Afghans: Beheading is un-Islamic

Wow...this is very disconcerting news.

I wonder when we should fill the terrorists, who cut peoples heads off in the name of this very same religion, in on this earth-shaking revelation?

Any takers?

So are they saying beheading is un-islamic or beheading by a 12 year old is un-islamic? And if it's using the 12 year old that's wrong, at what age is it OK?

That Mullah is fullah it

Beheading is un-islamic when you do it to an innocent person (who make up about 85% the taliban's beheaded victims, and that's who the religious leaders are most likely talking about). It is okay if you do it to the enemy who's fighting you, though.

Overall, beheading is an outdated practice. Shooting the enemy or traitor to the head is how you should "smite at their necks" in today's world. But the Taliban likes to tape beheadings to intimidate the enemy. They could care less who the person is.

Don't listen to what the idiots say.

Read what Allah and Mohammed say.
The time for talking ended on August 30, 2006.

My question exactly walterc.

Islam is so imbecilic, it confounds the sentient mind. Through the eyes of the Islamist, Allah deserves credit for things and people that pre-dated his existence by centuries historically, while the very same Islamists deny any culpability of Islam for violence or intolerance, in spite of the mountains of empirical evidence of the daily words evoked and actions committed in Allah's name, taken directly from his immutable words that are in plain sight in the Qur'an.

The divine text itself, the book that sooooo many Muslims, and non-Muslims alike, seem to misinterpret. Maybe a re-write is in order, for clarification purposes only, of course.

No non-mOslem is innocent...they've made that unmistakably clear, and beyond any shred of any doubt, by their own admissions, which I have also learned...FIRST HAND.

Puh-lease.

What about the beheadings of the Jews after the siege of Medina? Mo stayed and enjoyed the spectacle all day. It gets sanctioned in chapter 33 of the koran.

Beheading is very islamic.

Never once was the beheading criticized. It was a beheading by a 12 year old. These are sick twisted scum. The sooner they are removed from our planet the better.

This teacher sounds like a nice guy, just the sort of good guy that Reuters would like to showcase. I suspect that this story has no significance and is just another example of advocacy journalism on the part of liberal repporters trying to present a sanitized picture of Islam.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion. [...]

Too late for that, Attullah, I'm afraid. About 1,300 years too late.

Apr. 26, 2007 22:14 | Updated Apr. 26, 2007 23:27
Jewish woman suffers vicious anti-Semitic attack in France
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar

A 22-year-old Jewish woman suffered a vicious anti-Semitic attack by two men of Middle Eastern appearance in a train station in Marseille, France on Thursday night.

The attackers tore the Star of David chain from around the young woman's neck, lifted up her shirt, painted a swastika on her stomach and then fled the scene.

Local police opened an investigation into the attack but had not yet found the assailants.

Head of the Jewish Agency delegation in France, David Roche, said the incident was the most severe anti-Semitic attack in France since the murder of the young Jewish male Ilan Halimi by a gang of Muslim youths in February 2006.

In response to the attack, Jewish Agency Chairman Ze'ev Bielski released a statement saying that specifically during the course of the largest display of democracy France has known in many years "this barbaric act" is carried out.

"We are doing our utmost so that the issue of the fight against anti-Semitism will top the agenda of the candidates for the presidency and of the candidate who is elected," continued the statement.

First off, since a thread like this is likely to be read my many posters, I would like to repost some comments I made last time that may have gone unnoticed in ht==this thread: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016194.php#comments

My words were misinterpreted, largely because I did not make my intial point as clear as I should have, so here it is,

By "ethical implications", the fundamental point was NOT in any way whatsoever that muslims are somehow entitled to emigrate here en mass, and NOT NOW, NOT EVER that they should be even remotely entitled to force us to accomodate them. I realize I made a tactical error not making that crystal clear from the start. I DON'T want to see any CAIR, Muslim student Assocation, "Muslim Human Rights" group or any other Islamic *activists* attempting to migrate here unchecked at all, let alone demanding rights beyond what our Constitution was meant to provide. Nor do I feel the need to accomodate muslim immigrants from places like Somalia, Tehran or Islamabad or West Malaysia, which are in shambles because the muslim inhabitants made conscious decisions to bring about hardline islamic societies without thinking over the consequences. They want to migrate here? Then they better at least accept our entitlement to monitor them more closely then we would any other immigrants. And even if they were to becoem muslim in name only, they'd better accept that we will treat any future children they have as being at significantly higher risk of becoming terrorists then children of non muslim migrants. And yes, I support having them arrested on treason charges and endangering our consitutions the second they push for shariah law.

I was largely speaking from a practical point. My main inquiry to Hugh was, do you expect our politicians to be saying "We need to ask all future immigrants, "Are you a Muslim?" and if they say "yes", no matter if they are devout or muslim in name only, then we simply eject them or more likely even have them jailed on treason charges"? If that's what you're saying, then obviously it's understandable why you'd feel that way, but again, how realistic and practical would it be for our leaders to ever start calling for such measures? Considering what the intent of this site is I suspect if such measures were practical and did not have any moral controversy attached Robert Spencer would have already advocated it a long time ago. In fact, I don't even recall reading prominent Ex Muslim critics, like Ibn Warraq, Wafa Sultan or Nonie Dariwsh call for these types of measures. Maybe Ali Sina on occasion, but I also think he as admitted in the past that it was his very acceptance as a Muslim into the West that made him question his faith.

And what about refugees like the Black Africans from the Sudan or Chad? Regardless of if they are Christian or Muslim, they weren't responsible for the Islamist hell they're living in and, with the UN and the rest of the world not giving a damn about them one way or the other they have amlost no options for defending themselves. If a Black African from these places, like the famous Lost Boys of Sudan, applies for asylum from the Arab Janjaweed, would it really be appropriate to be asking "Christian or Muslim" when granting them refugee status? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The same concept holds true for Amazigh peoples from North Africa, Kurds from Iran or Iraq, Balochis and ethnic Sindhis from Pakiland, and even Iranian youth born after 1979 who grew up under the Hellishness of the Islamic republic. It means critics of political islam who've been marked for death or long term jailing for their dissent; notable examples covered here and elsewhere include Abdel Kareem, Mohammed Taha (before he was murderd obviously), Nanzanin Fatehi, Amir Fakhravar, Tawfik Hamid, Salah Choudhury and Talisma Nareem. With these peoples, who are from Muslim background by birth and were not responsible for their nations' failiures, there are issues that come up.

What happens if some of them, as would be apostates, for obvious reasons don't feel safe declaring their apostasy or find themselves gravitating towards apostasy until they migrate to Western nations. Not accepting anyone with a muslim background at all would mean no one like Ali Sina or Hirsi Ali who declared their apostasy after they were admitted to the West. Hence, the main issue being does it make more sense to allow them entry because they might become like Wafa Sultan, Ali SIna or Hirsi Ali, or at least demand genuine, unfeigned reform in the Islamic world. Or does it make more sense to deny it to them, even if it means no more future allies like Wafa Sultan or Hirsi Ali, on gorunds they might not leave islam entirely.

The last thing I should say is that naturally granting them entry here is of course not necessarily the first option. The number one choice would be for the West to pull its head out of its a$$ and start helping victims of violent Jihad, whether non muslim or nominally muslim, in places like Sudan, Iran, Algeria and Pakiland. No strategy in curbing jihad will work if we don't take these places more seriously and helping those trapped to free themselves.

ANd to the Afghanis saying beheading is "unislamic", all I can say there is please, just PROVE IT. Prove all the hundreds of terrorist groups who behead civilians, no matter if muslim or not, they're being un-islamic.

"I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion."

I'm waiting for the first shred of evidence that Islam is not a cruel and terrorist religion.

From the dictates of its scriptures, through the example of its Prophet, through the deeds of its Caliphs and to the behavior of its current adherents, Islam is a religion of war, conquest, and subjugation. It is, quite literally, toxic to human life.

Scanning a pepperoni pizza or transporting a seeing eye dog is unislamic. . . Islam is unamerican.

"Islam does not allow anyone to behead any man"

Oh really! So when Mohammad himself killed some 600-900 people with his sword he was only removing their feet and hands and they bled to death; he left their heads/throats in tact?

PU, I smell a fatty-fib from this Mullah.

Is there such a thing as a Muhammadan "with a head on his shoulders"?

