Zee TV was perhaps the first channel to do a thorough investigation of the phenomenon of “Love Jihad”, back in 2014. They carried a series of exposes on the phenomenon, which can still be viewed on youtube at the links below.
In one of the programs, a Hindu Dharma Guru asks the Islamic cleric on the show point blank that he has heard that the Islamic religious doctrine teaches Muslims to kidnap non-Muslim women etc. The Islamic cleric denies this vehemently, saying that Islam only teaches peace, brotherhood, love, etc. One can watch this particular program starting here (it is in multiple parts):
Actually the Hindu Dharma Guru is 100% correct on this point. Here is the relevant Hadith that provides the Islamic position on Kafir women. It occurs in the Hadith Collection called Sahih Muslim, which is among the two most prestigious among the 6 canonical Hadiths (the so-called “sahih sitta”) which form, along with the Koran, the basis for the sunna (the recorded traditions of Mohammed), and therefore sharia law. In Sunni Islam, the two Hadith collections Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are almost at the same status as the Koran, and much of Islamic law (aka sharia law) derives from the traditions of Mohammed recorded in these Hadith collections.
Let me reproduce the Hadith first, then I will explain the context and meaning.
First of all, notice the name of the chapter itself. It is called “Al-Azl” which means removing the male sex organ just prior to ejaculation, so as not to impregnate the woman. What do these Hadiths say, and what is the context. Let’s read on.
Chapter 22 of Hadith Collection Sahih Muslim
(one can find the online version here, and verify every word: http://www.theonlyquran.com/hadith/Sahih-Muslim/?volume=8&chapter=22)
AL AZL (INCOMPLETE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE): COITUS INTERRUPTUS
Book 008, Number 3371:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah be pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-‘azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-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 (may peace be upon him), 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.
Explanation: The Muslim men (at the time, it was a relatively small band of men, led by Mohammed) had captured several non-Muslim Arab women. Remember, at that time, Arabia was still largely non-Muslim, and Mohammed led 72 raids (or ghazwas) to these non-Muslim tribes. These raids are described in the Hadith—mostly they involve killing the men, capturing the women, and looting the wealth of the non-Muslims.
In this particular Hadith, the fate of such captured women is described. The Muslim men want to rape them, but they also want to sell them as slaves later. Therefore, they do not wish to impregnate them. So they decide to rape them using Al-Azl. But when they seek Mohammed’s advice, they are told Al-Azl is not mandatory.
If the doctrine arrived at from the above Hadith has no qualms with raping captured non-Muslim women, what is the problem with something like Love Jihad. Indeed, does not Love Jihad seem much more benign than the situation in this Hadith?
Due to this, and other Hadiths like this, Islamic sharia law gives Muslim men sexual rights over captured non-Muslim women. Namely, the man may rape this captured non-Muslim woman as he likes. Recently, we saw ISIS putting this into practice. Thousands of non-Muslim Yazidi women were used as sex-slaves much as in the situation depicted in this Hadith.
Back to my original point—the Hindu dharma guru was right. The Islamic cleric was wrong (or, more likely, was lying).
Disclaimer: This article represents the opinions of the Author, and the Author is responsible for ensuring the factual veracity of the content. HinduPost will not be responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information, contained herein.
Did you like this article? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism