Sunday, September 4, 2016

Large Protest Against Police Brutality Ignored by the Media

Boston: On July 13, 2016 a very large demonstration organized by Mass Action Against Police Brutality took place at the police headquarters, then walking 3 ½ miles through the city of Boston. In the beginning speeches, much mention was made (that was omitted by all media) by his sister of the June 2015 killing of Usaama Rahim by Joint Terrorism Task Force along with FBI and Boston police.

As the demonstration proceeded along through the projects of Roxbury, the crowd swelled to several thousands. You could not see the end of the demonstration, the street was completely filled. Protesters eventually shut down all traffic at the Dudley T station while giving short speeches and then more speeches at Dudley Square filling every inch of space. The crowd was very ethnically diverse and in a very loving supportive energetic mood. When the mother or sister of a police victim began to cry, the crowd would shout out words of love and encouragement. One speaker wondered where all these supportive people were before, when she really needed them, at the time police committed these acts.

Recently, Boston Mayor Walsh made statements supporting police officers without also stating clear support for the lives of Bostonian civilians. There is a corrupt "Irish cop" mafia culture in Boston. However, Boston is also known for being relatively served and not instigating police riots. Police lined the crowd on bicycles but did not interfere with the crowd. In one instance, a white bigot rushed into the crowd and punched a Franciscan monk. A supporter of the march chased the attacker off. The police did nothing. The crowd was such that the police had to step aside. It was a historic day. Bostonians don't usually have large protests.


    Islam allows a man to have intercourse with his slave woman, whether he has a wife or wives or he is not married...Whoever regards that as haraam is a sinner who is going against the consensus of the scholars.
    "Ruling on having intercourse with a slave woman when one has a wife"
    Islam Q&A, Fatwa No. 10382, November 24, 2005.

    Islam Question and Answer
    General Supervisor: Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid
    Mon 18 Raj 1437 - 25 April 2016

    - Principles of Fiqh » Jurisprudence and Islamic Rulings » Transactions » Slavery.
    20802: Intercourse with a slave woman is not regarded as zina (adultery)
    Hadith 3.718 : I saw Abu Said and asked him about coitus interrupts. Abu Said said, "We went with Allah's Apostle, in the Ghazwa of Bani 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 Allah has) destined to exist, up to the Day of Resurrection, but will definitely come into existence."
    Does this mean that the Companions of the Prophet (SAW) didn't commit adultery when they practiced 'azl with the captive girls?.
    Published Date: 2002-12-27
    Praise be to Allaah.

    This hadeeth was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2542) from Ibn Muhayreez who said: I saw Abu Sa’eed (may Allaah be pleased with him) and I asked him. He said: We went out with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on the campaign of Banu al-Mustaliq, and we captured some prisoners from among the Arabs. We desired women and the period of abstention was hard for us, and we wanted to engage in ‘azl (coitus interruptus). We asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for there is no soul which Allaah has decreed should exist until the Day of Resurrection but it will come into existence.”

    According to another report, They captured some female prisoners and wanted to be intimate with them without them becoming pregnant. They asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about ‘azl and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for Allaah has decreed who should be created until the Day of Resurrection.”

    PART 2
    According to another report, They captured some female prisoners and wanted to be intimate with them without them becoming pregnant. They asked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about ‘azl and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for Allaah has decreed who should be created until the Day of Resurrection.”
    This hadeeth was also narrated by Muslim (1438), whose version says: We captured some women of the Arabs and we had been abstinent for a long time; and we wanted to be able to sell them, but we wanted to engage in intimacy with coitus interruptus. We said, “Shall we do that when the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is among us without asking him about it?” So we asked the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said, “There is no point in doing that, for Allaah has not decreed that any soul should be created until the Day of Resurrection but it will come into existence.”
    It may be understood from the hadeeth that those who wanted to engage in ‘azl did so for two reasons: they did not want the women to become pregnant, and they wanted to be able to sell them – if a slave woman got pregnant she could not be sold.
    It may also be understood that ‘azl (coitus interruptus) does not change anything. If Allaah decrees that a child should be born, water (semen) will come out before the man realizes it.

