It’s remarkable to see this acknowledged in any establishment media source, and downright shocking for it to appear in the Marxist Guardian. It is, not surprisingly, hedged around in several ways, but still, even the fact that it appears at all could be a first for any establishment propaganda outlet.
The first hedge is that they attribute it to “Israeli intelligence officials,” whom of course they spend the rest of their time deriding and mocking and charging with crimes against humanity, so that undercuts the assertion considerably for the Guardian’s hapless readers. Then they call this a “controversial and contested interpretation of traditional Islamic military jurisprudence, claiming that captives were ‘the spoils of war.'”
Actually, I would love to see any Islamic source contest this, but it would be hard to find one, as it’s all straight from the Qur’an.
Taking them in the order in which they appear in the book, first there is Qur’an 4:3: “And if you fear that you will not deal fairly by the orphans, marry the women who seem good to you, two or three or four, and if you fear that you cannot do justice, then one, or those that your right hands possess. In this way it is more likely that you will not do injustice.”
Who are “those that your right hands possess”? The Tafsir Anwarul Bayan explains: “During Jihad (religion war), many men and women become war captives. The Amirul Mu’minin [leader of the believers, or caliph—an office now vacant] has the choice of distributing them amongst the Mujahidin [warriors of jihad], in which event they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr).” (I, 501) The same tafsir insists that this is not a temporary provision only for ancient people: “None of the injunctions pertaining to slavery have been abrogated in the Shari’ah. The reason that the Muslims of today do not have slaves is because they do not engage in Jihad (religion war). Their wars are fought by the instruction of the disbelievers (kuffar) and are halted by the same felons. The Muslim [sic] have been shackled by such treaties of the disbelievers (kuffar) whereby they cannot enslave anyone in the event of a war. Muslims have been denied a great boon whereby every home could have had a slave. May Allah grant the Muslims the ability to escape the tentacles of the enemy, remain steadfast upon the Din (religion) and engage in Jihad (religion war) according to the injunctions of Shari’ah. Amen!” (I, 502)
Next is Qur’an 4:24: “And all married women except those whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful to you are all beyond those mentioned, so that you may seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those whom you enjoy, give them their shares as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what you do by mutual agreement after the duty. Indeed, Allah is ever-knower, wise.”
This is referring to Allah’s forbidding Muslims to marry women who are already married, except for “those whom your right hands possess.” Ibn Kathir explains that Muslim men “are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,” with one notable exception: “those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, ‘We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed…Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.’” (II, 422) Ibn Kathir notes that “At-Tirmidhi, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih” all agree on this. The account in Sahih Muslim differs only in depicting the companions of Muhammad as hesitating to have sex with the captive women not because they were already married, but “because of their husbands being polytheists.” (Muslim 3432) Muhammad assents despite this.
The next mention of “those that your right hands possess” is at Qur’an 23:1-6: “The believers are successful indeed, who are humble in their prayers, and who shun vain conversation, and who give alms, and who guard their private parts, except from their wives or those that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy.”
The exemption from the obligation of chastity with one’s slave girls makes clear for what purpose they are intended. The Tafsir al-Jalalayn explains that one must guard one’s chastity “except from their wives or those they own as slaves, in which case they are not blameworthy in approaching them.” (730) Writing in the twentieth century, Maududi says that “it is made clear that one need not guard one’s private parts from two kinds of women – one’s wives and slave-girls.” (Towards Understanding the Qur’an, VI, 81) The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in a hadith that depicts Muslim warriors asking Muhammad if they must practice coitus interruptus when having sexual intercourse with “some excellent Arab women” whom they have captured. Muhammad is made to respond only by addressing the question at hand, “It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.” He and those who are asking both take for granted that the captive women may permissibly be used in this way. (Muslim 3371)
Qur’an 33:50 says: “O prophet, indeed, 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…”
This verse makes it clear that “those whom your right hand possesses” are women taken as “spoils of war,” and are “lawful” for sexual intercourse, as are wives.
This is reinforced by the last passage that mentions these women: “Indeed, the torment of their Lord is before which no one can feel secure and those who preserve their chastity except with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy.” (70:30) This is somewhat garbled, but clear enough: the chaste will escape the Lord’s punishment, and chastity means one has sexual relations only with his wives and those whom his right hand possesses.
