Attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh are Religiously Motivated


[By: M. Sophia Newman] The first month of 2014 was a tough one for Hindus in Bangladesh. Violence raged in over two dozen separate Hindu villages across the country, ending in the murder of two men, the rape of at least five women, and the destruction of many homes, temples and businesses. Typically, the attacks involve assailants from outside the villages. They continue a pattern that injured 188 Hindus in 2013.bangladesh (1)

In this South Asian nation of 153 million, Hindus make up a scant 8.5% of the population. As a minority, they are often singled out for abuse. “It has almost become a norm to attack the Hindus in Bangladesh after the general elections every five years,” Adhir Pal, an elderly Hindu, told national media outlet bdnews24.com. When I visited his village, Malopara, this January, every neighbor I interviewed seemed to think that violent intrusions are a frequent experienced for Hindus in Bangladesh.

It’s easy to conclude that the repeated attacks on Hindus are coming from Muslims, since this group constitutes 89% of all Bangladeshis. But does the religious definition of these groups mean the attacks are motivated by religious differences, or could they be the result of one or more other factors?

As Adhir Pal points out, some violence is linked to national politics. Residents say the attacks in Malopara in January came from local people aligned with Bangladesh’s opposition parties, which includes the right-wing Bangladesh Nationalist Party and its Islamic fundamentalist ally Jamaat-e-Islami. The attackers, some of whom carried guns, told villagers not to vote for the incumbent Awami League. The Hindu community said their aggressors had correctly identified their allegiance to the ruling party, but since they regard attacks as nearly inevitable, residents say they voted for Awami League anyway. (The party won the January 5 election while the opposition boycotted it and lost parliamentary seats.)
As a slim minority of Bangladesh’s voters, of course, Hindus could not elect any party alone. But while the conflation of politics and religion accounts for some attacks, it doesn’t explain others.

Reports of some altercations describe long-simmering personal resentments coming to a head at minor conflicts over sports matches, wedding plans and the like. But in most attacks, causes are impersonal. In Dinajpur, a district near Bangladesh’s northern border, residents said their attackers were landless peasants who had migrated from India years before and that the attacks were an attempt to scare them into fleeing, leaving their farmland up for grabs. In a country where climate change looms, conflicts over land are not capricious or surprising.

The pressure to grab arable land recalls the preludes to Rwandan genocide of 1994, which was motivated in part by overpopulation. The two conflicts share many underlying factors, most of which are traceable to power shifts after colonialism’s end. What they don’t share, however, is a religious basis. (In Rwanda, the Hutu ethnic majority slaughtered the Tutsi minority, and the Christianity common to both groups wasn’t the issue.)

With all that said, religious differences probably did influence some of the two dozen Bangladeshi villages that saw violence last month. In some localities, Hindu temples and their idols became the focal point of vandalism. The group most commonly fingered as perpetrators for attacks was Jamaat-e-Islami. The Islamist group has been increasingly pushed to the outskirts of Bangladeshi electoral politics, but remains popular—and angry—nationwide.

Ultimately, the multiple causes of anti-Hindu violence in Bangladesh point to the complexity of identifying religious motivations for conflict. But they also suggest that conflicts that appear religious may be solved through multiple means—which means the irreducible philosophical differences between faiths need not be a block to peace.

In January, over three dozen organizations held rallies demanding justice and protection for Hindus. Eventually, the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister, and even the opposition party leaders joined in. Although the attacks have not yet fully abated, the majority of the country seems to want peace.

3 thoughts on “Attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh are Religiously Motivated

  1. THE HIGH RAPE SCALE IN SAUDI ARABIA

    Saudi Arabia is considered one of the most conservative countries in the world, especially in regard to the status of women. Saudi Arabia is an extreme Islamic country where its legal code is based on Shari’a Law. They therefore believe that there is no separation between church and state and the state’s laws are heavily based on Islamic teachings. Because of this strict Islamic culture, women in Saudi Arabia are treated and acknowledged very differently than the women who live in the west. For example, in Saudi Arabia, there are laws that require women to wear a hijab, a head scarf, as well as dress in loose, long garments that do not show the shape of the woman’s body. To do so would be shameful and secular. There are other laws such as this one that are meant to protect the virtue of women in Saudi Arabia.
    Knowing this about Saudi Arabia, I had assumed that women there would be relatively safe since there are such strict laws regarding the protection of a woman’s virtue. I assumed incorrectly when I was studying a WomanStats map that displayed the rape scale of each country in the world. On a scale from one to five, Saudi Arabia had a ranking of a four. I was confused by this since, as briefly described above, Saudi Arabia is considered one of the most conservative countries in the world where women are highly secluded. I would have thought these practices and laws would have decreased the rape rate substantially.

