Now how does all this relate to Islamic jihad? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating
the Muslim faith. Islam divides the
world into two camps: the 'Dar al-Islam' (House of Submission) and the 'Dar al-harb' (House of War). The former are those lands which have been
brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not
yet been brought into submission. This
is how Islam actually views the world!
By contrast, the conquest of Canaan represented God’s
just judgment upon those peoples. The
purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of
propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover,
the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance,
not a regular means of behavior.
One of the greatest difference is in the way they treated
female captives. We read in Deut 21:10-14
“When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and
the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them
captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto
her, that thou wouldest have her to thy
wife; Then thou shalt bring her home
to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall
put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house,
and bewail her father and her mother a
full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband,
and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her,
then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make
merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.”
Compare this with the verses from the Quran and the Sahih
Hadiths, Muhammad actually encouraged the rape of others captured in battle.
This hadith provides the context for the Quranic 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 Sahih 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 to think of Islam differently
from other religions. Note that the followers of Muhammad were more sensitive
and were hesitating to rape the women in front of their husbands… until given
the “halaal” sign by Muhammad. Some apologist in the vain attempt to defend the
indefensible stand of Islam, say that the Arabic version of the Sahih Muslim do
not contain the words “in presence of”… so, as per Islam, rape of women
captives immediately after capturing them makes it fine as long as the husbands
were not around to watch the act?
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
“halaal 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.
Note, these verses clearly show the code of war as followed by the Israelites
which mandated that the Israelites marry the women, give them time of one month
to grieve separation from their families and finally, they cannot be sold and
if the Israelite doesn’t want the woman anymore, then he has to let her go
free. Compare this to Islam’s code of war “capture women, rape them in front of
their husbands, then retain them as sex slaves and then sell them off as sex
slaves”.
The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the
wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties
are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically
over God’s nature. Christians believe
that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and
sinners. Therefore, they can be killed
indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam
God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His
dealing with mankind. By contrast
Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands.
The question, then, is not whose moral theory is correct,
but which is the true God?
(End of Series).
