Beheading has long history

[abdulhakeem]

By LISA HOFFMAN
Scripps Howard News Service Sunday, June 27, 2004

To Americans, beheading is a horrific act of uncivilized brutality. But over the course of history, it hasn't always been thus.

From the Greek and Roman empires to the Inca civilization in Meso-America to 18th-century Europe, punishment by decapitation was viewed as a humane way of death, one often reserved for the elite of society.

Unlike other methods, the lopping off of one's head was decidedly quicker and less painful than, say, the horribly slow and agonizing demise that came with being impaled on a stick, burned at the stake or drawn and quartered, historians say.

And even centuries ago, beheading frequently carried with it symbolic statements that did not accompany other forms of execution.

In 1700s Germany, for instance, Prince William Hyazinth had rebellious miner Friedrich Flender beheaded, then displayed the severed part on a pole so the common folk would see what happened to those who caused trouble. In 1572, the end of the Inca dynasty came with the beheading by Spain of the last Inca emperor, Tupac Amaru.

The recent gruesome beheadings by Islamic extremists of Americans and a South Korean also carry significant symbolic import. Jordanian-born terror chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who says he personally beheaded American Nicholas Berg on May 11 and who also took credit for the execution last week of South Korean hostage Kim Sun-il, is telegraphing a host of messages via the act of decapitation, according to experts on the psychology of terrorism.

Among them: That the terrorists intend to strike at the head of their enemies' power and kill it; that the victims and their societies are no better than animals slaughtered for their meat; that the perpetrators are ruthless and will inflict the unthinkable on their enemies; and, to their supporters, that they are using the Islamic sword of justice to smite infidels and so terrify them that they will flee the region, never to return.

"There is so much symbolic value" to beheadings, San Diego State University political-science professor Dipak Gupta said.

And the use by terrorists of the Internet and Arabic television networks to spread the grisly images has only magnified the visceral revulsion felt by Americans and others about the decapitations of Berg, Kim and American hostages Paul Johnson, a contractor slain June 18 in Saudi Arabia, and Daniel Pearl, a journalist killed in Pakistan in 2002.

Clark McCauley, a Bryn Mawr College terrorism expert and psychology professor, said Islamic terrorists were likely surprised at the depth of the horror felt in America, a nation where death is more antiseptic and remote from daily life than it is in the Middle East and Asia.

"I think they're a little surprised by how squeamish we are about dying," particularly in this fashion, McCauley said, noting the long history of beheading in the Arab world and what he considers a religious underpinning to the practice.

Islamic leaders dispute that beheading is sanctioned by the Koran holy book or even allowed by Islamic law except after criminal judicial proceedings. Eight prominent U.S. Muslims and others around the world have repeatedly denounced the recent beheadings, calling them repugnant to Muslims everywhere.

While Saudi Arabia regularly beheads those guilty of murder and other serious crimes -- the government publicly decapitated 52 men and one woman last year -- it says it does so only after witnesses are heard at a trial and after giving the condemned tranquilizers.

But Zarqawi and other Muslim extremists around the world in recent years have selected non-Muslims to behead to send explicit religious messages, said Jerrold Post, director of the George Washington University's political psychology department and author of "Leaders and their Followers in a Dangerous World."

In 2001, American Guillermo Sobero was kidnapped and beheaded by the Abu Sayyaf group, an Islamic terror outfit linked to al Qaeda, in the Philippines. Left with Sobero's body were notes calling the killing an act of "jihad," or religious war. A year earlier, the terrorists beheaded two teachers kidnapped from a Catholic school.

In the disputed Kashmir region of India in 2001, Muslim attackers beheaded 11 Hindu villagers. In 1995 in Kashmir, another group kidnapped five Westerners and decapitated Norwegian Hans Christian Ostro.

The history of the Middle East and environs is replete with beheadings dating back 14 centuries. In 680, for instance, the Prophet Mohammed's grandson, Hussein bin Ali, was decapitated in Karbala in Iraq. The soldiers of the Caliph Yazid put the head on a silver platter and dispatched it to Damascus and then on to Egypt. The soldiers also chopped off the heads of 71 other associates of Hussein.

In 1842, Afghans beheaded 2,000 British at their garrison in Kabul and impaled the heads on sticks. In 1885, British Gen. Charles Gordon was decapitated in Khartoum by the forces of the Mahdi; his head, too, was stuck on a stick. Around the same time, a Somali rebel leader collected the heads of the Italians and Brits he killed.

In recent years in Pakistan, warring Sunni and Shiite Muslim groups have regularly chopped off the heads of rivals and mailed them by special delivery to their home bases. In 2000, Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein ordered 200 prostitutes beheaded.

European history also rings with the thwack of the executioner's ax.

