Why it (Still) Makes Little Sense to Call ISIS Islamic

A member of ISIS poses in a fighter jet similar to those used in the Prophet's time.
A member of ISIS poses in a fighter jet similar to those used in the Prophet's time.

Last week, The New York Times’ Rukmini Callimachi published “A Theology of Rape,” a report as important as it is horrifying. Unfortunately, like several recent exposés on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), including Graeme Wood’s website-busting What ISIS Really Wants, Callimachi’s reporting is unusually receptive to the movement’s claims. Namely, that plausible Islamic arguments can be made for slavery, rape, and other crimes.

In support of his own argument that ISIS isn’t just “Islamic,” but “very Islamic,” Wood cited Princeton academic Bernard Haykel who insists that anyone who denies ISIS’ Islamic authenticity is being disingenuous (who says this is never elaborated on). Wood then proceeded to analyze ISIS’ “Islamicity” based almost entirely on Haykel, several fringe Muslim scholars, ISIS sympathizers, and no mainstream voices.

This is a problem. Journalist Murtaza Hussain explains that, “We invariably view conflicts involving Muslim groups as being driven primarily by atavistic religious beliefs.” Which is why, he adds, we jump to “texts and ideology to explain contemporary events. We don’t do this with the recent Israeli war on Gaza, even though that conflict also contains clear religious connotations and justifications.”

Only weeks ago Jewish radicals lit a house on fire and burned a Palestinian child to death. Last year another Palestinian child was burned alive. Yet I don’t recall articles in the Times, the Atlantic or any other popular media assessing the act’s conformity with Judaism, or arguing that “price tag” attacks are not just “Jewish,” but “very Jewish.” There are, in fact, radical Jewish sects who preach indiscriminate violence citing G-d and the Torah, but these claims are not entertained as serious.

“ISIS,” laments Hussain, “has been granted full civilizational power to speak for and represent Islam.”

Muhammad vs. Mecca

The Prophet Muhammad was born into a society organized into patrilineal tribal clans. Men were judged superior to women. Female children were often buried alive at birth. Men married and divorced at will. Paternity was everything, ensuring one’s relative rank within the tribe; there was little security outside the tribe. Those with no relations were worst off, often enslaved, abused, raped and tortured. Blood feuds were frequent, common, easy to begin, and difficult to end. If my tribe (Brooklyn) attacked yours (Manhattan), then anyone from Manhattan could kill anyone from Brooklyn in response.

Muhammad began preaching a faith with a strong social component. He worked as a spiritual and social reformer, though he operated in the categories of his time, reforming the institutions of his time given the possibilities of that time. This context is missing in most mainstream analysis of Shari’ah, such as Wood’s and Callimachi’s.

Case in point: when outsiders look to the Muslim sanction of capital punishment and think—what kind of Prophet would preach that?—they miss its larger vision, intention and consequence (something that happens far less often with regard to Christianity and Judaism).

First, capital punishment is the hadd, or maximum, penalty a judge could mete out for a given crime. In the context of a society wherein a murder of any Brooklynite would justify the massacre of a random Manhattanite, this focus on individual, not tribal, responsibility, was morally revolutionary. (An argument elaborated on in Mustafa Akyol’s Islam Without Extremes: A Muslim Case For Liberty.)

Second, any hadd punishment (murder, for example) demanded a very high standard of proof, which modern Shari’ah scholars define as beyond our own evidentiary standards of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Mere suspicion, accusation, or even likelihood, was insufficient.

Third, the Prophet said: Forgive. It is always better to forgive. God rewards those who show lenience. When the Prophet’s father-in-law, Umar, became Caliph in 634, he suspended all hadd punishments for theft (the maximum possible punishment is amputation). Due to a famine in the lands under his control, he, one of (Sunni) Islam’s first great scholars, reasoned that a maximal penalty on a people in economic hardship was morally odious.

Thus when we discuss the question of Islam and slavery, let us not presume that Muhammad introduced slavery into the culture. He was born into a society that practiced slavery, and that permitted sexual relations with slaves, with almost no restriction.

The Qur’an addressed itself to this reality, noting, for example, whom one cannot and can marry. Sexual relations were not only permissible with one’s spouse, but with “right hand possessions,” generally understood to mean slaves.

Some, by which I mean ISIS and those receptive to their claims, read this as legitimating rape, though it would be a mistake to make the leap from the regulation of sexual relations—you can’t marry your sister, even if she consents—to the crime of rape.

Because rape is a crime, regardless of who the person is.

Omar Suleiman, head of the history department at Bayyinah, an Islamic institute of higher learning based in Texas, confirmed this to me in an extensive conversation on Islam, slavery and sexual consent. “Rape is violence,” Suleiman made clear, “and Islamic scholars have even classified it as muharabah, as war against the community,” the maximal (hadd) punishment for which, he noted, was more severe than adultery.

Indeed, it qualified as a capital crime, indicating that the crime was categorized differently and judged more seriously. “Sex cannot be forced, or taken, from a person,” Suleiman argued, citing the position of Islamic law. Did that include slaves? Suleiman was unequivocal. “Yes.”

Ingrid Mattson confirmed this, and elaborated on it. As early as “the time of Umar [634-44], we have discussions of rape, and what evidence can be used in rape cases.” Mattson would know. Not only is she formerly President of the Islamic Society of North America, the largest Muslim organization in North America, but she is a religious scholar, author, and professor of Islamic studies whose dissertation examined Islam and slavery.

Muhammad permitted slavery, and sexual relations were permitted between a man and a female slave as a possibility. But rape never was. How, I wondered, can this possibly be considered morally acceptable, given that slaves, by definition, cannot give consent? I pushed both Suleiman and Mattson on this, and the answers I received required us to reframe the definition of slavery from what we think it is to what Muhammad wanted it to be.

Though largely unrestricted to that point, the Prophet attempted to reform slavery as practiced: slavery was not heritable (the children of slaves are born free, because, as Suleiman pointed out, the Qur’an assumes all persons are born free); that Muslims could not be enslaved (creating a tribal identity that transcended existing tribes); and that the offspring of slaves would be treated exactly as one’s own children.

Slaves themselves should be fed, and clothed, and housed, at a standard commensurate with their owner’s wealth—“clothe them,” Suleiman told me, quoting a Prophetic narration—“exactly as you clothe yourselves.” The children of slaves were not only not slaves, but to be treated as one’s own. They had rights. Tellingly, the Prophet encouraged his followers to name their sons “slave of God,” and “slave of the Merciful,” suggesting his distaste for hierarchical social relations, and emphasizing a common dependency on God.

Muhammad’s closest companions, including his dearest companion, Abu Bakr—who became the first Caliph after his death—became famous for their commitment to manumission. Abu Bakr would pay as much as he could, no matter how high the price, spending down his capital, because he believed there were few greater acts to earn merit in God’s eyes. (Compare Abu Bakr’s rules of war, as delivered to his army, to ISIS’ practices. I pronounce the Prophet’s best friend a better interpreter of Islam than poorly reconstructed Ba’athists on the Muslim margins.)

Suleiman stressed: “Freeing slaves” is so frequently mentioned as a meritorious act in the Muslim tradition that, in the 8th and 9th centuries, biographies of Prophetic companions cited, as virtues, manumission; Muhammad’s wife, Aisha, was lauded for “freeing six hundred slaves.”

All well and good: Muhammad changed what slavery meant, or at least sought to, and the tradition developed in response to that. But how can a slave actually consent to sex, given that she is someone’s property?

How is consent even possible?

Mattson noted the concern. She describes it as “anachronistic,” in that no legal traditions, Islamic or otherwise, discussed consent in the way we do today.

In the past, she said, “we don’t hear about consent in marriage, or in relationships where sex is lawful. What we do hear and read about is that anyone, slave or free, who is harmed, can take that case to a judge. A woman could go to a court and say her husband hit her, bruised her—she could get compensation.”

In the Prophetic period, consent was often passive: Expecting to hear objection and, in the absence of it, inferring agreement. That shouldn’t be surprising: Many premodern societies practiced arranged marriage, and many societies still do today. Our own, however, esteems a more active form of consent: The presumption is no, unless clearly indicated otherwise. (Mattson was clear, however, that our modern understanding is not at all incompatible with the intentions of the Prophet or the implications of Islamic texts.)

A man who slapped his female slave was ordered by the Prophet to free her. That was a minimal level of violence, Omar Suleiman noted, and he argued that, from this, the inference is drawn that any greater level of violence is similarly impermissible. And rape, as he told me, is classified in Islamic law as a violent crime. Suleiman explained that, “in Islam, to hit a slave, to use violence against a slave, is forbidden. The only expiation, and the legal penalty, is manumission.” An owner whose sexual advances were unwanted could be penalized.

“In the pre-Islamic period,” Suleiman contrasted, “when a female slave entered the house, she became everyone’s sexual property. What Muhammad did is he constrained that. If she consented to a relationship with her owner, then she became like his wife.” It was a dramatic transformation, and constitutes an institution that is, in some respects, like slavery as we know it—men and women bought and sold—but in other respects very different; slaves could own property, marry, and could sue their owners in court. And their children would be free.

According to Mattson, sexual relationships with slaves were possible, but they created legal obligations on the owner, and legal rights for the slave. “If a female slave got pregnant,” she explained, “or there’s any evidence of a pregnancy, even miscarriage,” then that slave could not, for example, be sold. She would become like her owner’s wife. (If she was already married—and slaves, under Islamic law, could marry and divorce—then her owner had no such rights to initiate a relationship.)

