"Bomb Denmark, so we can invade their country, and take their wives as war booty!", shouted a demonstrator hoarsely in London. He was recorded on a mobile, and the clip can be seen on the internet.
Perhaps, just a little, he was performing for the camera: it has been known. How does that shout come across to us? A bombast? A revealing fantasy? A theatrical insult? Some sort of Old Testament curse? Most English hearers would react in that way, not prepared to give it any more serious value, and just regard the shouter as out of touch with modern life.
Here is the surprise: he meant it. Though angry and excited, and making a performance, he was deadly serious. The occasion was one of those organized rent-a-mob Islamic protests where the demonstrators obey instructions from the mosque to go out and cause a loud and aggressive disturbance, a 'Day of Rage'. Once instructed, it becomes the 'right' thing to do. As a result they might be beaten up if they did not do it. "Commanding the Right and Forbidding the Wrong", in the Manual of Islamic Law, specifies that to enforce the "right" the Muslim is entitled to employ "threatening and intimidation" (q5.7). The next step is, "directly hit or kick the person" (q5.8), after which comes "the armed assistance of others" (q5.9). All that violence is absolutely fine under Sharia, Islamic law, though it violates criminal law, as does so much else of Sharia. That "swift Islamic manner", as Anjem Choudary describes it, is how Islamic law is enforced. Force is Islam's prevailing theme:
"Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword, to submit? Yes!"
wrote Osama bin Laden. Ancient scholar Ibn Khaldun had decreed centuries ago:
"... holy war is a religious duty, ... [to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force."
That is, of course, hardly a choice: it is compulsion. The Woolwich killer explained:
"We are forced by the Koran ..."
Islam is submission to force, hence the sword emblem on the flag of Saudi Arabia and the badge of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saracen of history is well known for his scimitar, which was no mere emblem: it was put to much use. Currently, news item after news item from Syria's civil war, many with images too gory to show on main channel bulletins, show Islam's obsession with force. There is a need in the West to tune in, or try to tune in, to Islam's unchanged seventh-century tribal mindset of force.
The idea of "wives as war booty" is foreign to Europeans, not something that is part of Western culture, but more like something from the Old Testament, from the harsh cultures of the Near East. It was not the Old Testament, though, that the shouter was quoting: he is a Muslim, after all, and Islam does not permit Bibles anywhere in their teaching. In certain Muslim states, like Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, merely to possess one is a criminal offence: no 'diversity' there. It is the Koran that is the source: it has a whole chapter entitled "Spoils of War". Wives as war booty, part of desert tribal life, have remained a continuing feature of Islam from its seventh-century origins to this day:
Slavery is a part of Islam. Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam
says Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, eminent Saudi scholar of Islam. The Manual of Islamic Law (o9.13) makes it clear:
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.
The understanding that slavery of a woman includes sex slavery is soundly based on the Koran, part of Islamic law, which says, at 4:24, concerning sexual intercourse:
Lawful unto you are what your right hands possess.
"What your right hands possess" means slaves. The Arabic, incidentally, does say "what", and not "whom": women are chattels, like domestic animals, in Islamic law.
Other Islamic scholars have confirmed the same point, as Shaykh Muhammad Al Munajjid explains on the Islam Question and Answer website:
"It is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty."Â â€“ Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500.
"There is no dispute [among the scholars] that it is permissible to take concubines and to have intercourse with one's slave woman ..." â€“ Ibn Qudaamah [al-Ma'aarij 70:29-30]
To quote an earlier article by the present writer, "Islam's Sex Slaves in Britain", in Islamic teaching all non-Muslim countries are Dar al Harb, the 'Realm of War':
"Britain has always been Dar al Harb", Anjem Choudary assured the BBC.
"Allah is an enemy to unbelievers", says Koran 2:98, which means that Muslims must be, too. In any such realm of war the Soldiers of Allah, the jihadis, are entitled to take slaves from the non-Muslim enemy, the kuffar, as is happening in Syria today. For instance, a captive fifteen-year-old Christian girl was forced into serial marriage with mujahideen and serially raped until she died of her treatment. There are many other such harrowing examples. Sheikh Saad al-Buraik exhorted his listeners:
"Their women are yours to take, legitimately. Allah made them yours. Why don't you enslave their women?"
Sheikh Huwayni confirms the law (Translating Jihad, 11 June 2011):
Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars â€“ 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.
Taking sex slaves in conflict zones like Chechnya was publicly advocated in a television broadcast in 2011 by a female Kuwaiti activist and politician, Salwa al-Mutairi (Jihad Watch, 8Â July 2013). She related that she asked a mufti in Mecca whether this would be unlawful. He replied:
"Absolutely not. Sex slaves are not forbidden by Islam."
In Colorado in 2006 a Saudi national was found guilty of keeping a woman as a slave housekeeper for four years while repeatedly raping her. He argued that the United States was attacking Islamic customs such as not paying your slave and controlling her life, and complained:
"We are Muslim. We are different. The state has criminalized these basic Muslim behaviors."
Quite a number of "basic Muslim behaviours" are criminal in the West. This is just one of the many areas where Sharia law is "incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy", as the European Court of Human Rights stated in 2003. Very recently in Nigeria observant Muslim Abubakar Shekau, leader of the "Party etc. for Jihad", better known by its nickname Boko Haram, announced:
"In Islam, it is allowed to take infidel women as slaves and in due course we will start taking women away and sell in the market."
His understanding of what Islam allows is not mistaken. The Koran commentator Maulana Bulandshahri explains the wisdom of this practice:
"During Jihad [religion war], many men and women become war captives. ... they will become the property of these Mujahidin. This enslavement is the penalty for disbelief (kufr)."
