Don’t count on an American feminist march.
ISIS is Sharia-compliant in the most literal sense. Its fighters are following the example of Muhammad himself, the warrior prophet of Islam who captured slaves in battle and had sex with them. As the prophet was entitled to take advantage of such fruits of battle according to the Koran, so ISIS believes its fighters are entitled as well. Thus, these savages thought nothing of burning 19 Yazidi girls to death in iron cages after the girls had the temerity to resist having sex with their captors. This atrocity was said by local activists to have taken place recently in the Iraqi city of Mosul, which has currently become a battlefield between ISIS fighters and anti-ISIS coalition forces. An eyewitness reported that the burnings took place in front of hundreds of people.
“O Prophet!” the Koran (33:50) instructs Muhammad, in the “words” of Allah, “Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), and those whom your right hand possesses – whom Allah has given to you.” The latter bounty from Allah refers to the females taken captive in battle and enslaved.
In an article entitled “ISIS Enshrines a Theology of Rape,” the New York Times reported on the religious sources ISIS fighters have used to justify their rapes of their female slaves. They believe that having sex with their infidel slaves, including with young girls, actually brings them closer to Allah. Indeed, they would pray before and after they raped their victims.
Islamist apologists and so-called “scholars” have sought to refute any interpretation of the Koran that could possibly lend support today for slavery and sexual exploitation of female captives. However, Prophet Muhammad’s own actions and words, which are called “Sunnah” and are part of Sharia law along with the Koran itself, belie such revisionist readings.
Cole Bunzel, a scholar of Islamic theology at Princeton University, is cited in the New York Times article for offering his counterpoint to the revisionists. He appears to believe that ISIS is simply scraping away all the layers of modernist interpretations to return to Islam in its purest original form: “There is a great deal of scripture that sanctions slavery. You can argue that it is no longer relevant and has fallen into abeyance. ISIS would argue that these institutions need to be revived, because that is what the Prophet and his companions did.”
While not manifesting itself yet in the United States in overt support of sexual enslavement of women, Sharia law is creeping into the United States. Islamic prayers are being held in some public schools, in clear violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause that has been used to bar Judeo-Christian prayers in the public schools. And in a shocking preview of what may lie ahead for the influence of Sharia law in U.S. courts, a trial court judge in New Jersey refused to issue a restraining order against a Muslim husband who allegedly raped his wife. The trial judge accepted the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant had engaged in sexual relations with the plaintiff against her expressed wishes. However, the judge concluded that the husband lacked criminal intent in this case because “he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited.” Fortunately, wiser heads prevailed in the case on appeal and the plaintiff was ultimately granted a restraining order, while the defendant husband was convicted of rape. However, the fact that a judge in the United States could for one moment even consider, let alone rule, that a defendant should be exempted from the operation of a statute intended to protect women against sexual abuse because of his Muslim beliefs is disturbing, to say the least. The tendency of some judges, including some Supreme Court justices, to look at foreign law for guidance in rendering their decisions adds to the concern.
Too many self-proclaimed feminists in the United States have failed to express outrage at the oppression of women that is sanctioned under Sharia law. Instead, they have embraced an ardent defender of Sharia law, Linda Sarsour, who was chosen to serve as a national co-chair of the Women’s March on Washington last January protesting President Trump. She tweeted several years ago that “shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics.” As someone wisely asked rhetorically, in reminding Sarsour of her Sharia tweet the day after the Women’s March on Washington, “basics like mutilating people…beating wives… killing apostates…killing rape victims…did i miss anything?”
The Yazidi sex slaves have learned the grisly details of Sharia law in operation the hard way. They have suffered the most barbaric forms of sexual violence at the hands of their masters, who have credibly argued that they are simply following in the footsteps of Prophet Mohammad and complying with Sharia law in its purest, most literal form.