    The question I pose then is this, why does Saudi Arabia, one of the most conservative countries in the world have one of the highest rape scales in the world?
    While there are many interconnecting reasons why rape occurs so often in Saudi Arabia, I have chosen four possible causes to narrow down the research for this project. The four causes I have chosen are one, a secular society, two, insufficient laws, three, taboos against reporting rape and four, an ineffective judicial system.

    SECULAR SOCIETY
    The first cause, a secular society, was quickly dismissed because as was mentioned in the introduction, Saudi Arabia is considered one of the most conservative countries in the world. The society of Saudi Arabia is especially conservative when it comes to women. For example, it is illegal for women to drive or intermingle in public with males that are not related to them. It is also illegal for a woman to go out in public without a male-escort who is related to her as well as go out in public without wearing her hijab (WomanStats). Violence or legal prosecution usually ensues if any of these are broken. To further illustrate this point, the following maps show how strict Saudi Arabia is in regard to dress code and intermingling in public laws compared to the rest of the Middle East, a very conservative region itself.
    It is clear from these maps that Saudi Arabia has one of the strictest dress codes and intermingling laws in the Middle East which is the most conservative region in the world. Based on these findings, one would sense that these women are highly secluded from society and thereby would be more protected from instances of rape and other forms of violence. On the other hand, one may argue that because women are treated so differently, they could be seen as inferior and thus suffer more abuse because of the lack of secularism.

    INSUFFICIENT LAWS AGAINST RAPE
    The next probable cause studied was the possibility of insufficient laws against rape in Saudi Arabia. Since there were reported convictions of rapists, it can be assumed that there are laws against rape. Also, Saudi Arabia’s legal code is based on the Shari’a law, which criminalizes rape as punishable by death. However, spousal rape is not included in this criminalization according to Shari’a law. Although these laws exist against rapists, the actual conviction process is complicated and nearly impossible. In order for a perpetrator to be convicted he or she must confess or there must be four witnesses of the act (FreedomHouse). Usually in these certain circumstances, there are only two witnesses present, the perpetrator and the victim. Since it would be hard for a victim to find four witnesses, it is very unlikely that a perpetrator would admit to such a heinous act that he or she could very well get away with. Another example of the insufficient laws against rape is that foreign female domestic workers, which consists of 1.5 million of foreign nationals, receive no protection from the labor laws and are more prone to be victims of abuse. Based on this research, it can be concluded that while there are laws against rape, the actual conviction of rapists is very rare. This could be a plausible cause of the high rape scale since the punishment of such an act hardly occurs.

    TABOOS AGAINST REPORTING RAPE
    The third possible cause of a high rape scale in Saudi Arabia is the taboos against reporting rape. There are many social stigmas that scare women away from reporting a rape to the police. One social stigma is that in many instances, the law enforcer will accuse the woman of having illicit sex instead of accusing the man of the crime (FreedomHouse). As a consequence of this accusation, societal reprisals take place such as a woman being seen as unfit for marriage or even violently punished for bringing shame to the family. In some extreme cases, honor killings have been committed against women who have been raped (Zoepf). One may wonder why these crimes take place if the laws in Saudi Arabia are supposedly meant to protect women. There is another cultural stigma that plays a role here. In Islamic society, a family’s honor, particularly the male family member’s honor is based on the purity and virtue of the women in their family. If a woman in the family becomes “violated” either by choice or by force, the family’s honor is seemingly stripped from them. It is not so much about the concern over the woman but over the honor of the men. Because of this engrained belief, already victimized women are sometimes further victimized by their own family members. This causes great fear among the women in these types of societies and if one is raped, it is very unlikely that she will report it based on the potential ensuing consequences.

    INEFFECTIVE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
    The last possible cause studied was an ineffective judicial system. As was mentioned before, Saudi Arabia’s legal code is based on the Shari’s law, an extreme version of the Islamic code. Because of this, women are not given the same rights as men, especially when it comes to the courts. For example, in most cases, women are unable to speak for themselves in court. They must be represented by a male-relative or lawyer. It is considered shameful for a woman to speak to the sheik or judge and is only sometime allowed to do so if her face is covered (WomanStats). Because of this, if a woman is raped, and a man’s honor is based on her virtue, what male relative would want to shed further light on the subject by representing her? Also a man’s testimony is worth two women’s testimonies. So if a woman had four witnesses to testify against the perpetrator, if some of them were women, the number of females would have to be doubled for the accusation to be considered.
    Another clause of the judicial system is that most clerics were taught in Wahhabi schools where extreme Islam is taught extensively. Because of this, most clerics demand the seclusion of women and often hold an unforgiving attitude toward accusations of violence against men (WomanStats). A Saudi Arabian attorney even said, “Unfortunately, judges consider women to be lacking in reason and faith, so generally do not agree with her arguments” (HumanRights).
    The following stories illustrate the point explained above. The first is about a young girl who was being molested by her father. She went to the courts to file a complaint. The law enforcers did not believe her and told her, her father needed to come in to file the complaint (Economist). The obvious ignorance need not be explained in this situation. The next story tells of a nineteen year-old woman who met a man not related to her in a car. They were both kidnapped by a gang and she was then gang-raped fourteen times. Seven men of the gang were convicted and were sentenced to prison ranging from one to five years. This was a light conviction given they could have received the death penalty according to the law. The woman was also convicted to six months of prison as well as ninety lashes for being associating with a male who was not related to her in public (Harrison). The woman was later pardoned by the King of Saudi Arabia, not because he disagreed with the punishment but because he was being merciful and thought it was best for the whole of the country, not to mention international relations with countries that were in an absolute uproar over the ordeal (Zoepf).

