In defense of Wafa Sultan

Here's my tribute to the brave and principled Wafa Sultan:

http://s478.photobucket.com/albums/rr144/gravenimageartist/?action=view¤t=JWHWS-1.jpg

Video of Tarek Fatah fiddling with Aisha's age here and some stunningly stupid commentary by others here on the Michael Coren Show.

I read Ali Sina's article.

Here's the part that all non-Muslims - especially journalists, diplomats and politicians - need to learn by heart. Tape it to the inside of the dunny door! Tape it to your computer screen! Say it and read it over and over until you can recite it to everyone you know.

"I would like to remind the readers that virtually all Muslim terrorists come from a secular background.

"At one point they were just as “liberal” as Mr. Fatah is today until something happened in their lives and they turned to their faith.

"Every “moderate” Muslim is a potential terrorist.

"The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire.

"For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith.

"It is time to put an end to the charade of “moderate Islam.”

" There is no such thing as [a] moderate Muslim.

"Muslims are either jihadists or dormant jihadists - moderate, they are not."

Thus spake Ali Sina, apostate from Islam; and he knows whereof he speaks.

And from that lapidary paragraph that should be going viral on the internet, by every possible means, all over the non-Muslim world, in a dozen languages, let's meditate on these two lines in particular:

"The belief in Islam is like a tank of gasoline. It looks innocuous, until it meets the fire.

"For a “moderate” Muslim to become a murderous jihadist, all it takes is a spark of faith."

Excellent analogy, Mr Ali Sina.

Was Muhammad a rapist? First check Quran 33:50-52, where "Allah" gives Muhammad permission to have sex with (i.e., rape) as many of his "right hand possessions" (non-Muslim female captives and slaves) as he wishes. Worse, Muhammad/Allah gives Muslim men the same permission (23:1-6, 70:29-30; 4:24).

Muhammad's rape of Ayesha is inferred straightforwardly from the fact that the Hadiths states that Ayesha was 9 when Muhammad "consummated" the marriage. Ayesha herself is reported as saying this. This constitutes rape. Instead of acknowledging and rejecting these ahadith, Fatah accuses Wafa Sultan of "hate" and "Islamophobia" and totally "making" up a "story." Fatah then pursues a preposterous apologetic line that even some Islam apologists don't make, whereby Ayesha is supposedly 14 or 18, according to a variety of indirect inferences that ignore the direct statements in the sahih ahadith pertaining to this.

One of Fatah's assumptions is that it is unlikely that Muhammad would rape anyone. How then does Fatah explain Muhammad's rape of Safiya, after he had her husband tortured and executed, at the invasion of Khaybar?

On the Coren show...Coren is apparently unaware of what the Islamic texts say, and let Fatah just roll right along, saying "No" Muhammad did not rape Ayesha and that she was not a child. Coren is an unwitting dupe, an unintentional mouthpiece for Islam-according-to-Tarek-Fatah (sample size = 1). Fatah gives no indication that his views are not mainstream.

Mr. Spencer,

If there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, then who is this Tashbih Sayyed person you're commemorating on your blog? Judging from the description of him, he's got to be one of those moderate Muslims to me. It doesn't look like he repudiated Islam when he was alive, since he claims that the Qur'an needs only "reinterpretation".

Furthermore, as far as "Sharia Law" being practiced in Syria? With all due respect, women in Damascus walk around in tight jeans with their hair uncovered. Even President Assad's wife goes out and speaks in public with her hair uncovered.

Sharia Law, this ain't.

al-Manac,

1. Spencer didn't say there was no such thing as a moderate Muslim.

2.
Syria like most Islamic countries has state or secular law and sharia systems. Syria is a member of the OIC and as such endorses the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which affirms the supremacy of Islam and sharia law. Despite the "secular" Arab nationalist movements of prior decades, since the mid-1990s (see Judith Miller's book God Has Ninety-Nine Names) at least there has been an Islamic revival of sorts. Yes, Asad is still in power, but he seems to be going with, not against, this latter movement. In any case, people are not free to criticize Islam or apostatize from Islam publicly in Syria.