I didn't say "with a head on his boulders"

Well? Any takers?

No?

Didn't think so.

Mullah Attullah said

I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.

Methinks the Mullah is upset that we infidels saw the video evidence, and the result of that knowledge was not beneficial to the spread of Islam. "C'mon guys, next time, can you leave the camera off?"

This is the telling point for Mr. Spencer in the key being, "an Afghan", said this. It is not the differences in Islam which matters, but the difference in ethnic groups.
Afghan people take the ultimate scowl when people call them Arabs as they are neither Persian nor of the Pakistani groups.

There are of course different ethnic groups in Afghanistan, but the Afghan compared to the Pushtan is different as night and day. It would be akin to the people of Ohio to that of the back country of West Virginia.
Islam is only a cloak for the inherent dispositions already at work for certain groups to hide behind. The problem being that certain groups have millions of people venting hatred at others when the problem is their imams, clerics and sheiks called bin Laden who horde wealth and tell the pawns to die for the cause.

Who benefits from Islamic terrorism on non-Muslims? Muslims.

Who finances terrorists through phony charities and money-laundering? Muslims.

Who keeps silent about what goes on inside the mosques where terrorists are inducted and trained? Muslims.

Who gives information and cover to terrorists living in their communities while these attacks are planned? Muslims.

Therefore, by not reforming Islam, withholding money, aid or intelligence to those who continue to promote violence to promote Islami, Muslims fail to separate themselves from violent jihad.

They fail to separate themselves in deed because the end goal of world-wide sharia is a goal embraced by all good, even moderate Muslims.

Words of condemnation such as those in this article are uttered as halfhearted lip service.

Beheadings have been carried out in numerous places in the world by Allahs submitters. Grizzly little buggers aren't they?

l think muslims live in their own very "twilight zone" they know beheadings is horrible, and claim to the rest of world that this barbaric act is un-Islamic? they need to go out and preach to their choir, but bets are they lose their heads as well! go for it boys!

hizzbola supporter....So you are saying it's okay for the U.S. and the coalition to shoot it's muslim prisoners in the head?

Or is this just supposed to be for muslims to act upon infedels?

Do you feel it's okay for the west to shoot muslims in the head and video tape them and show them to the world?

Would you be okay with that?

I mean you won't of course have to worry because the west is not so weak that it would have to rely on such INHUMANE and EVIL things.

I think Nassralla ,bin laden and all the other heads of islam ....ALL OF THEM should be publicly beheaded by the infedels and buried with picked clean pig carcasses.

Don't fear though we would say a prayer for the pigs.

maxwell... I think whats being left out is that we should not be importing anybody now days.

these places everyone wishes to immigrate from are the same hell holes decade after decade.There is a sever problem with this.

What ever is being done to solve the "hell holes" issues are obviously not working.

When these people finnaly have enough then they will fight for thier own in thier country.

We are great in the fact that we aid and fight battles for all those who cannot do for themselves.No sooner than our back turns it's the same crap if not worse.

Leave them to thier own device.

One thing is certain no part of the modern world should be giving or selling these "hell holes" weopons.

Stop handing these people fish and hand them fishing nets instead.

It's all ludicrous.

When it comes to the oil issue in the nations with OIL the fact is it was OUR MONEY,it was OUR TECHNOLOGY that drilled the oil ,refined the oil and bought the oil.

Iran feels ripped off because they may have to buy nuclear fuel in the future,they have to pay for nuclear technology,they have to be responsible for NOT letting nukes end up in terrorist hands.

How rediculous is it that the likes of iran whose only wealth comes and soon to be CAME,once it's gone,fro oil has to start actually paying others for fuel?

People keep yapping on and on about solutions to the immigration problem.It's rather simple STOP IT!!!Let the people of the failed nations look towards thier leaders for the reasons why and when they point at us bring out the check books and show all the reciepts of what we gave to keep them afloat.

Let the over one billion zombies try to feed clothe and heal themselves.They breed beyond thier control to afford.How is this OUR responsibility.

If our country needs more for the work force stop killing our babies.We have plenty that know nothing of responsibility for thier pleasures in this country.

We cannot provide for the world when the world wishes not to provide for itself.

Trained seals get hand fed fish God gave HUMANS the ability to fish for themselves.

If some ignorant fool raises the topic that the "hell holes "are iliterate and don't have the education to feed itself or to solve it's problems,well then maybe you can raise the point that if thise controlers wouldn't shoot and behead them they wouldn't have to be so stupid.

The dumbest person on earth can still be smart enough to figure this "quagmire" out.I figured it out and i am no braniac.

People can talk about problems like immigration but unless you talk it to the right people it's FUTILE!

There is too much politically to gain from immigration legal or not for politicians to do a damn thing about it.

They trip over that old dusty lump under the congressional carpet everyday.

You can be assured it will get dusted off around election time and just as assured it will be placed back under the rug like some hoity toity drunkeness putting her most valued jewels into her secret vault after the party of the year.

The answer to the worlds woes are to stop funding them.Sit back and watch all those wonderful know it alls in all those "hell holes"figure it out amongst themselves.

If islam wants six or more kids per family more power to them but they foot the bill not us.They stay there and hate us for what we have built with blood sweat and tears and yes even with the bad things we did in the past.

News flash: Just about every ethnicity on the face of this planet has been enslaved by another at some point in history.

The difference is we have moved on while others love to enslave and some even love to be slaves.

You can make all the rules and regulations in the world but if you do not inforce them it's just time and money wasted.

Congress would spend a lifetime on how to word such rules and regulations when NO MORE works well and to the point.

If they want fredom let them fight for it.If they do not wish for freedom let them wallow in what they do wish for.

No more aiding no more supplying....Just simply NO MORE.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lies, damned lies, statistics, and Islam.

The last supercedes all others.

Shouldn't reporters just laugh when this crap is spewed from now on?

I know Daniel Pearl sure would.

If he hadn't been beheaded.

To Darl al harb,

I don't at all disagree that we need to stop all forms of aid to islamic nations. Suppporting Egypt, Pakiland, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bangladesh and Turkey as "allies", being too soft with Iran, Algeria, Malaysia and Sudan is the reason why the problem exists in the first place with apostates and many other dissidents in the islamic world needing the West as a sole spot of refuge. Start cutting of every last drop of aid to all these places and start mopping the floor with these gov'ts over their treatment of religous minorites, apostates, ethnic minorites and other dissidents and the muslim immigration problem would probably drop drastically.

If all the women, apostates of islam, religous minorities, secularist ethnic minorites and democratic activists knew that if they stand up to face down jihadists and all the other problems that make their countries suck so much, Westerners will stand with them, you have much, much less of them who would feel any need to find safe haven in the west. Tragically, we're not going to see it happen so long as we treat enemy islamic nations as friends, so we should start organizing en amss to change that now.

"Islam does not allow anyone to behead any man. The Taliban show the wrong image of Islam to the world. We condemn this."

Nowhere do I seen condemnation for murdering a human being and against the ultimate evil of murder. It appears the main concern is giving Islam a bad image to us Infidels.

Yep, they teach those boys mighty young to slit throats and have blood spew all around. I'm sure it makes them feel real powerful to sacrifice a living animal to their moon god. Then it primes them for the real manly work of sawing off human heads later in life.

What we have here is all too easy to see the real issue. On one hand the Qu-ran says "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks..." and the fundamentalists are not being hypocrites by obeying this. The other side says its "un-Islamic".

What defines Islam? It's foundational teachings or modern spin doctors in the media lying for the sake of allah?

BOTH DO.

Because they are both obeying Mop-ham-mad's words.

They can put it in that movie Islam-vs radical Islam. On PBS but they won't show the movie. To many good Islam people speaking up against these practices! The islamist are mad, they don't want it to air either! So therefore it won't! Whaa wahh,. It is cowardly for PBS not to show it for they bought it and do not want to air it! It shows a light on both sides! If we can get a light on such darkness!

What did we expect from pahblum broadcasting system?
Facts? (first 10 words in bill moyers hit piece fraud this week said it all). LOL

Can't speak for the rest of the West but as for the US, as long as we enshrine Freedom of Religion as a fundamental Right under our Bill of Rights AND we allow that islam is a religion--we're screwed.

Islam is not just a faith--it's a comprehensive dictatorial system that governs all aspects of life without mitigation.

