Saudi Imam Reportedly Issues Fatwa Allowing Jihadists To Rape Women In Syria

imagesMuhammad al-Arifi, a Wahhabi religious cleric, is being widely quoted on web sites like Salon as issuing a fatwa that allowed jihadists in Syria fighting the government to enter into “intercourse marriage” that has been taken as authorizing the rape of Syrian women. Al-Arifi is quoted as expressing concern that Saudis fighting with the opposition have not been with a woman in two years and must be allowed to take care of their “sexual problems.” [One supporter has insisted the fatwa was not issued].


He is further quoted as restricting the fatwa to Syrian females at least 14 years old, widowed or divorced. Al-Arifi is quoted as saying that such sexual assaults “boost[] the determination of the mujahideen in Syria and is considered a duty to enter paradise for those females who enter such marriages.”

He has been repeatedly quoted for extreme views such as instructing his followers on the proper way to beat their wives and the marriage of underaged girls.

Various groups have come forward to denounce the reported fatwa.

64 thoughts on “Saudi Imam Reportedly Issues Fatwa Allowing Jihadists To Rape Women In Syria

  1. Mike S.,

    Of course, this leaves me with the “if only after the Nacht der langen Messer or after KrystalNacht”….”.

    However this: “They also elected the Muslim Brotherhood, just as here we elect people with intemperate religious views.” We elect them in the minority, with Constitution and stare decisis to limit their power (as well if Atheists took the country over tomorrow, which would likely be less a blood bath, figuratively or literally, than what will come in Egypt), this Egyptian election was into majority. The secular, liberal, and Christian Coptic groups know whats coming, and it won’t meet your standards of liberty. But it will give you something to write about in 2 to 5 years.

    “Their country, their choice” justifies all the crap we’ve seen in the 20th Century. It’s not any different from Lindbergh’s isolationism in the 30s.

    How’s the Sudan going for you? Their country, their choice. Oh, you mean it’s okay if elections are held, but if not it’s bad. Look back at my first sentence; Hitler came to power democratically thanks to Hindenburg. Their country, their choice. And so much suffering ensues…but that’s okay, you can wash your hands, dry them, and go away clean.

    The Muslim Brotherhood will create what you will write despairingly of in this decade, with the “how could this have happened” as lede.

    It will never end, unless you understand, embrace, and give allegiance to this: that one man’s freedom fighter fights for the freedom of all Men. Every fight, every choice, that doesn’t uphold that is just more suffering. Majority isn’t democratic…

    • ““Their country, their choice” justifies all the crap we’ve seen in the 20th Century. It’s not any different from Lindbergh’s isolationism in the 30s.”

      Ariel,

      Comparing my statement to Lindbergh’s isolationism is not an apt analogy. Lindbergh was merely the highly prominent front-man for an old strain of American conservatives that wanted no foreign entanglements. The issue in the 30’s after Hitler’s rise was whether the U.S. should re-arm due to the potential German threat and also whether it should aid the European countries that were facing the threat of expanding German territorial aims.
      They were wrong, as history proved. Their incorrect view, however, was entwined with a belief that Hitler was an admirable leader and that Germany’s territorial aims were ultimately no threat to the U.S.. The context that must also be remembered was that the U.S. had severely curtailed its Armed Forces after WW I and was not in a position to exercise any military dominance.

      Move ahead seven decades and a completely different picture emerges. Beginning in the 50’s, under the cover of the Cold War, the U.S. began aggressively intervening in countries all around the world under the excuse of fighting Communism. That fight though somehow was tied to the economic interests of this country and in places like Iran and all of South America, regimes were overthrown and replaced by repressive ones friendly to the U.S.. Then too we entered into four major wars that were not only unjust, but wastefully foolish. The after effects of that policy continue today.

      We also spend more money on Defense than all the supposed major powers combined toward what end? It is obvious that the U.S. has become an Empire. That many powerful people believe that was confirmed by the PNAC manifesto in 1998 and by the foreign policy pronouncements of Mitt Romney’s website. However, this is not a Republican phenomena, but is a bi-partisan one with the Democratic Party’s establishment also on board.

