Sharia Law In The USA And Islamic State Sex Slave Victim Tells Of Months Of Abuse

Sharia Law In The USA Part Two A woman held as a sex slave by Islamic State for seven months has told Sky News she was abused every day and said the jihadists "were not like humans". A woman tells Sky News her four young children were beaten, while another victim says she was not allowed to bury her baby.

Show more

A woman held as a sex slave by Islamic State for seven months has told Sky News she was abused every day and said the jihadists "were not like humans".

The 25-year-old victim said her four children, aged five, six, seven and eight years old, were beaten and abused to ensure she complied with her captor's demands.

IS is known to use Yazidi women as sex slaves as they do not recognize their culture and view them as heathens.

Another woman, 22, who became pregnant while in captivity was not allowed to bury her dead child who was aged just seven months.

She was rescued, along with 30 other Yazidi men, women and children, by Kurds after being held for a year and a half.

IS extremists rarely allowed the group out of a building after the jihadists moved into Iraq's Sinjar mountains in August 2014.

Some 48 hours after being freed, Sky News met the group of eight families in a Dohuk refugee camp in a Kurdish-controlled area of northern Iraq where they had medical checks following their captivity.

They were all still traumatized from their experience and spoke of horrifying violence, physical and mental abuse, a serious lack of food (not fit for animals, they said), poor hygiene (with little access to water) and constant stress.

They had been smuggled out by a Kurdish group set up to try to track down and free some of the 3,000 Yazidis still being held by IS in Syria.

The 25-year-old, who was rescued in an operation a few months ago, said she had been the sex slave of an IS fighter called Omar.

"He abused me every day," she said.

She was also given contraceptives to ensure she didn't get pregnant and could be abused for longer.

"I cannot tell you how awful these people are. I was so worried that he would take away my children."

"They were not like humans. You cannot imagine it.

"They were very violent and shouting every day. My father and brothers were taken away and even now we don't have any news of them.

"Most probably they were killed but it's better. It's better that they are dead and not in prisons with these people. Even us, we were just wishing to die rather than stay with such people."

With extraordinary bravery, she told us how she protested when Omar planned to sell her on, begging him and threatening to kill herself if he did so. He relented.

She described how her life, despite being free now, is still filled with awful memories and unrelenting fear which still keeps her awake at night.

She said: "My days are difficult. I escaped but I still feel I am under their (IS) hands because I have others who are still in their hands."

"I cannot forget those still there suffering," she sobbed.

"I will tell my children when they are old enough," she said. "They need to know what their parents went through and how it was all caused by religion. They need to know everything."

Among the group recently released were eight children aged from nine months to eight years.

The 22-year-old woman lowered her eyes as she told Sky News she had become pregnant soon after being kidnapped.

The young woman's baby was born in captivity but was unwell and constantly crying. He died seven months later.

"They wouldn't even let us bury the baby," an elderly woman next to her said. Both women broke down in tears.

"'We will never forget this, until we die," the older woman said.

"We have suffered a lot, humiliated there. We were sure they were decapitating us if we did not obey them so we were literally obeying what they were asking us."

The leader of the group said they pretended to convert to Islam. "We did whatever they asked of us," he said.

A few days earlier, the Sky News team was over the border in Syria's Al Shaddadi, the most recent town to be liberated by the Syrian Democratic Front.

Amongst the debris left in the IS family homes, we found a list of Yazidi women who'd been bought and sold at the sex slave market there.

It listed their names, their ages and their new 'owners'. Some of the women traded were still teenagers, according to the document.

We took the list with us when we crossed the border into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq and handed it to one of the leaders of a group devoted to tracking down kidnapped Yazidis.

He was already familiar with at least three of the names. "We have already rescued these women", he said. "Any information will help."

He also said children as young as eight were being forced into the IS ranks, while other boys aged 14 and 15 were made to fight for the extremist group.

This article is written by and from the Sathyabama Institute of Science and Technology. This article discusses Sharia law in the United States, including an outline of the law and its history. The article also discusses all aspects of Sharia Law in the United States as well as the anti-Sharia movement. This Is Part Two Text Below... Thanks !
Introduction
The term Sharia derives from the Quran, the Islamic sacred book, as well as the Sunnah and Hadith, Prophet Muhammad’s deeds as well as his preaching. This is taken from the legal system of Islam. “Where an answer cannot be obtained immediately from these, religious experts may provide decisions as guidance on a specific topic or question,” according to the Sharia. This literally means ‘clean, well-trodden way to water’ in Arabic. This serves as a rule of conduct for all Muslims, including prayers, fasting, and charitable works for the needy.

Sharia law is a religious law that establishes regulating principles for spiritual, mental and physical behavior that Muslims must obey. This is considered God’s command for Muslims since it is important in Islam’s legal system. This law primarily assists Muslims in understanding how they should spend their entire lives in accordance with God’s commands. Sharia may have an effect on every element of a Muslim’s everyday life. Various states in the United States of America have prohibited Sharia law or prevent state courts from considering foreign international or religious law.

Sharia is a methodology through which Muslims look for divine intent in their sacred books, not simply a set of laws to follow. It includes everything from how a faithful Muslim should eat, to how animals and the environment should be treated, to business practices and marriage customs. It is the Islamic code of morality system that governs every element of a Muslim’s life. Sharia law is not in effect or no longer in force in the United States since it has not been legally enacted as a body of law.

24. What are the arguments of anti-Sharia groups?
Groups such ACT for America, the organizer of anti-Muslim protests in more than two dozen cities in June of 2017, and, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the largest grassroots anti-Muslim group in America, states on its website that “Sharia is incompatible with Western democracy and the freedoms it affords.” It promotes the idea that Islamic principles don’t fit with American values. This and other groups also make the unfounded claim that American Muslims are trying to sneak Sharia into the American legal system in ways that are counter to American legal principles or beliefs. Because many Americans think of Sharia as an Islamic legal system characterized by misogyny, intolerance, and harsh punishments, such claims are often taken very seriously by those who know little about Muslims and their faith.