    Based on my research I propose that the main perpetrator of the high rape-scale in Saudi Arabia is the lack of conviction of rapists due to the taboos against reporting rape and the ineffective judicial system. If perpetrators are not being punished then there is little incentive to not rape woman if that is the desire. To illustrate how low the conviction rate actually is, in 2002, there were 59 reported rapes out of a population of 26,534,504 (WomanStats) The perpetrators are getting away with a heinous crime and the Saudi Arabian government must pass more effective legislation that enables law enforcers to convict those criminals. The social stigmas will be very difficult to overcome regarding seeing a woman unfit for marriage or taking away the family’s honor because of being raped. However, if women continue to speak up about the issues they face, solutions will come, just as they have in other parts of the world. Also international pressure must always be present to give those women courage to stand up.
    —By TS

    References
    Double indemnity a bizarre application of the law. (2007, Novem 22). The Economist, Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/10191773
    Eleanor Abdella Doumato, Rowman & Littlefield. (2012, April 4). Freedom House, Saudi Arabia Freedom House Report. Retrieved from http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/Saudi%20Arabia.p df
    Harrison, F. (2007, Novemeber 15). Saudi Gang-Rape Victim is Jailed. BBC. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7096814.stm
    Womanstats project. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://womanstats.org/CodebookCurrent.htm
    United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights- Saudi Arabia, 2007
    Zoepf, K. (2007, Decem 18). Saudi king pardons rape victim sentenced to be lashed, saudi paper reports.The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/world/middleeast/18saudi.html

    THE MYTH

    Muhammad Would Never Approve of Rape

    THE TRUTH

    It is against Islam to rape Muslim women, but Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle. This hadith provides the context for the Qur’anic verse (4:24):
    The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives.

    Some of the Companions of the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Qur’anic verse: (Sura 4:24) “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Abu Dawud 2150, also Muslim 3433)
    Actually, as the hadith indicates, it wasn’t Muhammad, but “Allah the Exalted” who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands – which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.

    Note also that the husbands of these unfortunate victims were obviously alive after battle. This is important because it flatly contradicts those apologists who like to argue that the women Muhammad enslaved were widowed and thus unable to fend for themselves. (Even if the apologists were right, what sort of a moral code is it that forces a widow to choose between being raped and starving?)
    There are several other episodes in which Muhammad is offered the clear opportunity to disavow raping women – yet he instead offers advice on how to proceed. In one case, his men were reluctant to devalue their new slaves for later resale by getting them pregnant. Muhammad was asked about coitus interruptus in particular:

    “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.” (Bukhari 34:432)
    As indicated, the prophet of Islam did not mind his men raping the women, provided they ejaculated within the bodies of their victims.
    As one might imagine, Muhammad’s obvious approval of raping women captured in battle and his own personal participation as recorded in many places is of intense inconvenience to the Muslim apologists of our time. For this reason, some of them attempt to explain away these many episodes and Qur’anic references to sex with captives by pretending that these are cases in which women have fled bad marriages and sought refuge with the Muslims. Some apologists even refer to them as “wives,” even though the Qur’an makes a clear distinction between “those whom thy right hand possesses” and true wives (see Sura 33:50).
    Beyond the desperation of the 21st century apologist however, there is absolutely nothing in the historical text that supports this rosy revision of Muslim history. The women of the Banu Mustaliq were sold into slavery following their rape:
    “We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid-conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter” (Sahih Muslim 3371)
    In fact, female slaves were traded like any other simple commodity by Muhammad and his band of devoted followers:
    “Then the apostle sent Sa-d b. Zayd al-Ansari, brother of Abdu’l-Ashal with some of the captive women of Banu Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham/Hisham 693)
    Is it Islamic to sell one’s wife for horses? Clearly these were not wives!
    More importantly, by definition a “captured” woman is not one who is fleeing her husband. She is fleeing her captor (ie. the Muslim slave raider). This hadith describes a typical raid, in which the women and children are captured as they are attempting to flee the attacking Muslims:
    “…and then we attacked from all sides and reached their watering-place where a battle was fought. Some of the enemies were killed and some were taken prisoners. I saw a group of persons that consisted of women and children [escaping in the distance]. I was afraid lest they should reach the mountain before me, so I shot an arrow between them and the mountain. When they saw the arrow, they stopped. So I brought them, driving them along” (Sahin Muslim 4345)
    The Muslim narrator (who happens to be Muhammad’s adopted son) sees the women trying to escape (following the massacre of their men) and cuts off their route by shooting an arrow into their path. These aren’t women trying to seek refuge with the Muslims. They are trying to avoid capture by the Muslims.
    The same hadith goes on to recount that Muhammad personally demanded one of the captured women for his own use:
    I drove them along until I brought them to Abu Bakr who bestowed that girl upon me as a prize. So we arrived in Medina. I had not yet disrobed her when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) met me in the street and said: “Give me that girl.” (Sahih Muslim 4345)
    The prophet of Islam and his companions used war to collect women for personal sexual use and for trading. Unless she was arbitrarily declared as someone’s wife, the woman became a sex slave. In no case was her fate tied to anything that she had personally done, nor was she given a choice about her future.