But given this, why wouldn’t Muhammad just set them all free?

Isn’t there still the obvious risk that a female slave would prefer not to challenge her owner, and consent to a relationship for fear of the consequences?

The language of his time

When my wife heard about Rukmini Callimachi’s article, she pointed out that many of the first Muslims were slaves, women, the supposedly lowborn, and those without tribal protectors. In the face of severe persecution for choosing Islam, and against their owners’ wishes, they stuck to Muhammad’s religion. Why would they if it hadn’t offered improvements in social status, some bond of faith and sister- and brotherhood more compelling than what existed around them?

Muhammad was born an orphan, and was only spared the suffering many on the margins endured because a powerful uncle adopted and cared for him. (This shield did not extend to his followers, whom he was often helpless to protect.) Eventually this was not sufficient, and he faced violent opposition to his religion from his kin. Over tribal attachments, or where even these did not exist, Muhammad offered Islam as a “supertribe”; no Muslim could enslave another.

And anyone was free to become Muslim.

But this was not a society that conceived of itself as containing atomized individuals, and furthermore this society had no support system for people who had no tribal attachments. Therefore Muhammad appeared more inclined to reform the structure of slavery than to end it altogether, although his encouragement of manumission, and his elevating former slaves to positions of great influence, suggested a deeply egalitarian sense.

Whether or not Muhammad wished to see his reformed understanding of slavery end in abolition is, of course, ultimately impossible to know. Still, it would be difficult to argue that he would have supported the practice of Muslim dynasties who saw the fact that slavery was no longer heritable as justification for annual “slave raids” to replenish and even increase the number, in direct opposition to Muhammad’s actions.

Tremendous abuses existed for centuries. Centuries. Worse, many scholars endorsed (or at least condoned) them. That’s unfortunate, but not exceptional. Many Christians used the Bible to endorse, justify and defend their wars on behalf of slavery, even as we would find it hard to believe Jesus would be comfortable with plantation slavery. Yet although Jesus did not speak in the language of institutional, political abolition, we do not assume he endorsed the social hierarchies of his time.

Nor should we forget that many Christians also took the lead in fighting slavery. Either traditions are plastic, and can mean anything, or they have more and less plausible interpretations. I hew to the latter.

Because slavery did end, and the manner of its ending speaks volumes.

Across the Muslim world, at varying rates (and embarrassingly slowly in places like the Gulf), slavery was abolished. This happened even though, as Mattson described, slavery had “flourished” in parts of the Muslim world, and “[had become] a major part of the culture” in many regions. How did Muslims respond to abolition, which mostly took place in the 19thcentury—as it did here in the U.S.?

Interestingly, Mattson cited two objections to abolition.

Traditionalists were not against the idea of blanket manumission per se, but they either argued that the Shari’ah offered no mechanism to effect such a decision, or that “our slavery is not like American slavery”—a fascinating indication of the interconnectedness of the world—because “slaves are a part of our families, they have rights, they can own property.”

Progressives countered that the Qur’an supports abolition, and they supported efforts to end slavery by providing theological justification, adapting to the reality of new forms of governance.

“Interestingly,” Mattson underscores, “once slavery was abolished, that was it. The conversation was closed.” Indeed, there hasn’t been a single effort since, in any part of the Muslim world, to reinstitute it in any form.

So rape has never been permitted in the Prophetic tradition, while slavery was deeply restricted, and, by the modern age, abolished altogether.

And along comes ISIS.

ISIS vs. everyone else

After the Ottoman Caliphate collapsed in 1924, political Islam was born, the fusion of religious identity with modern politics.

Pakistan was the first experiment in modern Islamic governance, and was founded as an egalitarian democracy. Iran, a theocracy, frames itself—like Pakistan (despite the different political systems)—as a reproduction of the Prophetic ideal of government. Yet slavery appears in neither country’s constitution. Likewise, it wasn’t discussed by Islamist movements, or by their radical jihadist rivals, including al Qaeda. (See, for example, here and here.)

ISIS does claim it’s reproducing the norms of the Prophetic tradition, as Muslims are meant to, but the argument is made in bad faith. It would be like pretending to live as the early Christians did based primarily on the belief that Jews are to be collectively blamed for the death of Christ, while ignoring everything the Bible says about mercy, justice, peace, generosity, and the proper treatment of the Other. The slavery described in Callimachi’s article, and from other, harrowing reporting about ISIS, is utterly foreign to the Prophetic tradition; that, and their other behaviors, which are profoundly selective, ripped from their context, ignoring the numerous instances in which the Prophet Muhammad preferred mercy, amnesty and forgiveness over force (though Muhammad did use force, and at times that use of force shocks).

And, as noted earlier, slavery has ended. So many Muslim religious voices have endorsed or accepted abolition that it’s become one of the few things on which an entire religious tradition agrees, and which unanimity is endorsed by Islamic law as equal in force to its most sacred judgments. Muslim scholars have issued collective condemnations of ISIS’ actions, arguing that even if a strictly regulated form of slavery was once permitted, it is now “forbidden,” and refusing, categorically, to countenance any reopening of the discussion.

Not that you’d know it given the media portrayals, which take the myth of objectivity to absurdity. Murtaza Hussain, from The Intercept, expressed legitimate frustration: “The overwhelming mass of Muslims themselves, including Islamic religious authorities, have been almost totally ignored in this debate—including in Callimachi’s article.”

For us to take ISIS’s claims seriously that, in reintroducing slavery and rape, it is simply returning to a Prophetic norm, requires us first to believe that the Prophet intended for slavery to include the rape and abuse of prisoners, which, as we have now seen, is not the case; and second, that the Prophet intended for slavery to continue in any form. Even if he did not, the fact that it has been discontinued presents the Muslim with a thought experiment.

To understand how absurd ISIS’ presumption is, that just because a practice existed in Muhammad’s time, it can and should exist now, let’s extend its logic to zakat (a form of obligatory annual charity owed by those whose annual savings exceed a certain threshold). Now let’s say a society emerged that had achieved a level of economic justice where everyone exceeded the threshold, such that there was no one to give the charity to. According to ISIS’s logic, it might hew to the spirit of Islam to deliberately impoverish people to ensure that this duty might be properly performed!

But even this analogy doesn’t hit the level of ISIS’s bad faith since it’s not like ISIS is enslaving people in order to set them free (which would be a rather demented fidelity to Muhammad’s encouragement of manumission). Toleration of slavery, and a mitigation of its effects, was never meant to encourage enslavement, but to blunt it.

If Muhammad had been born into a society without slavery, would he be happy the institution was gone, or would he work to recreate it? That, ultimately, is the great flaw in much of our media analysis of ISIS, and credulity before its claims. That we do not stop for a moment and consider what it is that ISIS is actually saying before assuming that, because it mentions the Prophet, it must be true.

ISIS may in fact believe that it’s attempting to recreate the conditions of Muhammad’s time, though the practice of taking and killing hostages merely on account of their nationality more closely resembles the “Brooklyn v. Manhattan” feuding of the pre-Islamic age. Likewise, using slaves as communal sexual property was, as Suleiman stressed, the practice of Muhammad’s time, but it was not Muhammad’s practice. It was the Prophet’s fellow Meccans’ habit, which he railed against and sought to moderate as best he could given the context.

ISIS is going back to the seventh century to find justifications for its behavior, but not for the same reasons other Muslims do. Not to struggle, wrestle and be challenged by a tradition, even as they challenge the tradition right back. They’re seventh century, just like Muhammad’s opponents.

  • cmbennett01

    You have got to be kidding me. Having sexual relations with your slaves is not rape as long as there’s no violence? Muhammad permitted slavery, but it was highly regulated so It’s Ok? Anyone ws free to become a muslim? Seriosly? This might be a new low for the “that’s not real Islam” apologists.
    The fact is Mr. Moghul is no more qualified to decide what constitutes real Islam than is ISIS. Violence perpetrated by believers, in the name of and according to the dictates of their religion, is religious violence, period. It is clear that ISIS in particular goes to great lengths in following the letter of the law. If according to the Koran, having sexual relations with a slave is not rape, then clearly what the ISIS fighter are doing is in their minds not rape. We, however, call it rape.
    If violence is perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam, it is Islamic. If by Christians it is Christian and if bu Hindus it is Hindu.
    Pointing out that the Koran was written in a different time, is an explanation for it’s violence and brutality, it is not a justification. It is in fact a good reason to reject it as incompatible with modern society.

  • DKeane123

    I actually enjoyed the history and theology lesson. Thank you.

    There was a wonderful podcast that had Megan Phelps-Roper (who left Westboro Baptist) had done. Sam Harris interviewed – I know, you should listen to it anyways. One of the big take away points was that after she had left the church, Mr. Wood’s article had come out and she realized that the number of parallels between her religious outlook and ISIS were significant. Essentially it comes down to the book says X, it is the word of God, therefore it has to be true and unquestionable. Now other ministers might have preached more nuanced approach to the Bible, but those ministers were influenced by Satan and therefore, were going to hell. ISIS holds a similar outlook, as the Quran is written by the Prophet and is absolutely perfect in every respect because it is the word of God.

    To say that somehow ISIS is not Islamic is a huge No-True-Scotsman Fallacy. They read the text literally (and quote it directly), there are plenty of clerics that preach this literalist theology, and they have the example of Muhammad’s own actions. With this logic, we would have to say that Westboro isn’t Christian. Which leads down the rabbit hole of trying to sort out who is a a true christian, and what that means.

