Thousands of Girls Captured Have Been Declared “Chums” By Islamic State Clerics Who Say That Their Rape Is Morally Correct Under The Koran and Sharia Law

800px-Iraqi_insurgents_with_gunsFlag_of_the_Islamic_State.svgOf all the victims of the Islamic State, none are more horrific than the girls captured by the jihadists and treated as sex slaves or forced to “marry” fighters. That is the fate of girls from the minority Yazidi towns and we have first-hand accounts from girls who recently escaped from IS forces. What is most striking is that clerics have justified their rape and slavery as consistent with the Koran and expressly justified under the extremist views of Islam and Sharia law. The girls are being declared “chums” or war spoils and their rape is being defended as allowing pure Islamic fighters from committing adultery. Kidnapping and raping thousands of girls is considered a better alternative than the scourge of adultery to these clerics.

The girls are being treated as “spoils” of war by the Islamic fighters and their cleric leaders. Notably, it is the Islamic State itself that is defending such rapes as morally correct under Islam. In an article in Daqip, the group’s online magazine, the Islamic States said that such rape and enslavement is expressly allowed under Sharia (Shariah) law: “One fifth of the slaves were transferred to the Islamic State’s authority to be divided as chums.” A Chum is tax on war spoils. The rest are being divided among the fighters themselves.

By forcing the girls to be “concubines,” Islamic clerics have declared the fighters can avoid charges of adultery. Fighters have been quoted on social media as they brag over buying and selling Yazidi girls on “slave market day.” One said that he got a Glock handgun for one slave girl.

As many as 7000 girls have been captured and enslaved by the Islamic fighters.

The article below is a chilling account of some of those girls.

Source: NY Times

43 thoughts on “Thousands of Girls Captured Have Been Declared “Chums” By Islamic State Clerics Who Say That Their Rape Is Morally Correct Under The Koran and Sharia Law”

  1. Mohammed took sex slaves and told others to do so, like after he had hundreds of Jewish men slaughtered at Banu Qurayza. Mohammed is to be emulated by Muslims. It’s sort of amazing that people who have no knowledge of Islam are going on about how “all religions are misinterpreted,” and such. This taking of sex slaves is not a “misinterpretation.” It is Islam.

    You can find this out simply by reading. There’s a short book by Howard Bloom called “The Mohammed Code.” It’s inexpensive on Kindle and it lays out the history of Islam and how it’s really totalitarianism masquerading as religion.

    And PS I’m an atheist, but if I can get behind something religious, it’s the Jesus stuff — heal the sick, feed the poor. (Oh, did you know that in Islam, zakat — charity — is to go only to Muslims?) A good site to find out more about this is — at the top there are links which list the passages in the Quran and Hadith to support the contentions.

  2. A REAL War on Women. Senator Uterus will have some spare time. Maybe he can take on this war on women.

  3. Would it be better if soldiers raped and then killed enemy women, and then had their leaders deny it ever happened after slipping survivors a few hundred bucks?

  4. Darren Smith: “The world community needs to put an end to this barbarism.”

    From President Clinton’s announcement of Operation Desert Fox:

    In the century we’re leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community; fear and hope. Now, in a new century, we’ll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past — but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

  5. Lloyd Blankfien – bankster: “Of course, US ‘leaders’ killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans under the guise of ‘war’ is another matter altogether…collateral damage after all….”

    That statement follows the the Neta Crawford logical leap of assigning responsibility for terrorist-caused deaths to the US-led coalition, despite that the terrorist mission has been to destabilise and destroy while the US mission has been peace operations.*

    * From :

    Peace operations: (DOD) A broad term that encompasses multiagency and multinational crisis response and limited contingency operations involving all instruments of national power with military missions to contain conflict, redress the peace, and shape the environment to support reconciliation and rebuilding and facilitate the transition to legitimate governance. Also called PO. See also peace building; peace enforcement; peacekeeping; and peacemaking. Source: JP 3-07.3

    Lloyd Blankfien – bankster: “And blaming Obama for the sins of the Bush is rejecting responsibility. It was an agreement reached by Bush. And Iraqi govt wouldn’t agree to not arrest or put on trial American troops for criminal behavior.”

    As I said, there are excuses for prematurely withdrawing the US-led peace operations. There’s no excuse, however, for the President’s decision thereafter to stay away when the terrorist danger regrew like a cancer when treatment is prematurely withdrawn and resurged from Syria.

    You are correct that the Bush administration provided its successor a 3-year window to assess the changing situation before making long-term decisions for the transition from post-war occupation to a peacetime security partnership akin to our latter arrangements in Europe and Asia. Yes, the 2008-2011 SOFA included an expiration date with the option for Bush’s successor to passively allow it to run out rather than actively reach for the next ‘peacetime’ SOFA.

    However, the 2008-2011 SOFA did not bar Bush’s successor from negotiating the next SOFA, and it’s untrue that the Iraqi government was unwilling to agree to SOFA protections for US troops.


    Circumstances were so improved that Vice President Joe Biden (another “surge” opponent) crowed in February 2010 that a stable, democratic Iraq was going to be “one of the great achievements of this administration.” In December 2011 President Obama doubled-down on that sentiment, praising America’s “extraordinary achievement” in helping create “a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq.”

    So the real issue is not whether Iraq had been successfully stabilized, but why Obama would order a precipitous withdrawal of all U.S. troops and military advisers from such a fragile experiment in self-government. After all, the United States kept tens of thousands of troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea long after those wars ended.

    Well, Obama is now insisting that he actually wanted to leave behind a residual force, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said no. When asked by a reporter last week if he had regrets about the troop withdrawal, he said, “Keep in mind that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.”