25. Why are anti-Sharia arguments problematic?
In addition to being flat out wrong and totally far-fetched in the claim that Sharia is taking over our legal system, defining Sharia as a threat to the constitution and American way of life automatically assumes all adherents of Sharia to be anti-American. This casts suspicion upon all observant Muslims and conveys the inaccurate view that Islam is not only incompatible with American values but also a threat to the American way of life.
The anti-Muslim sentiment that such attitudes convey is clearly intended to further demonize and marginalize Muslims and prevent Americans of all faiths from working together for the security of the U.S. In an increasingly globalized world, Islamophobic rhetoric and actions in the U.S. further endanger our national and global security. Mainstreaming “anti-Muslim” and “anti-Islam” sentiment in America only strengthens the perverse narrative of violent extremists that the West is indeed at “war” with Muslims and so creates a cycle of provocation and response that is harmful to both Muslims and the West.
Even if the most extreme interpretation of Sharia were the correct one, there is absolutely no evidence that the U.S. legal system is in any danger of adopting tenets of Sharia. It is important that these anti-Sharia laws be examined rigorously, in order to understand their implication; as emphasized by Jewish Americans, according to a report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, “a prohibition against ‘Sharia’ and ‘religious law’ in the U.S. would infringe upon the rights and customs of other religious communities, who have relied upon contract law and civilian courts to enforce their arbitrations based upon their religious customs.” That is why many “Jewish groups across the spectrum have generally opposed bids to ban sharia law, arguing that Muslim Americans apply sharia in much the same way Orthodox Jewish communities apply halakha, or Jewish law, through religious courts: to grant divorces and to settle disputes of religious matters, while always deferring to civil courts. Jewish groups that address civil society issues, like the ADL, have also said that the movement to ban sharia often masks an anti-Muslim bias.”

26. Where have Sharia bans been implemented?
Ten states prohibit the use of foreign law in their state courts, which is another way that they have worked to ban Sharia without appearing to discriminate against Muslims. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee.

27. Which other states are considering banning Sharia?
In 2017, sixteen states have legislation on the subject. They include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

28. How is taqiyya related to the issue?
Many advocates of the “Sharia threat” also refer to taqiyya, an Arabic word which means concealing one’s faith out of fear of death, to mean religiously justified lying. However, the majority of Muslims know nothing about, let alone subscribe to the theological concept of taqiyya, in fact, it is a minority opinion and is generally discussed in the context of a war where one’s life is threatened.
The charge of taqqiya is often deployed by “Sharia threat” advocates when confronted with evidence that refutes their thesis. Under this methodology one cannot trust any practicing Muslim. Even if a Muslim preaches and practices non-violence, these individuals would say that person is either not a true Muslim or is practicing taqiyya. While providing a mechanism for critics to ignore any disconfirming evidence, adopting such an interpretation of taqiyya would almost certainly result in every observant Muslim being branded a liar or suspect simply by virtue of being Muslim.

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication at the time it was written. It is not intended to provide legal advice or suggest a guaranteed outcome as individual situations will differ and the law may have changed since publication. Readers considering legal action should consult with an experienced lawyer to understand current laws and how they may affect a case.

Rape in Islamic Law
Rape, known in Islamic law as zina bil-ikrah or zina bil-jabr (literally "fornication by force"), is a punishable crime generally defined by Muslim jurists as forced intercourse by a man with a woman who is not his wife or slave and without her consent. There was no concept of consent in Islamic law with regard either to a man's wives or slaves, though they could bring a legal complaint if intercourse with him caused them physical harm. A small number of hadiths describe punishments for the rape of free women and of female slaves who are not owned by the perpetrator. However, the Qur'an, on numerous occasions, permits Muslim men to have sexual relations with their own female slaves (famously referred to as "what your right hands possess"), often in conjunction with the commandment for men to keep otherwise chaste. In addition, various hadiths mention the sexual intercourse which slave owners (including Muhammad) had with their slaves.

Islamic law allowed the distribution of female captives as spoils of war and for them to be bought and sold, becoming sexually lawful after a short waiting period to confirm they were not pregnant. Slavery including sexual slavery persisted on a massive scale until modern times (see Slavery in Islamic Law). It is important to note, however, that slavery was legally abolished in majority Muslim countries around the world in the 19th and 20th centuries (though vast numbers of people remain illegally enslaved in a few places such as Mauritania]) and all countries signed the 1949 Geneva convention which in article 27 forbids rape and abuse of female captives. It is also now considered forbidden by most scholars in the modern context, though a minority, such as Saudi Sheikh Saleh Al-Fawzan, argue that slavery remains Islamically legitimate. Similarly, today many Muslim-majority countries have made marital rape illegal or offer other legal protections, though others (mainly in the Arab world) do not do so, often explicitly, as also some non-Muslim countries. While there is no punishment for rape victims, human rights groups are also concerned about the risks faced by women reporting rape in some countries where Zina (illicit sexual intercourse) is a punishable offence, as detailed below.

Typically, apologetic approaches to the issue of slaves and concubines propose that the women mentioned in the Quran and hadiths consented to intercourse with their captors and to their enslavement lest they be left destitute since their men had been killed. Critics generally argue that this is highly improbable, point out a hadith in which raped captives were due to be ransomed back to their tribe, and in any case would be incompatible with the modern understanding of consent which could not validly be given in captive circumstances. Some Islamic modernist scholars question the authenticity of the relevant hadiths altogether, in line with their general skepticism towards the hadith corpus and rejection of traditional jurisprudence, and attempt alternative interpretations of the Quranic verses.