      The urge is to impose a “Pax Americana” upon the world. Many have in untold history courses justified the “Pax Romana” of millenia passed as deterring war and I can be remember it being glorified in my own world history courses. The truth was that there was nothing peaceful about the “Pax Romana”, it was all about power, greed and exploitation.

      The foreign policy establishment in our country believes in intervention and regime change where it is directly beneficial to U.S. economic interests. This establishment is bi-partisan and an outgrowth of the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex. I don’t cede the right of the “powers that be” in this country to intervene whenever and where-ever in this world because of broadly defined “American” interests. If good government and a democratic system were really criteria for American intervention, then we would make war on our ally Saudi Arabia and force regime change there. Instead, for the sake of oil we have done the Saudi’s bidding and our politicians have taken their bribes.

      “We elect them in the minority, with Constitution and stare decisis to limit their power”

      That “minority” wields great power in this country and is backed by massive financial interests. They are solidifying their control of our military, which I’ve written about on this blog and the question of whether they’ve reached the apex of their power is an open one. We have seen a constant erosion of our Constitutional freedoms and indeed this powerful “minority” has gone a far way in their own politics to re-define our Constitution into a far different document than intended.

  2. “if Islam had the hierarchy of Christianity, or even Judaism, this might mean something that you could apply to this sect or that sect. It’s what is so problematic about Islam: you can’t point to a Pope, a President, an Archbishop, or some Quorem of Bishops.”

    Ariel,

    I believe this statement is counter factual. Judaism has no hierarchy and hasn’t since the destruction of Herod’s Temple. It has four major strains, that each are divided up into so many numerous sects that is impossible for a Jew like me to enumerate them all. Some of these sects, like the Satmar Hasidim are every it as regressive as anything you’ll find in Islam.

    As for a Christian hierarchy, Martin Luther pretty much began that disintegration hundred of years ago. No one entity singularly speaks for Christianity and we see some Christian sects that also are as regressive as the worst Islam has to offer.

    I disdain Islamic Fundamentalism, but then I disdain any Fundamentalist movement be it Jewish, Christian or Hindu.

  3. shano, “Is rape still legal in California if the woman is sleeping/drunk and unmarried?”

    As long as fornication is decriminalized, all sexual relations are presumed to be consensual unless proven otherwise. If she (or he) doesn’t clearly object, it’s consensual. Failure to deny is to admit.

  4. Hi, Mike S.,

    “Ariel,

    I believe this statement is counter factual. Judaism has no hierarchy and hasn’t since the destruction of Herod’s Temple. It has four major strains, that each are divided up into so many numerous sects that is impossible for a Jew like me to enumerate them all. Some of these sects, like the Satmar Hasidim are every it as regressive as anything you’ll find in Islam.”

    I have to agree with you that I chose poorly. I wasn’t sure that whether any sect within Judaism had a hierarchy that still more typifies Christianity, but took Islam as being most flat, with Judaism next, and Christianity exhibiting the steepest.

    “As for a Christian hierarchy, Martin Luther pretty much began that disintegration hundred of years ago. No one entity singularly speaks for Christianity and we see some Christian sects that also are as regressive as the worst Islam has to offer. ” Here, however, there is a misunderstanding. I never meant Christianity, or any religion, as having a singular entity speaking for the whole of that religion, but only how to describe the structure of the sects within that religion. The Orthodox, Protestant, and major post-Protestant still hold to a steeper hierarchal structure within the body. Luther and Calvin started the disintegration, certainly by giving the Bible to the people rather than through a learned Priesthood, but Lutheranism and Calvinism maintain a heirarchal structure closer to other Christian sects, than to Islam or, differing to you, Judaism.

    That there are outliers…

  5. Mike S.,

    “Comparing my statement to Lindbergh’s isolationism is not an apt analogy. Lindbergh was merely the highly prominent front-man for an old strain of American conservatives that wanted no foreign entanglements. The issue in the 30′s after Hitler’s rise was whether the U.S. should re-arm due to the potential German threat and also whether it should aid the European countries that were facing the threat of expanding German territorial aims.”

