Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Like all Islamist insurgencies, it would appear that the holy warriors for Islam have taken a page from the teachings of the Koran and Sunnah to execute unbelievers in cruel and unusual ways.

The punishment of those who wage war against God...and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution [by beheading], or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

And of course, there is the well known example of two prisoners of war beheaded after the battle of Badr under Muhammad's direct orders.

It should come as no surprise then, that an insurgency fighting in the name of Islam (9:29, 9:123) to establish Islamic law (2:193) would adopt the tactics prescribed in the Koran and Sunnah - namely, such brutal forms of execution as beheading and crucifixion.

SUSPECTED Islamic insurgents shot and killed two people and wounded three others in a bomb blast in Thailand's troubled Muslim-majority south, police said.

Gunmen broke into a house in Yala province and shot dead a 16-year-old Buddhist girl, also wounding her 29-year-old husband, they said.

A police officer, a soldier and a civilian defence volunteer were wounded when a bomb exploded as they went to inspect the scene.

Also in Yala, militants handcuffed a 42-year-old Muslim defence volunteer and shot him execution-style in the head before dumping the body in a road on Saturday, they said.

More than 3900 people have died in shootings, bomb blasts, beheadings and crucifixions since a separatist insurgency erupted in Thailand's southern provinces bordering Malaysia in January 2004.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 77,00.html

Like all previous Islamphobic Orientalist rants the 'analysis' reflects a misguided and discredited view of Islamic teachings rather than reality.

It's exactly the same as someone arguing that the European anti-Semitic attacks (recent and distant) are a reflection of Jesus' teachings. Of course it is a historical fact that thousands of Jews were exterminated in the name of Christ - but imagine how a muslim teenager would be viewed if he argued from these facts that Christianity advocated death to all Jews. He'd probably be tolerated initially, explanations would be given and then finally people would just conclude he's just an anti-Christian bigot and a troll.

But hey - I'd also guess they'd let the muslim teenager dig himself into a corner and allow him to continue to post his views about Christianity and quietly laugh at his naivety!!

Cheers,
Shafique

but imagine how a muslim teenager would be viewed if he argued from these facts that Christianity advocated death to all Jews.

Ah - false analogies can be fun.

Unfortunately for your argument, the early Christians did not kill their coreligionists nor does the New Testament call for attacks against Jews or anyone else.

But I can understand you have difficulty addressing the violent verses of the koran and the war crimes carried out by the early Muslims.

Hey, why let verses and historical facts get in the way of a good argument?

You'd have more credibility if you didn't refuse to condemn Baruch Goldstein and didn't have the other quaint views about historical facts (such as the Bible not containing any contradictions).

As I said above, it is your spin that exposes your Islamophobic views.

If you were against all terrorism - then you'd join me in acknowledging that Goldstein and those who refuse to condemn him all use the Bible to justify the terrorism he committed - and that this does not reflect on the Bible's actual teachings, any more than those terrorist Muslims' actions reflect on the Quran's actual teachings.

I suspect you'd rather ignore the facts and continue to believe in discredited ideas about Islam. Perhaps when you're a bit older and wiser you'll learn that selectively cutting and pasting convinces very few people.

Cheers,
Shafique

If you were against all terrorism

Pray tell, where have I condemned these 'terror' attacks carried out by Muslim radicals?

Sure, I described crucifixion as cruel (so does the Koran, btw) and beheading as revolting, but I have never condemned the Islamist insurgents for their actions.

Yawn - the point was that you don't condemn Jewish Terrorism.

But let's see - I've asked you quite a number of times to clarify your stance on Baruch Goldstein... perhaps this time you have joined me in condemning him and those who support his terrorism in the name of the Bible.

Cheers,
Shafique

It's unfortunate that some haven't condemned beheading and crucifixion as a form of capital punishment.

Speaks volumes.

Why do you want me to condemn Biblical punishments for crimes? I understand that you are comfortable with picking and choosing which parts of the Bible to reject, we Muslims don't have the luxury of either selectively taking Quranic verses out of context nor rejecting Quranic verses as fabricated insertions by polemical clergymen (that's an advantage only you have).