The right to have intercourse with wives and slaves in Islamic law
The consent of a slave for sex, for withdrawal before ejaculation (azl) or to marry her off to someone else was not considered necessary, historically. Kecia Ali, Associate professor of religion, Boston University (a Muslim convert) says regarding sex with slaves: "For premodern Muslim jurists, as well as for those marginal figures who believe that the permission [for slavery] still holds, the category “rape” doesn’t apply: ownership makes sex lawful; consent is irrelevant." Dr. Jonathan Brown, Associate Professor and Chair of Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University (also a Muslim convert) has made similar comments:

As noted earlier, marriage and a male's ownership of a female slave were the two relationships in which sex could licitly occur according to the Shariah. In marriage, the consent of the wife to sex was assumed by virtue of the marriage contract itself. In the case of the slave-concubine, consent was irrelevant because of the master's ownership of the woman in question. As Kecia Ali has noted, there is no evidence for any requirement for consent from slave women in books of Islamic law in the formative centuries of Islam. Books of Islamic law and natural ethics are full of exhortations for husbands to enter in foreplay and stress the wife's right to orgasm. But such books also foreground Hadiths and laws obliging wives to meet their husbands' sexual needs without contest.

In the Shariah, consent was crucial if you belonged to a class of individuals whose consent mattered: free women and men who were adults (even male slaves could not be married off against their will according to the Hanbali and Shafiʿi schools, and this extended to slaves with mukataba arrangements in the Hanafi school). Consent did not matter for minors. And it did not matter for female slaves, who could be married off by their master or whose master could have a sexual relationship with them if he wanted (provided the woman was not married or under a contract to buy her own freedom).

Prohibited to you (For marriage) are:- Your mothers, daughters, sisters; father's sisters, Mother's sisters; brother's daughters, sister's daughters; foster-mothers (Who gave you suck), foster-sisters; your wives' mothers; your step-daughters under your guardianship, born of your wives to whom ye have gone in,- no prohibition if ye have not gone in;- (Those who have been) wives of your sons proceeding from your loins; and two sisters in wedlock at one and the same time, except for what is past; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful;-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.
Quran 4:23-24
This verse permits the believers to marry those whom their right hands possess (female slaves) who already have husbands, so long as the dower is paid. Other verses set out in the previous section show that slave owners did not even have to marry their slaves in order to have intercourse with them (See also the section below on the common apologetic claim of Freedom and marriage as a universal requirement).

The next verse tells any believer who cannot afford to marry a free believing woman to instead marry "from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls". This was understood to mean marrying a believing slave girl owned by someone else (which makes sense as it switches to the plural "right hands possess", and a slave owner by definition would not be too poor to marry a free woman). In Islamic law, she would remain a slave after the marriage, but her owner would no longer have the right of sexual access to her, which transfers to her husband alone. The owner had the right to marry off his female slave without her consent, and would own any children produced by the marriage. If the owner himself wished to marry his own slave, he had to free her first. For details see Slavery in Islamic Law.

And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free, believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave girls. And Allah is most knowing about your faith. You [believers] are of one another. So marry them with the permission of their people and give them their due compensation according to what is acceptable. [They should be] chaste, neither [of] those who commit unlawful intercourse randomly nor those who take [secret] lovers. But once they are sheltered in marriage, if they should commit adultery, then for them is half the punishment for free [unmarried] women. This [allowance] is for him among you who fears sin, but to be patient is better for you. And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Quran 4:25
The verse states that permission is to be sought from her people, though acceptance would inevitably be a choice not free from coercion, given that the alternative was for her owner to retain the right of sexual intercourse with her, granted elsewhere in the Quran. Perhaps in recognition of the potentially coercive nature of such an arrangement, the same verse halves the punishment she would face for certain conduct during the marriage (traditionally interpreted as adultery).

Sahih hadiths in the collections of Muslim and Abu Dawud give the traditional background story for the permission granted by the previous verse (Quran 4:24): some of Muhammad's fighters were reluctant to have sexual contact with female captives who were already married to the defeated men of the mushrikeen (those who associated partners with Allah).

Abu Sa’id 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 Apostle of Allah were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. So, Allah the exalted sent down the Qur’anic verse “And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hand posses.” This is to say that they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period.
Sunan Abu Dawud 2155 (Dar-us-Salam Ref)
The hadith in Sahih Muslim is found in a chapter dedicated to the topic; the chapter is entitled "Chapter: It is permissible to have intercourse with a female captive after it is established that she is not pregnant, and if she has a husband, then her marriage is annulled when she is captured".

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger 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 te 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 [waiting] period came to an end).
Sahih Muslim 8:3432
Ibn Kathir, the most prominent of all Qur'an interpreters, had this to say in regards to verse 4:24:

The Ayah means 'also [forbidden are] women already married, except those whom your right hands possess'. 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 [that is, upon the completion of the "iddah" waiting period]. 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 (verse) was revealed, 'Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess'. Accordingly, we had sexual relations with these women. [literally: 'as a result of these verses, their (Infidels') wives have become lawful for us']" This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.
Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4:24
Similarly in Tafsir al-Jalalayn (Qur'an interpretation by two Jalals namely: Jalaluddin Mahalli and Jalaluddin Suyuti, both authorities):

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.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn 4:24
In Islamic law, if a slave woman was married her owner had no right of sexual access to her. Some early Muslim scholars held that slave marriages, which could occur between slaves or between a slave and a free person, were automatically dissolved when ownership was transferred because her new owner was buying sexual access to her but two men could not have licit access to the same woman. Later, a consensus emerged that the marriage and licit sexual access remained between the slave woman and her husband alone upon transfer of ownership, whatever his status.