So the 1st step in the US is to define it for what it is so we can exclude it as a God-given Right.

Did Muhammed himself kill 600-800 people as "champ" says above? I thought he had others always do his dirty work?

Where are verses in which Muhammed himself kills someone? Thanks to anyone who replies...

Oh, - Islamic is to beheading as America is to apple pie. I think that about settles this issue.

memo to Turn:

What you may not realize is that Islam teaches first degree murder as integral 'religious' doctrine; there are numerous verses in the Kuran that direct the Muslim follower to commit first degree murder against the 'unbeliever' without setting any limits as to how many unbelievers may be masscred with impunity under Kuranic-inspired Islamic law. In addition, Kuranic teachings also provide commands that the Muslim follower commit other crimes (at least under US law) including comspiracy to commit (unlimited) homicides, torture, and slavery to name but a few. To teach such things as mosques as required to do by Islamic law (from al-lah) are classified as SEDITION under US legal statutes (another very serious crime).

The last time we checked, first degree murder and conspiracy to commit first degree murder(s) are not merely 'against US law'--they are CAPITAL CRIMES punishable by death in some cases.

This is a powerful weapon to be used against Islam and one that needs very much to be put into full force NOW.

America must enforce its laws without discrimination. That means OUTLAWING ISLAM AND DEPORTING all MUSLIM FOLLOWERS.

It will be done because we MUST do this in the name of civilization!!!!!

I challenge you, Turn, to call your government representatives today and tell them how Islam is being unjustly permitted to flout and undermine vital laws of the land! the White House Comment Line can be reached by calling: (202) 456-1111.

"It's very wrong for the Taliban to use a small boy to behead a man," religious teacher Mullah Attullah told Reuters on Thursday. "I appeal to the Taliban to please stop this because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion.
-- from the article above

"Wrong...because non-Muslims will think Islam is a cruel and terrorist religion."

A question of image.

Islam has to worry about its image.

Merely an image problem.

I wonder if the video had said that the unfortunate victim was a Jew our Afghan friends wouldn't have modified their theological objections somewhat?

Hugh:

Good point...but problem is status of that image.
Current status is what we call: FUBAR.

Thoughts?

So they shouted "God is great".---Really, well, if the god they worship is so great, why does he need 12 year old boys to do his dirty work!

He could have his angels (demons) do it. Is there a shortage of men to do these acts? Are they all up in paradise chasing the virgins or other 12 year old boys?

Will the boy think back fondly on his god when he is grown? Will he say--The god I worship had me murder and behead someone when I was a child? Will the memories of the gushing blood getting on him and everything else bring a warm glow to his face? Will he recount the event to his children and grandchildren with pride? Will the grisly photos and video be trotted out at every family gathering? Will he proudly stand and say how he murdered someone when he was a child? Will all the family members beam with pride? Will he uncase an old tattered and rusty good conduct medal from OBL? Will he say to his children--When you get to be 12 you can murder and behead also? Does he proudly display the head he so carefully shrunk in his spare time after the Mullah's schoolday ended?-(LOL) Will his school proudly display his picture in a case at the front entrance like a high school football trophy? At the top of the trophy will a bronze figure hold a severed head instead of a football or basketball? Will it actually BE a basket with a head in it? Will he proudly display a photocopy of a check that was sent to him by a Saudi royal or a Iranian general? Will he proudly show the tiny quarter inch long scar on his finger where the knife nicked him as he passed it along the mans throat? will he display the actual knife with the blood stains on it to his family and friends?

Or---Will the demons that surrounded them and then entered him as he did the beheading then torment him with horrible nightmares until HE then will wish He could die?

Only 12years old---How sad.
How sad, indeed!

-A tribal leader in the south of Aghanistan
"The Taliban are doing very bad things and it is against Islam to behead a man by a very young boy," Haji Saeed Jan told Reuters.

"Islam does not allow anyone to behead any man. The Taliban show the wrong image of Islam to the world. We condemn this."

Ameriki translation:
"Oh westerner believe not in your eyes and ears ... pay attention not to Qur'an 47:4. Sleep in the comforting bliss of what some anonymous Afghani says forget all of your own critical thinking skills ... trust me."

-Naseem 4/23/07
By raising the spectre of jihad the opposite will happen. You and others may gloat if a few large bombs go off...but then Islam will lose...the infeldel will curb muslim immigration, he will round up all your somali/paki/saudi/lebenese/ effendies/womens etc. ...and send them back to Somalia for example.

Ameriki translation:
"Like the Anonymous Afghani up there I think we should bide our time in the west ... untill such time that we can forse our will upon the Infidel."

-Naseem 4/23/07
One thing I will say to you...do not underestimate the infedel...he is sleeping ...but slowly stirring...let him stay asleep...we don't not need jihad for Islam to be the global brand of choice...you simply need to pass under the radar undetected.

Ameriki translation:
"Please refrain from being your normal Islamic selves untill such time that we have the power to murder all that oppose the Ummah.

-Naseem 4/23/07
Here in Pak ....none....I have to be very careful...sunni/shia will not accept dawah from Ahmadi here in Pak...so I keep a very low profile. I only talk to my son/daughter about the benefits of sharia for Islam and pak.

Ameriki translation:
"this is how Islam really is ... even if you are a Muslim you live in a constant state of fear. No free speech, no freedom of thought. For now this rule will not apply to the west, but if we wait maybe we can use liberalism and multi culti fair play to buy the time we need to gain enough power of subjigate the Infidel in the west, same as we have done in the East..... like here in Pak... and Darfur!

eessaa 4/25/07
I know it urks people like Rob that the more he keeps talking about Islam without any knowledge, the intelligent American will research Islam for him or herself and accept in their life. Or at the very least that Islam is not what people like rob portray to be.The more you spew ignorance that still won't stop violence in America by AMERICANS every day.

Ameriki translation:
"I live in a complete dream world. I truely belive that people will believe what I say. In spite of the fact that all one has to do is read a little, and watch what is happening all over the world in the name of Islam. I truely believe that my words are greater than your own eyes and ears".

Ameriki rebuttal:
Fortunatly in the west there is still free thought, and free speech ... we will not live in fear. Fortunatly in the west there is still critical thinking ... all Rob has to do is show us the path ... then we can listen see and watch for ourselves. It really is much more simple than that though, "Sunni/shia will not accept dawah from Ahmadi here in Pak...so I keep a very low profile." We see how you act nothing you say will change this ... the world will burn before we subitt to you.

darcy --

The Hadith states that Mohammad approved the beheading of some 600-900 Jews. The actual number of people he murdered himself is something I could not find information on; but perhaps someone else has that figure. Sorry for the confusion.

Ameriki...cool.

Darcy...Mohammad officiated at the day long beheading of all those jewish men and boys, he watched everyone of them close up while praying to Allah...he did not kill anyone himself, or at least it was not reported if he did. There are hadiths that talk about him going into battle while leading his 'expeditions'. I would suppose he may have killed someone under those conditions, but there is little evidence of his battlefield performance. One hadith has it that Mohammad withdrew from a battle, went to his tent to rest and clean up. He was wearing double armor and took it off. Then Gabriel appeared on a horse, and got on his case for leaving the battle.
Gabriel was angry because he was out fighting, he has 7000 angels in white turbins fighting with him, and Mohammad takes a break. Mo reluctantly put the armor back on and rejoined the battle.

Spreading more propaganda about the Banu Quraysha story, aren't you? You should realize that the number 900-600 beheaded was an exaggeration and was rejected by jurists collecting hadiths. You should also realize that the beheading of 900 jews story is used by Jihadi missionaries recruit for the fighters. Still, Battle of Badr was a huge loss for the Banu Quraysha.

Did Prophet Muhammad ordered 900 Jews killed ?

(From Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland,
(1976), pp. 100-107.)

IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muhammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.

The biographers of the Prophet, followed by later historians, tell us that Banu Qaynuqa.,1 and later Banu al-Nadir,2 provoked the Muslims, were besieged, and in turn agreed to surrender and were allowed to depart, taking with them all their transportable possessions. Later on Khaybar3 and Fadak4 were evacuated. According to Ibn Ishaq in the Sira,5 the third of the Jewish tribes, Banu Qurayza, sided with the Qurashites and their allies, who made an unsuccessful attack on Medina in an attempt to destroy Islam. This, the most serious challenge to Islam, failed, and the Banu Qurayza were in turn besieged by the Prophet. Like Banu al-Nadir, in time they surrendered, but unlike the Banu al-Nadir, they were subjected to the arbitration of Sa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aws tribe, allies of Qurayza. He ruled that the grown-up males should be put to death and the women and children subjected to slavery. Consequentiy, trenches were dug in the market-place in Medina, and the men of Qurayza were brought out in groups and their necks were struck.6 Estimates of those killed vary from 400 to 900.