In England, beginning in 1076, beheading was confined to those of noble birth. Over the centuries, King Charles I;Henry VIII's second wife, Anne Boleyn; Mary Queen of Scots; and Sir Walter Raleigh all lost their heads.

During the Enlightenment, reform-minded thinkers such as Voltaire and Diderot advocated that even commoners be extended the dignity and swift death that attended beheading.

But in time, the horrors that often resulted from dull swords or weak or unskilled executioners -- it took three whacks, for instance, to remove Queen Mary's head -- and the inefficiency of manual beheadings spawned the invention of the guillotine, a killing machine that in just two months during the French Revolution in 1793 dispatched 1,270 aristocrats to meet their maker.

Belgium, Greece, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland and Switzerland all adopted the guillotine, with many not abandoning it until the 20th century. Hitler was particularly fond of decapitation, beheading an estimated 16,000 people. Nazi executioners bragged they could guillotine a prisoner every three minutes.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/06/27/news/world/e6710a3e0345547587256ec00002f0d8.txt

[abdulhakeem]

Beheadings allowed by Islam, but only in extreme situations

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 24, 2004

Beheading, the method that Islamist terrorists have used to execute three hostages in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, is specified by Islamic law, but should be used only in extreme cases, with at least one judge and credible witnesses to a crime, Islamic analysts say.

Others point out that the Koran refers to such a punishment for infidels and that Muhammad oversaw the beheading of several hundred men in his lifetime.

The tapes of the recent beheadings also have the terrorists yelling "Allahu akbar" — meaning "God is great" — while killing their hostage.

The killings of Americans Nicholas Berg and Paul M. Johnson Jr. and South Korean Kim Sun-il — and that of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan — are "an extreme form of execution that is most inhumane," said Sam Hamod, former director of the Islamic Center in the District who is now a lecturer and writer near San Diego.

The executioners, who claim to act in the name of Islam, he said, "may find a hadith [or saying of Muhammad] that supports it, but the Koran doesn't allow it."

The killers didn't even do the job right, he said.

"If they are going to have an execution, the [executioner] must say a prayer and ask for forgiveness from God for what he is doing and pray for the person's soul being killed," he said. "You can't do it like the idiots on TV. The right thing to do is slit the person's throat, not cut off the entire head."

At issue is book 47, verse four of the Koran, which says, "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight [or jihad], smite at their necks at length; when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.

"Thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens."

The "smite at their necks" wording "doesn't mean to kill somebody," Mr. Hamod said.

Any Islamic capital punishment, he added, must be handed down by a panel of judges plus there must be four credible witnesses of an extreme crime committed by the person to be executed. And civilians — but not soldiers — are protected under Islamic law.

Secular authorities in predominantly Christian nations have used beheading as a method of execution, but there is nothing in the theology of either Judaism or Christianity to justify beheading.

Beheadings are common in Muslim states such as Saudi Arabia, and Andrew Bostom, an associate professor of medicine at Boston University, called it "an ugly reality" in an essay posted on www.frontpagemagazine.com.

Such killings, he wrote, "are consistent with sacred jihad practices, as well as Islamic attitudes towards all non-Muslim infidels, in particular Jews, which date back to the seventh century."

According to one of Muhammad's biographers, Ibn Ishaq, the founder of Islam approved of the beheadings of 700 men of the Jewish Qurayza tribe of Medina, whose bodies were then stacked in trenches.

In the Koran, the incident is referred to in book 33:25-27, which says, in part, "some ye slew and some ye made prisoners."

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership said the massacre has been accepted as fact among Muslims for 1,200 years but hardly shows up in Jewish literature.

Westernized Muslims, he said, can no longer deny what their fellow believers are doing.

"Right now in the world, many Muslims are devoting their lives to the truth of decapitation," he said. "Simply to say, 'It's not Islam' is not a helpful response, because for those who are doing it, it is."

In the Old Testament, King David killed the giant Goliath, then cut off his head. In the apocryphal book of Judith, the heroine slices off the head of the Assyrian general Holofernes as he lies drunk in his tent.

"Rabbinic understanding of capital punishment may have included decapitation," Mr. Hirschfield said. "It is a form of capital punishment that most closely resembles sacrifice mandated by God. [The Muslims who killed Western hostages] believe it is a profoundly sacred act."

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, author of "What's Right With Islam," said beheading has been a method of capital punishment worldwide, not just in Islamic law.

"What we're seeing is like the Wild West," he said of the decapitations.

