Talha. The Prophet passed through the lane of Khaibar quickly and my knee was touching the thigh of the Prophet . He uncovered his thigh and I saw the whiteness of the thigh of the Prophet. When he entered the town, he said, 'Allahu Akbar! Khaibar is ruined. Whenever we approach near a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning of those who have been warned.' He repeated this thrice. The people came out for their jobs and some of them said, 'Muhammad (has come).' (Some of our companions added, "With his army.") We conquered Khaibar, took the captives, and the booty was collected. Dihya came and said, 'O Allah's Prophet! Give me a slave girl from the captives.' The Prophet said, 'Go and take any slave girl.' He took Safiya bint Huyai. A man came to the Prophet and said, 'O Allah's Apostles! You gave Safiya bint Huyai to Dihya and she is the chief mistress of the tribes of Quraiza and An-Nadir and she befits none but you.' So the Prophet said, 'Bring him along with her.' So Dihya came with her and when the Prophet saw her, he said to Dihya, 'Take any slave girl other than her from the captives.' Anas added: The Prophet then manumitted her and married her." Thabit asked Anas, "O Abu Hamza! What did the Prophet pay her (as Mahr)?" He said, "Her self was her Mahr for he manumitted her and then married her." Anas added, "While on the way, Um Sulaim dressed her for marriage (ceremony) and at night she sent her as a bride to the Prophet . So the Prophet was a bridegroom and he said, 'Whoever has anything (food) should bring it.' He spread out a leather sheet (for the food) and some brought dates and others cooking butter. (I think he (Anas) mentioned As-SawTq). So they prepared a dish of Hais (a kind of meal). And that was Walima (the marriage banquet) of Allah's Apostle ."
Sahih Bukhari 1:8:367
Juwairiyah

The following hadith from Sunan Abu Dawud bears out how Muhammad obtained Juwairiyah, a beautiful woman of a tribe called Banu Mustaliq. Muhammad was attacking the tribe without warning and conquering them:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith ibn al-Mustaliq, fell to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, or to her cousin. She entered into an agreement to purchase her freedom. She was a very beautiful woman, most attractive to the eye. Aisha said: She then came to the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) asking him for the purchase of her freedom. When she was standing at the door, I looked at her with disapproval. I realised that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) would look at her in the same way that I had looked. She said: Apostle of Allah, I am Juwayriyyah, daughter of al-Harith, and something has happened to me, which is not hidden from you. I have fallen to the lot of Thabit ibn Qays ibn Shammas, and I have entered into an agreement to purchase of my freedom. I have come to you to seek assistance for the purchase of my freedom. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Are you inclined to that which is better? She asked: What is that, Apostle of Allah? He replied: I shall pay the price of your freedom on your behalf, and I shall marry you. She said: I shall do this. She (Aisha) said: The people then heard that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) had married Juwayriyyah. They released the captives in their possession and set them free, and said: They are the relatives of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) by marriage. We did not see any woman greater than Juwayriyyah who brought blessings to her people. One hundred families of Banu al-Mustaliq were set free on account of her.
Abu Dawud 29:3920

The following hadith from Sahih Bukhari is evidentiary to the above:
Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Sahih Bukhari 3:46:717

Muslim Apologetics
Claims about verse 24:33

Muslims will frequently quote the following when confronted with the passages provided in this article and others like it:
Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),Koran 24:33

The first part of the verse is telling unmarried people to keep themselves chaste. Now, the important thing to remember is that the Islamic definition of chaste is different than the commonly agreed upon definitions of the word. According to Koran 23:6, Qur'an 33:50, Qur'an 33:52, and Qur'an 70:30 a muslim man is considered "chaste" so long as he only has sex with his wives (of whom he may have up to four) and his right-hand possessions (female captives/slaves). An unmarried muslim man who has sex with his slave girl is still considered to be "chaste" by islamic standards.

The second sentence speaks about slaves who ask for a way to pay for their freedom (like indentured servants) as long as the master knows of "any good in them". It would be interesting to discover how female slaves could earn any money at all if they had been kidnapped from their families and forced into slavery and did not have money-making skills. And if a female slave was to earn her freedom, where then could she go if her family had been massacred? How could she support herself and keep herself safe from rape, prostitution, etc.? Practicalities aside, this verse only tells muslims to let their slaves purchase their freedom (but puts in a convenient disclaimer of "if ye know any good in them"). Muhammad did stipulate that the masters should give their slaves something but conveniently left out what and how much.

The third sentence is what pertains to the muslim claim that rape is forbidden. However, the word used is not simply sexual intercourse but is more specifically "prostitution" or "whoredom". Prostitution is not simply about sex, but sex for a price. This is why it is often referred to as one of the oldest professions. What this verse speaks of is a master forcing his maid to be a prostitute thereby making money by allowing other men to have sex with her. This verse says nothing about a master forcing himself upon his slave-girl who is considered "halal" for him according to Islamic law. The fourth sentence says that if a girl is indeed forced into prostitution, then Allah will forgive her for committing zina. What this verse does not say is what the punishment should be for a man who forces his maid into prostitution. All it says is that he should not do it. And what it definitely does not say is that a muslim man cannot force himself on his own slave-girl. Hint hint, for BBC and others wondering what "caused" muslim atrocities of all kinds!


From 4:24, it can be rightly assumed, that the Koran does not see any wrong-doing in muslims having sex with captive women even if these women are married and their husbands are still alive. This clearly indicates that the Koran allows rape, as captive women, even in the unlikely case of agreeing to sexual intercourse, would still be having that intercourse under duress, i.e. rapetivism.


References

    Gaines, Larry; Miller, LeRoy (2006). Criminal Justice In Action: The Core. Thomson/Wadsworth. ISBN 0-495-00305-0.
    1st Class Investigations Glossary
    Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife - Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10382, November 24, 2005








Across the border in Syria, Saudi (and other Sunni steered Arab states) sponsored Sunni muslim militant groups are playing an increasingly large role in the insurgency against President Bashar Assad. Among the most prominent militant groups on both sides of the border is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The group has roots in Iraq, but the civil war in Syria, initiated and supported by Saudi Arabia, has provided fresh supplies of money and weapons from the Saudis & Co, and fighters from the Koran. Under the leadership of Abu Bakr Baghdadi, it seeks to create an islamic caliphate including the territory of both Syria and Iraq, in other words a huge buffer zone for the Saudis against Iran.

The Saudi supported muslim jihadists of course have heavier weapons than Iraqi government forces.

Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2007 to '09: "It was bad enough when this contagion was just inside Syria, but now it's spreading, and that's a whole lot worse," said . Nothing could be more worrisome, he said, than the militant groups' plan to expand their grip on territory, giving them a base from which they could plot long-range operations.

The leader Abu Bakr Baghdadi, seeks to create an islamic caliphate including the territory of both Syria and Iraq.

While ISIS militants were fighting government forces in western Iraq, other muslims were battling other Syrian muslim groups (a common pattern in islam) trying to limit their reach near Aleppo, in western Syria.

The Pentagon last month sent 75 Hellfire missiles to Iraq to be used on propeller planes in the fight against the militants, and the U.S. plans to send ScanEagles, a small surveillance drone with limited tactical range.










.

No comments: