May 28, 2026
Topic Jihad Topic Women Topic Israel Topic Cspii-monitor
The Civil Commission’s report Silenced No More is an important evidentiary document. It records sexual and gender-based atrocities committed on October 7 and against hostages in captivity; it identifies recurring patterns of rape, sexual torture, mutilation, forced nudity, public display, filming, humiliation, and abuse of hostages; and it concludes that sexual violence was not incidental but “systematic, widespread, and integral” to the attack. The report also states that sexual violence was used to terrorize victims, families, communities, and Israeli society as a whole.
Yet despite the scale and seriousness of the report, its analysis leaves a major explanatory gap: it documents the sexual crimes but does not adequately identify the Islamic doctrine that provides the ideological framework in which such crimes become ethically intelligible, politically useful, and morally permissible to the perpetrators.
The Report Names “Terror,” but Not the Doctrine Behind the Terror
The Civil Commission repeatedly describes the sexual crimes as:
- terror;
- humiliation;
- domination;
- psychological warfare;
- dehumanization;
- “kinocidal sexual violence” aimed at destroying family bonds;
- a component of genocide and crimes against humanity.
These categories are valid, but incomplete. They describe what the violence was, but not why this violence emerged from this specific Islamic ideological environment.
The report does briefly acknowledge Hamas’s Islamic identity. It cites Hamas 1988 Covenant as the covenant of the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” notes Hamas’s Islamic framing of Palestine, and even states that Hamas and its collaborators used fatwas and other Islamic texts to incite Gazans against Jews. It specifically refers to Article 7 of the Hamas Covenant, which incorporates a hadith inciting the killing of Jews. The report mentions a fatwa claiming that “every Jew is considered combatant, including women, youth, and even the unarmed,” and says Hamas disseminated jihad-oriented books that say the annihilation of Jews is permitted.
But the report does not take the next necessary analytical step: connecting the documented sexual violence to the legal, political and military principles found in Islamic doctrine concerning jihad, women, captives, slaves, and sexual access to non-Muslim women.
The Missing Context: Sexual Violence in Islamic Doctrine
Our report on sexual behavior in Islamic doctrine argues that Islamic doctrine does not treat sexuality as merely private conduct. It regulates sexual hierarchy, female obedience, male sexual access, slavery, and the sexual status of captured Kafir (non-Muslim) women. The report states that Islamic doctrine describes sexual behavior as a tool for the domination and demoralization of the Kafir, and that Kafir women can be captured, raped, and used as sex-slaves as a reward for jihad.
This is not a marginal issue. Our report cites Koranic and Hadith material concerning “those whom your right hands possess,” female captives, sexual access, and the legal normalization of forced intercourse with enslaved women. For example, it cites Koran 4:24, which permits sexual access to married Kafir women who are captives.
This doctrinal framework matters because October 7 was not merely an eruption of random barbarism. It was carried out by jihadi actors formed inside an Islamic ideological setting in which Jews are depicted as enemies, Israeli civilians can be framed as legitimate targets, and Kafir women can be understood through inherited categories of conquest, captivity, humiliation, and sexual domination.
Hadith Muslim 1438a: A Direct Doctrinal Example
A clear example is Hadith Muslim 1438a (008,3371), also cited in our report. The hadith describes Islamic fighters on an expedition with Mohammed. Those jihadis captured women, desired them sexually, and wanted ransom for them. They asked Mohammed about practicing withdrawal (coitus interruptus) during intercourse with their captives. His answer did not condemn intercourse with captive women; he replied that it did not matter, because every soul destined to be born would be born.
This is a crucial text. It does not merely show that sexual violence existed historically. It shows that the foundational Islamic sources include a precedent in which jihad, female captivity, sexual access, and the absence of moral condemnation are placed together in a single authoritative narrative.
A report analyzing sexual crimes by Hamas and its collaborators should not ignore this doctrinal background. When perpetrators from an Islamic jihad movement commit sexual crimes against Jewish and Israeli victims, the Islamic doctrine concerning captives, jihad, Jews, women, and sexual entitlement is not peripheral. It is central.
The Report’s Legal Framing Is Strong — Its Ideological Framing Is Weak
The Civil Commission is strongest where it documents evidence and legal categories. It provides a foundation for prosecution, preservation of testimony, and international accountability. It identifies sexual and gender-based crimes as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts.
However, the report largely confines itself to modern legal language and avoids a doctrine-centered analysis. It tells the reader that sexual violence was used as a weapon of terror, but not that Islamic doctrine contains explicit precedents and permissions relevant to sexual access to captive non-Muslim women.
This omission matters because it leaves the public with a limited explanation for an ideologically motivated crime. The result is a partial truth: the violence is documented, but the ideological engine behind it is not.
Why This Matters
When reports avoid the Islamic doctrinal dimension, several distortions follow:
- While the report occasionally notes Hamas’s self-description as the 'Islamic Resistance Movement' and quotes a few isolated Islamic texts, it largely treats the organization as a conventional terrorist actor rather than examining how Islamic doctrine shaped the perpetrators’ worldview and conduct.
- Sexual atrocities appear as exceptional sadism, rather than as conduct that can be rationalized within jihad doctrine.
- The attack is framed mainly through international criminal law, while the perpetrators’ own ideological universe is not examined.
- The public is denied the doctrinal context needed to understand why sexual violence, humiliation, captivity, and genocidal incitement appeared together.
The Civil Commission’s report is therefore both valuable and insufficient. It documents the crimes with seriousness, but it does not adequately identify Islamic doctrine as the main driving force behind the attack and its sexual war crimes.
Conclusion
The Civil Commission has made an important contribution by preserving evidence of October 7 sexual atrocities and establishing a factual and legal record. But a full account requires more than documentation and legal classification. It requires naming the doctrine that shaped the perpetrators’ worldview — the root cause of their behaviour.
Hamas is not merely a violent political faction that happened to use Islamic language. It is an Islamic movement systematically acting within a jihadi doctrinal framework found in the Koran and Hadith (Mohammed’s traditions) and Sira (Mohammed’s life story). That framework includes doctrines concerning Jews, jihad, women, captives, slaves, and sexual access to Kafir women.
Not only has the report not mentioned the Islamic doctrine as the main driving force behind the sexual violence and terror, but it also includes a text written by the president of the American Muslim Multi-Faith Women’s Empowerment Council (AMMWEC), saying “... no ideology can ever justify such savagery.“ This leaves readers unaware of the need to examine the foundational texts of Islamic ideology.
Hadith Muslim 1438a is one of the clearest examples: it places jihad, captured women, and forced sexual intercourse within an authoritative Islamic precedent. A serious report on sexual crimes of Hamas should confront that doctrine directly. Without it, the report tells the world what happened — but only partially explains why.