"The universal theme that motivates terrorists is humiliation," he said. "The terrorism is an attempt at empowerment. Look at the images; [the executed] wearing the same orange as the prisoners of Guantanamo wore. It is the revenge of the hooded people. It is tit for tat."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040624-121737-2912r.htm

[abdulhakeem]

Islam rejects murder of innocents, mutilation of bodies

Regional, Religion, 6/21/2004

The Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Mohamed Sayed Tantawi, Sunday said that Islam shuns those who mutilate bodies and kill innocent people, pointing out that the Islamic faith preaches justice and mercy even with enemies.

Addressing the opening session of an Islamic conference in Sanaa, Tantawi called upon Muslims to abide by the principles of war as prescribed in their holy book and the tradition (Hadith) of Prophet Mohamed and defend their rights and religion in a way that clearly indicates a sound understanding of the Islamic Sharia (law).

He said that religious discourse should be sublime in its objective and based on the verses of the Quran and the Hadith which clearly highlights the values and principles which if complied with lead to happiness.

Tantawi added that discourse should also be characterized by moderation as prescribed by the Sharia which calls for extending a hand of peace to those who stretch theirs.

The Grand Imam said that differences between various creeds do not mean they cannot interact as no one can impose a certain religion by force.

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, on his part, criticized religious extremism, saying it only appeared in the backward times of Islamic history.

It is this backward thinking that has given the enemies of Islam and Muslims the pretext to attack them just because a few backward individuals are incapable of differentiating between Jihad and terrorism, Saleh said in his address to the conference that was read out by his Prime Minister Abdel Kader Bajamal.

Sudanese Minister of Awqaf Essam Al-Bashir lashed out at the present state of the Islamic world.

The one-polar system is dictating to the Islamic world how to educate its people and how to live, totally disregarding its cultural identity, he said.

The campaign now being waged on the Islamic world, Sharia and beliefs was prompted by a few who have strayed away from the objectives of Islam, it is an organized westernization and subordination course that seeks to void the religious message from its content, he said.

He called for the drafting of a moderate message that would incorporate the tenets of religion and the changes of today.

Yemeni Minister of Awqaf Hamoud Abbad said Muslim youths had to be given due attention and should not be left to be submerged by the culture of death propagated by the rejectionist front.

Anti-Islamic propaganda, whether from within or without, needs to be met by a united front that is well-aware of the realities calling for change, he added.

He stressed that the message of the Islamic da'wa, or call, had to rest on sound judgment to mould a rational and sound citizen.

Over 250 Islamic figures are taking part in the four-day conference. Ministers, intellectuals and researchers from Arab and Islamic countries will discuss five main topics dealing what Islamic guidance, the current global challenges, moderation and legislation.

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/040621/2004062117.html

[abdulhakeem]

Experts: Little Islamic authority for beheadings

BY MOHAMAD BAZZI
MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT

June 23, 2004, 8:23 PM EDT

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- It has become a terrifying spectacle disseminated by videotape: masked men calmly reading statements and then beheading their hostages.

The speeches are mostly political; occasionally they have invoked vague religious justifications for the killings. But there is little precedent in Islamic holy texts and tradition for carrying out decapitations, scholars say. Islam's holy book, the Quran, provides clear prohibitions against killing civilians and bans the mistreatment of prisoners.

"There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head," said Yvonne Haddad, a professor at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. "In fact, Islam was the first major religion to set guidelines for the treatment of prisoners and the conduct of war."

By beheading their victims -- and distributing the tapes on the Internet and to Arab television networks -- Islamic militants have hit on a new strategy to gain worldwide attention and further their political aims.

"This is clearly designed to spread terror," said Diaa Rashwan, a leading expert on Islamic militants at Cairo's Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. "Suicide bombings no longer receive as much attention as they used to, but these beheadings terrify people all over the world."

Rashwan noted that unlike most statements from Islamic militants, which are peppered with religious imagery and anecdotes, the speeches that accompanied the beheadings of U.S. businessman Nicholas Berg and South Korean translator Kim Sun-il mostly focused on political themes.

One major justification used by the militants for their method of killing is the abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. "The dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib is not redeemed except by blood and souls," a masked man said on the video showing the decapitation of Berg in Iraq last month. "You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins."

By evoking the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, the militants are trying to tap into public anger in the Middle East over the U.S. occupation of Iraq. "They're saying that this is vengeance for the abuses at Abu Ghraib," Haddad said. "It's an attempt to win public support, and to provide a counterpoint to Arab leaders who have been silent about the occupation and the prison abuses."

Militants also sent a political message in the way they dressed their victims. Kim and Berg were wearing orange jumpsuits similar to those issued to prisoners at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And members of an al-Qaida cell who beheaded American Paul M. Johnson Jr. in Saudi Arabia last week also had dressed him in orange before his killing.