Sex with female slaves and war captives in the hadiths
Scenes of Muhammad's companions, and indeed Muhammad himself, engaging in sexual activity with slaves and captives are common throughout hadith literature. While the female perspective is largely absent, leaving the reader to speculate as to whether the female slave or captive would have been receptive to the advances of Muhammad and his companions, it is fair to assume that in at least some (if not most or indeed all) of these cases, the sexual activity occurred without the female's consent and thus qualified as rape. This is particularly clear in the examples that follow where Muhammad's companions initiate sexual contact with the captive women shortly after having slayed their sons, husbands, fathers, and brothers. At the very least, it can be said that in no such case does Muhammad intervene in and that in all such cases he actively permits what, by all appearances, is an instance of his companion's raping a captive or slave. These are originally free non-Muslims who are captured in battle. The entire population of a conquered territory can be enslaved, thus providing women who are otherwise rare on the battlefield. This paves the path for concubinage. The Muslim military commander is allowed to choose between unconditionally releasing, ransoming or enslaving war captives. If a person converted to Islam after being enslaved, their emancipation would be considered a pious act but not obligatory. Islamic law does not allow enslavement of free-born Muslims.

Islamic jurists permitted slave raiding and kidnapping of non-Muslims from Dar al Harb. South Asian scholars ruled that jihad was not needed to seize non-Muslims nor was it necessary to invite them to Islam before seizing them. Raiders were free to take and enslave any non-Muslim. However, Islamic jurists held that non-Muslims who lived in areas which had formal pacts with Muslims were to be protected from enslavement.

Non-Muslim residents of an Islamic state who fail to pay jizya or break their contract with the state can also be enslaved.

Muhammad has intercourse with his slave girl Maria bint Sham'un
Muhammad had a child with a slave girl of his known as Maria the Copt, who was a gift to him from the Governor of Alexandria. In a hadith from Sahih Muslim, a phrase translated as "slave girl" is, in the orignal Arabic, umm walad (literally: "mother of the child") and is the title given to a slave concubine who bore her master a child.

Anas reported that a person was charged with fornication with the slavegirl of Allah's Messenger. Thereupon Allah's Messenger said to 'Ali: Go and strike his neck. 'Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. 'Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat 'Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah's Apostle and said: Allah's Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him.
Sahih Muslim 37:6676
The following hadith is graded Sahih by Dar-us-Salam:

It was narrated from Anas, that the Messenger of Allah had a female slave with whom he had intercourse, but 'Aishah and Hafsah would not leave him alone until he said that she was forbidden for him. Then Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, revealed: "O Prophet! Why do you forbid (for yourself) that which Allah has allowed to you.' until the end of the Verse.
Sunan an-Nasa'i 4:36:3411
Tafsir al-Jalalayn says of the verse (Quran 66:1) referred to in this hadith:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa who had been away but who upon returning and finding out became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying ‘She is unlawful for me!’ seeking by making her unlawful for you to please your wives? And God is Forgiving Merciful having forgiven you this prohibition.

Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn 'Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn 'Umar was in that army.
Sahih Bukhari 3:46:717
Waiting period before sex with slave girls too young to menstruate
While it is relatively well known that forced marriage of children was permitted by all schools of Islamic Jurisprudence and that some did not require puberty prior to marital consummation[42] (all of which is illegal today in most modern Muslim-majority countries), less well known is that intercourse was also permitted with pre-pubescent slave girls.

It is important to reiterate at this point that the majority of Islamic scholars today consider slavery to no longer be permissible in a modern context. Slavery was outlawed in Muslim majority countries around the world during the 19th and 20th centuries (though still persists illegally in a few places such as Mauritania where as of the early 2020s, human rights groups estimate that 20% of the population are still enslaved including children[1]). Modern muslims would generally be as appalled as anyone else to learn of these past practices.

The istibra' was the period of time during which a man may not have sexual intercourse with a female slave that he has just acquired. This was intended to prevent doubts over a child's paternity in case a slave-girl falls pregnant shortly after being bought by a new master.

The Kuwait Encyclopedia of Fiqh, Volume 3, p. 174 summarises the opinions of the Sunni legal schools regarding the length of istibra' for non-menstruating slaves whether because they are either too young or too old. It says that Malikis gave opinions ranging from one month to three months. The Hanbali school said three months, while the Hanafi and Shafi'i schools said it is one month.

The Risala was a famous treatise of Maliki fiqh (jurisprudence). It gives the istibra' for child slave-girls (who do not yet menstruate) as three months. For slaves who do menstruate, the istibra' is instead measured as one menstral period.

Istibra' is observed in the case of a slavegirl who changes ownership. It is one menstruation. Ownership changes by selling, giving away, capture, or any other way. If the woman menstruates after being in the possession of the new master before he has bought her, then she does not have to observe an istibra' if she has not gone out. The istibra' for a child when she is sold is three months as it is for a woman who no longer menstruates. There is no istibra' for a woman who has never had intercourse.
The Risala 33:5
Ahmad ibn Hanbal was founder of another major school of jurisprudence. Here Abu Dawud reports Ibn Hanbal's response when the latter was asked about the istibra' for child slave-girls:

I heard Aḥmad asked about an istībrāʾ for a girl of ten, and he thought there should be one. I heard Aḥmad say, “A girl of ten years of age may become pregnant.” Someone said to Aḥmad while I was listening, “Even if she is too young to menstruate (ṣaghīra)?” He said, “If she is [very] young, that is, if she is still suckling, then waiting an istibrāʾ has no legal consequences.”
Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh Chapter 2 (Abu Dawud) §59-61, translated by Susan Spectorsky, University of Texas Press, 1993
Ibn Hanbal's son Abdullah too reported his father's views on this question, as well as on the question of sexual touching of pre-menstral slave-girls. Ibn Hanbal permitted either of these after three months:

I said, “What about a man who buys a female slave not old enough to menstruate?” He said, “He abstains from having sexual intercourse with her for three months.” ... I said to my father, “May he have intimate contact other than that of sexual intercourse with his prepubescent female slave?” He said, “Not until he has abstained from having sexual intercourse with her for three months.” I asked my father about a man who buys a female slave who is too young to menstruate. “How long should he refrain from having sexual intercourse with her?” He said, “For three months.” I said to my father, “What about intimate contact other than that of intercourse? Can he, for example, touch or kiss her?” He said, “I prefer him not to do that. He should wait an istibrāʾ, for I cannot be certain that if he does touch or kiss her and she is pregnant, he will not do so in an unlawful manner.”
Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh Chapter 3 (Abdullah) §138-9, translated by Susan Spectorsky, University of Texas Press, 1993
Sufyan was the teacher of Ibn Hanbal and Ishaq. Here the views of all three are reported by Ahmad's student al-Kausaj:

I said, “Sufyān said, and he was one of those among the scholars (ahl al-ʿilm) whose opinion was sought, that when a man bought a young female slave, one considered too young for sexual intercourse, that it was not necessary for her to wait an ʿidda. He said, ‘What I prefer when a man buys a female slave too young for intercourse is that her new owner should neither kiss her nor have sexual contact with her, until he has waited a period of istibrāʾ on her behalf, in accordance with the sunna [concerning female slaves].’”
Aḥmad said, “What Sufyān said is excellent.”

Isḥāq said, “There is no harm in his kissing her and having sexual contact with her, because she is among those whom one need not fear having to return to her previous owner because of pregnancy.
Chapters on Marriage and Divorce: Responses of Ibn Ḥanbal and Ibn Rāhwayh Chapter 4 (al-Kausaj) §224, translated by Susan Spectorsky, University of Texas Press, 1993
Shafi'i, founder of another major sunni legal school, said that the istibra' in this situation was one month (as mentioned above). See also the section below about polytheist slaves for his view that sex with polytheist child slaves becomes lawful only once the child has embraced Islam, which may be achieved by coercion in some circumstances.

These views contrast with the statement by Ibn Hajar discussed in another section above, that "the practice of many Companions" was to not observe istibra' for virgin pre-pubescent girls. He may have had in mind narrations similar to some attributed to the tabi'un (2nd generation after the companions) which were collected by Ibn Abi Shaybah (d. 849 CE). A chapter of the Musannaf of Ibn Abi Shaybah records a number of relevant narrations including these from 'Ikrima and the renowned judge Iyas b. Mu'awiyah:

(16906) Waki <– Ali Bin Al-Mubarak <– Yahya Bin Abi Kathir <– Ikrimah:
Regarding the man who buys a pre-pubescent slave girl, even one younger than that. He said: “There is nothing wrong with touching her before observing Istibra”
(16907) Zayd Bin Hubab <– Hammad Bin Salamah <– Iyas Bin Muawiyah:

Regarding a man who brought a pre-pubescent slave girl, do not those like her have sexual intercourse? He said: “there is nothing wrong with performing the sexual act upon her without observing istibra”
Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 16906 and 16907 (for translation and further discussion see here
Screenshots of the sources used in this section are also available here (archive).

Limitations on rape of slaves and war captives
Avoiding physical harm during intercourse
Beyond the temporary requirement of waiting past the Iddah period or conversion of a slave, the only restriction on sex with one's slaves or wives is that they do not suffer physical harm in the process. However, this derives from a generic prohibition against incurring harm (ḍarar) upon anyone at any time, and men are authorized in the view of jurists to beat their wives and slaves as a form of physical discipline if they deny him sexual access or fail to obey him in some other mandatory capacity.

In practical terms, the relevance of the "do-no-harm" principle in this case is that a man should not penetrate his wives or slaves against their will if they are physically too small to withstand penetration (i.e. in the case of very young girls) or if they are seriously ill or injured to the point where penetration would inhibit their healing or magnify their injury. There is no consideration here for harm in the form of "mental anguish", and men are permitted to sexually utilize very young, ill, and/or injured slaves against their will through means other than penetration if such less egregious means will help avoid severe physical injury.

Waiting until the completion of the Iddah or childbirth
A hadith graded sahih by Dar-us-Salam in Abu Dawud describes the Iddah waiting period as the "one menstrual period" after acquisition of the slave wherein the new owner must abstain from sexual contact in order to ascertain whether or not the slave is pregnant, so as not to confuse paternity.

Abu Sa’id Al Khudri traced to Prophet the following statement regarding the captives taken at Atwas. There must be no intercourse with pregnant woman till she gives birth to her child or with the one who is not pregnant till she has had one menstrual period.
Sunan Abu Dawud 2152 (Ahmad Hasan Ref)
Another hadith graded sahih by Dar-us-Salam in Tirmidhi explains that if the slave is pregnant

Narrated Umm Habibah bint 'Irbad bin Sariyah: From her father who told her that the Messenger of Allah prohibited intercourse with female prisoners, until they deliver what is in their wombs."
Jami` at-Tirmidhi 3:19:1564
Waiting until adult polytheist slaves convert, by force if necessary
Although Muhammad's men seem to have had intercourse with captive polytheist women whom they had captured during the expedition to Awtas/Autas, most jurists later ruled that this was later forbidden by Quran 2:221 (the verse only forbids marriage to polytheist women, but scholars inferred that this also applied to intercourse with slaves). Intercourse with Muslim, Christian, or Jewish slaves was not affected by this restriction.

