Mohammed and beheading : Melbourne Indymedia

Reactions to the grotesque jihadist decapitation of yet another "infidel Jew," Mr. Berg, make clear that our intelligentsia are either dangerously uninformed, or simply unwilling to come to terms with this ugly reality: such murders are consistent with sacred jihad practices, as well as Islamic attitudes towards all non-Muslim infidels, in particular, Jews, which date back to the 7th century, and the Prophet Muhammad's own example.

According to Muhammad’s sacralized biography by Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad himself sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict: the men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslims. Muhammad ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Muhammad’s order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Muhammad watched in attendance. Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Muhammad’s companions, and Muhammad chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up as additional "booty" among the Muslims, to support further jihad campaigns.

The classical Muslim jurist al-Mawardi (a Shafi’ite jurist, d. 1058) from Baghdad was a seminal, prolific scholar who lived during the so-called Islamic "Golden Age" of the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate. He wrote the following, based on widely accepted interpretations of the Qur'an and Sunna (i.e., the recorded words and deeds of Muhammad), regarding infidel prisoners of jihad campaigns:

“As for the captives, the amir [ruler] has the choice of taking the most beneficial action of four possibilities: the first to put them to death by cutting their necks; the second, to enslave them and apply the laws of slavery regarding their sale and manumission; the third, to ransom them in exchange for goods or prisoners; and fourth, to show favor to them and pardon them. Allah, may he be exalted, says, 'When you encounter those [infidels] who deny [the Truth=Islam] then strike [their] necks' (Qur'an sura 47, verse 4)”....Abu’l-Hasan al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah." [The Laws of Islamic Governance, trans. by Dr. Asadullah Yate, (London), Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd., 1996, p. 192. Emphasis added.]

Indeed such odious “rules” were iterated by all four classical schools of Islamic jurisprudence, across the vast Muslim empire.

For centuries, from the Iberian peninsula to the Indian subcontinent, jihad campaigns waged by Muslim armies against infidel Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Buddhists and Hindus, were punctuated by massacres, including mass throat slittings and beheadings. During the period of “enlightened” Muslim rule, the Christians of Iberian Toledo, who had first submitted to their Arab Muslim invaders in 711 or 712, revolted in 713. In the harsh Muslim reprisal that ensued, Toledo was pillaged, and all the Christian notables had their throats cut. On the Indian subcontinent, Babur (1483-1530), the founder of the Mughal Empire, who is revered as a paragon of Muslim tolerance by modern revisionist historians, recorded the following in his autobiographical “Baburnama,” about infidel prisoners of a jihad campaign:

"Those who were brought in alive [having surrendered] were ordered beheaded, after which a tower of skulls was erected in the camp." [The Baburnama -Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, translated and edited by Wheeler M. Thacktson, Oxford University Press,1996, p. 188. Emphasis added.]

Recent jihad-inspired decapitations of infidels by Muslims have occurred across the globe- Christians in Indonesia, the Philippines, and Nigeria; Hindu priests and "unveiled" Hindu women in Kashmir; Wall Street Journal reporter, and Jew, Daniel Pearl. We should not be surprised that these contemporary paroxysms of jihad violence are accompanied by ritualized beheadings. Such gruesome acts are in fact sanctioned by core Islamic sacred texts, and classical Muslim jurisprudence. Empty claims that jihad decapitations are somehow "alien to true Islam," however well-intentioned, undermine serious efforts to reform and desacralize Islamic doctrine. This process will only begin with frank discussion, both between non-Muslims and Muslims, and within the Muslim community.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13371

it would be as easy to point out passage in ther Old Testament where the israelites and their god behaved abominably. But that would be condemned as anti-semitic.

I do not see any Jew strapping bombs to his waist and exploding himself amidst a large number of people.

I do not see anyone slitting the throat of another human being and shouting "Jesus is great".

The acts of violence reported in the Old Testament are fables of the past. Much of that is fabricated by priests such as Jeremiah and Ezra and may not be true at all. Even if they were, they are stories about Moses and Joshua and that is not what the Jews or Christians are instructed to do.

But the violent teachings of the Quran and Mohammad are binding on all the Muslims and they apply to all times. Jiahd, which means killing the non-Muslims and forcing Islam on them with acts of terrorism, is a pillar of Islam.