But militants are unlikely to win broad support for taking vengeance on innocents, scholars say. "There's already a backlash against the militants for their targeting of Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other places," Rashwan said. "Most Muslims realize that these beheadings have no religious justification."

While the Quran and other sources of Islamic law prohibit killing civilians, al-Qaida's ideologues have argued that it is permitted as a form of "reciprocal attacks." That reasoning was outlined in a document posted in April 2002 on an al-Qaida Web site, which attempted to provide a religious justification for the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.

To support killing civilians, the group used one phrase in the Quran, "And one who attacks you, attack him in like manner as he attacked you." The document argued that if an enemy uses tactics that are prohibited in Islam (such as targeting civilians), those tactics become legal for Muslims.

Most religious authorities reject that reasoning and note that the Quranic prohibitions against killing innocents are much broader than the isolated phrases often used by militants to justify their actions.

Aside from the religious bans, Haddad noted that beheadings are not a common form of capital punishment in the Middle East, except in Saudi Arabia. Last year, the Saudi government beheaded 52 men and one woman, according to human rights groups. The decapitations are usually public, and they are meted out for crimes including murder, rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery.

There is one historical example of the use of beheading in the early days of Islam. It involved a Jewish tribe that lived near the city of Medina, where the Prophet Muhammad had taken refuge after being driven out of his home city, Mecca.

The Banu Qurayza tribe had initially agreed to support Muhammad, but it later negotiated with his enemies during their siege of Medina in the year 627. After Muhammad defeated his rivals, he declared that the tribe had betrayed him and ordered Muslim forces to besiege it. When the tribe surrendered, Muhammad asked a Jewish elder who had converted to Islam to determine its fate. The elder said the tribe's men -- more than 600 -- should be beheaded, and the women and children sold as slaves.

Al-Qaida militants have made occasional references to the Banu Qurayza and used its story as justification for killing Jews and other non-Muslims who "betray" Islam.

"The militants claim to see a parallel because the tribe violated its treaty with the prophet," Rashwan said. "But this was an isolated historical incident, and it cannot be used to justify beheading civilians."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wohead0624,0,2341137.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

[abdulhakeem]

Rights and wrongs of beheadings depend on context

AP , RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA
Sunday, Jun 27, 2004,Page 6

The Saudi government beheaded 52 men and one woman last year for crimes including murder, homosexuality, armed robbery and drug trafficking. But Saudis say that while Islam condones the punishment in one context, it condemns militants who decapitated hostages here and in Iraq.

Islam permits the death penalty for certain crimes, but few mainstream Muslim scholars and observers believe beheadings are sanctioned by Sharia, or Islamic law.

The Saudi government says the punishment is sanctioned by Islamic tradition. State-ordered beheadings are performed in courtyards outside crowded mosques in major cities after weekly Friday prayer services.

A condemned convict is brought into the courtyard, hands tied, and forced to bow before an executioner, who swings a huge sword amid cries from onlookers of "Allahu Akbar!" Arabic for "God is great."

On Friday, outside the main mosque in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, a policeman standing in the scorching summer heat declared to worshippers: "There are no qisas today." Qisas is the Arabic word for Islamic-law punishments -- which in the kingdom could mean beheadings or the amputation of limbs.

But Saudi clerics insist beheading is only allowed in the case of criminal convictions -- not in the killing of innocents.

"No religion condones these acts," Abdul Muhsen al Obaiqan, a senior Islamic cleric in Riyadh, said.

"They are against Islam and they tarnish the image of Muslims. No Muslim should show any sympathy for them," he said.

Last week, al-Qaeda-linked militants in Saudi Arabia decapitated American engineer Paul Johnson after warning they would kill him if the Saudi government did not release jailed comrades.

In Iraq this week, militants beheaded Kim Sun-il, a South Korean translator for a US military supplier, and dumped his body between Baghdad and Fallujah. US businessman Nicholas Berg met a similar fate last month in Iraq. Both killings are blamed on the al-Qaeda-linked movement of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The beheadings were videotaped, photographed and posted on the Internet. On Islamic Internet forums, mostly used by radicals, beheading has been a popular topic in recent weeks, with many participants describing it as the "easiest" way to kill an American or a Saudi from the ruling family.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2004/06/27/2003176725

[abdulhakeem]

Decapitation not Islamic, say scholars

JUNE 27, 2004 SUN

LONDON - Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, Paul Johnson and now a South Korean.

Militants in the Middle East and South Asia have adopted beheading, vaguely invoking religious justifications or Arab tradition for the method of killing. Yet most Muslims would consider that a gross misinterpretation of their religion.

There is nothing particularly Islamic about decapitation, no exhortation in the Quran to carry out beheadings, and no religious prescription for the killing of innocents in any form, religious scholars and academics say.