On examination, details of the story can he challenged. It can be demonstrated that the assertion that 600 or 800 or 9007 men of Banu Qurayza were put to death in cold blood can not be true; that it is a later invention; and that it has its source in Jewish traditions. Indeed the source of the details in earlier Jewish history can be pointed out with surprising accuracy.

The Arabic sources will now be surveyed, and the contribution of their Jewish informants will be discussed. The credibility of the details will then be assessed, and the prototype in earlier Jewish history pin-pointed.

The earliest work that we have, with the widest range of details, is Ibn Ishaq's Sira, his biography of the Prophet. It is also the longest and the most widely quoted. Later historians draw, and in most cases depend on him.8 But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e. 145 years after the event in question. Later historians simply take his version of the story, omitting more or less of the detail, and overlooking his uncertain list of authorities. They generally abbreviate the story, which appears just as one more event to report. In most cases their interest seems to end there. Some of them indicate that they are not really convinced, but they are not prepared to take further trouble. One authority, Ibn Hajar, however, denounces this story and the other related ones as "odd tales".9 A contemporary of Ibn Ishaq, Malik,10 the jurist, denounces Ibn Ishaq outright as "a liar"11 and "an impostor"12 just for transmitting such stories.

It must be remembered that historians and authors of the Prophet's biography did not apply the strict rules of the "traditionists". They did not always provide a chain of authorities, each of whom had to be verified as trustworthy and as certain or likely to have transmitted his report directly from his informant, and so on. The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza.

Against these late and uncertain sources must be placed the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There, the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief:

"He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." There is no reference to numbers.

Ibn Ishaq sets out his direct sources as he opens the relevant chapter on the siege of Medina. These were: a client of the family of al-Zubayr and others whom he "did not suspect". They told parts of the story on the authority of 'Abdullah b. Ka'b b. Malik, al Zuhri, 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada, 'Abdullab b. Abi Bakr, Muhammad b. Ka'b of Qurayza, and "others among our men of learning", as he put it. Each of these contributed to the story, so that Ibn Ishaq's version is the sum total of the collective reports, pieced together. At a later stage Ibn Ishaq quotes another descendant of Qurayza, 'Attiyya13 by name, who had been spared, and, directly, a certain descendant of al-Zabir b. Bata, a prominent member of the tribe of Qurayza who figures in the narrative.

The story opens with a description of the effort of named Jewish leaders to organize against the Muslims an alliance of the hostile forces. The leaders named included three from the Banu al-Nadir and two of the tribe of Wa'il, another Jewish tribe; together with other Jewish fellow-tribesmen unnamed. Having persuaded the neighbouring Bedouin tribes of Ghatafan, Murra, Fazara, Sulaym, and Ashja' to take up arms, they now proceeded to Mecca where they succeeded in persuading the Quraysh. Having gathered together a besieging force, one of the Nadir leaders, Huyayy b. Akhtab, in effect forced himself on the third Jewish tribe still in Medina, the Banu Qurayza, and, against the better judgement of their leader, Ka'b b. Asad, he persuaded them to break faith with the Prophet in the hope, presented as a certainty, that the Muslims would not stand up to the combined attacking forces and that Qurayza and the other Jews would be restored to independent supremacy. The siege of Medina failed and the Jewish tribes suffered for their part in the whole operation.

The attitude of scholars and historians to Ibn lshaq's version of the story has been either one of complacency, sometimes mingled with uncertainty, or at least in two important cases, one of condemnatlon and outright rejection.

The complacent attitude is one of accepting the biography of the Prophet and the stories of the campaigns at they were received by later generations without the meticulous care or the application of the critical criteria which collectors of traditions or jurists employed. It was not necessary to check the veracity of authorities when transmitting or recording parts of the story of the Prophet's life.14 It was not essential to provide a continuous chain of authorities or even to give authorities at all. That is obvious in Ibn Ishaq's Sira. On the other hand reliable authority and a continuous line of transmission were essential when law was the issue. That is why Malik the jurist had no regard for Ibn Ishaq.15

One finds, therefore, that later historians and even exegetes either repeat the very words of Ibn Ishaq or else abbreviate the whole story. Historians gave it, as it were, a cold reception. Even Tabari, nearly 150 years after Ibn Ishaq, does not try to find other versions of the story as he usually does. He casts doubt by his use of the words, "Waqidi alleged (za'ama) that the Prophet caused trenches to be dug." Ibn ai-Qayyim in Zad al-ma'ad makes only the briefest reference and he ignores altogether the crucial question of numbers. Ibn Kathir even seems to have general doubt in his mind because he takes the trouble to point out that the story was told on such "good authority" as that of 'A'isha.16

Apart from mild complacency or doubtful acceptance of the story itself, Ibn Ishaq as an author was in fact subjected to devastating attacks by scholars, contemporary or later, on two particular accounts. One was his uncritical inclusion in his Sira of so much spurious or forged poetry;17 the other his unquestioning acceptance of just such a story as that of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza.

His contemporary, the early traditionist and jurist Malik, called him unequivocally "a liar" and "an impostor"18 "who transmits his stories from the Jews".19 In other words, applying his own criteria, Malik impugned the veracity of Ibn Ishaq's sources and rejected his approach. Indeed, neither Ibn Ishaq's list of informants nor his method of collecting and piecing together such a story would he acceptable to Malik the jurist.

In a later age Ibn Hajar further explained the point of Malik's condemnation of Ibn Ishaq. Malik, he said,20 condemned Ibn Ishaq because he made a point of seeking out descendants of the Jews of Medina in order to obtain from them accounts of the Prophet's campaigns as handed down by their forefathers. Ibn Hajar21 then rejected the stories in question in the strongest terms: "such odd tales as the story of Qurayza and al-Nadir". Nothing could be more damning than this outright rejection.

Against the late and uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authorities on the other, must be set the only contemporary and entirely authentic source, the Qur'an. There the reference in Sura XXXIII, 26 is very brief: "He caused those of the People of the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of their forts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner."

Exegetes and traditionists tend simply to repeat Ibn Ishaq's tale, but in the Qur'an the reference can only be to those who were actually in the fighting. This is a statement about the battle. It concerns those who fought. Some of these were killed. others were taken prisoner.

One would think that if 600 or 900 people were killed in this manner the significance of the event would have been greater. There would have been a clearer reference in the Qur'an, a conclusion to be drawn, and a lesson to be learnt. But when only the guilty leaders were executed, it would be normal to expect only a brief reference.

So much for the sources: they were neither uninterested nor trustworthy; and the report was very late in time. Now for the story. The reasons for rejecting the story are the following:

(i) As already stated above, the reference to the story in the Qur'an is extremely brief, and there is no indication whatever of the killing of a large number. In a battle context the reference is to those who were actually fighting. The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version.

(ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.

(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."22 It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named.

(iv) It it also against the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners of war, which is: either they are to be granted their freedom or else they are to be allowed to be ransomed.23

(v) It is unlikely that the Banu Qurayza should be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrendered before Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowed to go. Indeed Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates in his Kitab al-amwal24 that when Khaybar felt to the Muslims there were among the residents a particular family or clan who had distinguished themselves by execesive unseemly abuse of the Prophet. Yet in that hour the Prophet addressed them in words which are no more than a rebuke: "Sons of Abu al-Huqayq (he said to them) I have known the extent of your hostility to God and to His apostle, yet that does not prevent me from treating you as I treated your brethren." That was after the surrender of Banu Qurayza.

(vi) If indeed so many hundreds of people had actually been put to death in the market-place, and trenches were dug for the operation, it is very strange that there should be no trace whatever of all that - no sign or word to point to the place, and no reference to a visible mark.25

(vii) Had this slaughter actually happened, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent. In fact exactly the opposite has been the case. The attitude of jurists, and their rulings, have been more according to the Qur'anic rule in the verse, "No soul shall bear another's burden."

