A fatwa about the mutilation of corpses at Islam Online (thanks to LGF) opines that such mutilation is not permissible in Islam — except in cases of retaliation. It is likely that at least some people in Fallujah were thinking that that was a sufficiently large loophole to justify what they were doing.
Second, it is permissible to mutilate the dead only in case of retaliation. If anyone cuts the ear of another, his ear is to be cut in return. If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslim are allowed to take vengeance for their mutilated dead mujahids (fighters) in the same way it was done to them. Almighty Allah says: "If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient" (An-Nahl: 126).This verse was revealed when the polytheists mutilated the corpse of Hamzah ibn `Abdul-Muttalib (may Allah be pleased with him). The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) swore to mutilate seventy corpses of the polytheists in retaliation for what they had done with Hamzah's body. Hence, this verse was revealed to indicate that punishment should be done in the same manner without any sort of transgression, so that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was permitted to mutilate only one corpse of the polytheists. However, the verse also shows that patience and refraining from retaliation are better in Allah's Sight. Thereupon, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refrained from it and did not mutilate anybody.”
The Qur'an verse cited, 16:126, says that patience is better, but does not forbid retaliation.
Hmm. A mutilated corpse in the 8th century. That's a long time to wait for blood revenge. How many will have to pay for this one deed that happened so long ago?
As Jesus exhorted His followers to follow in His footsteps, also Muhammed has done the same. We see the fruit of their teachings. The warriors of the vengeful prophet will slay or humiliate the followers of the Prince of Peace.
Is that justice? So much for claim of the "religion of peace."
When Muslims solemnly inform us that "mutilation of corpses is un-Islamic" the only proper response is to rub one's eyes in disbelief. We are long inured to the nonsense about Islam not permitting the killng of civilians, when the entire history of Islam involves the killing of civilians, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Sikhs. Ibn Battuta himself describes in the Rihla the casual killing of HIndu families; within 300 years, the Muslim invaders managed to kill, in the estimate of K. S. Lal and other Indian historians, some 60-70 million Hindus (millions of others, enslaved, became Muslim, and are the ancestors of the present-day Indian and Pakistani Muslims, all of whose ancestors were once HIndu victims of Islam).
Now some of the Muslims in Iraq, clearly worried not about the primitive cruelty of Muslim behavior, but very much worried about Islam's "image," have in recent days assured one and all that "mutilation of corpses" is "un-Islamic." But after the battle of Qadissiya, when the Arab Muslims finally defeated the non-Muslim Persians, witnesses recounted that the Arabs left "mountains of eyeballs" plucked from the Persians. Muslim criminal law relies heavily on mutilation of the living; Muslims enjoy the throat-slitting of the sheep for Eid al-Fitr; such throat-slitting and other forms of dismemberbment, so disturbing to Western man that we can scarcely bear to look at documentaries on meat-packing plants, comes quite naturally to many Muslims. Muslim criminal law, similarly, insures a larger community to the lopping off of limbs -- hands, feet, even heads.
When in the waning days of World War I the British and Australian troops had conquered Damascus, and captured many thousands of German and Turksih troops, they at that point, with the battles already won, allowed in Arab forces under the Hashemites Feisal and Abdullah. Those forces, having been entrusted with guarding the enemy troops, promptly began slaughtering and -- what must be remembered -- mutilating them. The same kind of savagery was inflicted on British troops later on in Iraq, and of course Muslim Turks, Kurds, and Arabs all not only killed, but often mutilated (ripping open the stomachs of pregnant women, for example) the hapless Armenian victims of the first major Jihad-genocide of the 20th century.
Captured Israelis, in every war that Israel has had to fight, have been routinely executed by their Arab captors (why do you think hundreds, or thouands, of Arab prisoners are exchanged for a few Israeli corpses, or the occasional lone Israeli survivor?) and often mutilated; the favorite method of the Arabs to cut off their genitalia and stuff them in the mouth of the corpse). Virtually the only Arab force that abjured such practices was the British-trained and officered Arab Legion (Glubb Pasha, Sir Alec Kirkbride, and company kept the Arabs from behaving as they would otherwise have done).
Mutilation of Armenian Christians, of Assyrian Christians, of Jews, of HIndus, of captured Germans and Turks, of captured British soldiers in Iraq in the 1920s, are all part of a long history, and only the wilfuly ignorant could possibly believe that preposterous statement that "mutilation of corpses" is "un-Islamic." The recent, and distant, history of Islam offers conclusive evidence to prove the exact opposite.
Winning hearts and minds makes no sense when those hearts are stony, and those minds primitive (for Islam stunts the growth -- the only kind of growth that matters, the growth and development of the intellectual and moral faculties).
Just what kind of fools do these soi-disant Muslim spokesmen" take us for, and what will it take for the patience of the non-Muslim world finally to give out entirely?
Well-written, Hugh. The cruelty of Muslims towards people and animals goes way beyond just "a few fanatics." Violence, in the home and on the streets, across the "Muslim" world is not just tolerated but encouraged. That is why I fear that,despite the sincere efforts of many, Iraq will collapse into a huge bloodbath. Hopefully, a plan can be implemented to remove all Iraqi non-Muslims before they are all slaughtered, literally like the sheep and goats.
I think that Sen. Santorum might be a good person to approach on this issue. Christians and Mandaeans, living among the Kurds, Sunni and Shiites, are already experiencing violence at the hands of their newly-liberated Iraqi-Muslim neighbors.
Boy, Hugh is busy!
The reality is that there is no morality in Islam: what is permitted is good, was is forbidden is bad, NOT the other way around.
Muslims are by definition immoral, or, at best amoral, one cannot trust them. Morality comes from the inside, trying to do what is right, and at the very least boils down to 'Do Unto Others....' The West has been contemplating this subject for centuries, and has been introspective and self-critical for as long. We are simply superior.
you do realize the four killed were mercs, dont you?
b - Are you insinuting that the multilation of the four contractors is accceptable because they were mercenaries? I don't think so. This was unacceptable behavior, I don't care who they were.