Instead, they see a more sinister 21st century motive behind the atrocities - the desire to gain maximum attention and engender maximum horror to further political aims.

The images, carried on videotape and made available for rapid viewing on the Internet and on television networks, have appalled and terrified people around the world.

This is precisely the aim of the militants, said history professor Michael Izady of Pace University in New York.

Agreeing, Dr Asma Afsaruddin, an associate professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Notre Dame, said: 'Their chief motive is a reaction of horror and shock.'

While she acknowledged that the militants might say they are acting in accord with their religion, she said such claims should not simply be accepted.

'There is absolutely no religious imperative for this. Clearly, what is behind it is vindictiveness and a desire to get as much attention as they can,' she said.

Since ancient times, decapitation has been used for executions, not only in the Arab world, but elsewhere - for instance, in Japan and in some European countries up to the 20th century.

Saudi Arabia still beheads people for crimes including murder, rape, armed robbery and drug trafficking.

Prof Izady said there was a clear distinction between the swift execution of people judged guilty of crimes, and the slow beheading of hostages by terrorists - a method, he said, which had been used in the past only in the most heinous criminal cases.

He expects the tactic to be copied by others.

Professor Dipak Gupta, a research associate at the Fred J. Hansen Institute for World Peace at San Diego State University, pointed to the strong symbolism of the sword in Middle-Eastern mythology and history: the sword of the prophet, the sword of the prince, Saddam Hussein's crossed-sword monument in Baghdad.

For the terrorists, the use of the sword 'would symbolise justice done to a deserving miscreant', he said.

'To shoot a victim or to hang him will not have the same symbolic effect.' -- Los Angeles Times

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,257965,00.html

[abdulhakeem]

The Quran mentions beheading. Why does the U.S. press claim otherwise?

By Lee Smith
Posted Thursday, July 1, 2004, at 2:10 PM PT

Following the recent beheadings of Americans and other foreigners in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the U.S. press turned to various experts to identify a precedent in the Quran or Islamic history for this kind of gory murder. "Beheadings are not mentioned in the Koran at all," Imam Muhammad Adam El-Sheikh, co-founder and chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Va., told USA Today. Yvonne Haddad, a professor at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University agreed, telling New York Newsday, "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head."

If reporters bothered to open up a copy of the Quran, say, N.J. Dawood's Penguin Classics translation, they'd find at least two relevant passages:

God revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers." (Sura 8, Verse 12)

"When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield strike off their heads." (Sura 47, Verse 4)

For anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who wants to put some distance between contemporary jihadist practice and the beliefs of ordinary Muslims, there are a range of arguments that might attenuate the force of these passages. For instance, it could be argued that these excerpts need to be put into context; they don't literally mean what they seem to say; or that they're the product of a particular historical moment, now passed. What's more, some might say that beheading is not really Islamic at all but is in fact an unfortunate holdover from pre-Islamic times, when the warring tribes on the Arabian peninsula decapitated their rivals and left them unburied in the field for predators to devour.

Some commentators claim that centuries ago beheading was simply the easiest way to kill people. That's not quite accurate. Even the old Arabs knew it was a spectacularly vicious way to send people to their deaths, so savage that sometimes the executioner would pay the consequences for his murderous zeal. In fact, there's a famous story in pre-Islamic literature about a decapitated head having its revenge. Shanfara was a great warrior who boasted that he would slay 100 of his enemies. After he had killed 99, he was struck down in battle, decapitated, and his head tossed away. When one of Shanfara's enemies passed by and kicked his skull, the man injured himself and eventually died from the wound. So, even in death, Shanfara had his hundred.

Now, instead of many warring Arab tribes, there are just the infidels and the Muslim faithful, and it seems that there aren't many of the latter willing to break ranks by admitting that beheading is in the Quran. As I noted earlier, there are a number of arguments that might contextualize decapitation and distinguish it from the mainstream beliefs of contemporary Islam, but it is simply wrong to say that the Quran does not mention beheadings or that there is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies decapitation. Islamic history is giddy with heads separated from their bodies, a tradition detailed in news outlets that are generally considered right-wing and on conservative Web sites, but apparently whitewashed in the mainstream press.

Why? It can't be that decapitation is too unbearably horrifying, since the image—from the head of John the Baptist to the grisly end of Gwyneth Paltrow's character in the movie Seven—is familiar enough in Western culture. No, the press' sensitivity seems to be triggered by the combination of Islam and beheading. Why? Do newspaper editors and TV producers worry that their audiences could turn into genocidal mobs ready to murder their American Muslim neighbors if they knew that Allah encourages beheading in the Quran?