    SLAM & ITS CULTURE OF RAPE

    The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations are so extremely high that it is difficult to view them only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This happens in most Western European countries, as well as in other infidels countries such as India.
    In Bradford, England, Channel 4 pulled a documentary about Pakistani and other Muslim men sexually abusing white English girls, some as young as 11. Writer Theodore Dalrymple thinks that “thanks to their cultural inheritance, (Muslim) abuse of women is systematic rather than unsystematic as it is with the whites and blacks.” In France, grotesque reports about systematic gang rapes of French or “too Western” Muslim girls keep coming in. At the same time, European jails are getting filled up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. You can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That’s because they can’t, or don’t want to, see the obvious: This is exactly how an invading army would behave. Rape, pillage and bomb.
    I disagree that this has nothing to do with Islam. Muhammad himself had forced sex (rape) with several of his slave girls/concubines. This is perfectly allowed, both in the sunna and in the Koran. If you postulate that many of the Muslims in Europe view themselves as a conquering army and that European women are simply war booty, it all makes perfect sense and is in full accordance with Islamic law. And Muslims do follow their medieval religious laws, even today:

    What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual ‘Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Qur’an permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: “Forbidden to you are … married women, except those whom you own as slaves” (Sura 4:23-24).

    After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men,

    “Go and take any slave girl.”

    He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad “went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches.” After killing “600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900,” the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.

    Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad’s men present him with an ethical question: “We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl [coitus interruptus] with them.” Muhammad told them: “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.’” When Muhammad says “it is better that you should not do it,” he’s referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.

    For her to be absolved from guilt, a raped woman must have shown good conduct.
    For non-Muslim women, they are in every respect — the way they walk, the way they talk, those bedroom eyes we all know so well — simply asking for it, and Muslim men have every right to do what they wish.
    It is not understood that Western women are not so much regarded by most Muslims as individuals, but as “their women,” the women who “belong” to hostile Infidels. They are booty, to be taken, just as the land of the Infidels someday will drop, it is believed, into Muslim hands — by demographic conquest rather than military conquest. It has worked in many parts of Africa; and if Muslims fail to reproduce even faster than they do, there is always the expedient of killing the remaining Infidels.
    All over France there are cases of rapes, by Muslim gangs, of French girls. In Australia, in 2000, Bankstown and Greenacre (in Sydney) had a succession of gang-rapes, in which the victims testified to the particularly gruesome details of being assaulted by a dozen or more men at a time, screaming at them for being “Aussies” or “Christians.” It made a big splash in Sydney, when the cases came to trial in 2002. Alan Jones, an Australian commentator, noted: “Let’s not mince words here — these are racist attacks against ordinary Australian girls carried out by out of control Muslim Lebanese….” The girls themselves all testified to the fact that the attacks were full of observations about, not race, but religion — and the confusion of Jones here is understandable. The Western world is still groping to understand something of which it had been so remarkably and indeed, in some ways so fortunately unaware; it is the attitudes engendered toward Infidels — a Frenchman who is beaten to death for trying to retrieve his daughter’s stolen bicycle, a mother and her year-old-child assaulted on an RER train near Louvres, the thousands of assaults which are a modern version of the rape and pillage that Muslim conquerors were permitted whenever they conquered Infidel lands. This is not mere crime, but ideologically-justified crime or rather, in Muslim eyes, attacks on Infidels scarcely qualify as crime.
    Have we forgotten the mass rapes, at the hands of Muslims (Turks, Kurds, and in the Syrian Desert, Arabs) of the Armenian women, those helpless “giavours,” in the first full-scale massacres in modern times, those of 1894-1895, and then the genocidal campaign that began in 1915 and went on for years? Have we all forgotten what happened to the Assyrian Christian women during the Assyrian massacres of 1933, when — just a few months after the British left — Muslim Iraqis had a high old time with their helpless Christian population? What about the rapes of the Christian women, kidnapped in Ramadi, Iraq last year — never to be returned to their husbands, and now the permanent property of the Muslims who kidnapped them? Shall one recall what happened to the Christian Maronites in Damur, at the hands of the PLO? What about the Copts, in Egypt? Or, during the Algerian War the mass rape of Christian and Jewish women by the FLN (scarcely given enough attention in Alastair Horne’s reticent “A Savage War of Peace” but given much more by such writers as Jacques Soustelle, the great ethnographer of Mexican culture, and a perceptive analyst of the Algerian situation and the real nature of Islam — akin, in his way, to Andre Servier).