    I guess I am also interested whether you could combat the ideas that ISIS holds by trying to show a more nuanced sophisticated reading of the Quran? How many of its adherents have head this approach before and rejected it (again, this interpretive theology, regardless of its history, is a product of “Satan”). It seems to me, that reading more than the “plain” words would result in the charge that Allah was unable to communicate its (his?) thoughts properly or that Muhammad was unable to write them down correctly. To imagine either is less than perfect would be a bit of a thought crime on the side of the believer ,never mind admitting it out loud.

  • DKeane123

    “There are, in fact, radical Jewish sects who preach indiscriminate violence citing G-d and the Torah, but these claims are not entertained as serious.” – They are by me.

    “Thus when we discuss the question of Islam and slavery, let us not presume that Muhammad introduced slavery into the culture.” – Who is presuming this? Slavery and rape are as old as the human race. The big question is how does one gain moral authority for rape? Have god back it, just like in the OT.

  • http://www.yearwithoutgod.com/ Ryan Bell

    First of all, I do consider Jewish violence against Palestinians to have a religious basis. When I was a Christian, I was a tourist in Israel. My Israeli tour guide told us that God gave Israel the land in the Pentateuch and that there is no such thing as a “Palestinian.” My clergy colleagues more or less said, “Amen,” while I bit my tongue. Of course it’s motivated, in part, by religion.

  • http://www.yearwithoutgod.com/ Ryan Bell

    Secondly, the operative question for me is not whether ISIS represents Islam en toto. The question is, is ISIS an outcome of Islam that one might expect? I think the answer to that is yes. Here’s an analogy I often use. I used to be a Christian pastor. Many conservative Christians do not approve of gays and lesbians and feel that God will judge them for their actions or even their orientation. In many sermons I mentioned that Christianity is at least partly responsible for this attitude and it is incumbent upon us, as Christians, to express a better way. Simply put, Christianity has a homophobia problem. This does not mean that every Christian is homophobic or that homophobia is the necessary result of being a Christian. It just means that homophobia can very reasonably be expected from someone who takes their Christian faith seriously.

    I claim that the same is true of Islam and violence against infidels. It is one logical outcome of Islam.

  • DarkB4DaStorm

    Listen bro, the apologism you and others like you are spew is ineffective. Know why? because it’s riddled with fallacies and deflections and generally people are allergic to BS especially when it’s this transparent, so just admit that is ISIS is Islamic, maybe a very orthodox version but Islamic nonetheless and move on. Enough with this gutless lying already and covering up.

  • anas qamar

    “It is clear that ISIS in particular goes to great lengths in following the letter of the law”
    Not true at all. What letter of the law are they following to justify their act of rape, since it IS FORBIDDEN, not even left NEUTRAL, by the law. Just because Qur’an allows having sex with slaves does NOT, in anyway, allow for ‘rape’. The slavery itself has a different perspective in the West and how it was in there society. The slaves CAN REFUSE to the offer of their owner!

  • anas qamar

    You can thank the media for such a great, academic, unbiased, view towards Islam. You know what the “Quran” is; it’s only a book with 660 pages. And there are no “two versions” of it, it’s the same; one, from the beginning, word for word – no matter if it’s with whatever the sect of Islam, it’s the same. And here it is – read it! (Find the violent stuff – if you can!)
    http://www.islamwb.com/books/Quran-Saheeh-International-English-Translation.pdf

  • Adam

    Refreshing to see such a controversial issue covered in a comprehensive manner and including some mainstream Muslim voices

  • anas qamar

    The same can, according to your logic, be said of anything. Because even if it’s a cookbook, I can misquote it and show the “violent content”. While worse still, would be someone actually committing the crimes and justifying everything on the cookbook, and I, in hatred of the author of that book, would launch a website and “prove” to people that this book contains violence (I will only be committing a less violent crime, but I don’t see that as a crime). What in turn people would do:
    “Oh look, I found the ‘exact’ reason as to why he is being such a bad guy”
    “What, you found it!”
    “Yes, look, this website ‘proves’ that that cook book contains violence!”
    “How can a cookbook…”
    “Oh shut up! Look on page no…..”
    And that’s how you get people proving the violence in the Quran. What they themselves don’t realize is how shameful their misquotation is, since they have copied and pasted from a website, which is being run by a Christian who is ‘fed up’ with Islam. But, at the end, the commentators themselves will have committed a similar crime – but someone else may ‘act it out’.

  • http://www.yearwithoutgod.com/ Ryan Bell

    Seriously? You think people using the Qur’an to justify violence is roughly equivalent to people using a cookbook to justify violence? Pretty much the same thing?

  • EgoSaber

    bull crap! ISIS islamic and you know it.

  • DKeane123

    I guess if God supposedly wrote the violent cookbook, someone would use it for oppression. LRH wrote what amounts to a science fiction book and lots of people have been wronged by that worldview (Seaorg). It truly amazing what some people are willing to believe to feel special.

    Also note that the commenter has decided to go the out-group route by specifically noting that the website with misquotes is run by a Christian. If it was someone secular, that would also negate their opinion too. Ideas can’t thrive on their own – you have to be on the right team too.

    Of course there are hundreds (thousands?) of hours on You Tube of clerics spouting lots of justifications for what we might consider immoral by any other standard. You Tube is either run by Christians or the clerics are not actually Scotsman….

  • DKeane123

    No True Scotsman. I think you are trying to convince the wrong people. If your reference is as good as you say it is, go and preach to ISIS.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    ” (Find the violent stuff – if you can!)”

    Been done before, it’s really easy – there’s just so much of it:

    http://www.thereligionofpeacE.Com/quran/023-violence.htm

  • Mr.LOL

    No saber.go back to fate

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Here is a comparison chart demonstrating that Islamic State is 100% Islamic:

    pbs.twimG.Com/media/B7Q9qQ8CQAAFEtT.jpg

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    It is not just that Islamic State butchers are following Quran to the letter – they are also following the life example of their so-called prophet:

    http://wikiislaM.Net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

  • Mr.LOL

    Go home mate your drunk.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Contrary to what perhaps passes for “logical thinking” in “Quranic Science” classes, dear, that is not a counter-argument.

  • http://twitter.com/natemup Nate Tinner

    Do not the the hadith/sunnah carry a similar weight? They also recount countless immoral doings of Muhammad and his posse.

  • cmbennett01

    It doesn’t matter if you don’t call it rape, or that it’s not rape according to the Koran, if you are the property of another person you can not give consent. So it is rape. If your “perspective” allows for the ownership of other humans and rape isn’t rape if it doesn’t involve violent force then your perspective is at odds with modern standards of morality and it needs to go.

  • Clear Sky

    Isis is a product of American bully. they have the right to depend themselves. against future transgression of the west.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    No, they are a product of Quran and Hadith – they follow them *to the letter*.

  • Noor Nishal

    Slavery was abolished in the muslim world long ago!! What ISIS is doing is pure evil and unislamic!! For people who think ISIS is islamic should realise that none of the present arab countries have even a slightest form of slavery. I as a muslim, do not agree with ISIS at all. They are just doing evil for political gains so people will be afraid of them. I hope God gives them their due punishment. Aameen.

  • Jim Reed

    That doesn’t do any good. It is up to the other Islamic nations to do something, not God.

  • Mohammed

    It is a misconception that Islam allows sex with slaves without marriage. Most people who say that it is allowed quote 23:5-7

    “And they who guard their private parts Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they will not be blamed But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors ” Quran 23:5-7

    The same people who quote these verses as evidence for having sex without marriage with slave are forced to put some restrictions like sex is not allowed if slave is married to someone else (which Quran permits) and also that female master is not allowed to have sex with male slave etc. So in effect they are agreeing that this verse is not a full licence for master to have sex with slave.

    As we know Quran verses explains one another, the verse in question 23:5-7 is explained in detail in 4:23-24. In this verse all prohibited women for marriage are mentioned and says all other women including slaves are allowed with this clause

    “[provided] that you seek them [in marriage] with [gifts from] your property, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse.” Quran 4:24

    here the words used for seek is ibthaghu (بْتَغُوا ) same word used in 23:5-7 but explains how the seeking is. It is by giving mahr or dower to the bride, desiring chastity and not unlawful sexual intercourse. This mahr which is given by groom to bride should be accepted by bride in the presence of witness, so this makes her consent important. If she disagree on the mahr, marriage will not take place. Here the Arabic word used for “desiring chasity” is Muhsineena (مُّحْصِنِينَ ) which also mean “in marriage”, like muhsnaath (مُحْصَنَاتُ) means married women.

    One point raised by those who say 23:5-7 is proof for sex with slaves without marriage is why Quran separates wives and “right hand possession” in this verse ? In Quran verse 33:50 also we can see wives and those who can be married separated,

    O Prophet, indeed We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have given their due compensation and those your right hand possesses from what Allah has returned to you [of captives] and the daughters of your paternal uncles and the daughters of your paternal aunts and the daughters of your maternal uncles and… Quran 33:50

    Of course the above verse is not justification for having sex without marriage with daughters of your paternal uncles, paternal aunts etc. The reason why wives and captives are repeated is be to show that if one is not able to marry free believing women, then seek believing slaves womens (in marriage ) than going for illegal relations.

