Abuse of women by Islamist militants: ‘mental disorder’ or misreading of Sharia?

“The IS are not obtaining the pure teaching of Islam, they only seek their own explanations of Islam to excuse their crimes,” Islamism expert, Ahmed Ban, told Ahram Online.

He said the leaders of IS depend on stories related to Sahabah (friends of the prophet) that cut off their enemies’ heads and organs. But Islam and the Quran is far from accepting such crimes, Ban said.

Ban also added that Islam came when slavery already existed, but Islam was trying to counter the phenomenon, not spread it. Ban said the Prophet Mohamed himself was buying slaves and freeing them, as well as advising his friends to do the same.

“Most radical and extremist leaders are mentally ill,” Ban said.

He explained that jihadists and radical leaders are using religion as a cover for their crimes and their psychological disorders, especially towards women.

“We need revolutionary change from the intellectual heritage that justifies these crimes,” Ban added.

Enough with this mental illness fallacy. I’d say they were perfectly coherent Muslims.

Share
  • Minicapt

    What can be admired is the ease and sincerity with which a Mohammedan spokes-spinner can create lies.
    What isn’t admirable is the complicity of the credulous Western media in circulating these falsehoods.

    Cheers

    • simus1

      Childish, simplistic, lies from muslim semi morons are accepted as golden truths by “western sophisticated leftists in the MSM”.

    • winniec

      Mini,
      The media aren’t entirely to be blamed, but the editors are. They should insist on more knowledge of Islam in their reporters. Islam is extraordinarily complex due to the doctrine of abrogation, the contradictory legends about Mohammed, the contradictions in the Koran, the contradictions between Islamic schools of jurisprudence. There’s Islam-à-la-carte and then there’s integral, classical Islam…the Islam of ISIS. Often, the mullahs quoted by journalists are using crafty wording and explanations that leave much out, but the editors don’t know they are being tricked. IT’S POOR JOURNALISM and it’s not good enough. Editors, hire better journalists.

  • Mickey Oberman

    Hey Goebels, you have a competitor.

    Come to think of it you killed your wife and children.
    You must have been Muslim too.

  • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

    It seems to me that the big problem here is, what is the status of the speaker with respect to Islam? I’ve said this before but will argue that it bears repeating:

    If there is any authority structure in Islam that privileges Ban over IS (ISIS?), what is it, where is it, and how do we get in touch with it? Which Muslims can hold ISIS accountable for brutalities said to be “unIslamic”?

    Suppose Catholics in the Greater Toronto Area were keeping slaves. Well, the Cardinal Archbishop could issue a statement citing chapter and verse as to how that contradicts Catholic teaching. Lay education could emphasize its sinful nature.

    Priests could be instructed how to counsel persons who confess it as a sin (without violating the secrecy of the confessional or the secular right of the accused to a valid defense). As a last resort, persistent advocates and offenders could be excommunicated until they demonstrate their repentance by freeing the slaves.

    Now, if this did not happen, we could hold the Church accountable for failing to do things it has every right, reason, and responsibility to do.

    But there does not seem to be an equivalent level of structure in Islam. So we must, I fear, assume that Islam is whatever the terrorist says it is.

    Unless, that is, someone can demonstrate a different coherent system by which we can reasonably conclude that terror and murder, slavery and assault on women are actually unIslamic.

    Note: It isn’t necessarily definitive that such permissions and injunctions appear in the Koran. Lots of permissions and injunctions appear in the Old Testament that no Jew or Christian considers to be valid for today.

    Unless, of course, appearing in the Koran makes the practice lawful for today, no matter what else is going on – and no reasonable discussion can be held on the subject. Ifso, the advance of Islam will, unfortunately, be marked by the regress of many recent advances in human values. In that case, the terrorists are not an outlier but the cutting edge. Or so it seems.

    • Frau Katze

      I was under the impression (could be remembering wrong) the Mo was said to dislike formal clerical set-ups. Look how east it is to convert to,Islam. Recite the shahada 3 X’s in front of another Muslim.

      Early Christians (the practice continues in Eastern Orthodoxy and likely in the Catholic Church) required (of an adult) a sponsor and a lengthy introduction and a ceremony performed in the church before the congregation.

      But the early Christians were a small minority in an urban world. Mo was more concerned with just getting followers (he needed fighters). The difference in the early history of the two religions could scarcely be more different.

      • disqus_PwGxBXHn8l

        Quite true! In fact, I gather, converts were usually received at Easter, absent exceptional circumstances.

        The problem with disliking formal clerical setups is the same as disliking formal medical training. Who then speaks for the tradition or the body of knowledge? What distinguishes the saint from the terrorist, or the medic from the quack?

        Maybe most Muslims DO disapprove of the mayhem, but they do not appear to see themselves as people who can do anything about it. Whereas Christians in the same position would think they COULD do something about it, as in “Let’s start a movement to abolish slavery!”

        But such movements depend on canonical moral authority. Not an authority structure as such, but an accepted moral authority, who forces people to examine their consciences.

        For example, if someone argues that slavery was permitted in the Old Testament, well, the Council of Jerusalem (about 49 AD) released Christians from obligations to Old Testament law, beyond a few obvious noes like no fornication.

        True, the New Testament authors took no official position – but then many of their converts WERE slaves, and the penalty for slave rebellions was crucifixion. (If one was going to be crucified, it might as well be for being a Christian, as then one would be rewarded in Heaven.)

        My sense is that it will be harder rather than easier for reform-minded Muslims in the decades to come. – Denyse O’Leary

      • winniec

        The leading authority in Islam is the fatwa department of Al Azhar University in Cairo. They speak in the name of the Grand Imam of Al Azhar, the senior cleric in all Islam.

        • Frau Katze

          Sunni Islam only. And many don’t pay attention. Islamic State accepts only the Quran and ( Sunni) Hadiths.

  • ed

    the Arabic word for slave is black ,the Arabic word for black is slave !

    • winniec

      ‘Abd’ is ‘slave’. It’s similar to the ‘n’ word.

  • Blacksmith

    When they rise up to fight this evil then I will START to listen to their claims, until then it is just more lies.

    • Norman_In_New_York

      The only such who are actually doing this are the Kurds, who claim that the ISIS people are bloodthirsty religious impostors. That is why I respect them more than the preeners and poseurs who stink up the media.

      • MRHapla

        I like the Kurds too. I’ll still keep an eye on them, but I like ’em.

  • Frau Katze

    I think the link points to the wrong article.

  • MRHapla

    Islam is a mental disorder, a pathology. It explains everything.

  • One would have to explain why Mohammad captured women as booty and used them as sex slaves.

    If anything, sexual slavery is par the course for the culture.