    The figures on Muslim rape of Western women in Europe are astounding. In Denmark and Norway, between 65% and 70% of all rapes are committed by Muslims, who as yet still less than 5% of the population. One local judge in Norway actually exonerated one rapist by accepting his defense that the victim’s dress was taken by him to mean that she was egging him on. Her dress was nothing special to Norwegians, but the judge found it to be unbearably provocative to this poor Muslim immigrant. A curious argument, is it not? Even if she had been dressed a la Gisele Bundchen doing a shoot for Victoria’s Secret — and she of course was not — rape is not an acceptable response.
    The argument now seems to be: Western mores are offensive. Western women are cheap and offensive. We Muslims are here, here to stay, and we have a right to take advantage of this situation. It is our view of the matter that should prevail. Western goods, like the land on which we now live, belong to Allah and to the best of men — his Believers. Western women, too, essentially belong to us — our future booty. Western laws may “apply” but not in any sense that really counts or that we reocgnize. We recognize Islamic law, the sharia, and according to that we are simply exhibiting the attiudes toward Infidels that are drummed into us, that are right and according to the laws of Allah. Why should we act differently? Oh, and if we happen to act, as some of the Islamic websites tell us we can act, in accordance with the local laws — but only insofar as they do not contradict Islam — that is only because of darura, the doctrine of necessity — and that necessity, that darura, is of course only temporary.
    In other words, when in Rome, if you are Muslim, do any damn thing you please and justify it by saying you didn’t realize you were in Rome, or what the Romans did, and anyway, the Romans are Infidels so who cares what they do, or expect. A fascinating attitude. The sooner this is fully grasped by Infidels, the fewer victims, ultimately, there will be.

    MOHAMMED SAID WOMEN WERE INTELLECTUALLY CHALLENGED!

    A SUICIDE BOMBER’S PRAYER TO ALLAH:

    “Allah, better 72 Houris in Paradise, than 1 Bitch on earth”!

    BOOM!

    “Allah! Allah! What the f—k are these”?

    “They are what I promised, 72 Raisins”!

    “Raisins? Raisins? I was promised 72 Virgins”!

    “Not by Me, Achmed! Not by Me”!

    “My imam told me if I died as a Suicide Bomber, I would have 72 Beautiful, Ever Virgins & I could F—k them all the time & they never complain.”

    “Take it up with your imam, when you see him”!

    “Now eat up your Raisins & have a wank”!

    “How can I have a wank”?

    “I have no “Dick” or hands”!

    “So what did you want 72 Virgins for”?

    “Unless you were going to give them Oral sex, like Muhammad used to give his wives”?

    “He had a major problem with his “Dick” also.”

    I HAD HEARD OF A “DEAD” RIDE, BUT THIS BEATS EVERYTHING!

    Islamic Teachings on Sex with Dead Humans and Animals

    Islam’s world of unfettered sex: sex with dead spouses and animals; anal sex with women, men and animals…

    MUSLIMS ARE ALLOWED NORMAL SEX WITH DEAD WOMEN AND ANIMALS

    Muhammad had sex with a dead woman to qualify her for the perks of a prophetic wife.
    According to Hadiths and Sayings of Prophet on issues of women in “Al-Jami Al-Saghir” written by Jalal ul-Din Al-Suyuti.
    Narrated by Ibn Abbas: “I (Muhammad) put on her my shirt that she may wear the clothes of heaven, and SLEPT with her in her coffin.”
    The prophet was referring to Fatima, the mother of Ali, his son-in-law. Commentators have offered differing views about the significance of Muhammad’s sleeping with the dead-body of Fatimah in her coffin, some emphasizing that it had no sexual side. But Arabic scholar Demetrius explains that to express Muhammad sleeping inside Fatima’s coffin with her dead-body, “The Arabic word used here is “Id’tajat”, which literally means “lay down to have sex.”
    Muhammad is also understood to have said that because he slept with her, she has become like a wife to his; so she will be considered like “mother of the believers”.
    After Muhammad slept with her and “consummated”, Medina women routinely offered themselves to Mohammad for sex so that the holy fluid of the prophet released into them will qualify them for paradise. Here is a hadith.

