This is by no means an eccentric or outdated view in Islam. The Salafist Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad” and that “if we could conduct one, two, or three jihadist operations every year, many people throughout the earth would become Muslims.” And those who rejected the invitation to convert to Islam (da’wa) would be enslaved:
And whoever rejected this da’wa, or stood in our way, we would fight against him and take him prisoner, and confiscate his wealth, his children, and his women—all of this means money. Every mujahid who returned from jihad, his pockets would be full. He would return with three or four slaves, three or four women, and three or four children. Multiply each head by 300 dirhams, or 300 dinar, and you have a good amount of profit. If he were to go to the West and work on a commercial deal, he would not make that much money. Whenever things became difficult (financially), he could take the head (i.e., the prisoner) and sell it, and ease his (financial) crisis. He would sell it like groceries.178
After his words touched off a furor, he clarified what he meant in a subsequent interview:
Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. . . . Do you understand what I’m saying? Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.
When a slave market is erected, which is a market in which are sold slaves and sex-slaves, which are called in the Qur’an by the name milk al-yamin, “that which your right hands possess” [Qur’an 4:24]. This is a verse from the Qur’an which is still in force, and has not been abrogated. The milk al-yamin are the sex-slaves. You go to the market, look at the sex-slave, and buy her. She becomes like your wife, (but) she doesn’t need a (marriage) contract or a divorce like a free woman, nor does she need a wali. All scholars agree on this point—there is no disagreement from any of them. [. . .] When I want a sex slave, I just go to the market and choose the woman I like and purchase her.179
Around the same time, on May 25, 2011, a female Kuwaiti activist and 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.
Peace, mercy, and blessings of Allah be upon you. My name is Salwa al-Mutairi. I received a message that was a little strange. 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. The topic that he brought up is an old topic. I have been working on it for two years now.
I was working with this man, a young man, who (liked) women a lot. I was sympathetic to his situation, and also dedicated to my work. I was given the opportunity to visit Mecca, and when I did so, 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.”
Of course, I also asked religious experts in Kuwait (about this issue), and they told me about the problem with the passionate man, or even the man who is committed to his religion. For every good man in our religion, the only solution for him—when forbidden women come around, if he’s tempted to sin, then the solution to this issue is for him to purchase sex slaves. I hope that Kuwait will enact the law for this category, this category of people—the sex slaves. . . .
I hope that a law will be enacted for this category, and they will open the door for this, just as they have opened the door for servants (to come into the country). They should open the door for sex slaves, by enacting a sound law, so that our children don’t waste away in the abyss of adultery and moral depravity. Allah-willing, this will work out. I believe, look, the (sex slaves could come from) a country like Chechnya, where there is a war between an (Islamic) state and another state. Certainly there are prisoners. These prisoners could be purchased. They could be purchased and sold to the merchants in Kuwait. This is better than (the merchants) committing that which is forbidden. There is nothing wrong with this.
Harun al-Rashid [caliph, or successor of Muhammad as leader of the Muslims, from 786 to 809] had many more sex slaves than this. When he died he had 2,000 sex slaves. But he only had one wife. This was not forbidden. Our shari’a permits such a thing as this. Praise be to Allah, here in Kuwait there are many merchants who are committed (to Islam). I hope the best for Kuwait, Allah-willing.180
“He had only one wife. This was not forbidden. Our shari’a permits such a thing as this.” Lest anyone think that Mutairi was joking, she reiterated her views on another occasion:
A Muslim state must [first] attack a Christian state—sorry, I mean any non-Muslim state—and they [the women, the future sex-slaves] must be captives of the raid. Is this forbidden? Not at all; according to Islam, sex slaves are not at all forbidden. Quite the contrary, the rules regulating sex-slaves differ from those for free women [i.e., Muslim women]: the latter’s body must be covered entirely, except for her face and hands, whereas the sex-slave is kept naked from the belly button on up—she is different from the free woman; the free woman has to be married properly to her husband, but the sex-slave—he just buys her and that’s that.181
All this is in accord, then, with Islam’s prohibition of fornication and restriction of sex to marriage. The “free woman has to be married properly to her husband,” but the sex slave does not. Yet, in the Islamic view, there is no sin involved if a man obtains such a slave.