Read Mideast Monitor...(note: I don't necessarily agree with the full article, but this is enough to support my point, for now)

Vol. 1 No. 3

"September-October 2006
The Islamic Revival in Syria
by Sami Moubayed

Sami Moubayed is a Damascus-based Syrian political analyst. He is the author of Steel & Silk: Men and Women Who Shaped Syria 1900-2000 (Cune Press 2005).

Islamic fundamentalism in Syria has spread rapidly in recent years, and not just among the urban poor. The spectacle of veiled women driving brand new Mercedes through the bustling streets of Damascus illustrates that religious revivalism has penetrated high society. In posh residential neighborhoods of the capital, most restaurants have stopped serving alcohol and there are traffic jams every Friday outside local mosques. [...]"

3. Looking at some women in tight jeans (when?) in a public area is hardly a representative method of sampling.

Tarek Fatah has commented in the blog to the article as such (for those who hadn't noticed):

=============================
"I am glad Joanne Hill has reproduced the exact quote from the speech of Wafa Sultan where she says: "As a married man, Mohammed raped Aisha when she was nine; he was 54."

How did I misquote her when I say Wafa Sultan accused Muhammad of being a child rapist?

She accuses Muhammad of having raped a child and then her apoligist have the audacity to say there was nothing hateful about the statement!

Joanne Hill then asks, "Besides, even if Dr. Sultan does hate Islam, what business is that of Mr. Fatah's?"

It is my business when the podium of a synagogue is used to spew hate against my religion, specially from a woman who was totally making up her story as she spoke.

Wafa Sultan has not lived a single day under sharia law, yet her hosts and Joanne Hill have no problem making that claim. Jonanne writes:

"Dr. Sultan spoke plainly and strongly about her personal experience as a woman raised in an Islamic country under Sharia law."

Nonsense. Syria is a secular dictatorship under the Baath Party where those asking for sharia law have been bombed into smithereens in Hama and stay locked up in prison.

As far as saying that there is "no moderate Islam," yes, Wafa Sultan did quote the Turkish PM, but it was to bolster her own argument, not to report on what the Turkish leader had said about Islam.

She was repeatedly contradicted by Prof. Pipes and the long quote reproduced above, carefully avoids what Pipes said in response. Wafa, on more than one occasion simply shrugged her shoulders and had no answer to what was the solution.

The nonsense about her wish that Muslims were given a choice, reflects the woman's total ignorance of the Muslim world. Only in the last year 500 million Muslims have exercised their choice and have voted to defeat sharia-promoting Islamists in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Millions more march in Iran against the ayatollahs, but their chant id "Allah O Akbar", not that "Muhammad is a rapist." In Turkey, where Muslims have a choice, they have unfortunately chosen Islamists as have the people of Gaza and earlier Algeria.

Every hatemonger has always claimed they have no hatred towards the people they express hate. Not even the epitome of hate Mahmoud Ahmedinejad says that he hates Jews. It is what one says and does that matters, not what one proclaims as one's defence to cover up a hateful slur like saying Muhammad raped a child.

I do not have to apologize to any hate-monger and specially those who use the house of God to spew contempt, be they Muslim or ex-Muslim.

The problem of hate is that it is almost always the victims of hate who feel it. Those who inflict hate and practise bigotry, bot racial and religious, rarely ever feel the pain of the victim. This is why there are so many non-Muslims claiming no hate was involved in her speech.

Which again begs the question:

1. Is there a Muslim who feels the words of Wafa Sultan that Prophet Muhammad raped a 9-year old Aisha as 57-year old married man were not hateful?

2. If accusing the most important man in Islam of rape is not judged as hatred towards that religion and his followers, then what would be classified as hate?

When Joanne Hill says, "Contrary to Mr. Fatah's characterization, she was funny, down-to-earth and as far from hateful as one can get," it reminds me of the time when it was acceptable for speakers to mock minorities, make fun of their leaders and the audience would find it "funny". Not so funny for the one Muslim sitting among the 500.