So there is Qur’an, Muhammad, and renowned Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir endorsing this practice. In what way, then, is it “controversial and contested”? It would be wonderful if the Guardian, or anyone, would deign to explain. But they won’t. They want readers to think this is some marginal, eccentric interpretation of Islam, so that no one begins to think ill of the Left’s favorite religion. And even that is a significant improvement over previous practice; for years the establishment media saw Boko Haram and ISIS and other jihad groups take sex slaves and always insisted that the practice had nothing to do with Islam. The Guardian, of all publications, has moved a slight bit closer to being honest about this.
“Evidence points to systematic use of rape and sexual violence by Hamas in 7 October attacks,” by Bethan McKernan, Guardian, January 18, 2024:
…Rape and sexual assault are considered war crimes and a breach of international humanitarian law. Hamas has denied the accusations of sexual violence.
On Monday, UN-appointed independent experts said that “given the number of victims and the extensive premeditation and planning of the attacks”, mounting evidence of rapes and genital mutilation pointed to possible crimes against humanity.
Israeli intelligence officials, experts and sources with direct knowledge of interrogation reports of captured Hamas fighters believe units that attacked were beforehand given a text that drew on a controversial and contested interpretation of traditional Islamic military jurisprudence, claiming that captives were “the spoils of war”. This potentially legitimised the abduction of civilians and other abuses, without being an explicit instruction to do so.
In at least two unsourced videos of interrogations of alleged Hamas members, which Israeli officials say they did not authorise for release, the men are heard talking about instructions given to rape women….
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I’m assuming that al Guardian endorses this
Hudders. says
I’ll second that one @infidel.
There must be a planned pro islamic angle on this Guardian piece, or it would never have seen the light of day.
Let’s wait & see what happens next hey?
SC says
So they now officially declared war which gives Israel the right to bombard the crap out of them until such time as the surrender. No ceasefires they merely use those to regroup. Every bastard involved in the original attack,kidnapping or hostage abuse dies after their war crimes trial.
somehistory says
Nothing ”legitimizes” rape and mutilation. The book of demonic filth may claim it is lawful, but the book is saturated with lies and falsehoods about its source.
Rape is condemned by the God of the Bible. In most lands and in mankind’s laws, rape and mutilation are considered crimes,
But rape and mutilation are committed daily by mozlums. Already enough proof of this from the very mouths of the rapists, and the multitude of victims has been presented; there is not a nanoparticle of doubt.
And in this “war” started by the ghouls of hamas, it is a means of ‘striking terror’ and forcing submission.
The scum who support the evil will not admit that it was done to the victims of hamas.
Hoi Polloi says
And they are scum. Right on.
Hoi Polloi says
It’s clearly high on the list of reasons that muslims are warring constantly and a very good reason to show them no mercy once they’ve begun said warring.
somehistory says
Agreed. Mercy only to those who show mercy.; and mozlum terrorists do not.
Ade Fegan says
There’s hope yet !
tim gallagher says
No doubt the left wing “Guardian”, just like all those left wing wankers who have been demonstrating for Palestine and against Israel, would be supportive of the Muslims because they both hate western civilisation. Barbaric concepts like “Spoils of war’ along with all the other totally evil, totally barbaric shit that comprises islam, which wants to impose the 7th century arab life, fit only for knuckle draggers not civilised human beings, only indicate to me that islam needs to go. It is outdated, primitive garbage and belongs in the dustbin of human history. How the left wing wanker brigade, including the clowns at the “Guardian”, can support any aspect of barbaric islam shows their complete lack of morality.
Burnaby Lad says
old school solar system repairman wanker
pfwag says
Just Muslims doing what their minor god, crazy prophet, and asinine holy book privilege all Muslims to do.
The Borg sex cult of ISLAM is the problem.
DiploNerd says
Excellent job laying out the Islamic justification for sex slavery.
Islam is truly barbaric.
That being said, Hamas has exceeded the limits with its gang rape. Even ISIS leadership put a stop to the gang rapes of the Yazidis, pointing out that each sex slave should be raped only by her one owner and not passed around.
There is a disgusting story in the early Islamic sources about a woman in a leather dress who had a beautiful daughter. Both were taken captive. “Oh how I ached for her! But she fell to the lot of so-and-so,” one of his Companions told Muhammad. Just then, the girl’s captor walked into the mosque, so Muhammad called out to him asking for the girl. He agreed, pointing out that he had “not yet disrobed her” (they were supposed to wait until she had her period to prevent any doubt about paternity). He gave her to Muhammad, who immediately gave her to the jerk who “ached” for her. So gallant! So Noble, this Prophet! Yes, sex slavery is a thing in Islam, but gang rape is not. It was BECAUSE he had not yet “disrobed” her that it was still possible to pass her to someone else. Islam is sick, but Hamas is sicker.