I've told you, I do indeed support capital punishment and also condemn any acts of killings of innocents. Beheading is one of the more humane ways of execution - for example lethal injections cause a lot of pain to the one being executed and the Christians in America who support this acknowledge this fact and say it is good that they suffer in the last moments on earth (refer to a documentary presented by Michael Portillo where he looked at methods of execution and he put this point to an American Christian campaigner).

By contrast, you are the one that refuses to condemn acts of terrorism when they are carried out by a white Jewish person in the name of their religion - I look at the act rather than who is carrying it out?

Cheers,
Shafique

for example lethal injections cause a lot of pain to the one being executed and the Christians in America who support this acknowledge this fact and say it is good that they suffer in the last moments on earth

It sounds like you have a problem with any form of execution that causes pain. Great, will you condemn crucifixion as a form of punishment because it is one of the most painful ways to die, or do you also believe that criminals should suffer in their last hours of life on earth (unlike moments in lethal injection [which I'm guessing causes far less pain when administered with chemicals that block a person's nocireceptors] than crucifixion does)?

I agree that crucifixion is a painful punishment and as a means of putting someone to death is indeed cruel.

God has indeed listed crucifixion in the Quran in a list of punishments which range from banishment to death - so in that context crucifixion is not used as a means of execution but rather as a means of inflicting pain as a punishment - i.e. as lashes are.

Given that this form of punishment is only one of a list given by God - the mildest being banishment and the most severe being death, God has clearly built in flexibility into the system and also specified the crime for which this is an option.

Those who choose to use this form of punishment outside of God's parameters are wholly condemned by Muslims (and all those who value Human Rights).

As I said, Muslims don't have the luxury of rejecting wholesale parts of their holy scripture - Christians can (and do) reject the Biblical punishments which are much harsher than anything in the Quran.

Cheers,
Shafique

so in that context crucifixion is not used as a means of execution but rather as a means of inflicting pain as a punishment - i.e. as lashes are.

Oh, and how did you come to the conclusion that crucifixion cannot be used to put someone to death?

Is this from the historical evidence of when crucifixion was carried out by the early Muslims or your mastery of the Arabic language?

Perhaps you should inform the Saudis that their interpretation of the Koran in which they have executed criminals by crucifixion is wrong, wrong, wrong.

There are quite a few aspects of Saudi laws which have nothing to do with Islam - I'm surprised that you are unaware of this.

It is also interesting how much you are extrapolating from an Australian news report.

I've heard of news reports that Saudis have displayed the beheaded body of criminals in public and that this is called 'crucifixion' in the press - but the putting on display of a dead criminal is not crucifixion in my book (and whilst gruesome and unseemly to me, doesn't cause the dead guy any further harm).

That said, I'd be interested in reading of Muslim authorities putting people to death via crucifixion - but cbf to look it up on Google - can you dig up some info (hopefully not of the Fox News variety)?

Cheers,
Shafique

There are quite a few aspects of Saudi laws which have nothing to do with Islam - I'm surprised that you are unaware of this.

Yes - I agree that you want non-Muslims to believe this. But public executions and gender segregation is quite in line with the practices of the first generations of Muslims.

As for prohibiting females from driving, I believe that women should be able to drive in Islam, *but* only if they are accompanied by their husband or a male relative.

That said, I'd be interested in reading of Muslim authorities putting people to death via crucifixion - but cbf to look it up on Google - can you dig up some info (hopefully not of the Fox News variety)?

Why? You would simply reject any scholarly opinion you have a difficult time defending - such as the issue over perpetual jihad, where it was shown that Muslims (according to legal manuals endorsed by the highest center of learning in the Muslim world) are to wage war against unbelievers after the establishment of the kalifa.

But just to humor you, do you have any evidence that crucifixion as a form of capital punishment was not carried out by the early Muslims?

Just wondering.

I understand that you believe you are an authority on Islam despite admitting you haven't actually read the whole Quran - but hey, no problems mate.

It is always amusing to meet guys with quaint ideas.

The evidence you are looking for is in the books you say you have and have read, such as 'Great Arab Conquests'by Hugh Kennedy which dispels the Orientalist myth that Islam was spread by the sword or that the early Muslim conquests were characterised by massacres.

You can also look up the Quranic verse to see the context of the punishment in the list of possible punishments for a specific crime.

Cheers,
Shafique

I understand that you believe you are an authority on Islam despite admitting you haven't actually read the whole Quran - but hey, no problems mate.