Indeed, Abu 'Ubayd b. Sallam relates a very significant incident in his book Kifab al-amwal,26 which, it must be noted, is a book of jurisprudence, of law, not a sira or a biography. He tells us that in the time of the Imam al-Awza'i27 there was a case of trouble among a group of the People of the Book in the Lebanon when 'Abdullab b. 'All was regional governor. He put down the sedition and ordered the community in question to be moved elsewhere. Al-Awza'i in his capacity as the leading jurist immediately objected. His argument was that the incident was not the result of the cormmunity's unanimous agreement. "At far as I know (he argued) it is not a rule of God that God should punish the many for the fault of the few but punish the few for the fault of the many."

Now, had the Imam al-Awza'i accepted the story of the slaughter of Banu Qurayza, he would have treated it as a precedent, and would not have come out with an argument against Authority, represented in 'Abdullah b. 'Ali. Al-Awza'i, it should be remembered, was a younger contemporary of Ibn Ishaq.

(viii) In the story of Qurayza a few specific persons were named as having been put to death, some of whom were described as particularly active in their hostility. It is the reasonable conclusion that those were the ones who led the sedition and who were consequently punished - not the whole tribe.

(ix) The details given in the story clearly and of necessity imply inside knowledge, i.e. from among the Jews themselves. Such are the details of their consultation when they were besieged, the harangue of Ka'b b. Asad as their leader; and the suggestion that they should kill their women and children and then make a last desperate attack against the Muslims.

(x) Just as the descendants of Qurayza would want to glorify their ancestors, so did the descendants of the Madanese connected with the event. One notices that that part of the story which concerned the judgement of Sa'd b. Mu'adh against Qurayza, was transmitted from one of his direct descendants. According to this part the Prophet said to Mu'adh: "You have pronounced God's judgement upon them [as inspired] through Seven Veils."28

Now it is well known that for the purposes of glorifying their ancestors or white washing those who were inimical to Islam at the beginning, many stories were invented by later generations and a vast amount of verse was forged, much of which was transmitted by Ibn Ishaq. The story and the statement concerning Sa'd are one such detail.

(xi) Other details are difficult to accept. How could so many hundreds of persons he incarcerated in the house belonging to a woman of Banu al-Najjar?29

(xii) The history of the Jewish tribes after the establishment of Islam is not really clear at all. The idea that they all departed on the spot seems to be in need of revision, as can be seen on examining the sources. For example, in his Jamharat al-ansab,30 Ibn Hazm occasionally refers to Jews still living in Medina. In two places al-Waqidi31 mentions Jews who were still in Medina when the Prophet prepared to march against Khaybar - i.e. after the supposed liquidation of all three tribes, including Qurayza. In one case ten Madanese Jews actually joined the Prophet in an excursion to Khaybar, and in the other the Jews who had made their peace with him in Medina were extremely worried when he prepared to attack Khaybar. Al-Waqadi explains that they tried to prevent the departure of any Muslim who owed them money.

Indeed Ibn Kathir32 takes the trouble to point out that 'Umar expelled only those Jews of Khaybar who had not made a peace agreement with the Prophet. Ibn Kathir then proceeds to explain that at a much later date, i.e. after the year 300 A.H., the Jews of Khaybar claimed that they had in their possession a document allegedly given them by the Prophet which exempted them from poll-tax. He said that some scholars were taken in by this document so that they ruled that the Jews of Khaybar should be exempted. However, that was a forged letter and had been refuted in detail. It quoted persons who were already dead, it used technical terms which came into being at a later time, it claimed that Mu'awiya b. Abi Sufyan witnessed it, when in fact he had not even been converted to Islam at that time, and so on.

So then the real source of this unacceptable story of slaughter was the descendants of the Jews of Medina, from whom Ibn Ishaq took these "odd tales". For doing so Ibn Ishaq was severely criticized by other scholars and historians and was called by Malik an impostor.

The sources of the story are, therefore, extremely doubtful and the details are diametrically opposed to the spirit of Islam and the rules of the Qur'an to make the story credible. Credible authority is lacking, and circumstantial evidence does not support it. This means that the story is more than doubtful.

However, the story, in my view, has its origins in earlier events. Is can be shown that it reproduces similar stories which survived from the account of the Jewish rebellion against the Romans, which ended in the destruction of the temple in the year AD. 73, the night of the Jewish zealots and sicarii to the rock fortress of Masada, and the final liquidation of the besieged. Stories of their experience were naturally transmitted by Jewish survivors who fled south. Indeed one of the more plausible theories of the origin of the Jews of Medina is that they came after the Jewish wars. This was the theory preferred by the late Professor Guillaume.33

As is well known, the source of the details of the Jewish wars is Flavius Josephus, himself a Jew and a contemporary witness who held office under the Romans, who disapproved of certain actions which some of the rebels committed, but who nevertheless never ceased to be a Jew at heart. It is in his writings that we read of details which are closely similar to those transmitted to us in the Sira about the actions and the resistance of the Jews, except that now we see the responsibility for the actions placed on the Muslims.

In considering details of the story of Banu Qurayza as told by the descendants of that tribe, we may note the following similar details in the account of Josephus:

(i) According to Josephus,34 Alexander, who ruled in Jerusalem before Herod the Great, hung upon crosses 800 Jewish captives, and slaughtered their wives and children before their eyes.

(ii) Similarly, large numbers were killed by others.

(iii) Important details of the two stories are remarkably similar, particularly the numbers of those killed. At Masada the number of those who died at the end was 960.35 The hot-headed sicarii who were eventually also killed numbered 600.36 We also read that when they reached the point of despair they were addressed by their leader Eleazar (precisely as Ka'b b. Asad addressed the Banu Qurayza),37 who suggested to them the killing of their women and children. At the ultimate point of complete despair the plan of killing each other to the last man was proposed.

Clearly the similarity of details is most striking. Not only are the suggestions of mass suicide similar but even the numbers are almost the same. Even the same names occur in both accounts. There is Phineas, and Azar b. Azar,38 just as Eleazar addressed the Jews besieged in Masada.

There is, indeed, more than a mere similarity. Here we have the prototype - indeed, I would suggest, the origin of the story of Banu Qurayza, preserved by descendants of the Jews who fled south to Arabia after the Jewish Wars, just as Josephus recorded the same story for the Classical world. A later generation of these descendants superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the story of the siege of Banu Qurayza, perhaps by confusing a tradition of their distant past with one from their less remote history. The mixture provided Ibn Ishaq's story. When Muslim historians ignored it or transmitted it without comment or with cold lack of interest, they only expressed lack of enthusiasm for a strange tale, as Ibn Hajar called it.

One last point. Since the above was first written, I have seen reports39 of a paper given in August 1973 at the World Congress of Jewish Studies by Dr. Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, in which she challenges Josephus' assertion that 960 besieged Jews committed suicide at Masada. This is highly interesting since in the story of Qurayza the 960 or so Jews refused to commit suicide. Who knows, perhaps the Story of Banu Qurayza is an even more accurate form of the original version.

Footnotes

1. Ibn Ishaq, Sira (ed. Wustenfeld, Gottingen, 1860), 545-7; (ed. Saqqa et al., Cairo, 1955), II, 47-9. See also al-Waqidi, Kitab al-maghazi (ed. M. Jones, London, 1966), II, 440 ff.; Suhayl, al-Rawd al-unuf (Cairo, 1914), I, 187 et passim; Ibn Kathir, al-Sira al-Nabawiya (ed. Mustafa `Abd al-Wahid, Cairo, 1384-5/1964-6), II, 5, et passim.

2. Sira, 545-56, 652-61/II, 51-7, 190-202; Ibn Kathir, oop. cit., III, 145 ff.

3. Sira, 755-76, 779/II, 328-53, 356, etc. More on Khaybar follows below.

4. ibid., 776/II, 353-4.

5. ibid., 668-84/II, 214-33.

6. ibid., 684-700/II, 233-54.

7. ibid., 689/II, 240; `Uyun al-athar (Cairo, 1356 A.H.), II, 73; Ibn Kathir, II, 239.

8. In his introduction to `Uyun al-athar, I, 7, Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (d. 734 A.H.), having explained his plan for his biography of the Prophet, expressly states that his main source was Ibn Ishaq, who indeed was the chief source for everyone.