    MUSLIM ARE ALLOWED “ANAL” SEX EVEN WITH DEAD WOMEN AND ANIMALS

    Sahih Muslim, Book of Menstruation, Hadith 525:
    “Our companions have said if a penile head has penetrated a woman’s anus or penile anus, or an animal’s vagina or its anus, then it is necessary to wash…”

    NOW IT MAY BE AN EGYPTIAN LAW TOO

    Egyptian husbands may be legally allowed to have sex with their dead wives – for up to six hours after their death (sex performed after six hours will be considered adultery and the husband will be beheaded and buried with the wife)

    This law is part of measures being introduced by the Islamist-dominated parliament under ‘religious interpretations’. The subject of a husband having sex with his dead wife arose in May 2011 when Moroccan cleric Zamzami Abdul Bari said marriage remains valid even after death (Al Arabiya News).
    See cleric Zamzami Abdul Bari’s video, claiming Islamic justification of sex with dead bodies of spouses.

    Anal Sex Approved by Allah and Prophet Muhammad
    Caution: Sexually explicit images below!!
    In Pakistan, the mullahs are notorious for child abuse and molestation. Every day, we hear news about a mullah sodomizing his beardless student. It is very common in Pakistan. Almost every one knows what happens in madrassas. Even one of my friends narrowly escaped from being sodomized by his Quranic teacher when he was taking the Quran memorizing lessons.
    But why do these mullahs commit such a thing, allegedly condemned in Islam? Muslims are most vocal in commending sodomy, homosexuality in words? They are known to attack homosexuals in Europe.
    Answer is that, according to them, masturbation is haram. Seeing any na mehram girl is also prohibited. The only way left to satisfy their lusty desires is to sodomize one of their pupils. While reading from a shia Website, http://www.answering-ansar.org, I came across the fact that the root of sodomy lies in the Islamic text and history. Here are some examples of the gems from the history and authentic books of Sunni Islam.
    Umar indulged in sodomy and Allah was forced to legitimize this practise in the Qur’an
    For evidence you can consult the following texts:
    • Jami al Tirmidhi, Bab al Tafseer Volume 2, page 382, ‘Ayat Hars’
    • Fathul Bari Volume 8 page 191 Kitab Tafseer Ayat Hars
    • Gharab al Qur’an Volume 3 page 249 Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer al Ibn Katheer Volume 1 page 261
    • Fayl ai Lawathar Volume 6 page 229
    • Tafseer Qurtubi Volume 1 page 92 Ayat Hars
    Lets quote verbatim from Jami al Tirmidhi [Bab al Tafseer Vol. 2, p. 382, ‘Ayat Hars’]:
    “Ibn Abbas narrates that Hadhrath Umar went before Rasulullah (s) and “Master I am destroyed!’. Rasulullah (s) asked ‘what thing has destroyed you?’. Umar replied last night I had anal sex. Rasulullah (s) did not give a reply to Umar, then Allah (swt) sent down this revelation “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; the words ‘kabool wa Dhabar’ (the anus is accepted)”
    Abdullah Ibn Umar deemed sodomy to Halaal, like his old man.
    For evidence, please consult the following authentic Sunni texts:
    • Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 264 Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Qasmi Volume 2 page 220, by Jamaladeen Qasmi
    • Tafseer Qurtubi page 92 Ayat Hars
    Here is the direct quote from Tafseer Durre Manthur:
    “Traditions wherein Abdullah ibn Umar believed sodomy with women are well known and Sahih”.
    Ulema of Madina believed that sodomy was halaal.
    Please see the following Sunni sources:
    • Fayl al Lawathar Volume 6 page 154 Kitab Nikah, Bab Mut’ah
    • Tafseer Qasmi Volume 2 page 223 Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 page 262 Ayat Hars
    • Fathul Bari Volume 8 page 191 Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Mazhari, Volume 3, Page 19
    Quoting directly from Fayl al Lawathar:
    “Imam Auzai stated of the Fatwas from Hijaaz that are famous, one fatwa is from the people of Makka is that is that they deemed Mut’ah with women to be permissible, the other from the people of Madina, that sodomy with women is permissible”.
    Ibn Kathir in his Tafseer also stated:
    “Statements on the permissibility of sodomy with women have come from the jurists of Madina”.
    Companions of mohammed deemed sodomy with women to be permissible
    We read in Tafseer Qurtubi Volume 3 page 93 Ayat Hars:
    “Fatwas on the permissibility of sodomy with women Saeed bin Maseeb Nafi, ibn Umar, Muhammad bin Kab, Abdul Malik, Imam Malik, a large group amongst the Sahaba and Tabaeen deemed sodomy to be permissible”.
    Imam Sha’afi deemed sodomy to be permissible!
    Please see the following Sunni texts:
    • Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 266, Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani page 125, Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Ahkam al Qur’an Volume 1 page 265
    • Tafseer Qasmi Volume 2 page 228 Baqarah Verse 223
    • Al Mahzoorath page 268
    We read in Tafseer Durre Manthur:
    “On sodomy with women, Imam Sha’afi no Sahih narration’s have reached us from Rasulullah (s) as to whether it is halaal or haraam and logic suggests that this halaal”.
    Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abu Maleeka suggested ‘in times of trouble’ use a stick!’
    We read in Tafseer Durre Manthur Ayat Hars:
    “Abu Maleeka was asked whether it was permissible to practise sodomy with women. He replied ‘Last night I practised sodomy with my servant, penetration became difficult hence I sought the assistance of a stick”.
    Imam Malik believed sodomy with women was halaal
    We read in the following Sunni sources:
    • Ahkam al Qur’an Volume 1 page 352 Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Gharab al Qur’an Volume 2 page 249 Ayat Hars
    • Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 111, Ayat Hars
    • Fathul Bari Volume 8 page 190 Kitab Tafseer Ayat Hars
    Quoting verbatim from Ahkam al Qur’an:
    “Sahil asked Imam Malik ‘is sodomy with women permissible? Imam Malik replied ‘I just did this act and have just washed by sexual organs”.
    Imam Abu Hanifa’s esteemed student Ibn Mubarak was also a homosexual
    We also read in ‘Muhadarat al-’udaba’, p. 199, Chapter 1, “Al hada al Saani” that:
    “Hakim Tabaristan made Abdullah bin Mubarak a Judge, who was addicted to the anus (Homosexual) he asked the Hakim ‘Sir I need some men who can help you” Hakim said I was aware of your need before this”.
    The Salaf deem it permissible to pray Salat behind a homosexual Imam
    We read in Sahih al Bukhari, p. 96, Kitab Bab ul Salaat, narrates a tradition from Zuhri [Sahih al-Bukhari, p. 96, 1375 AH print]:
    “The Imamate of a mukhanath at a time of necessity is Sahih”.
    Note: Arabic word “Mukhanath” means homosexual. This hadith has been removed from the English version of Bukhari, but exists in old copies of Arabic version. E.g. this 1375 Hijri print.
    So I think that the mullahs sodomizing little girls and boys are not wrong at all they are just following the Sunnah of the prophet and his companions.