Sure enough his jihad group staged a 2am armed attack on a girls' boarding school and abducted over a hundred teenage girls to degradation, rape, and slavery.
In their mosques Muslims are flattered time and time again, with Koran 3:110:
"You are the best of the nations raised up for [the benefit of] men; you enjoin what is right and forbid the wrong and believe in Allah."
Islam, as Anjem Choudary insists, is an ideological political movement. It is also an armed one. It is dedicated, as Sheikh Huwayni cites above, to conquest, invasion, and takeover, to impose Sharia law on all mankind "by persuasion or by force", as Ibn Khaldun said. This is to create the 'Global Caliphate', the envisaged single world governance under a Caliph. No democracy and no nation states will be permitted: they are to be extinguished. There will only be one nation. Syria today shows how.
Part of the 'one nation' Global Caliphate doctrine is the blackening and disparaging of all non-Muslims as, for instance, "apes and pigs ... lower than animals ... the worst of beasts .. unclean", all from the Koran. In Islam's teachings non-Muslims are not innocent: they have chosen not to follow the path (sharia in Arabic). This makes them guilty, and thus eligible to be attacked. Mohammed (who authorised his followers to lie) claimed that all the world was declared a mosque to him, and thus rightfully belongs to Muslims:
"You see [Allah] will soon make you inherit their land, their treasures and make you sleep with their women."
(The Words of Mohammed as Recorded by Ibn Hisham; Al Rod Al Anf, Volume 2, Page 182.)
They will "inherit" after doing their killing. Booty is how Mohammed's 'Soldiers of Allah' received 'pay'. Hear Abu Imran, Fouad Belkacem, of Sharia4Belgium:
"We are coming to take back what belongs to us, to regain our land and purify it of unbelief and of the unbelievers."
Imran's "purify" is a dark metaphor for killings: it portends jihad attacks and slaughters. This is old-fashioned 'cleansing', as in Bosnia, Nigeria, Mali, Central African Republic, Burma, Thailand, East Timor, and so on. Islam's mission is to conquer, convert, and subjugate all kuffar, the non-Muslims, and â€“ if they refuse â€“ to kill or enslave them, until all governance is by Islam, as Koran 8:39 commands:
And fight them and kill them until there is no more persecution and all the governance is Islam.
Well over half the Koran, some 62 percent, is devoted to non-Muslims, the filthy kuffar, how they must be hated, despised, and killed. Jihad is a "permanent war institution", as Al Azhar University instructs, against non-Muslims. The incentive for attacking is the acquisition of the kuffar's property, including women, as booty.
Imagine you are a Muslim. For years you have diligently attended the mosque, and heeded all this teaching. No questions are to be asked: Koran 5:101 makes clear,
"do not put questions about things which if declared to you may trouble you".
Full compliance is required. It is part of submission. Koran 33:36 instructs:
It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision.
The Muslim community "possesses no power except to acknowledge and obey", said Dr Salah al-Sawy, the secretary-general of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America in a fatwa or judgment citing the above verse. Acknowledging obediently, you understand your military mission, and await instructions. Should a 'filthy kaffir' do anything as bold as publish a cartoon of Mohammed, that is construed as an attack, and requires self-defence.
Cartoons were, indeed, the pretext of the demonstration at which the war booty shout was recorded. It was a demonstration dishonestly orchestrated by imams: they are, after all, authorised to lie. Forged cartoons were added that had never appeared in the Western press, and one imam toured the Muslim world to drum up support for a show of force. Whipped up by their imams in the mosques the Soldiers of Allah dutifully carried out their orders. All this was some four months after the publication, not spontaneous in the slightest. Violent riots were deliberately engendered around the world. As Wikipedia records: "Some escalated into violence resulting in more than 200 reported deaths, attacks on Danish and other European diplomatic missions, attacks on churches and Christians, and a major international boycott". All in all, that was a good 'Day of Rage'.
It should be explained that it is standard Islamic practice, when there has been a perceived insult by, say, a Christian abroad, for Muslims to take out their 'rage' against Christians locally, who are treated as implicitly complicit. This collective liability is, in fact, one of the stipulations of the Pact of Omar imposed on non-Muslims which delineates the relationship between the "best of peoples" and the filthy kuffar. Denmark was singled out for violent criminal arson and vandalism, because Danish newspapers had upheld Western free speech by publishing the cartoons. The contrived show of force in London was directed at the Danish Embassy.
The simpleton media, especially the Islam-compromised BBC, obligingly rushed to portray the event as a righteous protest against a blasphemous insult, instead of what it was â€“ a malignant assault on free speech and democracy. Apparently they cannot see through a staged 'Day of Rage' to perceive the motive behind it. The criminal violence achieved its end, a drying up of cartoons through self-censorship. The message? Thuggery pays. The 'Day of Rage' was satisfactorily productive.
Capitulation to thuggery brings one step nearer the planned war against the West. In due course the signal will be given, and the UK will become Unexpected Kosovo, another Bosnia, or worse, another Lebanon. The war will be Eurabia's Islamo-conflict nightmare. Soldiers of Allah who "slay and are slain", as Koran 9:111 promises, will have their guarantee of Paradise. Motivated by spoils of war â€“ and these are no fantasy â€“ they will fight and kill the kuffar, fully intending to "take their wives as war booty". Look at Syria. Look at Iraq. Look at Nigeria. We have been warned.
The Koran is consultable online: www.quran.com
The Manual of Islamic Law is a free download: http://shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
General reference: www.TheReligionOfPeace.com
For previous articles by this author search for Michael Copeland using the search box at top right.