9. Tahdhib al-tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 17, where the author uses the same words, without giving a reference, in his introduction on the veracity of Ibn Ishaq and the criteria he applied.

10. d. 179.

11. `Uyun al-athar, I, 12.

12. ibid, I, 16.

13. Sira, 691-2/II, 242, 244; `Uyun al-athar, II, 74, 75.

14. Ibn Sayyid al-Nas (op. cit., I, 121) makes precisely this point in relation to the story of the Banu Qaynuqa' and the spurious verse which was said to have appeared in Sura LIII of the Qur'an and at the time was taken by polytheist Meccans as a recognition of their deities. The author explains how various scholars disposed of the problem and then sums up by stating that in his view, this story is to be treated on the same level as tales of the maghazi and accounts of the Sira (i.e. not to be accorded unqualified acceptance). Most scholars, he asserts, usually treated more liberally questions of minor importance and any material which did not involve a point of law, such as stories of the maghazi and similar reports. In such cases data would be accepted which would not be acceptable as a basis of deciding what is lawful or unlawful.

15. See n. 18 below.

16. Tabari, Tarikh, I, 1499 (where the reference is to al-Waqidi, Maghazi, II, 513); Zad al-ma`ad (ed. T. A. Taha, Cairo, 1970), II, 82; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., IV, 118.

17. On this see W. Arafat, "Early critics of the poetry of the Sira", BSOAS, XXI, 3, 1958, 453-63.

18. Kadhdhab and Dajjal min al-dajajila.

19. `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7. In his valuable introduction Ibn Sayyid al-Nas provides a wide-ranging survey of the controversial views on Ibn Ishaq. In his full introduction to the Gottingen edition of the Sira, Wustenfeld in turn draws extensively on Ibn Sayyid al-Nas.

20. Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, IX, 45. See also `Uyun al-athar, I, 16-7.

21. ibid.

22. Qur'an, XXXV, 18.

23. Qur'an, XLI, 4.

24. ed. Khalil Muhammad Harras, Cairo, 1388/1968, 241.

25. Significantly, little or no information is to be found in general or special geographical dictionaries, such as al-Bakri's, Mu`jam ma'sta`jam; al-Fairuzabadi's al-Maghanim al-mutaba fi ma`alim taba (ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1389/1969); Six treatises (Rasa'il fi tarikh al-Madina ed. Hamad al-Jasir, Dar al-Yamama, 1392/1972); al-Samhudi, Wafa' al-wafa' bi-akhbar dar al-Mustafa (Cairo, 1326), etc. Even al-Samhudi seems to regard a mention of the market-place in question as a mere historical reference, for in his extensive historical topography of Medina he identifies the market-place (p. 544) almost casually in the course of explaining the change in nomenclature which had overtaken adjacent landmarks. That market-place, he says, is the one referred to in the report (sic) that the Prophet brought out the prisoners of Banu Qurayza to the market-place of Medina, etc.

26. p. 247. I am indebted to my friend Professor Mahmud Ghul of the American University, Beirut, for bringing this reference to my attention.

27. d. 157/774. See EI2, sub nomine.

28. Sira, 689/II, 240; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 512.

29. Sira, 689/II, 240; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., III, 238.

30. e.g., Nasab Quraysh (ed. A. S. Harun, Cairo, 1962), 340.

31. op. cit., II, 634, 684.

32. op. cit., III, 415.

33. A. Guillaume, Islam (Harmondsworth, 1956), 10-11.

34. De bello Judaico, I, 4, 6.

35. ibid., VII, 9, 1.

36. ibid., VII, 10, 1.

37. Sira, 685-6/II, 235-6.

38. Sira, 352, 396/I, 514, 567.

39. The Times, 18 August 1973; and The Guardian, 20 August 1973.

Kudos to: www.jews-for-allah.org

We don't need to behead muslims. We can humiliate them at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. That's worse than death for them.

Panty-hats and butt pyramids anyone?

The use of children in promoting acts of what we would consider to be barbarity does not shock or horrify me at all. I see this as an attempt to show how dedicated and serious the fanatics are (no matter what age) in dispensing justice to those they deem criminal and to that end they have certainly succeeded. They are suggesting that it’s possible that there are followers of Islam living near you who could be just as dedicated, determined and capable of committing similar acts upon you and those you hold dear….

One wonders if there were to be a disaster in Papua New Guinea which resulted in mass immigration of the indigenous head hunting cannibals to your shore’s, if there would be any restrictions place upon them? Considering that there are certain practices that they consider to be part of their culture. I’m all for that, it would be a great social experiment! Mind you we have a similar experiment in ‘multiculturism’ going on at the moment.

I can see the protest posters appear when the cannibals get upset over increased gas prices, “Behead those who slap inflation bursting gas prices and cook ‘em for 4 hours at gas regulo 6!”

“Death to all who insult the cuisine of our ancestors and bake ‘em in a nice filo pastry covered in goose fat, with a healthy side salad!”

Yuck - a "hizballah supporter," "hizballah meaning "Allah's Party."

What could be worse than Allah's Party? Answer: Allah/Muhammed.

Thank You, Champ. Can anyone tell me where in the ahadith the beheading of the Jewish males occurs? What I would like is a verse or quotation...Thank You for your time/effort.

"The attitude towards biographical details and towards the early events of Islam was far less meticulous than their attitude to the Prophet's traditions, or indeed to any material relevant to jurisprudence. Indeed Ibn Ishaq's account of the siege of Medina and the fall of the Banu Qurayza is pieced together by him from information given by a variety of persons he names, including Muslim descendants of the Jews of Qurayza."

What an interesting and lengthy analysis posted above. It serves to emphasis the haphazard and chaotic way the Quran, Islamic doctrines and Islamic practices have evolved.

Contrast these writings many years after the events from a jumble of sources interpreted by a melange of writers with the New Testament, which was written by eyewitnesses of the events no more than a decade or two after they happened. These writings have been accurately preserved to the present day. Not only Christian writers, but secularists wrote about the virgin birth, the crucifixion and subsequent actions of the apostles. This makes the New Testament a much more cogent and believable sequence of events. Using logic, it is simple to see the superiority of the Lord Jesus Christ's life and teachings.

Well Hizbollah...according to your cut and paste job, the Asian Society decided that it was rejected by 'jurists' collecting Hadith.(what 'jurists' were those?) Then it blames the JOOOs for making it up. Sounds like an elaborate cover up job to me. White washing the incident to make it look like Jooos invented it.
Since there are other Hadith that site similar behavior by Mo and his merry men, I have suspicions that this is a con job.

Terrorist supporter-

It's called a "link".

Save us having to scroll over your clotted apologistics.

The hadiths are wrong?

I think so too.

All of them.

And the Koran, as well.

A cut and paste job by a later Caliph to consolidate his own terrorism.

Anyone who fails to think for themself will have someone else do it for them.

Mohammad's stupidity (..."Satan sleeps inside the nose at night..."; "...the Devil breaks wind every time a muezzin calls..." ad absurdum) makes his entire "religion" suspect.

Plagiarist, pedophile, crank, kook.

Follow him over the cliff at your own risk.

@Hizballah_Supporter

All of Islam's "holy" books are constructed just like Siraat al-wasuul

sloppily
stupidly
carelessly
fiendishly

Whether muhammaad was the fiend he is described as being by his ass-kissing worshippers, or whether they made up details to make him look like a gangsta and a pimp, makes no difference.

He is eternalized as a demon, thief, murderer,pimp,fiend

and that's the only muhammad the world knows or will ever know

feh!
ptui!

Hizballah_Supporter's article above has some problems, among which are where the unnamed author of that article seems to contradict himself:

First, that author he erects the Qur'an as the only reliable source for the "Banu Quraysha" story (Hizballah_Supporter misspells Qurayzah and apparently confuses them with the Quraysh):

"The Qur'an is the only authority which the historian would accept without hesitation or doubt. It is a contemporary text, and, for the most cogent reasons, what we have is the authentic version."

About that only reliable source's report of the incident with the Banu [Tribe of] Qurayzah, the author says: "There is no reference to numbers."

Then later in his article, the author says:

"It is obvious in the story that the leaders were numbered and were well known. They were named."

Other problems with that article are an evident bias by the author that indicates he is a Muslim himself (perhaps that's why Hizballah_Supporter withheld his name), such as with statements like:

(ii) The rule in Islam is to punish only those who were responsible for the sedition.