This doesn’t appear to be the view solely of a couple of reactionary Muslim thinkers. Britain, in recent years, has seen a recurring phenomenon of “Asian” (a common euphemism for “Muslim” in the British media) “sex gangs”: groups of Muslim men who cajole or kidnap British non-Muslim girls, often in their early teens, and force them into prostitution.182 Muslims from the Twin Cities area in Minnesota ran an interstate sex trafficking ring until they were caught and indicted in late 2010.183 It’s true that the savage exploitation of girls and young women is an unfortunately cross-cultural phenomenon, but only in Islamic law does it carry anything approaching divine sanction.
Temporary marriage
When easy divorce, multiple wives, and sex slaves do not give adequate satisfaction, Shi’ites also practice temporary marriage, which is simply a marriage contract with a deadline; in effect, a fig-leaf of morality placed over what is plainly and simply prostitution. “Temporary wives” are commonly found in seminary towns where young men are on their own for the first time and vulnerable to offers of companionship. A diary entry written by the Shi’ite student Aqa Najafi Quchani early in the twentieth century epitomizes the moral sham of temporary marriage:
Fortunately, the woman was at home and I married her for a while. When I had quietened [sic] my desire and enjoyed the pleasure of the flesh from my lawful income, I gave the woman the qeran [an old Iranian monetary unit]. . . . It is reported that the Imams have said that whoever makes love
legitimately has in effect killed an infidel. That means killing the lascivious spirit. It is obvious that when a talabeh [student] has no problem with the lower half of his body he is happier than a king.184
In a kind of parody of Christian sexual self-mastery, Aqa Najafi Quchani believed that he had engaged in “killing the lascivious spirit,” not by resisting it so that it flees but by giving in to it and engaging the services of a prostitute. Then, searching for a comparison for how beneficial it is for him to have “made love legitimately” rather than indulged in fornication, he refers to the highest authorities in Shi’ite Islam, the Imams, saying “whoever makes love legitimately has in effect killed an infidel.”
Today in the West, some accuse the so-called Christian Right of carrying out a “war on women,” and modern feminists read Christian history as an endless string of oppression. But in reality, Christian anthropology has elevated, protected, and liberated women, while Islam, a religion toward which contemporary feminists are much less vocal in criticism, blatantly objectifies and subjugates them. No good Catholic who loves and respects women—and that should be all of us—can get too friendly with Muslims as allies in the culture wars, given this great chasm between us.
Still, the key point to remember here is not that Catholics are unable to pursue or sustain meaningful moral alliances with Muslims simply because Islam allows awful things that Catholicism does not. Rather, Islam’s acceptance of these things reveals fundamentally misplaced principles about sex, marriage, and women such that any alliance based on putatively shared values will founder on the ineluctable fact that these values are not actually shared at all.
8
An Honest Desire for Dialogue?
In the name of interreligious dialogue, it’s not uncommon for Muslim spokesmen to visit Christian churches, including Catholic parishes, with the stated goal of clearing up “misconceptions” about Islam. Such sessions often include the Muslim speaker’s downplaying the reality of jihad activity and Muslim persecution of Christians, and offering his Christian audience bland assurances that such things have nothing to do with authentic Islam.
On a larger scale, Muslims have engaged in several high-profile attempts at dialogue with Catholics in recent years, to which Catholics have generally responded with enthusiasm. Yet, there is less to these attempts at outreach than meets the eye. The two most visible and well-publicized attempts by Muslims to reach out to Catholics turn out, on close examination, to be thinly veiled exercises in proselytizing. All of these attempts at “dialogue” share several common characteristics, including most notably a downplaying and glossing-over of the differences between Christianity and Islam, an over-emphasis on the similarities between the two religions, and a call to Christians to abandon or modify certain of their core beliefs, while never budging an inch on Islamic doctrines.
These invitations to dialogue were both published in the wake of one of the most unfortunate episodes of modern Catholic-Muslim relations: the violent aftermath of Pope Benedict XVI's Regensburg address.
“Things only evil and inhuman”
On September 12, 2006, in Regensburg, Germany, Pope Benedict XVI dared to enunciate some truths about Islam that proved to be unpopular and unwelcome among Muslims worldwide. Most notoriously, the Pope quoted the fourteenth-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Less frequently noted is that the pope followed this by recounting that Manuel II then
goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God,” he says, “is not pleased by blood—and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats. . . . To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.”