  2. RAPE, THE RELIGION OF ALLAH.

    IT’S ALLAH’S WILL.

    Al-‘Azl

    Al-‘Azl, (العزل) also known as coitus interruptus, is the practice of having sexual intercourse with a woman but withdrawing the penis before ejaculation. Apparently al-‘Azl with female captives and slaves was a pretty important topic for Muhammad and his companions as evidenced by the abundance of Hadith material on the subject.

    Practiced during Muhammad’s lifetime

    Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle .
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:135
    Narrated Jabir: We used to practice coitus interrupt us while the Quran was being revealed. Jabir added: We used to practice coitus interruptus during the lifetime of Allah’s Apostle while the Quran was being Revealed.
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:136

    When having sex with your captive, it’s better if you do not pull out at the end
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah’s Apostle he said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interruptus?” The Prophet said, “Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it. No soul that which Allah has destined to exist, but will surely come into existence.”
    Sahih Bukhari 3:34:432
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said said, “We went with Allah’s Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Barli Al-Mustaliq and we captured some of the ‘Arabs as captives, and the long separation from our wives was pressing us hard and we wanted to practice coitus interruptus. We asked Allah’s Apostle (whether it was permissible). He said, “It is better for you not to do so. No soul, (that which Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come, into existence.”
    Sahih Bukhari 3:46:718
    Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interruptus, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, “It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
    Sahih Bukhari 5:59:459
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relation with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said, “It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection.” Qaza’a said, “I heard Abu Sa’id saying that the Prophet said, ‘No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.”
    Sahih Bukhari 9:93:506
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah’s Apostle about it and he said, “Do you really do that?” repeating the question thrice, “There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.”
    Sahih Bukhari 7:62:137
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: That while he was sitting with the Prophet a man from the Ansar came and said, “O Allah’s Apostle! We get slave girls from the war captives and we love property; what do you think about coitus interruptus?” Allah’s Apostle said, “Do you do that? It is better for you not to do it, for there is no soul which Allah has ordained to come into existence but will be created.”
    Sahih Bukhari 8:77:600
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the male sexual organ before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: 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.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3371, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3372
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman from Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn Habban that Ibn Muhayriz said, “I went into the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri and so I sat by him and asked him about coitus interruptus. Abu Said al-Khudri said, ‘We went out with the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, on the expedition to the Banu al-Mustaliq. We took some Arabs prisoner, and we desired the women as celibacy was hard for us. We wanted the ransom, so we wanted to practise coitus interruptus. We said, ‘Shall we practise coitus interruptus while the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is among us before we ask him?’ We asked him about that and he said, ‘You don’t have to not do it. There is no self which is to come into existence up to the Day of Rising but that it will come into existence.’ ”
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.95b
    It’s okay to practice ‘azl when having sex with your slave-girl
    Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: A man said: Apostle of Allah, I have a slave-girl and I withdraw the penis from her (while having intercourse), and I dislike that she becomes pregnant. I intend (by intercourse) what the men intend by it. The Jews say that withdrawing the penis (azl) is burying the living girls on a small scale. He (the Prophet) said: The Jews told a lie. If Allah intends to create it, you cannot turn it away.
    Abu Dawud 11:2166
    Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise ‘azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3383