  • Jim Reed

    The problem is they are transgressing against their neighbors.

  • Mohammed

    Another important proof that sex with slaves is not allowed without marriage is , Quran list the group of people a woman can show herself in 24:31. Strangely her master is not in the list. how can a slave women have sex with her master , if she is not allowed to reveal herself to her master ?

  • Jim Reed

    It would be a better world if Christians concentrated on talking about the faults in Christianity, and Muslims talked about the faults in Islam. In addition to that example, there is also Christian pastors like Hagee writing books demanding war with Iran. You could make a case that this also is a logical extension of Christianity If Christians could make a full list, that might encourage Muslims in America to do the same. This would be the way to peace, without having to first bomb the world into submission.

  • Pranjal Rawat

    Which compilation of the Quran are you talking about? What about its multiple translations? What about the Hadith interpretations? What about the Shia/Sunni interpretations?

  • Noor Nishal

    They are!! But its not working!! Saudi Arabia partnered with US to stop ISIS and US is dropping bombs in ISIS stronghold areas and there are more civilian casualities!! US bombed a hospital recently, what good would that do??!! All innocents are dying!! The world is gone crazy!! Everybody killing everybody for no reason!! This earth is doomed. Why cant everyone just live in peace?!! All power hungry crazies!!

  • DKeane123

    Qatar uses migrant workers that have to labor under horrible conditions and aren’t allowed to leave unless the government grants and exit visa….sounds really close.

  • DKeane123

    Excellent – now convince ISIS they aren’t Islamic.

  • Noor Nishal

    That is the problem of Qatar not Islam!! Why bring Islam into everything? The fault of the country is not because of religion. The Prophet (pbuh) said: Pay the worker before his sweat dries. UK has a homeless problem. Is that the fault of Christianity?

  • Shumail Anees Baloch

    you are so stupid because you keep citing misinformed biased sources. you can’t be helped. better to just butt out of the intellectual’s discussion area mate!

  • DKeane123

    Actually, you are right – it is a problem with the government.

  • Jim Reed

    We always make things worse. Can’t they try doing something without us?

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    LOL Troll. You’re gonna have to do better than spouting “RoP! HAHA!” to make your point cogent to anyone on this forum. Little Green Footballs might be receptive, though, try there.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    [citation needed]

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Yeah no, you’re not going to smarm and snark and giggle your way out of this, moderate Moslems.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    people often point to the radical Jewish sects as “outliers.” And why not? It’s EASY to consider them outliers! Us Jews make up a miniscule fraction of the world’s population! Mark my words, if we were put in charge of the same number of nations as Muslims, you better believe there’d be just as much violence and war. This is not because of religion, but because of humanity. Judaism, Islam, et al are systems, and when strict extreme adherents to such systems are put in charge of things, of COURSE you get draconian results.

    Sects like those formed by Kahane and radical Haredi Jews are only kept under control because the only nation held any burgeoning influence is Israel (who quashes them with force), and have never conquered their own controlling stake in land. Of course, one only need to look at the Jewish Settler movement in the West Bank to see where that would lead.

    So the idea that “Islam is at fault” or “inherently violent” is ridiculous, as if to say Christianity and Judaism et al are not.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    yeah no, you’re not going to smarm and snark and giggle your way out of it either. “RoP! LOL”

  • Noor Nishal

    The arab countries governments are cowards. They are scared their country will get destroyed. So they are keeping out of all evil. But, evil spreads. I feel the whole world will get destroyed in a few years because of the evil of humans. The Prophet(pbuh) said : “The Hour will not be established till the riders of the black camels compete with each other to build tall buildings(which is happening in Saudi and GCC) and the slave woman gives birth to her master(means ISIS and sex slaves in the West) .” So the end of the world is near. Then God will give the due justice to the wrongdoers in HellFire.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    No indeed. Islam is no laughing matter, whether you believe in it or not.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Guess you didn’t read the article. Pity.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Glad you agree with me.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    [citation needed]

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    You kidding me? So does the US. It’s disgusting what we do.

  • Jim Reed

    America is beyond that stage. We have a military at least as powerful as the rest of the world combined, but we don’t want to militarily conquer the world. We are satisfied to just economically conquer the world, and set the world up so that our capitalists have the advantage, as they do in this country. We only use our military power for intimidation to make sure our capitalists win, plus occasionally invasion, but only when necessary, depending on what party is in power at the time. Going forward, we feel it will be a safer world when we can use drones and other robot military for the bulk of the policing. Once we have learned some more humanitarian policing methods here at home, we might use them overseas too.

  • DKeane123

    First – see my response below. Second, because our government has had moral failures does not mean we cannot point out other injustices.

  • Jim Reed

    In the Christian world we have learned to not pay attention to that prophecy junk. At least the bulk of us have. Hopefully. It is a recent development. Going back a few years, we were ready for Israel to set the stage for end times and Jesus to return. Now we know it is just Netanyahu trying to force out the Palestinians, and instead of being 99.5% united behind him, we are politically divided. At least that seems to be a good start.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Correct. This does not mean said moral faults are the result of religious belief.

  • DKeane123

    And we agree again. Although, it doesn’t necessarily mean those moral faults are not the result of religious belief either.

  • Noor Nishal

    Actually what Israel is not telling you is that they are waiting for their Prophet to come as predicted in the Torah not Jesus. We believe the Prophet predicted in both the Torah and the Bible refers to Prophet Muhammed(pbuh). When the Jewish clans in Medina heard about Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) they knew their Prophet had come but they conferred to discard it. The Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) jewish wife told him that they rejected him as the Prophet. We believe the evil man Dajjal will come and the jews will take him as their Prophet. The Muhammed (pbuh) warned us about the false prophet Dajjal and said great evil will spread which will only be stopped by the coming of Mehdi and Prophet Jesus(pbuh) . We muslims believe in the Torah and the Bible.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Listen, there are two absolute loser arguments one can make on behalf of a belief system.

    1. “Well, yes this looks bad but you have to understand it in the context of it’s times…”

    and…

    2.) “Other religions do/did/believe this too!”

    It’s really just impossible to overstate how pathetic those lines of rhetoric are. If we’re just talking about historical people abstractly then maybe it makes sense (i.e. “Yes Jefferson and Washington owned slaves but you have to understand…” etc.).

    But when it comes to religion, no dice. ‘Cause then we’re not just talking about the passage of time and history, we’re discussing people who were supposedly in personal touch with the Lord(s)/Lady/ies of Creation and/or divine principles of one sort or another. And maybe I have too-high expectations but, y’know, I sort of expect God(s) Him/Herself to not endorse things like slavery, genital mutilation, slaughter of rival tribes, etc.

    You can either say, “Mohammed spoke to god” OR “Mohammed was a product of his times” but I really don’t know how you can say both. And I really don’t get how you can evangelize on behalf of your favorite belief system (i.e. “Sure Mohammed copulated with a nine-year-old but you can totally trust him when he says he spoke to god.”)

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Great. So was this commandment regularly observed by Moslems throughout history?

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Doesn’t it though? I’m pretty sure it does, in fact, mean that.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Qatar identifies itself as an Islamic republic.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Saudi Arabia has not done a thing against ISIS. It’s targets in Yemen are entirely Shi’ite Houthis. SA loves ISIS.

    ISIS is heavily populated by Saudis and is pretty much a direct result of their ‘take it outside, kids’ policy with regard to Salafi/Wahabi militancy. “You want to fight jihad, junior? Great. Here’s 10,000 riyals and an AK47: Go buy a ticket to anywhere but here.”

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot
  • Evan Derkacz

    delete.

    Evan Derkacz “DARE-koch”
    Editor in Chief
    Religion Dispatches
    c: 646-574-3961

    Please Note: This email is intended solely for the recipient whose name appears in the address line; it is neither for publication nor for sharing.

  • Jim Reed

    You made a mistake in believing in the prophet Jesus because a reading of the Bible shows he is a myth. Muhammed may have been a real person, but the fact that you accept the Jesus myth kind of implies all your beliefs might be a myth.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Pathetic

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Nope, it doesn’t.

  • Noor Nishal

    I live in the GCC. So i read the newspapers here. Last I read , there was a photo of Barack Obama shaking hands with the Saudi King in a pact to destroy ISIS. There are a lot of Saudi imams that warn the youths to not join ISIS. But, the youths are crazy same as with the jihadi brides in UK running off to join ISIS. Crazy teenagers!!

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    The article above responded to all of this. Guess you didn’t read it that thoroughly. I suggest re-reading it. Otherwise, I can’t help you. Oh well.

  • Mohammed

    When we have an issue, we need to look into Quran and sunnah to see what it says. It is well known that how important it is in Islam to treat the captives well. Even in his death bed, prophet(s.a) were saying to treat the captives well. Now how is raping captives well treatment of them.

    What Muslim throughout history did or did’nt is non issue. I know there are lot of muslims who argue that sex with slaves without marriage is allowed. So it is possible this might have happened in history. But what I am saying is it is against Quran to believe so. Will Islam which gives so much importance to marriage and family life allow using women as mere sex objects , to be sold and bought only for sex !!! The one ayah which I quoted 24:31 is just one proof for this is not allowed

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Uh huh. Well all I can tell you is whenever the US military is about to bomb or assassinate an AQ or ISIS leader, we probably don’t let anyone in Saudi intelligence know in advance. For the same reason Pakistani Interservice wasn’t told about the OBL assassination.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    What Muslim throughout history did or did’nt is non issue.