It is also quite revealing that not one member of the audience found it objectionable that a synagogue was being used to slam the Prophet of Islam as a child rapist. Not one person raised an objection. We were reminded that the synagogue was a 'house of sanctuary' and that anyone causing trouble will be expelled from the assembly. Yet, calling the founder of Islam, a child rapist was deemed totally appropriate. Referring to Muhammad as a Jew killer seemed just fine to the 500 attendees.

When hate against Jews and Christians is spewed in mosques, I can say with al humility that I stand up and object and more than one occasion staged a walkout.

Fighting hate is meaningless if that fight is selfishly reserved for one's own religious or racial community. I will not apologize for outing hate speech whether it is delivered by a Muslim or an ex-Muslim being honoured in a Synagogue.

As far as the title of my book, the Post has the sub-heading. Here is the full title:

www.amazon.com/.../ref=sr_1_3
===================================

Tarek Fatah is thoroughly demented. His question: "Is there a Muslim who feels the words of Wafa Sultan that Prophet Muhammad raped a 9-year old Aisha as 57-year old married man were not hateful?" just shows how fragile his ego is.

ISLAMIC SOURCES show that Muhammed consummated his marriage with a nine year old girl. If Tarek Fatah can't admit, in this day and age, that this is essentially rape and that Muhammed wasn't a pedophile, then he is part of the problem. Big time. As is the case with delicate Muslims who are offended by ex-Muslims and non-Muslims pointing out the truth, he decides to focus his hatred on Wafa Sultan and not on the Islamic sources which show this as clear as day.

Tarek Fatah, you are an embarrassment and Mark Steyn's labelling of you as a "semi-secular Marxist" is quite apt. You don't deserve to be taken seriously ever again.

Correction to my comment: "If Tarek Fatah can't admit, in this day and age, that this is essentially rape and that Muhammed WAS a pedophile, then he is part of the problem."

Let's just keep stating the truth over and over again and watch Muslims like Tarek Fatah squirm in their seats because the truth hurts them:

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

AS PER ISLAMIC SOURCES, MUHAMMED (THE "PROPHET" OF ISLAM) HAD SEX WITH A NINE-YEAR OLD GIRL THEREBY MAKING HIM A PEDOPHILE AND GUILTY OF RAPE.

There, that feels better.

I'm leaving this comment on behalf of my friend and colleague Truepeers:

While I appreciate why many want to deny the existence of a "moderate Islam", I really am puzzled why people get so hot and bothered about "Islamism". Clearly there are different movements within the Islamic world. To speak of an Islamist movement isn't to deny that it is rooted in Islam (one need not sign off on the silly apologetics for "moderate Islam), it is simply to point out that the Muslim Brotherhood, say, is a movement that can be distinguished from the more conservative, regime-loyal, imams in a country like Egypt. "Islamist" is a term widely used in the Middle East for just this reason.

The mark of intelligence is the ability to hold together a maximally-differentiated consciousness. If we really believe in an intelligent public discourse on Islam, shouldn't people like Hugh be arguing that "Islamism" is one interpretation or movement of Islam, rooted in a rather obvious reading of the canonical texts, and engendering a political movement that is responding to modernity and the limits of the Arab nationalist movement in a rather totalitarian, violently Utopian, and nihilistic manner. And then one can point out that those who wish to say "that's Islamism, that's not real Islam" are expressing their fond wishes but that Islamism is just as much part of the Islam phenomenon, as are those who deny or forget or never learn the literal interpretation of verses calling on Muslims to slay the infidels.

It is foolish to get too deeply involved in the idea that anyone can define Islam. A religion is not a metaphysical concept. It is first of all an event(s) that is religiously remembered. And events are open-ended, until they are forgotten. What matters, to infidels, is what Muslims with whom we have to interact believe. If Hugh is going to criticize Fatah, rightly, for the latter's denial of what most Muslims actually believe about Aisha, then why allow oneself to deny that many Muslims distinguish an Islamist movement from their own political-religious positions?