    Your slave-girl is your field, so water it or leave it thirsty if you want
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, “Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practise coitus interruptus?” Zayd ibn Thabit said, “Give an opinion, Hajjaj!” “I said, ‘May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!’ He said, ‘Give an opinion! ‘I said, ‘She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.’ Zayd said, ‘He has spoken the truth.’ ”
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.99b

    “You don’t need your slave-girl’s permission to practice ‘azl with her.”
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, “Tell them.” She was embarrassed. He said, “It is alright, and I do it myself.” Malik said, “A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else’s slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission.”
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.100b

    Additional Hadith about ‘azl
    Sahih Muslim
    Sa’d b. Abu Waqqas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a person came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I do ‘azi with my wife. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Why do you do that? The person said: I fear harm to her child or her children. Thereupon Allah’s Messenger (way peace be upon him) said: If that were harmful it would harm the Persians and the Greeks.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3394
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: We took women captives, and we wanted to do ‘azl with them. We then asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) about it, and he said to us: Verily you do it, verily you do it, verily you do it, but the soul which has to be born until the Day of judgment must be born.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3373
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) (was asked if he had heard it himself), to which he said: Yes. (I heard) Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) as saying: There is no harm if you do not practise it, for it (the birth of the child) is something ordained (by Allah).
    Sahih Muslim 8:3374, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3375
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for it (the birth of the child) is something ordained. Muhammad (one of the narrators) said: (The words) La ‘alaykum (there is no harm) implies its Prohibition.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3376
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of ‘azl in the presence of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn ‘Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for ‘azl).
    Sahih Muslim 8:3377, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3378 and Sahih Muslim 8:3379
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported: Mention was made about al-‘azl in the presence of Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), whereupon he said: Why any one of you practises it? (He did not say: One of you should not do it), for there is no created soul, whose creator is not Allah.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3380
    Abu Sa’id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) was asked about ‘azl, whereupon he said: The child does not come from all the liquid (sermen) and when Allah intends to create anything nothing can prevent it (from coming into existence).
    Sahih Muslim 8:3381, See also: Sahih Muslim 8:3382
    Jabir b. ‘Abdullah (Allah be pleased with them) reported that a person asked Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) saying: I have a slave-girl and I practise ‘azl with her, whereupon Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: This cannot prevent that which Allah has decreed. The person then came (after some time) and said: Messenger of Allah, the slave-girl about whom I talked to you has conceived, whereupon Allah’s Messeuger (may peace be upon him) said: I am the servant of Allah and His Messenger.
    Sahih Muslim 8:3384

    Al-Muwatta
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Amir ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas from his father that he used to practise coitus interruptus.
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.96b
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu’n-Nadr, the mawla of Umar ibn Ubaydullah from Ibn Aflah, the mawla of Abu Ayyub al-Ansari from an umm walad of Abu Ayyubal-Ansari that he practised coitus interruptus.
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.97b
    Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar did not practise coitus interruptus and thought that it was disapproved.
    Al-Muwatta 29 32.98b
    Yahya said that Malik related from Ibn Shihab from Salim ibn Abdullah ibn Umar from his father that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “What’s the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then dismiss them? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or stopped having intercourse with her.”
    Al-Muwatta 36 23.24b
    Malik related to me from Nafi that Safiyya bint Abi Ubayd informed him that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, “What is the matter with men who have intercourse with their slave-girls and then leave them to go? No slave-girl comes to me whose master confesses that he has had intercourse with her but that I connect her child to him, whether or not he has practised coitus interruptus or left off from intercourse with her.” Yahya said that he heard Malik say, “What is done in our community about an umm walad who commits a crime is that her master is liable for what she has done up to her value. He does not have to surrender her, and he cannot be made to bear more than her value for her crime.”
    Al-Muwatta 36 23.25b

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s