I just saw this quote on an article of separating fact from fiction re: ISIS conduct.
It is true that there are now virtually no Christians left in Mosul, and that the ‘tax or leave’ ultimatum was imposed week. There are horrifying reports of women being raped in front of their husbands when they said they could not pay.
Not to defend ISIS (as a Shi’i, I tend to think I ought to be immune from this claim, seeing as how the bastards would kill me on the spot if they found me), but that latter rape bit is highly unlikely. It cannot be made to work in classical jurisprudence, even under the most “extremist Sunni teaching” the article decries. You just have to know the fiqh to see that. First, the only people a man can have sex with are his wife and his female slave. This woman is neither. She’s neither virgin nor child, so she can’t be married to anyone without her consent by unanimity of jurists, so she’s not the rapist’s wife. If you are going to tell me she has been made his slave for failing to pay the jizya, then she’s a married slave, ie a slave married to another slave, and a slaveowner cannot forcibly divorce a slave who is already married. “Divorce is for he who takes her thigh” is the statement attributed to the Prophet, understood by all to mean the husband, told particularly in the context of a man who wanted to divorce his two slaves, presumably because he wanted the woman. Try another route and tell me the marriage is not a recognized one by ISIS and you’d have to explain the basis for deciding two Christians marrying under Christian rules is not recognized by an Islamic state. I see none. And even if I did, then that renders her a fornicator, for which the punishment is lashing, not rape. And even if one could somehow get around all of this, somehow, one still couldn’t have sex with her until she has been separated from her husband for three menstrual cycles. So the rapist is a fornicator (forcing the sex doesn’t somehow unfornicate it), meaning he’s either whipped 80 times, if he is unmarried, or stoned to death, if married.
All of that, to use the article’s considerable reduction, is “extremist Sunni teaching,.” Whatever you think of it (and I’ve got serious problems with pieces of it and in particular the slavery parts), it still renders the rape allegation highly suspect, at least as a practice justified Islamically. Of course it’s possible some rogue ISIS dude raped a woman in a manner that violates ISIS rules quite strongly. But then that was established as to rogue US soldiers in Haditha, Iraq as well. That’s not particularly revealing about ISIS.
Ironic that an article emphasizing the importance of separating fact from fiction runs off and prints that, of all things, the most fantastical claim of all.