If the press recognizes that most Muslims don't want to behead infidels, then infidels should be given the benefit of the doubt as well. Of course we won't kill our Muslim friends and neighbors, but we really wish the Muslims who are lending their expertise to our infidel press would tell the truth. Otherwise, this conversation between cultures isn't going to work. We are surely destined for a very violent clash of civilizations if one dialogue partner will lie about something that is written down for anyone—even American journalists if they make the effort—to read.

As Bernard Lewis describes in an essay from his new collection From Babel to Dragomans, there is a long history of the West receiving bad information about the Muslim world. Once European nations started establishing embassies in Istanbul in the 17th century, they needed people to translate to and from Turkish. In time, both the Europeans and the Ottomans found that their intermediaries, or dragomans (a derivation of an Assyrian word meaning "to translate"), were not serving their employers very well. Since the dragomans were marginal figures in Ottoman society, they were either "too scared of the Turkish authorities to deliver any unpalatable message honestly," or they were too busy looking out only for themselves. "Most of the European powers decided," Lewis writes, "that they could no longer rely on [the dragomans], and that the only real answer was to train people of their own."

In time, Europe produced talented students of Oriental languages and cultures, some of whom worked for European governments while others devoted their skills to scholarly research. While there is obviously a difference between the two enterprises—though some Westerners like T.E. Lawrence pursued both—it became a standard Islamist belief that research of any sort went hand in hand with injurious colonial policy. By exposing Islamic texts and cultures to the Western gaze, Orientalist scholars had assisted the imperial powers in subjugating the Muslim world. The late Edward Said's 1978 book Orientalism was essentially a restatement of this idea, which had been circulating in the Muslim world for over a century, for Western audiences.

Orientalism affected the way both journalists and academics wrote about the Muslim world as it—correctly—made them more aware of the uses their work might be put to. However, another lesson, one Said probably did not intend, was lost on many Western writers. Since Islamists have typically understood Western writers and researchers to be in league with the enemy, it is logical to assume that Islamists will generally not cooperate with them unless it is to their own advantage. In fact, Islamists and others will often use Western journalists and academics to carry their message.

For example, a group of American journalists has just returned from a trip to Syria and Lebanon, where they met with Syria's president, Bashar Assad, and the one-time spiritual guide of Hezbollah, Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah. What are these Americans reporting from their travels? That Arabs like Americans but not U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Is this true? Well, it is surely in the interests of an Arab dictator and a Muslim cleric who wrote fatwas permitting suicide bombings against Israeli civilians to say it is true. If U.S. journalists are going to serve as dragomans for various sponsors and theorists of terrorism to the American public, at least they could push their interview subjects a little harder.

And then there's the case of Montasser al-Zayat, a source who has been tapped by virtually every Western journalist who has gone through Cairo in the last decade. He is a lawyer who specializes in defending Islamists, mostly members of al-Gama'a al-Islameya, and he serves as unofficial spokesman for the group. He's a genial fellow, or, as one Egyptian reporter described him, everyone's favorite Islamist. When I met him, he told me, as he has told many others, that the Egyptian government made the Islamist groups violent. Of course, that's not true. At the very beginning, the groups formed military wings to carry out assassinations and other terrorist operations, but Zayat has told his story to so many Western journalists, who have reported it in books, magazines, and newspapers, that it is perhaps fair to credit him as the man responsible for spreading the idea that the Egyptian government made the Islamists violent.

One common complaint about Americans, including our press, is that we know very little about the Middle East. That may be true, but as complex as the subject is, knowledge of the Middle East is hardly gnostic wisdom available only to a few initiates. Thanks largely to the efforts of the oft-despised Orientalists, much of the history and literature of those cultures is accessible to anyone who is interested (a service, as this Muslim scholar explains, rendered to both the West and Islam). Much of it is even on the Internet. Certainly the press, when reporting on the Middle East and Islam, should question its sources at least as rigorously as it interrogates athletes suspected of steroid use, be more inclined to doubt than belief, and report fact rather than serve agendas. That is to say, whether or not beheading actually appears in the Quran is a matter of verifiable fact and not subject to the opinion of imams and professors who are apparently interested in advancing a message.

If Americans have to start sorting through their news in the way that consumers of Arab media must, wondering which piece of information serves whose interests, we are inviting what would be a very ugly result of our current engagements in the Middle East: the Al-Jazeera-fication of the U.S. press.

Lee Smith, who lives in Brooklyn, is writing a book on Arab culture. You can e-mail him at LHS462@hotmail.com.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2103261/

[abdulhakeem]

related thread:

Violence in Islam? (http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?p=393997)

[Mary Carol]

July 3, 2004, 10:14PM

Beheading's Barbarism Part Of Killers' Message

Ancient practice used worldwide through history

By STEVEN MUFSON
Washington Post

From the headless corpses of North African warriors lined up before ancient Egypt's Temple of Horus about 5,000 years ago to Kim Sun-il, the South Korean interpreter killed last month in Iraq, perhaps no method of execution arouses as much fear and revulsion as beheading. And usually that's just the effect its practitioners -- whether monarchs or terrorists -- want.