    Again, facts are stubborn things. And the fact is Maliki, despite strong domestic opposition, wanted to keep a robust U.S. troop presence after 2011, and offered to quietly sign a SOFA extension, including legal immunities for American forces. Things then quickly got complicated—and political—for the White House.

    First, the administration began insisting that any agreement with Maliki be approved by the fractious Iraqi parliament; a virtually impossible demand (and, as seen with this week’s immunity agreement just between Obama and Maliki, an unnecessary demand). But it never even got to that point: political aides in the White House, worried about Obama’s 2012 re-election bid, pushed back hard against Pentagon requests for roughly 15,000 residual troops, eventually convincing Obama to approve only 3,500. Maliki—no Thomas Jefferson to begin with—was not about to risk his political life over such an insignificant contingent. America and Iraq agreed to go their separate ways.

    None of this should actually be surprising. Though Obama would now like to airbrush history, we all remember that “ending the Iraq war” was an unyielding promise of his 2008 presidential run. And we all remember that in his reelection campaign Obama repeatedly touted his decision to bring all troops home from Iraq: in September 2012 he exclaimed, “Four years ago, I promised to end the war in Iraq. We did.”

    The bottom line is the Iraq withdrawal was not some aberration to now be politically jostled over; it was a proud part of Obama’s broader foreign policy “doctrine” based on reducing and limiting America’s role in the world …

  6. Yep, confused..
    … Just the stream of conversation get’s all fuzzy at your Obama comment.

  7. A religion being led by psychopaths who are becoming devoid of religious ideals and this action gives them a new low bar to fall over. Madmen seem to be in control of the message and those madmen give ungodly liberties to their barren soul minions who follow that deadly, destructive advice. Of course, if they didn’t follow that deadly, war criminal type behavior, they themselves would be the ones threatened with harm or death. These ‘religious leaders’ give their flock two options with their inhuman religious edicts; disrespect or be disrespected, harm or be harmed, kill or be killed….

    Of course, US ‘leaders’ killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghans under the guise of ‘war’ is another matter altogether…collateral damage after all….

    And blaming Obama for the sins of the Bush is rejecting responsibility. It was an agreement reached by Bush. And Iraqi govt wouldn’t agree to not arrest or put on trial American troops for criminal behavior. If Obama said ‘Oh, go ahead and charge US soldiers with crimes’ he would be vilified. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. That’s how Mitch McConnell did things and it worked out well for him……but will it last?

  8. Annie,
    Am I reading Paul C. correctly in that if he were Obama, he would rape his daughters?

  9. Every time one turns around Muslim clerics seem to be “interpreting” the Koran to fit whatever serves their purposes. Yes, I know, clerics in other religious extremities seem to do this as well – a new issue arises and so does a new interpretation. What the result goes to prove is that the one who has the power to make the definitions has the ultimate power over those for whom the definitions are made.

  10. My mistake – she said that in May, not March.

    With one picture, Michelle Obama took a trending hashtag last week and turned it into a social-media supernova. In an image that has now come to represent the #BringBackOurGirls movement, it demands the return of more than 200 Nigerian school girls captured by Boko Haram.

    “In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters,” Michelle Obama said in a five-minute address last weekend. “We see their hopes, their dreams, and we can only imagine the anguish their parents are feeling right now.”

  11. In March, the First Lady did say this about the Boko Haram taking of girls with, apparently, the same justification as ISIS: “In these girls, Barack and I see our own daughters”.

  12. Fixing something I said upthread (I left out a key word): In short, the terrorists believe they will prevail in a zero-sum <b<Darwinian contest because their culture is stronger than ours.

  13. susan: “Remember, Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. . .our President said so.”

    That part of the strategy makes sense, although the President can’t carry it alone.

    I posted this counter-ISIS religious position upthread:

    And Olly posted this a while back:


    Attacking the Center of Gravity

    There are five “lines of operations” to be utilized in the attack on Qutbism, the ideological center of gravity for the Islamic-Fascist movement. Four of these lines are entirely the responsibility of the Muslim world: The message, the messenger(s), the ideology’s supporting institutions, and the institutions of the counter-ideology. A fifth line lies in both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds and is the defense of the universally accepted values, norms, and principles of modern civilization. Any successful strategy for the War on Terrorism requires synchronized efforts along all five lines to pressure and eventually collapse the ideological center of gravity. In theory this would strip al Qaeda and its affiliates of their source of power and bring victory in the war against the jihadi.

  14. syrbal-labrys: “How horridly and bitterly ironic that the word for war spoils is the same as the English slang for “friends”.”

    In more ways than one.

    Iraqi-American friendship, Iraqis and Americans fighting side by side in the Counterinsurgency “Surge” and Sunni Awakening was the key to beating the terrorists. When the terrorists later resurged in neighboring Syria and back into Iraq, that Iraqi-American friendship, forged in battle, was called on. But the next (current) President deliberately chose to reject the call to honor our friendship until it was perhaps too late and perhaps too little to save our friend.

    The criticism, including mine, mostly emphasizes that President Obama prematurely ended necessary US-led peace operations. However, in Obama’s defense, the situation in 2011 was not what it became in 2013 and 2014 (albeit Obama’s ‘lead from behind’ approach was a factor in the situation becoming worse). Ending peace operations too early was an elementary error with foreseen consequences, but there are at least excuses for the error, however thin. The greater, indefensible error by Obama was staying out and abandoning our friend to the terrorist danger regrowing like a cancer as it came back.

  15. Remember, Islam has nothing to do with ISIS. . .our President said so. And when he says the debate is over (as he has on more than one occasion), in his mind, it’s over.

    And to think in different parts of our country, the U.S.A., there’s are battles going on to make sharia law legal.

Comments are closed.