    Lindbergh had ties to the American Bund, as did Coughlin, weak or strong (no order implied). I could have, with effort or google to reinforce memory, pointed to Isolationist’s that had ties to Marxism, especially after Ribbentrop-Molotov in 39. American isolationism has to be broken down by strain (the ultimate conservative strain being “no foreign entanglements” no matter ethnicity or sympathy, the strain most working in WW1), the least justifiable being sympathy for another country by your ethnicity or political sympathy. America First had all three strains. You can’t reduce American isolationism to just the conservative and still see what was going on the 30s. I’m also bothered by your Euro-centrism. I agree with Capra in “Why We Fight”, however much anyone here see’s it as just propaganda, WW2 started with Japanese militarism. They conquered more of the world than the Germans, which leads me to this segue:

    Pax Romana was just the Mediterranean and poorly into northern Europe (hooray the larger, male and female, fiercer, male and female, Celtic groups) and Asia, but the Romans treated citizens equally as long they gave to Rome allegiance and taxes; Pax Islamica stretched across the Mediterranean through Asia and makes the Roman Peace look like a footnote in geography and history being so much larger (I’m not willing to do the math by population or land area), and they treated those who joined Islam equally and those who submitted to it’s hegemony with self-determination, so long as they paid their taxes. Pax Brittanica stretched further, and brought us the end to the slave trade in the Atlantic, as well slavery eventually, and built a hell of a railroad in India while making India a country. Pax Americana is different by degree. The hegemony may be by culture, economic strength, and military projection, but the latter serves others primarily and us secondarily by keeping economic stability. Our military prowess is a magnitude over all those previous. We could easily turn NA into an Empire, with SA following. Holding it would be an issue. If we were the previous Paxes we wouldn’t think twice. We just aren’t as militaristic or bent on seizing resources without recompense. We are an economic power based on global trade not Empire. We are the least in sucking resources without paying.

    We’re pikers in so many ways when it comes to Empire; Europe, Asia and the ME have done it so much better. They ruled a vast sweep of the world. We rule little beyond our borders, even at our heyday. We’re pikers when it comes to slavery, another aspect of Empire by previous Paxes: we got the least from the Atlantic slave trade, 6%, we joined Britain in ending it in 1808 and we only held on to slavery 30 years past the British, five past the French, and let Brazil beat us by 23 years later. The ME had slavery well into the 1960s. Our only claim to fame in that regard is Apartheid, we did it sooner but with approval by our SCOTUS, that clergy that gives us revelation between words and lines of words.

    We derived no direct benefit from Bosnia, but Europe sure does. We would derive little economic benefit if we interjected ourselves in Central-North Africa, but we would stop a lot of suffering and hold more to our ideals. If you want self-benefit on resources: look up Chromium and where it comes from, we can’t operate without it. At some point we will go into Africa, when the rest of the world calls us on it while putting their treasure elsewhere. We get little benefit on keeping the Straight of Hormuz open (little of our oil is from the Mideast, most from Canada and SA), but Europe would just be so effed if we didn’t.

    We are doing a global peace-keeping to keep others going; our only benefit is that if they go we go. You can call it directly beneficial, but only if you ignore the benefit to others. This isn’t pre-1940’s 20th Century, or 19th, or 18th economics. Would I like to see the USA drop this role, yes, but I can’t see others at this juncture rising to a multi-nation role to secure their own interests. Europe would just cave until they have no choice whatsoever, none, and the Asian nations are losing ground to China as seen by the growing territorial battles over islands.

    We are an Empire that spends more to support others we have no rule over than any other. We aren’t the same, and you and I can both agree to deplore it while disagreeing the why we deplore.

    Comparing Pax Americana to earlier Paxes is like comparing apples to pomegranates. If you’re not careful, you just end up stained.

    I am not justifying Pax Americana, I just can’t agree to comparisons to earlier Paxes.

    • “We are an Empire that spends more to support others we have no rule over than any other. We aren’t the same, and you and I can both agree to deplore it while disagreeing the why we deplore.

      Comparing Pax Americana to earlier Paxes is like comparing apples to pomegranates. If you’re not careful, you just end up stained.

      I am not justifying Pax Americana, I just can’t agree to comparisons to earlier Paxes.”