Early scholars of fiqh devised a workaround for this restriction, including the allowance of raping younger captives who were polytheist:

According to a report included in the Jāmi‘ of al-Khallāl (d. 311 A.H. / 923 A.D.), Ibn Hanbal maintained that if Zoroastrian and idolatrous women are taken prisoner, they are coerced into Islam; if they embrace it, sexual relations with them are permissible and they can (also) be used as maidservants. If they do not embrace Islam, they are used as maidservants but not for sexual relations (wa idhā subhīna (sic) al-majūsiyyāt wa ‘abadat al awthān ujbirna 'alā al-Islām fa-in asl ama wutiʼna ma 'stukhdimna wa in lam yuslimna 'stukhdimna wa lam yūtaʼna).
The contradiction inherent in this passage is evident: despite the unspecified coercive measures, some of the women in question refused conversion and, consequently, the masters could not take full advantage of their services. If the only way to embrace Islam is pronouncing the declaration of faith, the conversion of a defiant woman may not be possible: it is not always feasible to force someone to utter the shahāda. According to a tradition transmitted on the authority of Hasan al-Basri, the Muslims used various devices to attain their objective: they turned the Zorastrian slave-girl toward the Ka‘ba, ordered her to pronounce the shahāda and to perform ablution. Her master then engaged in sexual relations after she had one menstruating period while in his house. Others hold that the master must teach the slave-girl to pray, to purify herself and to shave her private parts before any intercourse. The participation of the girl in this procedure is minimal, and this wording may be interpreted us a considerable lowering of the conversion requirements so that the girl becomes eligible for sexual intercourse as expeditiously as possible. Among the early traditionists, only a few were willing to go beyond this and allow sexual relations with a Zoroastrian slave-girl without insisting on at least a semblance of conversion.

Shafi‘i's treatment of the issue is slightly different. Speaking of grown-up Zoroastrian or polytheist women taken into captivity, he maintains that no sexual relations with them are allowed before they embrace Islam without bringing up the question of converting them forcibly. If the female captives are minor but were taken captive with at least one of their parents, the ruling is the same. If, however, the girl was captured without her parents, or one of her parents embraced Islam, she is considered a Muslim and is coerced into embracing it (nahkumu lahā bihukm al-Islām wa nujbiruhā ‘alayhi). Once this happens, sexual relations with her are lawful.
Friedmann, Yohanan, Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, pp. 107-108, ISBN 9780511497568, August 2009 (archived from the original)

Modern perspectives
While most Islamic scholars today are comfortable with at least the temporary abolition of slavery in light of the fact that Islamic scriptures universally praise the freeing of slaves as a meritorious act, few are comfortable with the idea of permanently and irreversibly amending divine law. As a result, the legal rulings relating to slaves and the technical permissibility of owning slaves under the proper circumstances (e.g. under the rule of a "legitimate khilafah", or caliphate) persist, as exemplified in the following fatwa from the most popular Islamic fatwa website in the world, based in Saudi Arabia.

With regard to your question about it being permissible for a master to be intimate with his slave woman, the answer is that that is because Allaah has permitted it.
Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, ed, (March 18, 2004), "Fatwa No. 13737: What is the ruling on intimacy with slave women?", Islam Q&A, March 18, 2004 (archived from the original)
Likewise, as with all rulings of the shariah, the basic rulings governing family relations are unchanging. It would be difficult even today to find a trusted Islamic authority that does not still, at some level, permit marital rape and give general license for wife beating as a potential means by which to compel one's able but unwilling spouse into sexual activity, among other things.

The wife is obliged to obey her husband if he calls her to his bed, and if she refuses then she is sinning, because of the report narrated by al-Bukhaari (3237) and Muslim (1436) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a man calls his wife to his bed and she does not come to him, and he goes to sleep angry with her, the angels will curse her until morning.”
Muhammad Salih al-Munajjid, ed, (July 22, 2007), "Fatwa No. 99756: His wife is not very interested in intercourse so he resorts to masturbation", Islam Q&A, July 22, 2007 (archived from the original)
Others side with modern values regarding these issues. Khaled Abou al-Fadl is a prominent reformist scholar who has summarised his understanding of modern Islamic views on slavery and sexual exploitation:

Consider, for example, the recent truly ominous and disturbing development by one of the highest-ranking puritan jurists. Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan, a Saudi jurist, issued a fatwa (a legal opinion) in which he claimed that not only is slavery lawful in Islam, but that it ought to be legalized in Saudi Arabia. Al-Fawzan went further in accusing Muslim scholars who condemned and outlawed slavery of being ignorant and infidels. This fatwa is particularly disturbing and dangerous because it effectively legitimates the trafficking in and sexual exploitation of so-called domestic workers in the Gulf region and especially Saudi Arabia.
The position of slavery had been resolved for most of the twentieth century: slavery was condsidered unlawful and immoral, and all Muslim countries without exception had made the practice illegal. Importantly, most Muslim scholars had reached the reasonable conclusion that slavery is inconsistent with Qur'anic morality and the ethical objectives of the Islamic faith. In short, the prohibition of slavery was considered a closed matter.
Khaled Abou al-Fadl, The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists
Modern revisionary perspectives and criticisms thereof
Freedom and marriage as a requirement for intercourse
Verses 4:23-24 (Quran 4:23-24) are sometimes presented as evidence for the idea that a man must first manumit and marry a slave in order to have sex with her. The verse lists the types of women a Muslim man is permitted to marry, one given option being his slave women, of whom he may free and marry. While 4:23-24 do not mention slaves outside of a marital context, several other verses (e.g. Quran 23:1-6 and Quran 70:29-30) make clear reference to sexual activity with slaves with whom the owner is not married by explicitly distinguishing between his sexual access to his wives and his sexual access to his slaves. The further example of Muhammad's companions raping captives from Banu al-Mustaliq prior to ransoming them (a scenario which effectively necessitates their non-marriage) confirms this idea.

In addition, there is the universally attested legal category of the Umm Walad (literally "mother of child") that is used by Islamic jurists to refer to those slaves who have given birth to one of their master's children. The child is free from birth and the mother is free upon her owner's death. An Umm Walad is legally distinct from a free mother because she is still a slave. Indeed, the concept of Umm Walad is apparently attested even in the prophet's time according to a hadith in Sahih Muslim - further clarifying the matter is the fact that in this very hadith, Muhammad approves of the companion's sexual relations with his unmarried slave girl.