(iii) To kill such a large number is diametrically opposed to the Islamic sense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an - particularly the verse. "No soul shall bear another's burden."

Also, there were a couple of typos in that article, which is very strange to find in a scholarly article from a reputable scholarly journal such as the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland.

Finally, who cares if the number 600-900 is "too high"? If the number were 400, or 300, or 200, or 100, or 10 -- it would still be unacceptable for someone revered for all time for all Muslims as God's final prophet, and as the "best model of conduct", and as "the best man" in history.

Good point remote. MohamMAD was anything but a "model prophet/man"; he was evil and twisted, and the proof is in how he lived his life. And like you said, the numbers don't matter, because it is criminal and barbaric to oversea and approve the beheading of even ONE man.

Lame Cherry,

You wrote: "There are of course different ethnic groups in Afghanistan, but the Afghan compared to the Pushtan is different as night and day."

What, exactly, is, the "Afghan" ethnic group?

On the verse of the Quran which you quotes, I have firstly two words to say: CONTEXT and INTERPRETATION.

The entire verse is:

"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, smite the necks; then when you have overcome them, make (them) prisoners, and afterwards set them free, as a favour or for ransom till the war lay down its burdens"

This is the only verse in the Quran which condems slavery, and made it acceptable only as a temporary condition during war, in a time when slavery was common and was widely practised. It clearly does not advocate killing people because look, after you smite their necks, they still have to be alive to be set free. Yet another example of the importance of context (something which the jihadwatch website conspicuously ignores). I don't have the space here to respond to the whole of that article in which Muhammad and the Quran supposedly advocate violence towards other human beings, but I'd suggest getting a wide range of sources, and perhaps doing some reading up on the subject before implying that a range of idiots and terrorists who probably couldn't read if they were asked to, represent the rest of us Muslims.

The president of northern India’s All India Ibtehad Council, recently announced a 500,000 rupee (US $11,319) bounty on Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen's head.

"She should be killed and beheaded and anyone who does this will get a reward from the council," declared cleric Tauqeer Raza Khan, because Nasreen made "derogatory references against Prophet Mohammed in her writings."

Granted, Nasreen's writings which demand equality and dignity for Muslim (and all) women are, to many Islamic fundamentalists, a bit radical. She writes that Muslim women should burn their burqas, that women should be treated as equals, and that religion should have no place in law or government….heretical stuff to Islamic fundamentalists.

Khan hotly denies that his bounty is gender related: "Anyone who opposes the Prophet does not deserve to live," he proclaims, further stating: "There have been a number of e-mails and telephone calls congratulating me for the bold stance I have taken.” Khan says his bounty has the full backing of the powerful All India Muslim Personal Law Board.

Khan’s getting E-MAILS that support chopping off a woman's head? What is this? Seventh century violence meets 21st century technology?

And there's certainly a history of censoring writers who criticize Islam with the scimitar - or the knife - or the gun.

Clearly, masked men holding up hand lettered signs at demonstrations throughout the world which say: "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM" are serious.

Here in America, people are prosecuted for beheading an animal, like the 24-year old man recently arrested in Minnesota for decapitating a dog, and the concept of cutting off a woman's head because of something she wrote is something we can't even begin to comprehend.

But beheading IS legal in Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia where many crimes are punishable by public beheading with a large, curved sword. Just last month, in Riyadh, a Saudi child rapist and a Sudanese man convicted of sorcery, which is banned under Islamic law (and the laws of reality – even schoolchildren know that Harry Potter is fiction) were both beheaded in a public ceremony.

While beheading is a tool for justice in some parts of the Islamic world, it is a tool for terror in others (think Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg) and the $11,319 price on Ms. Nasreen’s head is obviously intended to terrorize and silence her writing

Based on past performance and EXISTING fatwas, it sounds like beheading is VERY "Islamic" to me....

"Granted, Nasreen's writings which demand equality and dignity for Muslim (and all) women are, to many Islamic fundamentalists, a bit radical. She writes that Muslim women should burn their burqas, that women should be treated as equals, and that religion should have no place in law or government….heretical stuff to Islamic fundamentalists."

Good for her. As a Muslim woman, I stand by what she preaches - it's the very essence of Islam, which has never dictated burqas, and was possibly (though I'm not sure about this) the first religion to establish laws which set women on an equal footing with men. I'm glad that some people understand what Islam's all about, even if people like Tauqeer Raza Khan don't.

"Khan’s getting E-MAILS that support chopping off a woman's head? What is this? Seventh century violence meets 21st century technology? "

I'd say that this is the state of sensibility and civilisation in a country where poverty is choking, and which is still only half developed. Integration and time will solve these problems.

"And there's certainly a history of censoring writers who criticize Islam with the scimitar - or the knife - or the gun. "

If you're speaking about India specifically, I'd point to my comment above. If you're speaking ina broader historical context, I'd ask you to be more specific. It was, after all, the son-in-law of the prophet who said:

""Remember when dealing with others that either they are your brothers and sisters in faith, or they are your human creatures in kind."

Not all people who have called themselves 'muslims' throughout the ages have acknowleded things like this, but than many people are idiots. Is it really fair that everyone following the religion be tarred with the same brush?

"Just last month, in Riyadh, a Saudi child rapist and a Sudanese man convicted of sorcery, which is banned under Islamic law (and the laws of reality – even schoolchildren know that Harry Potter is fiction) were both beheaded in a public ceremony. "

This is sickening, I agree. Though I'd point out that clearly not everyone believes that all schoolchildren know Harry Potter is fiction - given the vehement opposition to be the books by a largely American minority. Like I said, lots of people are idiots. Some happen to be muslims too.

"Based on past performance and EXISTING fatwas, it sounds like beheading is VERY "Islamic" to me...."

But you haven't given a shred of evidence for this. You've proven amply that idiotic, uneducated people who call themselves muslims are cruel and do stupid things. You haven't proven than Islam as an ideology and way of life condones it.

Nabeelah,

You wrote:

"This is the only verse in the Quran which condems slavery, and made it acceptable only as a temporary condition during war..."

So that, according to you, is the only one. And it doesn't condemn slavery, as much as to recommending ransom.

Your prophet, known to history as "mohammed" set an example to the ummah. That example included slavery as normal and natural.

Do you reject the example of "mohammed", and the ahadith? In various collections of ahadith the "apostle of allah" is described, reliably, according to Bukhari or Muslim, discussing slaves much differently than as a temporary prisoners-of-war (which is bad enough).

If you do reject the example of your prophet, and the ahadith, there is no shortage of muslims who would describe you as an apostate.

Perhaps you should spend your time trying to convince your colleagues in the ummah that they misunderstand islam. Good luck with that.

Slavery in islam:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm

Nabeelah said: "If you're speaking about India specifically, I'd point to my comment above. If you're speaking in a broader historical context, I'd ask you to be more specific."

OK, here's specific:

Some of those murdered for "un-Islamic" writing, films, etc:

One of the first well-known fatwas was proclaimed in 1989 by the Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, against Salman Rushdie‘s novel The Satanic Verses. Khomeini died shortly after issuing the fatwa. In 1998 Iran stated that it is no longer pursuing Rushdie’s death; however the decree was again reversed in early 2005 by the present theocrat, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.In 1991, Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo, and his Italian translator was beaten and stabbed in Milan. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven guests died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator."February 14, 1989, [Iran]: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, [rules that] that The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie is blasphemous and calls to murder its author and publishers. A reward of $3 million is offered to anyone who kills Rushdie (but only $1 million if the murderer is not Iranian).

"1946, Iran: The terrorist group Fedayyan-i Eslam accuses historian, jurist, and linguist Ahmad Kasravi of unbelief. In March, he is murdered for heresy, based on a fatwa [issued against him].

"1973, Algeria: The poet Jean Sénac is assassinated by Islamist nationalists.

"December 18, 1975, Morocco: Omar Benjelloun, leader of the Socialist Union of Popular Forces (USPF) and director of the paper Al-Mouharrir, is stabbed to death by a group affiliated with the Islamic Youth [movement].

"February 1977, [Syria]: The president of Damascus University is murdered on campus by Islamists.

"1982, [Iran]: Writer Ata Nourian, a member of the Iranian Writers Union, is killed for his 'anti-Islamist ideas.'

