Posted on 07/09/2012 5:20:36 AM PDT by SJackson
What is being dubbed as Egypt’s “first sex-slave marriage” took place mere days after the Muslim Brotherhood’s Muhammad Morsi was made president.
Last Monday, on the Egyptian TV show Al Haqiqa (“the Truth”), journalist Wael al-Ibrashi began the program by airing a video-clip of a man, Abd al-Rauf Awn, “marrying” his “slave.” Before making the woman, who had a non-Egyptian accent, repeat the Koran’s Surat al-Ikhlas after him, instead of saying the customary “I marry myself to you,” the woman said “I enslave myself to you,” and kissed him in front of an applauding audience.
Then, even though she was wearing a hijab, her owner-husband declared her forbidden from such trappings, commanding her to be stripped of them, so as “not to break Allah’s laws.” She took her veil and abaya off, revealing, certainly by Muslim standards, a promiscuous red dress (all the other women present were veiled). The man claps for her as the video-clip (which can be viewed here) ends.
The owner-husband, Abd al-Rauf Awn, then appeared on the show, identifying himself as an Islamic scholar and expert at Islamic jurisprudence who studied at Al Azhar. He gave several Islamic explanations to justify his “marriage,” from Islamic prophet Muhammad’s “sunna” or practice of “marrying” enslaved captive women, to Koran 4:3, which commands Muslim men to “Marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four… or what your right hands possess.”
For all practical purposes, and to avoid euphemisms, “what your right hands possess”—also known in Arabic as amelk al-yamin—is, according to Islamic doctrine and history, simply a sex-slave. Linguistic evidence further suggests that she is seen more as a possession than a human.
Even stripping the sex-slave of her hijab, the way Awn commanded his concubine-wife, has precedent. According to Islamic jurisprudence, whereas the free (Muslim) woman is mandated to be veiled behind a hijab, sex-slaves are mandated only to be covered from the navel to the knees—with everything else exposed. During the program Awn even explained how Caliph Omar, one of the first “righteous caliphs,” used to strip sex-slaves of their garments, whenever he saw them overly dressed in the marketplace.
Awn further explained that sex-slave marriage is ideal for today’s Egyptian society. He based his position on ijtihad, a recognized form of jurisprudence, whereby a Muslim scholar comes up with a new idea—one that is still rooted in the Koran and example of Muhammad—yet one that better fits the circumstances of contemporary society.
He argued that, when it comes to marriage, “we Muslims have overly complicated things,” so that men are often forced to be single throughout their prime, finally getting married between the ages of 30-40 (when they might be expected to have a sufficient income to open a household). Similarly, many Egyptian women do not want to wear the hijab in public.
The solution, according to Awn, is to reinstitute sex-slavery—allowing men to marry and copulate much earlier in life, and women who want to dress freely to do so, as technically they are sex-slaves and mandated to go about loosely attired, anyway.
The other guest on the show, Dr. Abdullah al-Naggar, a professor of Islamic jurisprudence at Al Azhar, fiercely attacked Awn for reviving this practice, calling on him and his slave-wife to “repent” and stop dishonoring Islam, arguing that “there is no longer sex-slavery”—to which Awn responded by sarcastically asking, “Who said sex-slavery is over? What—because the UN said so?”
In many ways, this exchange between Awn, who advocates sex-slave marriage, and the Al Azhar professor symbolizes the clash between today’s “Islamists” and “moderate Muslims.” For long, Al Azhar has been primarily engaged in the delicate balancing act of affirming Islam while still advocating modernity according to Western standards, whereas the Islamists—from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Salafis—bred with contempt and disrespect for the West, are only too eager to revive distinctly Islamic practices that defy Western sensibilities.
While this may be the first sex-slave marriage to take place in Egypt’s recent history, it is certainly not the first call to revive the practice. Earlier, Egyptian Sheikh Huwaini, lamenting that the “good old days” of Islam are over, declared that, in an ideal Muslim society, “when I want a sex-slave [I should be able to go] to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.” Likewise, a Kuwaiti female politician advocated for reviving the institute of sex-slavery, suggesting that Muslims should bring female captives of war—specifically Russian women from the Chechnya war—and sell them to Muslim men in the markets of Kuwait.
And so the “Arab Spring” continues to blossom.
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
when I want a sex-slave [I should be able to go] to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her
Just another value system. A shame you can't pick your sex. Never get away with that if they sold sex slaves in the US.
`
`
And the NOW gang and MSM condenm Islam. /s
NOW and the Establishmedia will lecture you on cultural differences and how it is America’s imperialism that causes all the world’s problems. You really need to hate America more to understand this.
Pray for America
There is a whole sub-culture in this country of sex slaves who voluntarily enter such a relationship. There are a surprising number of women who want this.
But it has no legal recognition and certainly no religious justification.
FWIW, the Koranic rules for dealing with female sex slaves are pretty much identical to those found in the Old Testament. Though I believe the Law of Moses was compassionate enough to allow the newly enslaved woman 30 days to mourn the death of her entire family before consummating the “marriage.”
Judaism, of course, has evolved beyond the letter of their Law in this regard, and Christianity never explicitly allowed such disgusting practices.
Unless the west recognizes that the only good Muslim is a converted one or a dead one, we are finished.
They make Nazis and Communists looke civilized by comparison.
They all need to be converted to another religion or eliminated - all of them.
Sexual perversion and assault (let’s lot kid ourselves as to what is going on here) hidden under the `veil` of a legal procedure. And THE ONE is inviting the new reprobate leader of Egypt to DC in September?
The charming traditions of Islam. What our “progressive” women over here support.
My word, what will those wild and wacky muzzies think of next?
I’m still stifling a case of the chuckles. The “what, because UN says so?” line was especially amusing.
Can there be any hope for a people who think sexual slavery is the most obvious solution to ANY problem, let alone the hormones of young men?
And so the “Arab Spring” continues to blossom.
AND LIBERALS back these people and their beliefs OVER Israel? How soon until the idiots at NOW - National Organization of Women - march in favor of Sex Slaves For Muslims? Probably sooner than we'd like to think...
All the more reason; of course; it should be a 'hot topic' discussed; not ignored.
Liberal women are taught to want it by being taught to hate men. The void that opens up inside them then becomes so extreme, they become imbalanced, and don't know what anything means anymore. They go for boys, they misinterpret mild interests for major insights, they can't make any ecisions on their own, they turn on each other for any deviation from group obedience, etc. Then when they're thoroughly steeped in this artificially imposed madness, their Leftist controllers... "guide"... their cravings, and turn them into obsessions - about sex, about politics, about power and control, about cruelty, about hypocrisy, and ultimately about turning themselves into beasts. An from that, accepting Islamic female slavery is only one more step...
I get your point, but I doubt is has much at all to do with liberalism or feminism.
I think most women have a desire to have the man in their life take the lead. This probably has deep evolutionary roots, as in the state of nature a woman’s only defense was a strong man. I think we have to remember that through most of human history all women were in essentially a Stockholm Syndrome situation for their entire lives, with the safety and even survival utterly dependent on men from whose whim there was no appeal.
It seems logical, to me anyway, that most women survived and even thrived as people in similar situations have always done, by identifying with the oppressor.
A man strong enough to dominate a woman completely is also strong enough to protect her. Not particularly logical, but then human emotions seldom are. This book merely takes these natural tendencies to their logical extreme.
Where the feminist bit ties in, I think, is that women raised to reject the idea that the man in their life should take the lead don’t lose the natural tendency, they merely suppress it till it bubbles up in this extreme form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.