Are you telling me that someone who hasn't read a single page of a text can't be an expert on it? Do you or Berrin know this???

Still waiting to hear your explanation that crucifixion is not used as a form of execution in Islam.

Do you have hadith to back your quaint idea up or are you just gonna wing it?

Book 2, Number 0591:

Narrated Umm Waraqah daughter of Nawfal:

When the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) proceeded for the Battle of Badr, I said to him: Apostle of Allah allow me to accompany you in the battle. I shall act as a nurse for patients. It is possible that Allah might bestow martyrdom upon me. He said: Stay at your home. Allah, the Almighty , will bestow martyrdom upon you.

The narrator said: Hence she was called martyr. She read the Qur'an. She sought permission from the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) to have a mu'adhdhin in her house. He, therefore, permitted her (to do so).

She announced that her slave and slave-girl would be free after her death. One night they went to her and strangled her with a sheet of cloth until she died, and they ran away.

Next day Umar announced among the people, "Anyone who has knowledge about them, or has seen them, should bring them (to him)."

Umar (after their arrest) ordered (to crucify them) and they were crucified. This was the first crucifixion at Medina.

Book 38, Number 4357:

Narrated AbuzZinad:

When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) cut off (the hands and feet of) those who had stolen his camels and he had their eyes put out by fire (heated nails), Allah reprimanded him on that (action), and Allah, the Exalted, revealed: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution or crucifixion."

Book 38, Number 4359:

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The verse "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite side or exile from the land...most merciful" was revealed about polytheists. If any of them repents before they are arrested, it does not prevent from inflicting on him the prescribed punishment which he deserves.

Still (patiently) waiting for any evidence to the contrary....

Still patiently waiting for you to stop believing Orientalist spin and get with the 21st century authors you say you have read!

Cheers,
Shafique

Which of these authors have said anything about crucifixion?

Well, let us take one example.

When Kennedy reaches his conclusion in 'Great Arab Conquests' that the early Muslim conquests were not characterised by Massacres and were generally peaceful and productive aquisitions of territory - doesn't he dispel your Orientalist view of the bloodthirsty saracens crucifying and chopping off limbs because you think the Quran ordains this?

Did you read through the whole book, or only the selective parts you quoted when you were trying to mislead us into believing Kennedy supported your view?

Cheers,
Shfaique

What was that - did you say something about posting something not relevant to this thread about crucifixion and the death penalty?

Probably not.

Indeed - I was just replying to your question about proof that modern day historians disagree with your quaint orientalist views and asked whetr you had actually read a book you quoted from on the subject.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a discredited belief eh?

Cheers,
Shafique

I certainly join you in condemning the horrible deaths these two people suffered.

Book 2, Number 0591:

Narrated Umm Waraqah daughter of Nawfal:

When the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) proceeded for the Battle of Badr, I said to him: Apostle of Allah allow me to accompany you in the battle. I shall act as a nurse for patients. It is possible that Allah might bestow martyrdom upon me. He said: Stay at your home. Allah, the Almighty , will bestow martyrdom upon you.

The narrator said: Hence she was called martyr. She read the Qur'an. She sought permission from the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) to have a mu'adhdhin in her house. He, therefore, permitted her (to do so).

She announced that her slave and slave-girl would be free after her death. One night they went to her and strangled her with a sheet of cloth until she died, and they ran away.

Next day Umar announced among the people, "Anyone who has knowledge about them, or has seen them, should bring them (to him)."

Umar (after their arrest) ordered (to crucify them) and they were crucified. This was the first crucifixion at Medina.

Yawn.

I see you are reverting to type and ignoring the question about whether you actually read the whole of Hugh Kennedy's book 'Great Arab Conquests' before you decided he was wrong and your Orientalist views were right.

Cheers,
Shafique

I read most of Kennedy's book. But I was only interested in the conquests of the early period and skipped most of the surviving non-Muslim accounts, except for the surviving account by the Chinese prisoner of war under the reign of the Abbasid kalifa.

Let me know when you get around to reading the Talmud, any book by Hans Kung, Father O'Conner or finish reading the New Testament.

I see, thanks for confirming that you hadn't read all of Kennedy - that explains a lot.

You haven't read the whole of the Quran either, I recall you saying.

