British Imam Tells Followers That It Is Permitted and Moral Under Islam To Have Sex Slaves

Ali Hammuda, an Imam at a Cardiff mosque, seems intent on maintaining a position as one of the most hateful and extreme voices in the West when it comes to Islamic values. Hammuda first attracted international attention when three young men from his mosque who became extremists in ISIS in Syria. He is now back in the news after a secret recording shows him telling his followers that it is permissible and moral under the teachings of Mohammed to have sex slaves.

Hammuda influenced the three ‘Cardiff jihadis’ – Nasser Muthana and Reyaad Khan, then 20, and Muthana’s younger brother Aseel, then 17 – who became terrorists with ISIS in Syria. He is shown in the latest recording telling teenage Muslims that they can morally force women to be sex slaves under the teachings of the Koran (Quran). The recording from the Al-Manar mosque by an undercover reporter shows Hammuda, who (despite his extremist past) the English Islamic Programmes officer at the mosque, explains the Hadiths, or sayings of Mohammed.

Hammuda is recorded as saying:

“One of the interpretations as to what this means is that towards the end of time there will be many wars like what we are seeing today, and because of these wars women will be taken as captives, as slaves, yeah, women will be taken as slaves. . . . And then, er, her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife.”

He then explains how mothers also become little more than slaves under the teachings of Mohammed: “The one I think is strongest is that towards the end of time you will see a lot of Muslims disobeying their mothers and fathers . . . you see children speaking to their mothers and fathers as if they are your slave.”

Thousands of female captives, particularly Yazidi women and girls, have been enslaved and sold at auctions to ISIS terrorists. Their rape and slavery has been found to be moral acts by the clerics supporting the Islamic State.

While rape and slavery is perfectly moral under the teachings of Mohammad, Hammuda is disgusted . . . by music. Music turns out to be the “tool of Satan” so when you are raping your Yazidi sex slave, you should not listen to music. He also says that it is forbidden to engage in the “free mixing” with women . . . unless of course you are raping them as an Islamic right.

What is really frightening is that, until 2013, Hammuda was allowed to hold lunchtime sessions at Cathays High School in Cardiff. Many Muslims have condemned Hammuda and his hateful, disgusting teachings. After the release of the tape, Hammuda insisted that he has always condemned the “so-called Islamic State” and “this evil phenomena.” He insisted that “The undercover recording and quotations referred to seem to have been deliberately taken out of context to portray a religious perspective that I do not ascribe to.”

While context is often important, it is hard to see the different meaning to explaining how the writings of Mohammad state “And then, er, her master has relations with her because this is permissible in Islam, it’s permissible to have relations with a woman who is your slave or your wife.”

What is troubling is that people like Hammuda indoctrinate young people that they can forgo the basic human values in the name of Islam and commit war crimes while claiming to be moral Muslims.

87 thoughts on “British Imam Tells Followers That It Is Permitted and Moral Under Islam To Have Sex Slaves”

  1. Just to add for other readers, I am talking about the sexual slavery of mostly white school girls aged 11-14 years in by gangs of Pakistani men living throughout Britain. Here is a news article from The Telegraph in 2013 – where they daringly use the general term Asian rather than mis-doctrinated Muslim men of Pakistani origin.

  2. I campaign against modern-day slavery. It never ceases to amaze me how much people will look the other way to it, in all its forms. Reports to the police come of nothing. Authorities have institutionalised a misguided sense of anti-racism which is blocking anything being done for those poor children who are sex slaves you talk about, here in very own country. Their reasons for doing nothing implies that all Muslim men are child rapists – How much does that incite racial hatred – that is where the real racism lies.

  3. I understand your positions well,Isaac…We should and should not go in with hundreds of thousands of troops.
    Your previous and recent criticism of Bush was that he ignored advise to go in with 450,000 troops in Afghanistan..
    I never heard that “recommedation from his experts”, as you had previously claimed existed, and you could not provide single source to back up that alleged “recommendation” from the “experts”.
    Now, you’re imparting your military expertise about the inadvisabilty of going in “with hundreds of thousands of troops”.
    You feel free to repeatedly contradict yourself, and make up your own set of facts as it suits you.