"In February 1989, Iranian writers Amir Nikaiin, Manouchehr Behzadi, Djavid Misani and Abutorab Bagherazdeh, and two Iranian poets, Said Soltanpour and Rahman Hatefi, are killed for their liberal ideas that are regarded as an attack on Islam.

"January 1985, Sudan: The writer Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, over 80 years old, is sentenced to death and hanged in Khartoum. [His crime:] writing a book on the history of Islam which advocated separation of the political and the religious domains. In the book..., he stated that the spiritual message of the Prophet as revealed in Mecca is universal, but that the judicial framework which [later] developed [in Medina emerged] in a particular historical context and is [therefore] not adapted to the life of Muslims today.

"June 8, [1992], writer Farag Foda is shot to death along with his son Ahmad and a friend of his son's. A few days earlier, the secular intellectual was declared an 'apostate' by the Sheikh of the Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo. The Al-Azhar scholars denounced the manner in which Foda was murdered, but [continued to] consider him an apostate who deserves a death sentence. The Islamist group Al-Gamma'ah Al-Islamiya took responsibility for the murder...

"September 3, [1991], Saudi Arabia: The poet Sadiq Melallah was beheaded in the main square of the city of Qatif for denying [the faith], on [the orders of] the state authorities.

"1993, Algeria: This was a very bloody year for writers, journalists, academics, and artists [in Algeria]. The victims, most of them murdered by Islamist activists, include Ruptures magazine writer and editor Taher Djaout; sociologist Djilali Liabès; Beaux-Arts [College] head Ahmed Asselah; sociologist M'hamed Boukhobza; Bab-Ezzouar University head Salah Djebaïli; poet and writer Youssef Sebti; playwright and stage director Abdelkader Alloula; psychiatrist Mahfoudh Boucebci, national education superintendent Salah Chouaki; playwright Izzedine Medjoubi; pediatrician Dilalli Belkhanchir; economist Abderahmane Faredeheb; and journalists Ferhat Cherkit, Youssef Fathallah, Lamine Lagoui, Ziane Farrah, Abdelhamid Benmenni, Rabah Zenati, Saad Bakhtaoui, and Abderrahmane Chergou..., and the list is far from complete...

"April 1995, [India]: Mufti Shabbir Siddiqi of Ahamdabad issues a fatwa of excommunication against the poet Muhammad Alvi. [The poet was excommunicated] because of a [single] line in a poem written 17 years earlier: 'O God, if you are too busy to visit us, send us a good angel to guide us.'

"In Iran, Ahmad Miralai, a translator of foreign literature, is murdered.

"1996, Iran: Four 'subversive' writers and editors are murdered: Ghafar Hosseini, Reza Mazlooman, Ebrahim Zalzadeh, and Ahmad Tafazoli...

"In Iran, [several] writers, journalists and academics - Pirouz Davani, Hamid Pour, Hajizadeh, Majid Sharif, Daryoush and Parvaneh Furouhar, Muhammad Jafar Pouyandeh, and Muhammad Mokhtari - are murdered by fundamentalists because of their writings.

"In Iran, the Canadian-Iranian journalist Zahra Kazemi is brutally tortured by the Iranian police and then murdered in detention - [all] for writing her articles.

"On November 2, Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh is murdered in Amsterdam by a Moroccan Islamist because of his film Submission, which portrays the submissiveness of Muslim women... The murderer, the son of a Muslim Moroccan immigrant, left a [letter with] a list of additional individuals to be killed, including Theo's scriptwriter Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch MP who later fled to the U.S. The letter ends with the following lines: 'I am certain, O America, that you will die/I am certain, O Europe, that you will die/I am certain, O Netherlands, that you will die/I am certain, O Hirsi Ali, that you will die/I am certain, O infidel fundamentalist, that you will die.'

"September 30, 2005: The conservative Danish daily Jyllands-Posten publishes 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad, which leads to demands for apologies, death threats, and demonstrations in Copenhagen. On October 20, a number of Muslim ambassadors send an official protest to the Danish government, and on December 29, the Arab League [likewise] issues a protest. On January 21, after another Norwegian magazine and several additional European papers re-publish the cartoons, the International Association of 'Ulama in Cairo calls for boycotting Danish and Norwegian products. Despite the 'apologies' and 'expressions of regret' published by the accused newspapers, and [following] ambiguous declarations by the Danish and Norwegian governments, the Arab states demand sanctions, and recall their ambassadors. Riots break out, and embassies of the [involved] countries are set on fire in the Middle East. Many of the Muslim rioters... are injured or killed...

And here are a couple of beheadings carried out "in the name of Islam" - not to mention the most recent one carried out by the cute 12 year old:

*JAKARTA: An Indonesian court yesterday jailed three Islamic militants for up to 20 years over the beheading of three Christian schoolgirls in a crime that drew international condemnation.
The court sentenced Hasanuddin, alias Slamet Raharjo, who came up with the idea to decapitate the girls to mark a Muslim holiday, to 20 years in prison. “The accused was proven to plan and move other people to carry out terror acts,” the judge said. A separate court sentenced two of 34-year-old Hasanuddin’s accomplices, Lilik Purnomo and Irwanto Irano, to 14 years in jail for “evil plotting of, attempts of, or providing assistance to, a crime of terrorism”. The teenage girls were walking home from school when they were beheaded by machete in 2005 during a festival marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. A fourth girl survived and fled with serious injuries.
The severed heads were dumped near a police post and a church after the attack in Sulawesi island’s religiously divided district of Poso, where Muslims and Christians live in roughly equal numbers and have clashed in the past.

* When dawn broke, Muslim fanatics sneaked into a rubber plantation in Yala province's Muang district. There they bulleted a Buddhist laborer. Then they beheaded him, "dropping his head about 600 feet from the body." "'We believe that Muslim insurgents beheaded the victim and planted the bombs to target police, because they knew police would come to inspect,' Police Major Sucharit Wongsaket informed Bangkok, Thailand AP" per The China Post. Mar 19, 2007

*Sayyaf wanted for beheading farmers nabbed in Basilan - Arrested was Al-hari Jakiri alias Abu Usman, who was among those wanted for the beheading of nine workers of the Golden Harvest Plantation in Tairan, Lantawan, Basilan. (phillipines)

*feb 22 -0 Indonesia - Captured top Jemaah Islamiyah fugitive Basri tells how he personally cut off the head of one of three female students killed in 2005. Instructors and preachers sent by al-Qaeda gave them jihad training, making them believe that Allah wanted these deaths. They are now remorseful. “Islamic preachers,” Basri said, “said that killing was a form of prayer. They told us that in war Christians had cut off the heads of Muslim women and it was time for pay back.”

*The Islamic Committee of Pattani and 670 southern mosques on Friday condemned the "barbaric" murder and decapitation of a 72-year-old rice miller a day earlier. The statement followed an appeal by Her Majesty the Queen for more Thais to speak out against the southern violence.The beheading on Thursday was at least the 24th by southern extremists since they escalated terrorist-type attacks in January, 2004.

*Bangkok- Suspected separatists in Thailand's majority Muslim province of Pattani on Thursday shot dead and then beheaded a Buddhist ice cream vendor, police said.

Nabeelah said: "But you haven't given a shred of evidence for this. You've proven amply that idiotic, uneducated people who call themselves muslims are cruel and do stupid things. You haven't proven than Islam as an ideology and way of life condones it."

It's not my job to separate those who CALL themselves Muslims and do "cruel and stupid" things in the name of Islam from those who are REALLY Muslim - frankly, I don't know how you expect those of us who aren't Muslim to know the damn difference.

If someone carries out a despicable act screaming "Allah Akbar" and claiming that the act is to glorify Islam, I'm pretty much going to take that person at his word as pertains to his motives.

Perhaps if more of those, like you, who consider themselves "real" Muslims were to make a little more noise about this, and maybe if a couple of you "real" Muslims out there were to, say, report some of the crazy people who only CALL themselves Muslims to the authorities, in order to thwart those nasty things they do that make your religion LOOK bad, we'd be a little more sympathetic and a little more likely to believe that there IS a difference. But from the outside looking in, all we see are the nutcases and all we hear from the "real" Muslims is silence....

Of course, maybe some of you "real" Muslims out there need to set the nutcases straight, because I'm pretty sure they THEY don't know they've got it all wrong....