Beheading is the latest weapon in the hands of those who have sworn to punish Westerners, but it has a long history. It has been used from Medina to Manchuria, from Norway to Nigeria.

When U.S. citizen Paul Johnson was beheaded by terrorists in Saudi Arabia two weeks ago, six Saudi clerics issued a statement that said: "The bombings and killings have revolted people and hurt individuals and their property, and no one with the slightest knowledge of Islam can doubt that this is an atrocious crime and grave sin."

But in their eyes, the sin was the improper taking of a life, not the method. The Saudi government beheaded 52 men and one woman last year for crimes including murder, homosexuality, robbery and drug trafficking.

Is beheading un-Islamic?

The Quran (chapter 47, verse 4) says: "When ye meet the Unbelievers in battle, smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them: thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens."

Origins of practice in Middle East

According to some accounts, in 627 A.D., the prophet Muhammad approved the beheading of 600 people from a Jewish tribe living near Medina.

He believed tribe members had betrayed him by negotiating with his enemies.

"In 680, the prophet's favorite grandson, Hussein bin Ali, had his head chopped off in Karbala in central Iraq by the soldiers of the Caliph Yazid," Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri wrote in a New York Post column. "The severed head was put on a silver platter and sent to Damascus, Yazid's capital, before being sent further to Cairo for inspection by the governor of Egypt."

Today, beheading is used officially in a handful of Persian Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. But historically, the practice was not limited to Muslim countries. The Romans used it; the Book of Revelation cites "the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God."

Some cultures considered beheading to be a quick -- and, therefore, more humane and honorable -- method of execution than the alternatives, such as hanging, crucifixion or disemboweling.

England reserved beheading for nobles

In England, beheading was introduced in 1076 and restricted to those of noble birth convicted of treason. When Sir Thomas More was convicted of treason in London in 1535, his sentence was "that he should be hanged till he should be half dead; that then he should be cut down alive, his privy parts cut off, his belly ripped, his bowels burnt, his four quarters set up over four gates of the City, and his head upon London Bridge." King Henry VIII commuted the sentence to beheading.

As a warning to others not to defy the king's will, as More had by refusing to take an oath recognizing Henry's supremacy to the pope, More's head was indeed placed on London Bridge, where it stayed for several months.

But the punishment has not always been swift or humane: It took three blows to remove Mary Queen of Scots' head in 1587.

Many of the countries at the forefront of human rights campaigns today once used beheading as a form of execution. In Sweden, about 600 people, including nearly 200 women, were beheaded in the 19th century.

Conclusion of ritual suicide in Japan

In Japan, beheading was frequently performed as the second part of ritual suicide. The person committing suicide would disembowel himself and a trusted friend would then decapitate him with a katana, or long, single-edged sword.

Japanese warriors also cut off the heads of their enemies for many centuries. Beheading was one charge in the war crimes case against Japanese leaders for the 1928 massacre of more than 200,000 people in Nanjing during Japan's occupation of China.

Historically, axes or swords have been the instrument of choice. The guillotine (named after Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, a French doctor and member of the Revolutionary National Assembly) was first used in France in 1792 to execute a highwayman. The next year it was used on the queen, Marie Antoinette.

Many countries continued to use axes or swords. Germany used axes through the 1930s. In 1935, a baroness and her friend were convicted of spying and their heads were chopped off by an executioner wearing tails, top hat and white gloves.

Iran's mullahs aimed at political enemies

More recently in Iran, the mullahs have cut off the heads of some political figures. Beirut CIA station chief William Buckley was kidnapped by Hezbollah and sent to Iran, where he was beheaded in 1986. Agents were sent to cut off the heads of the shah's last prime minister in a Paris suburb in 1992 and an Iranian pop star in Germany in 1993.

Now that most governments have given up the practice, terrorist groups from Nigeria to the Philippines seem to have adopted it. While Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaida's offshoots have made beheadings something of a trademark lately, they aren't the first extremist groups to engage in the gruesome tactic.

In Algeria in the 1990s, according to Human Rights Watch, members of the Islamic Armed Group "exhibited spectacular cruelty. In addition to guns, they used crude weapons such as knives and saws to behead or disembowel men, women and children."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2661848

[Mota_Saab]

beheading is good when u do it fast. i prefer guillotine to stoning anyday. it is cleaner and faster. Ssssssssthawack!