  4. Isaacs-
    One can make the atgument that there were insuffienct troop levels in Afghanistan or Iraq.
    To simultaneously argue that “large scale intrusions are counter productive” is, in fact, a glaring contradiction.
    You somehow manage to argue for the “light footprints” approach and the large troop/overwhelming force presence
    at the same time.
    In one area, you are consistent….after nearly 8 years in office, Obama has absolutely no ownership of/ responsibilty for his own policies.
    He’s just been saddled with the mistakes of Bush 43, Reagan, and probably Calvin Cooledge as well.

  5. tnash

    Obama didn’t end the war in Iraq. He ended American occupation of Iraq. He did what most advisors on both sides of the aisle demanded. He turned the mess over to Iraq, the mess created by Bush. The war and the chaos continues with the US advising and assisting, not occupying and doing all the fighting.

    Regarding your second criticism, it has become the agreed upon position that America should not go in with hundreds of thousands of troops to settle problems where ever they exist in the world. This is not a contradiction but the result of the lessons of having done so in Iraq. You can have it both ways when you make a mistake and then learn from it, just not at the same time. This seems to elude you.

    That the Bush administration flubbed the Afghanistan invasion is well documented. You can read the newspapers which at the time criticized the US for not sending in enough troops, not following the Taliban and Bin Laden into Pakistan, not sealing off the borders, and not following up the take over with sufficient benefits to the Afghani people instead of simply handing over bags of money to the corrupt leaders.

    If you take the time to remember and read carefully my posts you will find that your confusion is what is at play here, not non existent contradictions. My argument regarding large scale intrusions being counter productive is based on today’s prevailing opinions, except when it serves opponents of Obama, except when the right wing war mongers take to the warpath. I believe Trump has mentioned that we should send in our military en masse. In the end, if Obama does what he’s doing, to those that oppose him, he is not doing enough or doing too much, etc. Obama’s actions are working to defeat ISIS regardless of whether or not he could not foretell that they would grow so quickly in light of such weak governments at the time and places. Obama’s mistakes are not reading the future as were Bush’s. Compare the mistakes.

  6. Good thing that Obama “ended the war in Iraq”, after the surge had gone a long way toward achieving stability.
    If it had not been for that pesky “JV Team” upsetting his plans, there would have been no need for Obama to “unend” the war in Iraq.
    Isaac, I have read your previous claims that “almost all experts and advisors” recommended 450,000 troops for the invasion of Afghanistan.
    You were never able to back that up with a source, but you remembered “reading it somewhere”.
    Now, in your 8:41AM comment, you write that the Afghanistan invasion force was inadequate……and then, in the same paragragh, write that a large scale intrusion is counter productive.
    You can’t have it both ways. You contradict yourself in post after post, and within the same paragragh.

  7. @Isaac

    What a load of hooey! Do you think there wasn’t political corruption before Citizen’s United???

    And you asked a question: “The economy has to change from the bottom up. This trickle down, king and queen thing is not the way. Why is it that the US is the only country that stays tied to this system?”

    Uhhh. Look in the friggin’ mirror! YOU and people like YOU are why we stay tied to this system! People who are sooo busy patting themselves on the back for being smart, and tolerant, and cosmopolitan, and better than everybody else, that they live in some Alternative Universe of Narcissistic Delusion. And end up missing the whole Trump phenomenon,

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  8. Steve

    “doesn’t bode well for a President who has continued them,”-The wars were going on when Obama came into office. Thousands of US service men and women gave their lives. Almost a million innocents were killed. The US public overwhelmingly wanted out at once. A consensus of opinion among leading military strategists-most of whom were ignored by the brilliant Cheney and Rumsfeld-opined that the most effective way of waging war in the region was through a combination of air control, special force intervention, effectively training and organizing locals, and keeping a large scale American profile out of the people’s faces. The surges were part of the first move, a large scale intervention and occupation. Obama oversaw a transition from the mistakes made by the Bush administration into what was the most viable approach. He can be criticized for doing too little, too much, too soon, and too late, depending on the political whine. However, he has the correct approach for the moment and recent events prove this out.