    No, I’m pretty sure it’s a really important issue.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Read it quite thoroughly, thanks.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Slavery was abolished in the muslim world long ago!!

    No it wasn’t. That’s just flatly untrue is all.

  • Noor Nishal

    I am a Muslim and I believe the Quran to be the Word of God. The Quran tells us to believe in all the Prophets of God: Adam, Noah, Moses , Jesus etc.(May Peace Be Upon Them All) . God talks about the Jews and the Christians in the Quran. I suggest you read the Quran yourself. It was really nice talking to you Jim Reed. May you have a blessed day!! 🙂

  • Noor Nishal

    Please read the Islamic history. Did the Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) own any slaves? No. His first muazzin(caller to prayer) was a black freed slave called Bilal(r.a) . Slavery was pre-islamic. The Prophet(pbuh) gave them their rights and told to free them if they wanted freedom.

  • Noor Nishal

    Really? What your saying is new news to me!! The western newspapers are full of anti- muslim propoganda and the arab newspapers are full of anti-american propoganda. Dont know what to believe nowadays!! Thanks for sharing 🙂

  • Noor Nishal

    So?? It doesnt mean all they do is Islamic.

  • Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi

    “Its riddled with fallacies”

    I’m surprised you even understand what the word “fallacy” means, or could even given an accurate depiction of what those fallacies are in this article.

    It seems more obvious to I — and other thinking people — that the mention of many of these historical facts and doctrines are anomalies to the popular narrative of Islam as being inherently violent. As such, they cannot be ignored, but must be explained.

    Throwing them to the side and acting like they’re trivial shows how weak your position is.

  • Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi

    What does it mean to “read the text literally”?

    As far as see, when people like you say “literally” you mean “cherry picked to my convenience”.

  • http://www.yearwithoutgod.com/ Ryan Bell

    I agree! And this is my point! Saying ISIS has nothing to do with Islam is like saying Hagee’s politics has nothing to do with Christianity. I don’t believe in any gods or religions any more but when I was a pastor I frequently said they US foreign policy is dangerously influenced by Christian eschatology. This is why it surprises me that Muslim leaders are unwilling to do the same.

  • Jim Reed

    Moses is a myth because we know from archaeology there was no 40 years of wandering in the desert, and no desert means no actual exodus, and that means no actual Moses. Since Moses was a myth, all those earlier ones you mentioned must have been myths too. This is just the result of living in the modern scientific world. Islam will have to face this some day too.

  • David Tasslehoff Burrfoot

    Then why would it be called an Islamic republic?

  • Jim Reed

    I don’t think there is anything we can do to fix Islam, other than just fixing Christianity, and hoping some day that path spreads to other religions as needed.

    Looking at the dangerous influence, it seems to me it was much more dangerous when Bush came to power. At that point, it seemed like a hopeless situation. Things might be more divided now, but don’t seem as dangerous, at least to me.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    No, it responded to precisely nothing of this.

  • DKeane123

    I’m was never religious. I suggest you ask Megan Phelps-Roper, she is on Twitter.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Here you go, again:

    Comparison chart:

    https://pbs.twimG.Com/media/B7Q9qQ8CQAAFEtT.jpg

    Letter from an Islamic scholar who left Sough Africa for Islamic State (Caliphate):

    http://thecentrestaR.Com/south-africas-second-letter-from-isis/

    https://www.washingtonposT.Com/opinions/my-madrassa-classmate-hated-politics-then-joined-the-islamic-state/2015/08/21/b8ebe826-4769-11e5-8e7d-9c033e6745d8_story.html?hpid=z2

    So-called “prophet” Mohammad’s vile deeds (translations of Hadith, no original research – not Wikipedia site, before illiterate people start whining):

    http://wikiislaM.Net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam
  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Here is the *best* response to all this white-washing of Islamic character of Islamic State – written by an Islamic scholar who left South Africa for Caliphate with his family; his arguments here are *unassailable*:

    http://thecentrestaR.Com/south-africas-second-letter-from-isis/

    An example where he utterly destroys the usual deceptive reading of Quran:

    “What is the irjah or murjiah system?

    In a nutshell, the murjiah system can be defined as: “To apologize on behalf of Allah”.

    Na-oezo-billah – imagine wanting to apologize on behalf for the Creator of all things. What greater shirk than this, yet Allah says in the Quran “…and never has there been nor will there ever be anyone to take Him to task…”

    For example;

    Allah uses the term Kaafir and you apologize and change it to Ghair Muslim (Non-Muslim)

    Allah says Ishiddau alal Kufaar (harsh on the kufaar) and you apologize and refer it to some soft term. You frown and totally avoid this Ayat of the Quran.

    Allah says to fight and kill the kufaar, but you apologize by presenting some weird meaning.

    Allah says that the Kufaar shall burn painfully in Hell and you apologize, referring it to some obscure term such as “ won’t be near the mercy of Allah”. And so you continue to apologize on behalf of Almighty Allah…

    In brief, you are embarrassed by the verses of Allah hence you scramble “to try and cover up”.

    Irjah also requires that the clear injunction in the Quran ( Albara wal Wala) should be avoided not to offend their “non-Muslim brothers”. Yet it clearly means that we are not allowed to befriend kufaar and never aid them against the Muslims.

    This irjah system was also the worst virus to ever befall the Muslim ummah and unfortunately it has now reached its peak level.”

    This is all the proof we need that Islamic State (Caliphate) is indeed Islamic 100% – they follow commandments in Quran and examples in Hadith *to the letter*, and for every single atrocity they perpetrate their Sharia Council is able to provide Islamic justification.

  • esra

    So well said and eloquently put. ISIS is no more Islamic than Klu Klax Clan being Christian! (And of course there is much to their story than distorting the religion- there are political interest groups that want the Middle East in mess, who fuel & fund these bandits.) Thank you for articulating the truth in an accessible way for general public. God bless you.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    “ISIS is no more Islamic than Klu Klax Clan being Christian! ”

    This is completely wrong, and only used to hide the real character of Islamic State.

    KKK can’t justify their actions – murdering, burning, terrorizing Blacks and others – by quoting New Testament. And they can’t use the example of the life of Jesus to justify it either.

    Islamic State can – and does- justify their actions by quoting Quran and Hadith:

    https://pbs.twimG.Com/media/B7Q9qQ8CQAAFEtT.jpg

    http://wikiislaM.Vet/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    The stupidity is, rather, on the side of people who think that simply translating Hadith – showing all the hundreds of murders perpetrated by the so-called prophet, and simply pointing to the vast number of verses commanding violence against “Kuffar” in Quran, is actually using “misinformed and biased sources.”

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Here you go, dear – you seem to be very hungry for actual knowledge about Islamic State and Islam:

    http://www.theatlantiC.Com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Contrary to what you learned in your Online Logic 101 class, dear, that is not a counter-argument.

    Not even actual Muslims deny that their religion is violent. Only inept apologists do that.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    “Not even actual muslims, only inept online apologists”

    So the person who wrote this article doesn’t count as an “actual Muslim”? Isn’t that just the inverse of the No True Scotsman fallacy? Try again.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Hey, we all have our own opinions.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    I love how the keyboard warriors here are saying “you’re using the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim true Muslims aren’t the violent ones!” …and then they turn around to show “proof” that ISIS et al are the “TRUE Muslims,” the ones “who REALLY follow the Quran; the other ones clearly don’t.”

    It’s the same thing but inverted. Thanks, but I’ll take the testimonials of actual Muslims when determine what is and is not “true Islam.” That includes the “inept apologists.” As for the “ROP”ers, keep trying.

  • cmbennett01

    It doesn’t seem you’re very willing to take the testimony of the members of ISIS. Or are they not actual muslims? The point being made is that both the moderate muslims and the extremists are Muslim. The attempt to dismiss the extremists as not Islamic ignores the fact that from a theological perspective their claims are at least as legitimate as those that are opposed to that particular brand of religion. It is also a refusal to unequivocally state that on certain issues of morality, the Koran, and the prophet and the religious scholars were wrong. Not misunderstood or distorted. Wrong. And in that they perpetuate and enable the violence of the extremists. Their scriptures are in fact not the literal word of the all powerful and perfect creator of the universe and yet the moderates maintain this belief the same as the extremists.

  • cmbennett01

    Actually, The Klan can and they do.

  • cmbennett01

    Religion is not something distorted by humanity, It is a creation of humanity and a reflection of a societies values. If it has any inherent qualities it is that it is a social construction. It’s purpose is to bind together the members of a society and in doing so can meliorate some of the violence within. It also excludes those outside of it’s own tribe. It does so by instilling fear in it’s members and demonizing outsiders. In the modern world that has serious consequences. It is also by nature conservative. The three major monotheisms are bronze age tribal morality set in stone. And while it is true the various religious sects have evolved over time, most of the violence perpetrated by zealots is a conservative reaction to that change. So you are correct. It is humanity that is responsible for the violence, but it is also true that it is religion that is used to justify and perpetuate it.

  • Jim Reed

    Just a few years ago the Christian moderates also maintained the same belief as the extremists that the Bible was the word of God.

  • Jim Reed

    Is that the purpose, to bind together the members of a society? I thought the purpose of religion was to grow the religion and propagate it down to the next generation.

  • cmbennett01

    The meaning of the word is to bind. And that has been its purpose throughout all of recorded history.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    I am an atheist. You demonstrated the lack of critical thinking abilities with your unfounded assumption.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    You are very, very bad on this. You need to really work on your Islamic apologetics skills.