Or maybe I'm missing something?

dww, on behalf of Truepeers: http://covenantzone.blogspot.com/

"Give them the freedom to choose: that's all I'm asking for. Give them the freedom to search, to ask, to be exposed to different sides, different values, different lifestyles."

I often wonder, out of 1.2 billion muslims world-wide, how many millions or even hundreds of millions, would leave islam if they didn't fear for their own safety or for the safety of loved ones?

islam cannot keep followers based on its own virtues; it must rely on intimidation and fear to maintain its numbers. islam will never give followers the freedom to choose, because in doing so it would bring about its own demise.

We will destroy islam by exposing it, but we must also find a way to protect and defend those who wish to leave from the vehement extremists. Women's shelters to develop programs for women & girls who face religious violence - violence from not only deranged spouses or family members, but from entire communities that would seek retribution & retaliation. We must stop coddling & tolerating the islamic ideology, which respects no authority or laws other than its own, and respects no lives other than muslim.

Until we can do those thing, islam will continue to survive.

Tarek Fatah is now taking the apologetic line that Ayesha was between 14 and 21. It is interesting that he did not find the time to address the issue of Ayesha's age in relation to child brides in his lengthy book, Chasing a Mirage (2008).

In the book, he did briefly address rape in Islam. He took the usual apologetic line of minimization, deflection, and denial, blaming some "Islamists" for distorting the Quran's message, and this only in regard to one verse (4:24). From page 287 forward [bolding and italics added]:

START OF EXCERPT

"Maudoodi gives a nod to the rape of non-Muslim women who
are captured in war, and yet few Muslim women have stood up to condemn an ideology that gives religious sanction to rape. Little wonder that Pakistani troops in the Bangladesh war had no hesitation raping Bengali women after clerics had declared these Muslim women as non-Muslim enemies of Islam.
The same theology today gives religious license to the Janjaweed Arab militia in Sudan to rape Darfuri women—their very own Muslim sisters. Maudoodi’s commentary on one verse of the Quran demonstrates the kind of liberties that Islamists have taken with the Muslim holy book to serve their sexual perversion and legalize sex slaves for Muslim soldiers. In his commentary, he uses convoluted language to permit the rape of captured non-Muslim female prisoners of war; their slavery; and the right of Muslims to buy and sell non-Muslim women. Here is how verse 24 of chapter 4 of the Quran actually reads:

288 | Chasing a Mirage

Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property, desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye
derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
The way Maudoodi sees it, this verse gives him the liberty to institutionalize sex slavery and the treatment of women as commodities that can be bought and sold. The following commentary by Abul Ala Maudoodi on the above verse comes from his six-volume translation and interpretation of the Quran, Tafhim ul Quran:
Those women who become prisoners of war, while their kaafi r [non-Muslim] husbands have been left behind in dar ul harb [ the non-Muslim country with which Muslims are fi ghting, or the “home of war”], are not prohibited to you [for sexual intercourse]. The reason is that as soon as these women crossed over from dar ul harb to the dar ul Islam [the
Muslim country], their marriage contract with their husbands became null and void. You can either marry such women or, if your right hand possesses these women, you can also have sexual relations with them. However, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars in case both husband and wife are captured together. Imam Abu Hanifa says that the marriage of the [non-Muslim] husband and wife will remain
intact, while Imam Maalik and Imam Shafi'i say their marriage contract is void. As there are many misunderstandings exist in the minds of people concerning taking advantage* of [having sexual intercourse] with
slave-girls captured as prisoners of war, the following principles must be carefully understood:

1. It is not lawful for a soldier to have sex with a captured woman as soon as she falls into his hands. According to Islamic law such women should be first handed over to the government, which then has the right to set
them free; ransom them; or exchange them for Muslim prisoners of war in enemy hands. Or, if the government so wishes, it can distribute these

* In the original Urdu-language version of Maudoodi’s book, he uses the word tamatto, the literal meaning of which is “to complete delight.” The word has been deleted from
the English translation of his work.

| 289

non-Muslim women among the Muslim troops to serve as their sex slaves. However, a soldier can have sex with only that woman who has been formally given to him by the government.
2. After taking possession of this woman, a soldier should not have sex with her until after she has had her monthly periods and it is clear that the woman is not pregnant. To have sex with the captured woman prior to her periods is haraam [prohibited].
3. It does not matter whether the female prisoner of war belongs to “people of the book” [Christian or Jew] or not. No matter what her religion, the soldier has the right to have sex with her if he has been given possession of her.