Jihad is a pillar of Islam.

There is no similar injunction on the Jews, Christians or anyone else.

While 'brian' is indeed a stupid racist, the fact is Iraqis - and Arabs generally - were reported as either aghast at the murder of Nick Berg, or otherwise deeply embarrassed by it.

It is worth mentioning that Iraqi clerics generally denounced the execution as barbaric.

Andwhat could be more sickening than Berg's own father trying to capitalise on the murder to make a few political brownie points. That was a doozy.

How Nazis Work
by come in nick. take a seat Saturday May 15, 2004 at 05:35 PM

>> Andwhat could be more sickening than Berg's own father trying to capitalise on the murder
________________

I'd say PNAC and Chris Parsons and other Nazis trying to capatilize on Nick's murder by U.S. mercenaries is a lot worse; almost as bad as the Freepers publishing Michael Bergs details on an "Enemies List" prior to PNAC's "blitzkrieg" (as Donald so-called-occupied-territories Rusfeld so sweetly described his intentions for Iraq on numerous occassions).

How many of YOUR children were murdered in Iraq?

Like most compatriot-hating foe-embracing "peace" protestors, Michael Berg chooses to find excuses for the vermin who decided to trophy his son's head:

They did not know what they were doing.

No, Mick, they thought they were really acting in an Oscar Wilde play.

Moving along, one ponders this question: why do the left, almost without exception, hate their own and love the other side?

Why did they embrace Stalin in the 1950s, Mao in the 1960s, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh in the 1970s, and now Islamofascists?

I'll have a stab at it.

Because it feels good.

It feels good to be a contrarian. To adopt a position that you consider far more enlightened than the mass of citizenry surrounding you, who simply aren't as intelligent and well-read as you. To be in the minority. To be, to a degree, unique.

It differentiates you.

It is your trademark.

It is the anchor upon which you can unquestioningly form your views:

Step 1: Identify a protagonist who opposes the U.S.
Step 2: Embrace the protagonist.

Admit it. It feels good.

How Nazis Work
by come in nick. take a seat Saturday May 15, 2004 at 05:36 PM

>> Andwhat could be more sickening than Berg's own father trying to capitalise on the murder
________________

I'd say PNAC and Chris Parsons and other Nazis trying to capatilize on Nick's murder by U.S. mercenaries is a lot worse; almost as bad as the Freepers publishing Michael Bergs details on an "Enemies List" prior to PNAC's "blitzkrieg" (as Donald so-called-occupied-territories Rusfeld so sweetly described his intentions for Iraq on numerous occassions).

How many of YOUR children were murdered in Iraq, Chris Parsons?

1. the use of the word 'jew' is provocative. I wont take the bait.
2. But if by 'jew' you mean israeli, then maybe they lack the courage ofr desperation to be suicide bombers. But then, when you have helicopter gun ships and tanks, paid for by US tax payer, why do you need suicide bombs?

Berg's father is not the one capitalising on Nick Berg's death: its the Bush admin. Youd do better to pay more atttention to the news and what is being said.

"...then maybe they lack the courage ofr desperation to be suicide bombers. But then, when you have helicopter gun ships and tanks, paid for by US tax payer, why do you need suicide bombs?.."

Given that they have helicopter gun ships and F-16s, they could obliterate the entire Palestinian population. But they don't.

Instead, IDF soldiders undertake patrols, and get killed in the process, trying to minimise civilian casualties and weed out the Death Cult members.

That's couragous.

I spent some of my formative years in Hong Kong, a barren piece of rock with zero natural resources, under foreign occupation, chock-full of refugees from the Mao tyranny.

The people there weren't lounging in UNRWA camps or making suicide runs at the governor's mansion. They were trading, building, speculating, manufacturing, working — with the result that Hong Kong is now a glittering modern city filled with well-dressed, well-educated, well-fed people, proud of what they have accomplished together, and with a higher standard of living than Britain herself.

If, following the Oslo accords — or for that matter, in the 20 years of Jordanian occupation — the Palestinians had taken that route, had set aside their fantasies of revenge and massacre, and concentrated on building up something worth having, I might have respect for them. As it is, I don't.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire050902.asp