    Allaah has permitted intimacy with a slave woman if the man owns her. This is not regarded as adultery as suggested in the question. Allaah says, describing the believers (interpretation of the meaning):
    “those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)
    Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess,__ for then, they are free from blame”
    [al-Mu’minoon 23:5]
    What is meant by “those whom their right hands possess” is slave women or concubines. See also question no. 10382, 12562.
    Once this is understood, it should be noted that what is suggested in the question, that this was zina, never occurred to the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them). What they were asking about was the ruling on practicing ‘azl with the slave women whom they had acquired in the course of jihad.
    Moreover ‘azl may be done with a concubine or with a wife, if she agrees to that. See question no. 11885.
    And Allaah knows best.
    Islam Q&A


    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that while he was sitting with Allah's messenger we said, "Oh Allah's messenger, we got female captives as our 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."
    (also refer to Bukhari Vol. 3, #718)
    Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri that during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations 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 Said saying that the prophet said, "No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it.""
    (also ref. Bukhari 5:459).
    Narrated Buraida: The prophet sent Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (part of the war booty) and I hated Ali, and Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)? When we reached the prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him for he deserves more than that from the Khumus."
    The note for 637 explains that Buraida hated Ali for taking from the Khumus, and Buraida thought that was not good.
    Abu Sirma said to Abu Said al Khudri: "O Abu Said, did you hear Allah's messenger mentioning about al-azl (coitus interruptus)?" He said, "Yes", and added: "We went out with Allah's messenger on the expedition to the 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 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".

    PART 2

    Abu Said al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hunain Allah's messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's messenger seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that: "And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (Quran - 4:24), (i.e. they were lawful for them when their Idda (menstrual) period came to an end).
    Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah 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 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 Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24].
    The note on this Hadith says that "After the distribution of the spoils of war a man may have intercourse with the female slave after passing one menstrual period, if she is not pregnant. If she is pregnant one should wait till she delivers the child. This is the view held by Malik, al-Shafi and Abu Thawr. Abu Hanifah holds that if both the husband and wife are captivated together, their marriage tie still continues; they will not be separated. According to the majority of scholars, they will be separated. Al-Awzai maintains that their marriage tie will continue till they remain part of the spoils of war. If a man buys them, he may separate them if he desires, and cohabit with the female slave after one menstrual period.
    Muhaririz said: "I entered the mosque and saw Abu Said al-Khudri. I sat with him and asked about withdrawing the penis (while having intercourse), Abu Said said: We went out with the Apostle of Allah on the expedition to Banu al-Mustaliq, and took some Arab women captive, and we desired the women, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, and we wanted ransom; so we intended to withdraw the penis (while having intercourse with the slave-women). But we asked ourselves: "Can we draw the penis when the apostle of Allah is among us before asking him about it?" So we asked him about it. 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.""
    The note on 2167 says: "This means that the Companions wanted to have intercourse with the slave girls, but they were afraid of conception. In case they were pregnant and gave birth to a child they could not be sold as it was prohibited that a slave mother should be sold. So they withdrew the penis while having intercourse with them. By this they meant to sell the slave girls and obtain the ransom."

    PART 3

    All of these Hadith relate to Muslim soldiers having sexual relations with newly captured female slaves. In some cases the women's husbands were still alive. After a battle, the captured women and children were divided between the Muslim soldiers as "booty", or spoils of war.
    In Bukhari Volume 5 #637, it is shown that Ali had sex with one of the females before the distribution of "Khumus" occurred. This "Khumus" was 1/5 of the war booty to be used by Muhammad and his family, (Ali was Muhammad's son-in-law), and be used and distributed to the poor and needy. Here, Khalid, himself a member of Muhammad's family, took part of the Khumus prior to the distribution. That is why Buraida hated him in this case. Note that Muhammad supported Ali in this. There was no reproof at all. If anything, Muhammad thought Ali deserved more!
    Here is the point: Muslim men were allowed to use female slaves for sex. If the slave was not pregnant she could be sold at a slave market. This is what Muhammad’s soldiers intended to do.
    Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, "Sirat Rasulallah", is the most reliable extent biography of Muhammad available today. It corroborates the events with the Mustaliq on pages 490 and 493. This event took place just before Aisha was accused of having sexual relations with another man.
    It also corroborates the events at Autas on pages 574-576. This event took place just after the initial battle of Hunain.
    Ibn Sa'd corroborates the events at Autas (Awtus) on pages 187, 188. He notes that 6000 slaves were taken.
    The Hadith I quoted show that:
    (1) The Muslim men were out in the field, and took female captives following a battle.
    (2) They were divided up between the men and the men were very horny. They were without their wives who were back home.
    (3) So, the men prepared to have sex with the females, out on the field, away from home, and asked Muhammad about coitus interruptus. They didn't want to get the females pregnant because they wanted to later sell the female slaves for money. Had they gotten them pregnant the Muslim men would be forced to be responsible for the children.
    (4) Marriage wasn't required to have sex with the females. Listen to the men's own words.... "we were interested in their prices", i.e., they wanted to sell them. No Muslim man would marry a women intending to sell her later. That is not what "nikah" - marriage was all about. These men wanted to have sex with their slaves, enjoy them, and they later sell them.
    (5) And if you note what Ali did, - had sex with a female before the "human booty" was divided up between the Muslim soldiers. Muhammad allowed him to do this.
    What does all of this boil down to? Muslim men were allowed to have intercourse with their female slaves after the slaves had had one menstrual period. The reason for waiting one menstrual cycle was to insure that the female slaves were not already pregnant prior to being captured.
    In some cases, the female slave's husbands were also captives and it was still legal for the Muslim men to have sex with the female captives. Muhammad received a "revelation" allowing the Muslim men to have sex with the female slaves while there were still married to their captive husbands. A note on the Hadith says that according to Islam, when the married couple is captured, their marriage is automatically annulled!
    Muslims did not need to marry the female slave or give her any type of dowry in order to have sex with her.