Elsewhere in the same commentary, Maudoodi writes: “The proprietary rights over a slave, male or female, as given to a person by the government, are transferable, like all other proprietary rights.”

END OF EXCERPT

Thus, with his lengthy quoting of Maududi, Fatah leaves the impression it is only such deviant Islamists as Maududi who interpret this one verse in this way.

Of course, there are multiple such verses (4:3, 23:1-6, 70:29-30; not just 4:24), and not all of them refer only to females taken captive in war. They refer to any female right hand possessions (i.e., female slaves generally). Fatah also does not seem to realize, or will not acknowledge, that verses 33:50-52 also give Muhammad permission to have sex with an unlimited number of right hand possessions.

Mainstream Islamic scholars, such a Ibn Kathir, al-Jalalayn, et al., interpret such verses as giving the Muslim men permission to have sex with these slaves and captives. They interpret it this way in light of what the text of the Quran says, and also in light of what the Hadith and Sira say about the practice. And the quote from Maududi is derived from, and is consistent with, traditional Islamic law generally. Some popular Islam Q and A, and Ask-imam type websites also confirm that Muslim men are allowed to have sex with their non-Muslim female slaves.

Quran

23:5-7: And who guard their modesty-- Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess, for then they are not blameworthy, But whoso craveth beyond that, such are transgressors

4:24 And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess. It is a decree of Allah for you. Lawful unto you are all beyond those mentioned, so that ye seek them with your wealth in honest wedlock, not debauchery. And those of whom ye seek content (by marrying them), give unto them their portions as a duty. And there is no sin for you in what ye do by mutual agreement after the duty (hath been done). Lo! Allah is ever Knower, Wise.

70:29-30 And those who preserve their chastity, Save with their wives and those whom their right hands possess, for thus they are not blameworthy;

33:50 O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand possesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war, and the daughters of thine uncle on the father's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the father's side, and the daughters of thine uncle on the mother's side and the daughters of thine aunts on the mother's side who emigrated with thee, and a believing woman if she give herself unto the Prophet and the Prophet desire to ask her in marriage - a privilege for thee only, not for the (rest of) believers - We are Aware of that which We enjoined upon them concerning their wives and those whom their right hands possess - that thou mayst be free from blame, for Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.
33:51 Thou canst defer whom thou wilt of them and receive unto thee whom thou wilt, and whomsoever thou desirest of those whom thou hast set aside (temporarily), it is no sin for thee (to receive her again); that is better; that they may be comforted and not grieve, and may all be pleased with what thou givest them. Allah knoweth what is in your hearts (O men), and Allah is ever Forgiving, Clement.
33:52 It is not allowed thee to take (other) women henceforth, nor that thou shouldst change them for other wives even though their beauty pleased thee, save those whom thy right hand possesseth. And Allah is ever Watcher over all things.

Commentary

Ibn Kathir notes, from 33:50,

“…which refers to the slave-girls taken captive by Mohammad “…(those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses whom Allah has given to you,) means, `the slave-girls whom you took from the war booty are also permitted to you.' He owned Safiyyah and Juwayriyah, then he manumitted them and married them, and he owned Rayhanah bint Sham`un An-Nadariyyah and Mariyah Al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibrahim, upon him be peace; they were both among the prisoners, may Allah be pleased with them…”

Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of verse 4:24 states:

“Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves

Allah said,
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,
(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed,
(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.'' […]”

And al-Jalalayn tafsir (4:24) states:

“And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]; this is what God has prescribed for you (kitāba is in the accusative because it is the verbal noun)…”

Likewise, Ibn Abbas’ tafsir (4:24) states:

“(And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation…”

Muhammad's invasion of Khaybar, killing of Kinana, followed by rape of Kinana's wife Safiya:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 512:
Narrated Anas: “The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives. She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet . The Prophet made her manumission as her 'Mahr.'”