      Ariel,

      Pax Americana had only begun to take shape after World War II. That is only 68 years. Pax China, Pax Romana and all the other “Paxes” took hundreds of years to reach fruition, give us time. In terms of World History Empires can come and go in the blink of an eye. Alexander the Great’s empire for instance.
      Empires that become “Paxes” only become so with a long history of success.
      As for America’s “unselfishness” of purpose Google PNAC and/or Romney’s Campaign website (if it is still up) to see the intent of those who would promote American Empire. I state this with the understanding that this strain of American Foreign Policy is a bi-partisan result of the power of the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex.

  6. Mike S.,

    One more thing, Pax China preceded Pax Romana. And, no, they weren’t all Chinese, that designation comes later. We are so Euro-centric…

    • “One more thing, Pax China preceded Pax Romana.”

      Ariel,

      I’m well aware of that, in fact the rise of Confucius was due to the never-ending wars plaguing that area and his trying to develop a philosophy that would bring peace. He lived circa 600BCE. However, how much history can one pack into a blog, or a blog comment, before people stop paying attention?🙂

  7. Such a fatwa is obscene of course.
    However to be fair, it is hardly unusual. Rape has been a weapon of war as long as there has been wars. It has disgustingly been condoned or at least ignored by officials for just as long.

    Moses called for the raping of virgins after a successful battle, even the Christian God ordered the raping of women so this cleric does have those who share his horrific mindset.

  8. “US Covert War in Yemen Receives Support from Saudi Air Force

    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/01/05/us-covert-war-in-yemen-receives-support-from-saudi-air-force/

    Does anyone really think that any significant personnel in the US Govt, that would be including the arch-feminists (whoever they might be) give a rat’s ass about “excesses” originating anywhere in SA? No one has loudly complained about the human rights atrocities of our SA ally so far. Why would they start now.

    Of course, we may not be so very far behind.

  9. I would like to invite al-Arifi to Utah – we will play cowboys and imams. After that, he can go down to one of our pig farms where he can rape to his heart’s content. (With 6 million pigs he can surely find a cute one!) This animal is a pervert, pedophile and a piece of pig crap just like his so-called prophet.

  10. The comments earlier in this blog are not by me, Ralph Adamo of New Orleans. .I am increasingly disheartened by this person who bears the same name as me parading his clearly bigoted positions in forums where someone might mistake his venomous incomprehension of world events for my opinions.

  11. [2] Malisha summed up it very well :

    “See, here’s an example of very old and very stable beliefs:
    1. Men are entitled to do whatever they want to solve their “sexual problems”;
    2. Women exist for the benefit of men and only BAD WOMEN fail to see this;
    3. Bad women need to be disciplined by having men subdue them;
    4. Do not subdue someone ELSE’s woman; that is, never rape a MARRIED woman because she is not “a woman” — she is “some other man’s woman”;
    5. Religion exists for the purpose of controlling behavior. Where men are in charge of the religion, they are entitled to control the behavior of women.”

  12. Rape is just crime. So this means, Imams call for doing crime and crime is haram/forbidden.
    No crime allowed in Islam!
    the word Islam itself means:
    Islam comes from the word-root “S-l-m”
    what too means Salam. And this I think today everyone know it meany peace. So Islam is the religion of peace, and no, I repeat NO violence canhave any place in Islam ( in true Islam).

    Muhammad(pbuh) did anything to avoid any crime and Violece. too against women.
    In the time of Prophet it was the time where women had so much right. never befor or after they had so much rights.

    So Islam is the religion of peace and women rights.
    No rape or war has place in (real) Islam.

  13. Shaikh Al-Arefi cane forward and said these ckaims are false and have been fabricated by other sects or the Syrian government..This us a non-muslim website…

  14. As people will speak about their firsthand experience, you should be able
    to depend on getting their material to surrounding communities overnight.

    Outstanding ServicesSpeed packers and movers in delhi handle all such things which equity release have higher damaging risks and can achieve the best services.
    You may also get assistance in many areas. You can use online services as you don’t have to e as
    physical – a gift to, same day deliveries, return collections, third
    party collections, night trunking, and direct runs.

Comments are closed.