    PART 4

    Think about it from the women's point of view. A battle is fought and her side lost. Many of the husbands, fathers, and sons are now dead. Some have been captured. The women and children are also taken as captives. Imagine the horror of the females. Family members dead, homes and possessions are now gone, they are in the total power of their captors.
    The captives are distributed amongst the Muslim men as slaves, husband and wife captives are separated. As soon as a female has her menstrual cycle her owner appears. He has been separated from his wife for a while out on the field of battle, sexually hungry, and he proceeds to have sex with his female slave.
    Do you think that this female slave willingly has intercourse with him? Is that her wish? She has just experienced one of the most horrible events in her life, - the destruction of her tribe and family, the taking of her possessions, and being made someone's slave, and now she willing consents to have sex with the very men who brought this disaster upon her!? Of course not! What women would look upon with loving eyes the men that brought destruction upon her family and tribe!
    What would the world say if Israel allowed its soldiers to take Palestinian females prisoner and rape with them? There would be a horrible outcry!
    Examine the events in Kosovo and Bosnia. Here the same situation occurred. The Muslims were defeated by the Serbs and some Serbs raped Muslims. It is a horrible crime and we all condemn it. But if we examine what Muhammad allowed his soldiers to do we see that their actions are identical. Muhammad's standards were no better and actually worse than Serbs who raped Muslim women. It is worse because Muhammad gave it religious sanction and validity for all Muslim men.
    The Japanese did this to the Chinese, Korean and Filipino women during WWII. The Germans did likewise to the Russian women. In a similar way the Muslim soldiers only waited a few weeks to do likewise to their female captives.
    Muhammad and his soldiers treated these female slaves just like the Japanese did to their female captives. Much has been written condemning the treatment of black slaves in the West: how much more should a man who claimed to be a prophet of God be condemned for these acts?
    Some attention needs to be paid to the Quranic term used here for slave. I’m told that the Quranic classical Arabic reads 'ma malakat aymanukum'.
    Let's examine a fuller definition of this term. Starting with the Encyclopedia of Islam, Published by E.J. Brill, Vol. 1, page 24 under the word 'abd', it says:
    "Abd is the ordinary word for 'slave' in Arabic of all periods, more particularly for "male slave", "female slave" being ama. On the other hand, the Quran frequently uses the term "rakaba", literally "neck, nape of the neck", and still more frequently, the periphrasis "ma malakat aymanukum - "that which your (their) right hand possesses".
    So, the Quran uses the phrase "that which your right hand possesses" as a term for slave.
    Moving to the Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, we find similar. Under "mamluk" it says:
    "The term (mamluk) owes its origin probably to the current phrase of the Quran ma malakat aimanukum - "what your right hand possesses", a general designation of slaves without specialization of gender."
    Referencing Hughes Dictionary of Islam, page 596 on slavery, it says:
    "The term generally used in the Quran for slaves is "ma malakat aimanukum", - "that which your right hand possesses."
    There is no doubt that 'right hand possesses' is a phrase used to describe a slave, whether newly captured or not.
    Some Muslims may feel that I have taken the Quran and Hadith out of context. Here is supporting material from famous Islamic scholars.