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that mention was made of 'azl in the presence of Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) whereupon he said: Why do you practise it? They said: There is a man whose wife has to suckle the child, and if that person has a sexual intercourse with her (she may conceive) which he does not like, and there is another person who has a slave-girl and he has a sexual intercourse with her, but he does not like her to have conception so that she may not become Umm Walad, whereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: There is no harm if you do not do that, for that (the birth of the child) is something pre- ordained. Ibn 'Aun said: I made a mention of this hadith to Hasan, and he said: By Allah, (it seems) as if there is upbraiding in it (for 'azl).
Sahih Muslim 8:3377
Encouragement to chastity as a prohibition on rape
Verse 24:33 (Quran 24:33), which instructs unmarried men to keep chaste and instructs slaveowners to "force not [their] maids to prostitution", is sometimes presented as evidence for the idea that sexual activity is only permitted in a marital context and that slaveowners may not compel their slave girls to sexual activity of any sort.

Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),
Quran 24:33
Chastity is instructed throughout the Qur'an and is repeatedly defined as the habit of one who "guards their private parts" from all except "their wives [of whom they may have up to four] and what their right hand possesses [i.e. female slaves, of whom they may have an unlimited number]" (e.g. Quran 23:6, Quran 33:50, Quran 33:52, and Quran 70:30). It is clear that, in the view of the Qur'an's author, an unmarried male may be considered chaste even if he engages in sexual activity with a technically unlimited number of women, so long as they are his slaves.

The portion of the verse which instructs slaveowners to "force not [their] maids to prostitution" has traditionally been understood in its simplest sense, which prohibits slaveowners from playing the role of a pimp and trafficking their slave women - such a business built on illegal intercourse is of course prohibited and, understood this way, the verse says nothing of novel import. Another accepted sense of this verse is that if a female slave desires her (or, say, her child's) freedom, her master ought to give her some legal means by which to pursue it, the alternative being her feeling compelled to prostitute herself to earn the funds necessary to purchase that freedom (traditional tafsirs also mention the also undesirable possibility of a master forcing a slave to prostitution as a condition for her freedom). Since such a temptation on the part of the slave girl is all the more plausible given the likelihood that she was captured in a war or raid where her people were both slaughtered and enslaved (leaving her with no means), and so the verse concludes by saying that if a slave girl is driven to such behavior, then Allah will be forgiving. And in the simpler sense, if her master forces her to prostitution, then Allah will forgive her for what was not in her control.

Violations of the spoils-distribution system as rape
Quote from al-Shafi'i
A quote from al-Umm of Imam al Shafi'i, the founder of the Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence, is sometimes misrepresented as forbidding slave owners from raping their female slaves.

"If a man acquires by force a slave-girl, then has sexual intercourse with her after he acquires her by force, and if he is not excused by ignorance, then the slave-girl will be taken from him, he is required to pay the fine, and he will receive the punishment for illegal sexual intercourse."
al-Shafi'i, al-Umm, 3, p. 253
It is clear, however, that "acquires by force" here refers to the manner in which the man gained possession of the slave girl, not a description of the later sexual act. Indeed, this quote comes from the section entitled ghasb (property usurpation). According to Islamic law, a fifth of all war and raid spoils (referred to as the Khum - literally "fifth"), including captives who may be sold for funds, is to be allotted for public spending. Taking and raping a captive from this public allotment, as Ali is reported to have in one instance, amounts to theft and zina (illegal intercourse). This, as well as taking and raping someone else's slave, is of course prohibited and punishable. Indeed, in the remainder of his many-volume legal work al-Umm, al-Shafi'i painstakingly outlines the laws regarding the sexual obligations of one's wives and slaves, in no place suggesting that rape of the female is punishable in these contexts.

Quote from Malik
A quote from the Muwatta of Imam Malik, founder of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, is also sometimes misrepresented in this vein.[48] As with the quote taken from al-Umm, this quote from the Muwatta is likewise only referring to stolen slaves and has no bearing on one's own slaves and wives. Fines for raping slave girls were always paid to the master.[49] And, just like Imam Shafi'i, Malik details the legal practices of slavery in several other places throughout the same text.

Malik related to me from Ibn Shihab that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan gave a judgment that the rapist had to pay the raped woman her bride- price. Yahya said that he heard Malik say, "What is done in our community about the man who rapes a woman, virgin or non-virgin, if she is free, is that he must pay the bride-price of the like of her. If she is a slave, he must pay what he has diminished of her worth. The hadd-punishment in such cases is applied to the rapist, and there is no punishment applied to the raped woman. If the rapist is a slave, that is against his master unless he wishes to surrender him."
Al-Muwatta 36:14
Hadith regarding the caliph Umar
A hadith in the Sunan of al-Bayhaqi describes the Caliph Umar punishing Dhiraar for raping a captive woman and is sometimes presented as evidence that one is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with slaves.

Abu al-Hussain bin al-Fadhl al-Qatan narrated from Abdullah bin Jaffar bin Darestweh from Yaqub bin Sufyan from al-Hassab bin Rabee from Abdullah bin al-Mubarak from Kahmas from Harun bin Al-Asam who said: Umar bin al-Khatab may Allah be pleased with him sent Khalid bin al-Walid in an army, hence Khalid sent Dhiraar bin al-Azwar in a squadron and they invaded a district belonging to the tribe of Bani Asad. They then captured a pretty bride, Dhiraar liked her hence he asked his companions to grant her to him and they did so. He then had sexual intercourse with her, when he completed his mission he felt guilty, and went to Khalid and told him about what he did. Khalid said: 'I permit you and made it lawful to you.' He said: 'No not until you write a message to Umar'. (Then they sent a message to Umar) and Umar answered that he (Dhiraar) should be stoned. By the time Umar's message was delivered, Dhiraar was dead. (Khalid) said: 'Allah didn't want to disgrace Dhiraar'
al-Bayhaqi, "Hadith 18685", Sunan al-Bayhaqi, 2, p. 263
As with the quote taken from Imam Shafi'i, this almost certainly refers to a violation of the system for distributing war spoils. Dhiraar's intercourse with the captive girl was illegal and merited stoning not because of her captive status or lack of consent, but because he had intercourse with the girl without that girl having been allotted to him at the behest of the caliph (Umar in this case), who has the responsibility of distributing spoils. Neither captivity nor consent are mentioned as a factor in the punishment. Indeed, in a another hadith discussed above, Umar tells a man to have intercourse with his slave girl after his wife tried to prevent it.