    The power structure that has been in place for the past seventy years or so and remains in place cannot be changed by a President. The voters have to put it to their representatives in Congress and the Senate. The first and keystone change must be to eliminate all political funding outside of a nominal ten or hundred dollar maximum per voter/citizen. Scalia’s legal double talk, regardless of how well structured, is nothing more than legal jerking off. The root of America’s problems is its lack of representation of informed citizens. Taking concentrated and special interest funding out of the equation will force candidates to attempt at dealing with the straight goods and not jingoes like ‘Make America Great Again’. The fact that this slogan affects millions is proof enough that those millions have seen and heard nothing of the issues and only the carnival barking.
    Clinton is now being criticized for being too detailed, too informative, and not enough of a bumper sticker. Trump is a bumper sticker. The question is who reads bumper stickers because they can’t handle the details?

    Eliminating power funding will allow other options in the area of candidates. Imagine if Bernie Sanders did not have to go up against Hillary’s concentrated funding. He made most of his impression on an individual donation basis. Imagine how many more Bernie Sanders there would be. This is the road to eliminating America’s greatest political failure, the two party choice, one more than a dictatorship. Imagine having four parties with a Congress dominated by two working together because no party has over 50%. Imagine the same in the Senate. There would be times when both right wing parties would combine, both left wing parties would combine, and more often than not center left with center right. There are basically four groups of voters. Shouldn’t there be four parties.

    The next move would be to transition into a Parliamentary system but that is way down the line.

    As for who created this recession, it was in the making for fifty years but the Bush administration took it from one the size that Reagan created and grew it in eight years to what most of us have forgotten and some blame on Obama, who wasn’t even in power. If you look at the proportional increases in government spending since Reagan you will see that Obama’s term is not the worst, Reagan’s is. Obama achieved much more with much less. The economic problems inherited by Obama far exceeded those inherited by Reagan. Reagan created a recession in his fifth year in office. Obama is still guiding America out of the recession created by the three stooges. Obama has his faults but he has done a yeoman’s job. The system needs to change from the bottom up. The economy has to change from the bottom up. This trickle down, king and queen thing is not the way. Why is it that the US is the only country that stays tied to this system?

  9. @Nicks

    I read the screed as, “Obama is not to blame, and Bush and Republican are stupid.”

    What it should be is “Obama is not to blame for CAUSING it, but Obama and the Democrats do the same stupid stuff as Bush and the Republicans.”

    I would have added that the Democrats are much crooked-er than Republicans to the point of being a gang of criminals, and that the Democrats are demagogue-ing race-baiters who screw the heck out of black people, and that the Democrats are a bunch mentally ill psycho-monsters with Munchausen’s by Proxy Syndrome, but that would be putting words in Isaac’s mouth. And be outside the scope of what he wrote.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  10. This guy has figured out that the only way he is going to “get any” is with a sex slave or a hooker. Chicks don’t dig imans.

  11. I was in a line @ the Newark airport last week next to a Canadian. He was ~30 years old. Election news was on a nearby TV. He was intrigued by Trump. He compared him to the Toronto Mayor Ford who died earlier this year. He said Ford was a populist politician only w/ horrible substance abuse problems. This witty Canadian said, “If Trump can stay off the crack pipe he could win.” My faith in Canadians was reestablished.

  12. You’re all welcome for not having to read that most recent polemic.

  13. Canadian Cliff Notes: Obama is right. Republicans are wrong. They are always wrong.

  14. Steve

    Almost all advisors and experts on the subject of Afghanistan, Iraq, and the other ‘hot spots’ of terrorist activity agree that large scale intrusion by foreign forces, doing the job that local forces should be doing, creating a foreign presence or common target, and influencing the local governments is counter productive to putting and end to the thugs that thrive on chaos and power vacuums. Afghanistan was and continues to be a failure because the initial military involvement was inadequate and the follow up almost non existent until corruption set in. In other words the US administration did not know what it was doing. They stated many times that if they simply went in and got rid of the oppressive regime, organized elections, and funded the mess; the rest would take care of itself. The three stooges were fools. What’s more they were fools many times around. Iraq speaks for itself, the same scenario, no viable understanding therefore no viable solution.