  • http://www.MainTour.com/ MainTour

    The reasons Christians and Jews talk so much about the faults of Islam, is that the vast majority of terrorists attacks (and foiled plots) committed against Christians and Jews are perpetrated by Islam.

    Also there is not Christian Equivalent to today’s Islamic State that is so vocal in its intent to destroy all non-believers and to expand its border by force, with the primary intent to glorify Islam.

  • http://www.MainTour.com/ MainTour

    There are certainly lots of people “misquoting” the Quran today to justify the existence of ISIS and flocking to its realm and perpetrating all manner of mischief to support is cause.
    It would seem that all Jihadist Terrorists are devout muslims, or so they claim. How is that they are so devout, so numerous and yet so wrong about their own religion?

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Ad Hominem.

  • http://www.MainTour.com/ MainTour

    What the Quran Says about Sex Slavery …It is legal to make infidels your captive prisoners and to force them to be your wives.

    According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” (Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). The Qur’an says:

    O Prophet! We have made lawful to you your wives to whom you have paid their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses of those whom Allah has given you as spoils of war (33:50).

    Qur’an 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls:

    The believers must win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or those whom their right hands possess, for they are free from blame. (Qur’an 23:1-6)…

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    What *I* see is a bunch of people copy/pasting links and such with verses that extremists use in order to “prove” that Islam inherently trends toward extremism. Of course a sixth of the world population is Muslim and probably uninterested in terrorism, but those aren’t the “true” Muslims, because they “don’t take the Quran seriously, unlike the terrorists.”

    It’s just the inverse. Evidence is thrown out in order to prove a point – that the overwhelming majority of Muslims who don’t engage in terrorism are not “true” Muslims and don’t *really* take the Quran seriously, unlike the extremists, which are the “true” representatives of Islam.

    It’s just lazy. A lot of the people here must not have mirrors in their homes.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Gee, that invalidates the significant exegesis in the article. Guess Haroon isn’t a “true” Muslim and what you say actually represents all of Islam.

    Surely every mosque in the world is a harem and a haven for sex trafficking!

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    No True Scotsman.

    Only listening to how ISIS lives through Islam while ignoring the points made by Muslims such as Haroon exposes the fallacy in claiming ISIS and the like are the ONLY “true Scotsmen.”

  • http://www.MainTour.com/ MainTour

    Islam is highly misunderstood religion, especially by its own people. Take today’s example of Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai given two 24-hour armed guards after ‘terror death threats,’ all of which originate with supposedly devout Muslims who believe it wrong for her to pursue an education and to speak up for the freedom of women.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    So Malala isn’t a True Muslim? Who, pray tell, IS a “True” Scotsman Muslim?

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    LOL. You really need to request a refund from that Online Logic course.

    My post was an assessment of your ineptness as an Islamism Apologist – you didn’t respond to any of my unassailable arguments (which are in fact simple links to uncontroversially correct translations of Quran and Hadith). “Ad hominem” means something *completely different*.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    No True Scotsman.

  • http://www.MainTour.com/ MainTour

    Richard Montgomery posted an article here at RD just five days ago about more people who apparently misunderstand Islam and the Quran in his weekly LGBT recap:

    BY PETER MONTGOMERY AUGUST 20, 2015

    ISTANBUL ‘HAVEN OF SORTS’ FOR LGBT SYRIANS AND IRAQIS;NO ROOM FOR LGBTS IN MALAYSIA’S ‘ISLAM-BASED’ HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY; GLOBAL LGBT RECAP

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Yep.

    And all these murders –

    thereligionofpeacE.Com

    literally tens of thousands commited each year – are not in fact “Muslim-on-Muslim” killings – Sunni on Shia, Shia on Sunni, everyone n Ahmadi etc etc.. All this has got #NothingToDoWithIslam, becasue, as we all know, Islam is a Religion of Peace.

    Just in the last couple of days:

    2015.08.25 (Damaturu, Nigeria) – Two young female suicide bombers slaughter five people at a bus station.

    2015.08.24 (Taiz, Yemen) – Seven women and four children are among fourteen civilians obliterated by a Shiite rocket attack.

    2015.08.23 (Hasakah, Syria) – Thirteen people are blown to bits by a Fedayeen suicide bomber.

    2015.08.22 (Utmankhel, Pakistan) – A 5-year-old child is among three innocents murdered by Khelafat-e-Islamic bombers.

    2015.08.22 (Kabul, Afghanistan) – Women and children are among the casualties of a suicide bombing.

    2015.08.22 (Kismayo, Somalia) – A Fedayeen suicide bombing at a university building leaves sixteen others dead.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    *chuckle*

    As I said, request a refund, and buy “Islam Apologetics For Dummies”.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    Indeed it is not. It is a grave threat to freedom.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    You sound pretty angry. Meh.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    [citation needed]

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Which is it – only the “True” Muslims observed this command, or only the “True” Muslims ignore this command, because the Quran is inherently dangerous? Make up your mind, please.

  • Jim Reed

    That might be because they have more need to be vocal. The United States has caused a great deal of the trouble in the middle east, from collapsing the Iranian democracy and installing a dictator to providing the arms for the Taliban. We proved our power by overrunning Iraq in about one week, and the ultimate body count from our war and the wars that it ignited must be in the millions by now. Israel has certainly killed a lot of people, and now we find out they have no intention of ever allowing the Palestinians to have a state, and they intend to continue to make life tough on them until they leave. We seem to be following the policy of speak softly, and carry a really big stick, and use the stick, plus lots of drones.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    No True Scotsman

  • DKeane123

    Did I ever say they were the only true version of Islam (as if there could be such a thing)? Please be careful about putting words in my mouth that would portray all of Islam in this light.

    My problem is with Haroon using this methodology to discount Isis as an Islamic entity. We could play the same game with Westboro or a more benign version of Christianity like Mormonism. They aren’t real Christians, real Christians don’t (insert interpretation of really old book written by superstitious and generally immoral – by today’s standard – outlook).

  • cmbennett01

    If that’s the case why are you joining the ranks of the Christian apologists? The differences between the Islamic and Christian extremists are nothing more than minor disputes about eschatology. Your lack of knowledge about religion is more reminiscent of a believer than someone who advocates rational thought. You must be a libertarian.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    No, silly. That is my *opinion*, and no citation is needed then.

    When I make factual claims – like, for example, that the so-called Muslim “prophet” was a murderer, and that Quran is filled with verses commanding violence against “Kuffar”, *then* I link to sources proving that.

    You were *really* robbed by that Online Logic course.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Oh, ok. Well as long as you acknowledge it’s not actually a fact but an opinion, we’re golden.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Ad Hominem

  • Jim Reed

    All the different groups of Christians tend to say all the other groups of Christians are not the true Christians.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    ” why are you joining the ranks of the Christian apologists?”

    I do no such thing. You obviously have some serious reading comprehension issues.

    “The differences between the Islamic and Christian extremists are nothing more than minor disputes about eschatology”

    This is an extremely silly claim to make, and a simple comparison of 2015 facts about a) Islamic State (hundred thousand fighters; hundreds of thousands of supporting civilians; millions of worldwide supporters) and b) Christian State (yea, there isn’t one) shows that it is simply ludicrous to equate things in this manner.

    “your lack of knowledge about religion is more reminiscent of a believer”

    LOL. Coming from someone with acute lack of critical thinking abilities – someone who thinks that anyone opposed to vile Islamist ideology must be a KKK-supporting Christian – that is a a compliment, so thanks.

  • #NothingToDoWithIslam

    *chuckle*

    You are really, really embarrassing yourself.

    Can’t you ask someone who cares to show you how silly your posts are?

  • cmbennett01

    I see what you mean about the link pasters in here. They are part of the problem as well. It’s that kind of tribalism that persists in religion that is the root of the problem. An while most of the worlds population is not interested in terrorism the violence of religious extremists is a problem with religion. A good majority of both christians and muslims think you deserve to go to hell to be punished by god for being an infidel. Every once in a while somebody decides to help god out.

  • http://www.MainTour.com/ MainTour

    Apparently it is not limited to ISIS. There are many other imam’s who misunderstand this part of Islam.

    On May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti politician, Salwa al-Mutairi, also spoke out in favor of the Islamic practice of sexual slavery of non-Muslim women, emphasizing that the practice accorded with Islamic law and the parameters of Islamic morality.

    “A merchant told me that he would like to have a sex slave. He said he would not be negligent with her, and that Islam permitted this sort of thing. He was speaking the truth. I brought up [this man’s] situation to the muftis in Mecca. I told them that I had a question, since they were men who specialized in what was halal, and what was good, and who loved women. I said, “What is the law of sex slaves?”

    The mufti said, “With the law of sex slaves, there must be a Muslim nation at war with a Christian nation, or a nation which is not of the religion, not of the religion of Islam. And there must be prisoners of war.”

    “Is this forbidden by Islam?” I asked.

    “Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam. On the contrary, sex slaves are under a different law than the free woman. The free woman must be completely covered except for her face and hands. But the sex slave can be naked from the waist up. She differs a lot from the free woman. While the free woman requires a marriage contract, the sex slave does not—she only needs to be purchased by her husband, and that’s it. Therefore the sex slave is different than the free woman.”