Pope Benedict then demonstrated his awareness that talk about the nature of God would not impress those who commit the most religious violence—Muslims—because “for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” He recalled the medieval Muslim philosopher Ibn Hazm (994-1064), who “went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.”185
Later, after these words touched off an international furor, Pope Benedict emphasized repeatedly that he was not endorsing Paleologus’s characterization of Muhammad’s teachings, and reiterated his hope for the beginning of a “genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.”
The initial response was not promising. Muslims rioted and in several countries murdered Christians who had, of course, nothing whatsoever to do with what the pope had said. And several days after the Regensburg address, a group of Muslim clerics in Gaza issued an invitation to the pope to convert to Islam, or else: “We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: ‘Aslim Taslam’”—that is, embrace Islam and you will be safe.186 The implication, of course, was that the one to whom this “invitation” is addressed would not be safe if he declined to convert.
Then, a month later, came what seemed to be a ray of hope. On October 13, 2006, thirty-eight Muslim leaders and scholars, including some of the most prominent in the world, wrote an “Open Letter to the Pope” responding to what he had said at Regensburg. They established at the outset a respectful tone distinguishing them from the rioters and their clerical counterparts in Gaza, addressing the pope “in the spirit of open exchange” and heading up the letter with a verse from the Qur’an as an epigraph: “In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful, Do not contend with people of the Book except in the fairest way. . . . (The Holy Qur’an, al-Ankabut, 29:46).”187
“While we applaud your efforts to oppose the dominance of positivism and materialism in human life,” the scholars told the pope, “we must point out some errors in the way you mentioned Islam as a counterpoint to the proper use of reason, as well as some mistakes in the assertions you put forward in support of your argument.” Among the errors they enumerated was the pope’s claim that the Qur’anic statement “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) came from early in Muhammad’s career and was later superseded by more bellicose material. The scholars note, in accord with mainstream Islamic theology, that this passage actually came from late in Muhammad’s prophetic career, and “was a reminder to Muslims themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another’s heart to believe.”
They were right on both counts. The passage did not come from the time when, as the pope had said at Regensburg, “Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.” And Islamic law does forbid forced conversion, although this is a law that throughout Islamic history and today has often been honored in the breach. While quoting several other Qur’anic verses that appear to support the freedom of conscience, however, the scholars did not mention the imperative in Islamic law, founded upon another passage of the Qur’an, to wage war against non-Muslims and subjugate “the People of the Book” under the rule of Islamic law: “Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden—such men as practice not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book—until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (9:29).
Although the Christians who have been fought against and “humbled” under the rule of the Muslims are free, within certain restrictions, to practice their religion, their state of being “humbled” is manifested not just in the payment of “tribute” (jizya) but in a complex of humiliat
ing and discriminatory regulations designed to remind them that because of their rejection of Muhammad and the Qur’an, Allah has condemned them to suffer in this world and the next. Islamic law traditionally forbids the dhimmis, or protected people (the Islamic legal term for the “People of the Book” subjugated under Muslim rule), from building new churches or repairing old ones, holding authority over Muslims, making a public display of their worship (processions and even crosses on the outside of church buildings are forbidden), and more.
These laws are no longer fully enforced anywhere in the Islamic world, but they remain part of Islamic law, and Islamic supremacists today have, on several occasions, signaled their intention to revive them when they have the power to do so. In December 2011, Jordanian Sheikh Ahmad Abu Quddum explained Islam’s doctrine of jihad on Jordanian television: “This fighting is in order to remove obstacles. It is waged against countries, not against individuals. When we declare Jihad against Germany, for instance, it is declared against the German state, for refusing to allow Islam to spread to the people of Germany. We give them a choice: Either to convert to Islam, or to pay the jizya and submit to the laws of Islam.”188 That same month, Sheikh Nader Tamimi, the mufti of the Palestinian Authority, declared, “To the rulers of the West, this is the religion of Allah. Either you pay the jizya poll tax, or else you will bring the sword to your necks.”189 Hamas has stated that it will re-impose the dhimmi laws once it gains full control of the Palestinian Authority.190 And some Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt, poised to take power after the “Arab Spring” uprisings, have indicated their intention to re-impose these laws, which led one Coptic Christian leader to vow that the Copts would resist to the point of martyrdom.
Not Peace but a Sword: The Great Chasm Between Christianity and Islam Page 14