Quote from Shafi'i on pleasure without compulsion in intercourse
A passage from al-Shāfiʿī's al-Umm is occasionally proposed on Islamic websites as establishing a principle for sexual consent in general from a major legal figure. However, such a generalization is not justified from the context, which is about marital relations and specifically the husband's obligation but not compulsion to satisfy his wife' sexual needs. Here are comments and a translation by Professor Kecia Ali:

Where there was no question of justice to co-wives, Shāfiʿī explicitly denies the wife's claim to a specific amount of intercourse:
He said: And so if she is alone with him [i.e., he has no other wives], or with a slavegirl he has that he has sex with, he is ordered [to fulfill his obligations] in reverence to God the Exalted, and not to do her harm with regard to intercourse, and he is not obligated to any specific amount of it (wa lam yufraḍ ʿalayhi minhu shayʾbi ʿaynihi). Rather, he is only [obligated] to provide what she absolutely cannot do without, maintenance and lodging and clothing, and also to visit her (yaʾwī). However, intercourse is a matter of pleasure and no one is compelled to it.

Shāfiʿī is unaware of his blinders. He obviously refers only to men when he declares that "intercourse is a matter of pleasure and no one is compelled to it." Women's sexual availability is, for him, a condition of their support and a prerequisite for their rights to visitation: "if any of them [his wives] refuses to have sex with him, she has disobeyed and abandoned her claim."
Shāfiʿī's al-Umm quoted by Kecia Ali, Marriage and Slavery in Early Islam, p.119
Professor Jonathan A. C. Brown in reference to the same ruling remarks, "Shafiʿi himself, in a ruling followed dutifully by the major figures of his school, did not require a husband to have sex with his wife or slave-concubine because, ‘as for sex, it is a locus of pleasure and no one should be compelled to do it.’"

Wife-Beating, Wife-Beheading and the Qur'an
American Muslim leaders have been quick to condemn the beheading of a woman by her Muslim husband in Buffalo, saying it has nothing to do with religion. Is there a connection between religion and domestic violence?

1.....This week's "On Faith" questions hit me with a flurry of questions:

1.1.....Have any non-American Muslim leaders condemned the beheading?

1.2....."Quick" after the beheading, could anybody know whether, in the murderer's mind, religion had anything to do with his crime?

1.3.....Since beheading is a solid Muslim tradition & contemporary practice, how could any Muslim leader say that a particular beheading by a Muslim had "nothing to do with religion"?

1.4.....Since the beheader was religious, and of a religion that practices beheading, how - in light of this event - could anyone ask whether there is "a connection between religion and domestic violence"?

2.....I take no pleasure in citing any evidence of Islamic beheadings, and do so only because of widespread denials of it by some Muslims and consequent widespread public confusion on the subject. I'll cite only one reference in the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an: "smite their necks...slaughter...." (2.47.4 "Muhammad").
Subsequent Muslim literature ( including hadith and sharia law) is replete with instructions on beheadings. / CIA agent William Buckley was beheaded in Iran after Hezbollah kidnapped him in Lebanon and sent him to Iran.
American journalist Daniel Pearl's beheading was broadcast on Muslim television. / I was saddened, but not surprised, when a Muslim took the law (that is, sharia) into his own hands and beheaded his wife. Not that domestic murder is uncommon; but in the West, beheading is uncommon.

3.....I've seen no poll indicating, in cases of domestic violence, the presence or absence of religion as factor. I do know that wife-beating (but not wife-beheading) is approved in Islam (Qur'an 1.4.38 "Women"), and nowhere approved in Christian writings (indeed, it would be virtual masochism: "husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies" [Ephesians 5:28]). / The Buffalo Muslim who beheaded his wife had the Islamic right to beat her, and he probably did, but that treatment proved inadequate to subdue her.

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20160430_art008.pdf

https://myottawa.ottawa.edu/ICS/icsfs/Wife-beating_wife-beheading_and_the_Qu'ran,_Februa.pdf?target=0bec6b1d-6de0-485c-96be-a4c99a1d364a

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1132&context=wmjowl

https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sharia-law-and-the-death-penalty.pdf

https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs5746/files/downloads/ISIS%20in%20America%20-%20Full%20Report.pdf

Although beheadings were long favored in many parts of Europe and Asia and in some cases fell out of use only relatively recently — France last used the infamous guillotine in 1977, for example — almost all governments have now moved away from beheadings, either replacing it with other execution methods or simply doing away with capital punishment altogether. ... Meanwhile, strict punishments have remained a key part of the Saudi legal system, which is rooted in the ultraconservative Wahhabi school of Islam.

Beheadings have made a dramatic resurgence in the past four years especially with the introduction of videotaped executions broadcast in the mass media. The use of beheadings has a longstanding history. Beheadings have been used in a state and non-state capacity, for punishment or intimidation, against leaders, civilians and warring combatants, during times of peace and that of upheaval. Beheadings today reproduce the characteristics of past beheadings as well as deviate from them. Contemporary beheadings have taken on a more criminal nature while beheadings of the past had more legitimacy and some even were considered honorable. Current beheading tactics include unexpected and illegal targets, unorthodox and barbaric techniques, and irregular display to an unprepared public. Although Islamic militants are the predominant beheaders, there is evidence that beheadings are being conducted by non-Islamic entities and in unexpected locations. If the current trend in the use of beheadings continues, it will be necessary to develop countermeasures, which will be facilitated with an understanding of the political, cultural, and criminal motives of the beheading offenders along with their tactics.

Show less