Can you see a pattern here that explains why you keep getting things wrong?

I don't pretend to know more about Judaism than those who practice the religion and have only referred to actual teachings in the Talmud and Bible that I agree should NOT be followed.

Contrast that with quoting Kennedy in support of your Orientalist notions when he concludes exactly the opposite.

Cheers,
Shafique

I see, thanks for confirming that you hadn't read all of Kennedy - that explains a lot.

I'm not sure how. I've only discussed the early Muslim conquests/war crimes and that was the part of Kennedy's book I had definitely read.

I don't pretend to know more about Judaism than those who practice the religion and have only referred to actual teachings in the Talmud and Bible that I agree should NOT be followed.

Obviously you are unaware of the actual teachings of the Talmud, which is why you sounded so foolish as claiming that Jews are to execute Gentiles for certain indiscretions in Rabbinic Judaism.

Thanks for the laugh though. I can't believe someone who would try to pontificate on the teachings of Judaism would not know what the Sanhedrin was (and confuse that for the Talmud) and continue to claim they knew what they were talking about.

You quoted Kennedy in support of your fanatastical view that early Muslims carried out loads of massacres. You argued that this was in accordance with your misinterpretation of Quranic verses.

The fact that Kennedy concluded completely the opposite from you understandably caused you some embarrassment - and now you admit that you did not actually read all of his book but just picked up some selective quotes, the oft-repeated pattern of Orientalists/Islamophobes drawing the wrong conclusions because of misleading spin makes another appearance.

I'm not sure what the quote from the Talmud about killing those non-Jews who study the Torah has to do with this thread - I never claimed that this part of the Talmud was representative of Judaism, I just made the point that the verse existed and therefore that Judaism (like Christianity) have more violent verses than the Quran.

I invited you to agree with me that at least Islam does not contain any commandment to kill anyone reading the Quran if they are non-Muslim!!

You seem to want to reserve the right to present yourself as an Islamic expert despite not having read the whole Quran and repeated selective quotes from Hadith and scholars - yet you cry foul and create strawmen everytime someone else gives you quotes from the Bible or Talmud.

May I remind you yet again what Jesus said about the plank in your eye!

Cheers,
Shafique

The fact that Kennedy concluded completely the opposite from you understandably

Uhmm, actually that was from a *review* you had posted on the book because you had never gotten around to reading the book yourself.

Please get this right.

and now you admit that you did not actually read all of his book but just picked up some selective quotes

Please stop lying (again). I've read most of Kennedy's book, but skipped over the portion discussing the Abbasid kalifa since that was not relevant to the conquests carried out by the rightly guided caliphs.

the oft-repeated pattern of Orientalists/Islamophobes drawing the wrong conclusions because of misleading spin makes another appearance.

Yes - that is the pattern of people who pontificate on topics they have no basic knowledge of. I see that you describe yourself to a tee but apparently don't recognize it. Or do you want me to remind you once again that you picked up on a single sentence from a text several thousands pages long that you have not read a page of and jumped to a few conclusions yourself.

I invited you to agree with me that at least Islam does not contain any commandment to kill anyone reading the Quran if they are non-Muslim!!

Once again, if you had any basic knowledge of Rabbinic Judaism, you would have been informed enough to know that the death penalty has more or less been abolished. So, unfortunately oh wise one, it sounds like Judaism is far less violent than Islam - which calls for barbaric forms of execution, such as crucifixion.

May I remind you yet again what Jesus said about the plank in your eye!

Are you sure Jesus said that? Perhaps you're confusing Jesus for the author of the epistle of James, again.

As I said, I'm glad you've admitted to not having read Kennedy's whole book - and I agree that I got my quote from the review from the Economist (I actually gave the reference) - I'm sure the reviewer did read the book completely.

I never claimed to be an expert in Rabbinical Judaism - I just pointed out that it is stupid for someone like me to extrapolate what Judaism teaches from a teaching that says nonJews should be killed for reading the Torah. I said it is as stupid as arguing Islam says all Jews should be killed.

The issue here is that you have been found out as another Orientalist believer who seemingly believes in discredited spin about early Islam and Islamic theology.

Cheers,
Shafique

Let me know when you have hadith/tafsir which says crucifixion cannot be used as a form of capital punishment in Islam....