  • DarkB4DaStorm

    lol, not sure what point you were trying to make here except for insulting my small kafir intelligence and continuing with the same tiresome argument of ‘gotta read historical and theological context to fully “get it”. *Yawn* You like the author of this word salad of an article are again missing the point, who are you to call ISIS or people that think like ISIS un-Islamic? Who exactly holds that power and why? If THEY justify their actions by doing away with context and nuance that’s not considered a “modern” strand of Islam then that’s their prerogative, but its still a strand of Islam whether you want to accept that or not, that’s up to you. But don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by essentially calling everyone a simpleton because they aren’t Islam “scholars”. The problem with Islam(and most religions) is that anyone can become a scholar (like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi), and the ‘holy’ texts are so full of grey area that they become easily manipulated to justify any action, and because of that there’s really nothing you can say about it except to outright lie or distort the text yourself to justify your own narrative. So if anyone is being trivial, it’s you, trivial about how easily and justifiable people can take what are already very bad ideas and turn them into action. So yes, this is one big fat fallacy at play here, the No True Scotsman one, basically goes like this “they aren’t Islamic, I am, listen to me!!”

    This isn’t rocket science, pal, it’s 2 groups of people arguing about literary works from primitive people centuries ago. Imagine fans of Shakespeare arguing about what he meant when he wrote XY or Z, thankfully taking a position of either side of that conflict is inconsequential. Religion however is much more sinister and REALLY consequential, like blood and stuff. Ciao.

  • DarkB4DaStorm

    Oh I read it, just cut to the chase because doesn’t matter whether you use 300 words or 3000 words to explain away the Islamic link of ISIS (ridiculous endeavor on to itself), this author like many other apologists still can not prove why thousands of people(maybe even millions) are wrong but they’re right. It’s essentially cowardice, not being able to admit that the silly nonsense you have faith in is NOT perfect, it’s actually quite flawed after all. Flaws that unfortunately for them is being displayed with 21th century technology as opposed to 15th century technology which would’ve and should’ve equally shamed the Christians of that time. Bad timing, really.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    I think it’s more embarrassing to have a hashtag as a username, but ok then

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    So, tell me, which of the Imams are the True Scotsmen?

  • Mohammed

    Anyone can become a believer in Islam and that includes slave woman.. So shouldn’t a slave women also guard her private parts except with her spouse , according to 23:5-6 ?

    See my comment below on why sex with slaves without marriage is not allowed in Islam.

  • Noor Nishal

    Seriously? You are blaming Islam for what Qatar does to its migrant workers???!! So absurd!!
    Then on the same note:
    Blame Buddhism for what the burmese govt did to the Rohingyas.
    Blame Buddhism for what the Sri Lankan govt did to the Tamils.
    Blame Buddhism for what the Chinese govt is doing to the Uighurs.
    Blame Christianity for Mexicos mafia problem.
    Blame Christianity for what the American govt did in Iraq, Afghanistan,Guatanamo Bay and Abu Gharib Prison.
    Blame Christianity for UK’s homeless and Europe’s migrant problem.
    Blame Judaism for the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
    Why the double standard when it comes to Islam?

  • Noor Nishal

    According to Islamic history, Prophet Moses(pbuh) lived in Egypt . He conveyed the message of Islam to the then Pharaoh who rejected the message and was so arrogant that he called himself God. While the Pharaoh and his armies chased Prophet Moses(pbuh) and his followers at the parting of the sea. God drowned the enemies. Quran describes this incident in great detail. God in the Quran says he preserved the body of Pharaoh as a sign for the future genrerations and his body exists to this day intact without any embalming . You can see it in the museum in Egypt. His whole body is intact from the hair on his head to his nose and teeth.

  • Mordhorst

    Of course ISIS is islamic. They are islamic because they say so, use the shahada and believe in it. The fact that a huge majority of muslims have quite different ideas about Islam doesn’t mean that ISIS aren’t Muslims. They maybe bad muslims, but they are still muslims.

    Same thing with jewish terrorists or christian lunatics. Excluding those bad apples from your religions just relieves you from the unpleasant task of thinking about how they could possibly get those ugly ideas while claiming to share your beliefs. And this also extends to political ideas – if for example you want to create a communist paradise you should first try to explain what went wrong the last time without simply declaring that stalinists where no real communists. Maybe, but how could they get the idea that they are and how will you avoid that trap?

  • Mordhorst

    “Slavery was pre-islamic. ”

    Slavery was widespread in the islamic world until the 20th century. The ottoman empire never really abolished it, even if they started to restrict it in the 19th century. In the 1950s around 20% of the population of Saudia-Arabia where still slaves.

  • Deena

    LOL, good point.

  • Noor Nishal

    What i meant was that Slavery existed in Makkah before Islam and after Islam : Slaves were given their due rights and freeing them was encouraged and God’s reward was mentioned if a slave was freed. The rights of the slaves were such that it eventually led to all slaves getting freed. Thus, in this way slavery got slowly non-existent in the arab world around 100years ago.

  • Noor Nishal

    I replied to this but this site has not yet published my reply.

  • Jim Reed

    The part about Moses sounds like it was mostly copied from the Bible. The part about the nose when the body was not embalmed, I can’t explain.

  • Noor Nishal

    As muslims , we believe in all the revelations of God: The Psalms given to Prophet David(pbuh), the Torah given to Prophet Moses(pbuh) , the Bible given to Prophet Jesus(pbuh) and the final revelation Quran given to Prophet Muhammed(pbuh).
    Ofcourse the Torah , Bible and Quran have similar incidents as they were revelations from God!! The Bible and Torah was changed throughout history by the hands of men. But, the Quran remains the very same as it was revealed as it is the final word to mankind and God said He will Preserve it.
    For more information of the Pharaoh of Moses read the account of Dr. Maurice Bucaille

  • cmbennett01

    What you fail to realize is that it is unacceptable to own slaves. What is or is not permitted according to your holy books is irrelevant. Untill you figure that out you can not be a member of a civilized society.

  • Jim Reed

    On the Christian side, many of us are learning that the Bible is totally not of divine nature, so it doesn’t really make much difference if it has been changed or not because it never was divine. It took a long time to get to this point, and some of us who are older spent a part of our lives believing it was God’s word until science and history and education in general made that belief no longer practical. I suspect the same thing might be starting in Islam, only to a small extent so far. In American Christianity this is causing a deep division. Those who still want to believe seem to keep believing no matter how crazy the beliefs become, and the more deeply they believe, the more damage they can cause to themselves, and the rest of us. I think that division will ultimately be our salvation because even though there seems to be no way to get through to that other group, over time they do lose a few people and become smaller. They continue to get more crazy, but the smaller size might be making them less dangerous in the long run. You might want to remember this for future reference when Islam starts to divide. As the more rational people leave that group, those who are left tend to skew more and more irrational on the average.

  • Mohammed

    what is mentioned as slave women is what quran refer as “what right hand possess” and it is nothing but captives or prisoners of war. in today’s modern war also, prisoners are taken.

  • cmbennett01

    In modern warfare prisoners of war are taken to remove combatants from the battle field. They are not women captured and “married” to their captors. They are to be protected and treated with dignity. If they are not ot is a violation of moral and ethical standards. What the Koran speaks of are not prisomers of war ny any modern standards. They are slaves. As many have pointed out there were different standards of morality in Muhammad’s time and slaves may very well have been treated better than in pre-Islamic society. That in no way means that tje Koran and Hadith are an acceptable standard for conduct in a modern society

  • Mordhorst

    History simply doesn’t agree with you. As I wrote in Saudi-Arabia, the region where Islam originated, one out of five inhabitants was still a slave in the 1950s. That is similar to the situation in the Roman Empire and the Greek city states two thousand years earlier. Islam didn’t reduce slavery at all.

    And the islamic rules how to humanely treat slaves sound very similar to those of the Sassanids before. So I’m rather sceptical if the teachings of Muhammed brought much change to the existing system of slavery.

    What did bring an end to the Arab slave trade was the pressure from imperial powers like England, Russia and France which didn’t like seeing fellow christian enslaved in particular.

  • Mohammed

    “They are to be protected and treated with dignity.” That is what islam also says about prisoners of war. I don’t agree with POW forcefully “married” to captors as allowed in Islam.

    How well POW is treated in modern times, just do a image search for “prisoners of war” in google.

  • Noor Nishal

    Actually the opposite is happening with the Quran. It is the rational and more scientific sound people who are taking the Quran seriously. Islam and modern science go hand in hand. The Quran mentions the universe is expanding which was only recently discovered along with many more scientific truths. Nice talking to you :). May you have a blessed day. 🙂

  • Noor Nishal

    I think we have to agree to disagree :). Nice talking to you. May you have a blessed day 🙂

  • raqqah12345

    “in that no legal traditions, Islamic or otherwise, discussed consent in the
    way we do today. In the past, she said, “we don’t hear about consent in marriage, or in relationships where sex is lawful.”

    As Muslim IS supporter, I’ll thank this article, because it openly states in the above paragraph that “rape of a slave” does not exist in a legal sense in Islam and that slavery and sex with your slave is perfectly lawful in the Islamic shariah and cannot be misrepresented as rape.

    The article has demolished its own proposition. They speak the truth even though they lie.

    There are many other inaccuracies and open falsehoods and misrepresentations in this article but I’ll content myself with the above.

  • Mohammed

    why didn’t you quote 33:50 fully, the rest of the verse say lawful is paternal and maternal cousins etc. does that mean sex without marriage is allowed with cousins ?