    Obama came into power with almost all Americans demanding that their large military presence be extracted and that Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries if and when they might erupt, take care of their own security issues. The US created the chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of how oppressive these regimes were before being attacked and eliminated Iraq was not a threat until Cheney and Rumsfeld came along with their poodle. Afghanistan may have been unavoidable as pertains to the taking out of the Taliban but the method was faulty. This is now history and is substantiated by most military experts.

    Obama’s approach is the correct one. One can fault him for doing too much or too little but the approach is the right one as is being seen in Iraq. The thugs are being pushed back and out, by the local forces, with the aid and training of US forces. Criticism is sourced from armchair quarterbacks and political opposition, typical and pathetic.

    Regarding the economy, America has been on the wrong track since the sixties. The economy run by corporations for returns to share holders coupled with a woeful lack of foresight, summed up in the oft touted phrase, “If it ain’t broke, why fix it.”, ignoring the source of the wealth-the workers, has been taking a different path than those of the more successful economies of the world. The US is not an emerging economy, yet the US functions as an emerging economy. Emerging economies emerge because their workers work for less than their competition. Then they create consumers with new found wealth and add to their market. The US has already done that and is failing to take the next step. The next step can be found in the post emerging economies such as that of Germany, Denmark, and other European, non raw material exporting, manufacturing countries.

    You may quickly point out the differences, advantages, and disadvantages in comparing the US to these countries but that is nothing more than the typical American ‘We’re number one.’ reaction. These countries have far fewer of the natural advantages of the US: raw materials, fossil fuels, population, momentum-or laurels, etc. Yet they perform much better when it comes to representing the people through their economies.

    The American manufacturing sector has been run from the global perspective of profit sharing at the top and not from the local perspective of job security at the base, where it was born, exists, and to which it should be beholden. Major corporations in the US have failed American workers by ignoring technology, ignoring interaction with the government, and ignoring the workers. Why else did Detroit and the US automobile industry drop from over a million workers to around 250 thousand? Why did the more balanced nations such as Japan and Germany take over?

    One could go on and on and the reader will either get it or refuse to get it. However the point is that this trend has been going on much longer than Obama. This is the result of the disconnect between the three main segments of out society: corporate, labor, and government. The reasons for this disconnect, failure, and erosion of the middle class are found in the sacred mumbo jumbo of keeping government out of business, identifying success with the CEO and not the thousands of workers that actually do the work, and basic ignorance.

    One can fault Obama for not being perfect but he still is the one that inherited the mess that has been coming for decades and was enhanced by the stupidity of the Bush administration. Overstepping his authority and not fixing everything fast enough pales next to his accomplishments. The national debt was increasing well before he came into office and that momentum has slowed and is diminishing at this time. The biggest causes of the recent rise in debt was the Bush administration reducing revenue by lowering taxes, starting and bungling two wars that cost trillions, and allowing the private sector the freedom to administer the US economy. The three stooges are responsible for most of that.

    A President will not be the one to begin the changes necessary for America to catch up to where it could and should be. These changes must be reflected in the people sent to Congress and the Senate. The President will fall in line. The first move is to establish a government run system of elections where candidates and their issues are presented to the voter without the involvement of concentrated funding and special interests. We have an oligarchy and yet are so ashamed we will not admit it. You can’t fix a problem before you admit you have one.

    1. Issac, thanks for your interesting reply. After reading it, I conclude your claim of the president’s yeoman performance is simply his mastery at continuing the oligarchy and regime change. Great point.

      Additionally, your claim regarding the “recent rise in debt” being the two wars doesn’t bode well for a president who has continued them, continued global regime change as an economic necessity, doubled the national debt in the meantime, and who like you endorses Clinton who had a major hand in creating the the 2008 recession and near trillion-dollar bailout of the major players in the oligarchy.

      It’s the economic model we’re operating under that’s the problem.

      “You can’t fix a problem before you admit you have one.” Another great point.

  15. I have read a translation of the Koran. There was not able word about this subject.

Comments are closed.