Also see Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 367.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 143:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: “…when Allah enabled him [the Prophet] to conquer the Fort (of Khaibar), the beauty of Safiya bint Huyai bin Akhtab was described to him. Her husband had been killed while she was a bride. So Allah's Apostle selected her for himself and took her along with him till we reached a place called Sad-AsSahba,' where her menses were over and he took her for his wife. Haris (a kind of dish) was served on a small leather sheet. Then Allah's Apostle told me to call those who were around me. So, that was the marriage banquet of Allah's Apostle and Safiya…” (Brackets added. Also see Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3325).

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 523:
Narrated Anas bin Malik: “The Prophet stayed with Safiya bint Huyai for three days on the way of Khaibar where he consummated his marriage with her. Safiya was amongst those who were ordered to use a veil.”

Muhammad's opinions on sex with female captives and coitus interruptus:

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3432 (also 3433, 3434):
“Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) 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 (may peace be upon him) 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 (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).”

Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume 2, Number 2150:
“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 your save those (captives) whom your right hand possesses". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period."”

Sahih Muslim, Book 8, Number 3371 (3371-3388):
“Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): O 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.”

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
“Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "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.””

Popular Islamic advice websites:

“Islam ensured that the slave girl's duties were not restricted merely to domestic chores but also gave her master permission to copulate with her. This concession created an atmosphere of love and harmony between the slave girl and her master. Islam thereby raised the status of the war captive-maidens close to that of wives. It was a psychological cure to her grief-stricken heart, being deprived of her family and thrown into the hands of a strange society.”
-- Ask-Imam

“The Book of Allaah indicates that the sexual relationships that are permitted are only of two types, either marriage or those (women slaves) whom one’s right hand possesses.
Al-Umm, 5/43.

The wife has no right to object to her husband owning female slaves or to his having intercourse with them.

And Allaah knows best.”

-- Islam Q & A

Wow.

I didn't know Tarek Fatah was like that.

He was so good on camera discussing the meaning of jihad.
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?videoid?24661426001

To see him disputing Ayesha's age is very discouraging.

I was there that night. Wafa spoke from her expericences and from her heart. Tarek Fatah is probably under great pressure to maintain his standing as a "moderate" in Islam.

"Wow.

I didn't know Tarek Fatah was like that....
To see him disputing Ayesha's age is very discouraging."

The only reasonable assumption for us to make is that all ostensibly moderate Muslims are like that. I can't see any reliable basis upon which to disagree. If anyone has a reliable litmus test for that rare animal, the Moderate Muslim, please share.

"If anyone has a reliable litmus test for that rare animal, the Moderate Muslim, please share."

I have one. Any Muslim that believes Muhammad is the perfect man, and a man that should be revered. For example how can you trust anyone that knows about, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Attila the Hun, and would consider anyone of them the perfect man, and to be revered Something is wrong with them if they do. So why is it any different with the the warmongering, murdering, pedophile, Muhammad?

"Five hundred years ago, Isabel and Ferdinand “cleansed” Spain of Islam and Muslims, but we are still here. Surely, we can think of more productive solutions — and devote our attention to more productive minds — than this.~Fatah~"

Nice re-write of history, Fatah. Never mind how the Spanish suffered under Islamic rule before that. Never mind that the paranoid Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed its own Christians and shudder, JEWS as well, in the name of destroying islame and heretics. No.. That only happened to the musselmen. Whine, whine, whine...

Here's one for you whiney-babies: ALHAMBRA WILL NEVER AGAIN BE UNDER islamic RULE!

And about the only "productive solution" being presented by islame is "re-productive;" out-breeding by in-breeding the world over...

Jewish Rabbi who embraced Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwwsM4guSIU&feature=related