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    You flatter me. I’m glad to see that there are liberal arts Muslim scholars coming together. Islamic nations such as Persia did so much to advance science in the Middle Ages, and even today there is a strong educational and scientific current among the younger generations (Yes, even among women!).

  • Sam

    This article is one of the reasons I am always boggled when people speak of “reforming” Islam.

    Thank you for your excellent scholarship and sharing.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    LOL. Coming from someone with acute lack of critical thinking abilities

    Ad Hominem. Try again.

  • Fired, Aren’t I

    Faulty Comparison fallacy. Try again.

  • Mr.LOL

    go home mate your drunk.

  • Mr.LOL

    its the goddamn internet dafuq do you think your gonna accomplish here lol.Trolls like you are everywhere

  • SSM

    TLDR: Islam is peaceful and pro-women, though most Muslim communities today either actively engage in or passively support jihad, sharia law, and veiling and confinement of women. Got it.

    Truth: Muslims are turbulent when in minority and oppressive when in majority. A sane individual cannot live with, or near, a large group of Muslims.

  • Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi

    So basically, your entire response comes down to “They’re Islamic because I want them to be Islamic” and Islam just means anything you want it to mean.

    Which then negates the “No True Scotsman Fallacy” because it cannot be applied to two contradictory characteristics.

    Im sure you’ll start saying cats are dogs and vice versa — and anyone who disagrees is committing a fallacy.

  • Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi

    Darks logic:

    “X country does evil deed (y) in the name of human rights, therefore human rights is wrong”

    and

    “Anyone who disagrees with me is committing a fallacy”

  • Craptacular

    An apologist is an apologist. I heard the same arguments from mormons when I was a part of that cult, too.

    Obi Wan Kenobi summed it up when he said, “Luke, you’re going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”

    Thanks for your point of view.

  • MahmudH

    Don’t worry, the armies of Iraq, Syria and Kurdistan will free the victims of your crazy brethren sooner or later.

  • MahmudH

    Islamophobes tend to go further than saying ISIS are Muslims. They say the behaviour of ISIS and Al-Qaeda is Islamic. They argue that the extreme salafists are the only real Muslims and everyone else, especially liberals, are a con. That’s why it is important to point of the historical falsehood of the extremist narrative.

  • MahmudH

    Just a point of information, the Koran talks about slaves, war captives, and “whom your rights possess” all separately. Islamic tradition bundles them together, but that’s not reason to assume the prophet did so.

  • Mordhorst

    Yes but I think the author tries to do this in a fundamental flawed way. His argumentation is flawed in the same way as those of the extreme salafi jihadis and islamophobes because he pretends to know what the “real” Islam is. That’s why he can say that ISIS aren’t islamic and doesn’t even think that ISIS themselves believe in their ideology:

    “ISIS does claim it’s reproducing the norms of the Prophetic tradition, as Muslims are meant to, but the argument is made in bad faith”

    That isn’t very convincing, I think their actions speak of a strong belief in that idea as crazy as it might appear to us.

  • MahmudH

    There are a lot of problems with the writers point of view, which is way too traditionalist and a little too close to being pro-slavery for my liking. But it’s not surprising that every group of Muslims will claim to represent the “true” Islam.

  • MahmudH

    False translations. “From amongst the spoils of war” is not in the Arabic of 33:50. “Whom your rights possess” just refers to a wife without a bridal price.

  • MahmudH

    The USA lost what, 4000 soldiers in 5 years peace keeping in Iraq? Iraq’s population is only 20 million, and only a few towns in the “Sunni triangle” were actively resisting. America may have enough planes and warships to destroy what ever it wants, but it doesn’t have a fraction of the soldiers it needs for proper peacekeeping where the occupied population is large and disgruntled.

  • MahmudH

    The Syrian Baath party was a response to Western Imperialism. ISIS is not. ISIS gets its funding and weapons from the USA via Saudi Arabia.

  • MahmudH

    Mainstream is a bit of a misleading term when it comes to Islam. The mainstream of muslims is not the same as the mainstream of Islamic scholarship. The mainstream scholars quoted in the article are actually conservative and traditionalist, they’re concerned with justifying the practise of slavery during the middle ages at the same time as defending its abolition today. Most muslims do not feel any greater need to rationalise the practise of slavery in the past than mainstream Catholics feel the need to defend the ban on birth control.

  • Jim Reed

    We don’t have the heart, patience, resources to be the peacemakers. Our strength is we overran the entire country and destroyed everything in our path in about one week, with almost no casualties on our side. Could have been faster if the war was actually important to us, and we did it without using our most powerful weapons. Next time should be easier because we are always developing new weapons, and we have a virtual monopoly on 21st century weapons.

  • MahmudH

    I don’t think that’s true. USA is particularly strong when it comes to aircraft carrier battle groups. But in terms of nuclear weapons, Russia is an even match. And when it comes to tanks, Russia has far more. Aircraft carrier battle groups are not 21st Century weapons. To destroy them a sophisticate enemy would use rockets – and lots of countries have sufficient technology to build the kind of hi-tech rockets required to destroy ships. The USA has lots of hi-tech fighter planes, but China, Russia and the EU have equivalent technology for building them – all they lack is the desire to spend billions on building aircraft they would only need for fighting America, when they know any major war with the USA would be fought not with planes, but with ICBMs.

  • Jim Reed

    We have more hands on experience with drones.

  • MahmudH

    Indeed. But drones are for waging war on the cheap whilst avoiding the domestic opposition that comes with sending human beings. They don’t let you do anything you couldn’t already do with actual soldiers, tanks, planes or rockets.

  • Jim Reed

    Don’t make the mistake of judging drones by what they have done in the past.

  • Billo Qasira

    Another tract that cares more for the ‘honour’ of Islam than the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, more concerned with whitewashing Islam than the oppression caused by Islam, more interested in covering up the truth of Muhammad than the wretched things that Muhammad did. Sickening, lying apologist.

  • DarkB4DaStorm

    Oh dear, you’re not too quick on the uptake, huh. When did I say “I want them to be Islamic”?, they’re calling themselves that! And, No True Scotsman is what this author is essentially offering as an excuse to their self-identifying claim.

    Person A – Islam is a religion with X or Y qualities
    Person B – What about ISIS, they have X or Y qualities
    Person A – Ah, but they are not “true” Muslims.

    You might outright reject that reasoning so let me give you a different scenario

    Person A – Islam is a religion with X or Y qualities
    Person B – But what about Ahmadi Muslims, they have X or Y qualities
    Person A – Ah, but they are not “true” Muslims.

    Now, there is no question that Ahmadi Muslims are considered heretics or even non-Muslims by mainstream Muslims yet Ahmadis continue to carry on with x and y qualities and continue to call themselves Muslims(sometimes to their bloody demise). It’s the same kind of flawed logic that we are expected to accept without question when people say that ISIS are “un-Islamic”. Again, according to who? who has the authority to designate “Muslim-ness” to individuals or groups?

  • Mordhorst

    It’s not surprising, but combined with the still somewhat popular death penalty for apostates this is the perfect recipe for a never ending slaughter.

    On the topic of slavery in general and rape being islamic or not: I’m certain that there have always been some Muslims which tried to argue against slavery or at least for some more rights for slaves. But the history of slavery in islamic societies shows that they weren’t very influential. Maybe you could argue that slavery isn’t islamic anymore, but it was until recently and it isn’t very surprising that groups which claim to restore early islamic society also reintroduce slavery, including sexual slavery.

  • Asadullah Ali Al-Andalusi

    Stop evading.

    There are many essential qualities of what constitutes as “Islamic”. Simply saying something is Islamic doesn’t necessitate that the label meets these requirements.

    One one hand you have all of traditional Islamic scholarship, the majority of Muslims, and all Islamic scholars opposing ISIS — then you have ISIS.

    There is a contradiction here in many views over the essential qualities of the religion, and yet you want to say they are both the same and anyone who disagrees that ISIS is Islamic is committing a fallacy.

    You’re not being ridiculous because you’re a kafir — you’re being ridiculous because you’re more interested in winning than correcting your ludicrous understanding of fallacies.

  • Jim Reed

    What religion would you recommend?

  • Joseph Daly

    ‘They’re not real #{insert religion’s name}s’ is never a valid argument.

  • DarkB4DaStorm

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________
    . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .“~.,
    . . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
    . . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
    . . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,
    . . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
    . . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
    . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
    . . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
    . . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
    . . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
    . . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
    . . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
    . . . .. . .`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
    . . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
    . . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . … . /
    . . . . . . `~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./…..,__
    ,,_. . . . . }.>-._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
    . .. `=~-,__. . . `,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `. . . . . . ..__
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>–==“
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

  • Blind-Truth

    Just because you don’t think it is r@pe doesn’t mean that is the case.

    You people are really good at making your own reality and justifying being a complete monster.

    Is that how you would like the world to remember you? Considering Daesh’s days are numbered.

    You all are worse than a Jihadi H1tler.

    I bet you are proud?

    Seriously sick.

  • sanjay

    You can give rims and rims of justification, whole World will believe islam only when Muslims all over the world will unite and jointly vanquish ISIS. On the contrary world assumes that Muslims keeping mum, is a consent to ISIS. I have not read any news that Muslims praised West in case of Syrian refugies.Ask the World people that if , the case would have been reverse, that is, westerners fleeing and entering Muslim country, what would have been response, I am at loss to hear the Answer !!!!!