[abdulhakeem]

The ''cutting'' truth on beheadings

20-07-2004, 20:08

The recent beheadings in Iraq and Saudi Arabia by Islamists have prompted mixed reactions of rage and sympathy. Just hours following these acts, detailed videos and photos of the beheading process circulate the internet. In recent incidents, the executioners held the severed head in front of the camera while chanting, "There is no god but Allah."

The beheadings that Islamists have introduced into their Jihad against the West are at once ancient and modern - but certainly not an acceptable Islamic tradition, according to experts.

However, according to Islam, "You are not even supposed to abuse the body of your enemy." To have a Quranic capital punishment, there needs to be a legal procedure with strict standards.

It seems that Al Qaeda members understand that beheading attracts far more media attention than other methods of killing, has a global horrific impact and also helps to recruit followers. What started as a dreadful form of bloodshed in war zones like Kashmir, Chechnya and the southern Philippines has largely moved into the Middle East.

The practice may find its roots in more distant battlefields. The war in Chechnya and the anti-India insurgency in Kashmir have all seen beheadings of local residents or soldiers. Foreign fighters in Bosnia also were accused of at least one beheading during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

Westerners caught in those conflicts also fell victim. In 1998, three Britons and a New Zealander were abducted and beheaded by Chechen militants.

In May 2001, members of the al Qaeda-linked Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines kidnapped 17 Filipinos and three Americans and decapitated several of the hostages, including American Guillermo Sobero.

In 2002, the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl's killing in Pakistan brought the use of decapitation most directly into the US public awareness. Some U.S. officials have said they believe al Qaeda's #3 figure, Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, now in U.S. detention, may have been involved in the killing.

Many people throughout the Arab world strongly support the beheadings of Americans and justify these acts. If we were to take a look, for instance, at an average posting on Islamist websites, we can find such responses as, "Slaughtering is something you started with the infidel Crusaders and their allies, and we hope you won't deviate from that path."
However, the same writer added that regarding beheadings of Muslims by Muslims, "they're Muslims, so don't kill them ... as long as they didn't cause direct harm."

Chris Taylor, an Islamic studies professor at Drew University in N.J., described the act as "more cultural ... a customary Saudi way of executing" criminals, rather than an Islamic practice." In 2003, Saudi authorities beheaded 52 men and one woman. Public beheading is a reportedly common means of execution in the kingdom for murderers, rapists, homosexuals and drug dealers.

In September 2001, Ansar al-Islam operatives in northern Iraq beheaded captured Kurdish peshmerga fighters. Algerian Islamists so often decapitate victims that throat-slitting there is widely known as "the Algerian smile."

The Holy Quran or Islamic law specifically don't call for beheading or give it any special significance. Murderers - not innocents - can be sentenced to death, but only after a proper trial including testimony. Beheading is specified by Islamic law, but should be used only in extreme cases, with at least one judge and credible witnesses to a crime, according to Islamic analysts.

Others claim that the Quran refers to such a punishment for "infidels" and that Prophet Muhammad oversaw the beheading of several hundred men in his lifetime.

According to one of Muhammad's biographers, Ibn Ishaq, the founder of Islam, approved the beheadings of 700 men of the Jewish Qurayza tribe of Medina, whose bodies were then stacked in trenches.

In the Quran, the incident is referred to in book 33:25-27, which says, in part, "some ye slew and some ye made prisoners."

The killings of Americans Nicholas Berg and Paul M. Johnson Jr. and South Korean Kim Sun-il and that of Daniel Pearl in Pakistan encompass "an extreme form of execution that is most inhumane," said Sam Hamod, former director of the Islamic Center in the District who is now a lecturer and writer near San Diego.

The executioners, who claim to act in the name of Islam, he said, "may find a hadith [or saying of Muhammad] that supports it, but the Quran doesn't allow it." The killers didn't even do the job "right", he commented.

"If they are going to have an execution, the [executioner] must say a prayer and ask for forgiveness from God for what he is doing and pray for the person's soul being killed," he said. "You can't do it like the idiots on TV. The right thing to do is slit the person's throat, not cut off the entire head."
In general, at issue is book 47, verse four of the Quran, which says, "Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight [or jihad], smite at their necks at length; when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them.

"Thereafter is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens."

The "smite at their necks" wording "doesn't mean to kill somebody," Hamod said, according to a Washington Times report.

Any Islamic capital punishment, he added, must be handed down by a panel of judges plus there must be four credible witnesses of an extreme crime committed by the person to be executed. And civilians - but not soldiers - are protected under Islamic law.

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, author of "What's Right With Islam," said beheading has been a method of capital punishment worldwide, not just in Islamic law. "What we're seeing is like the Wild West," he said of the recent decapitations.

"The universal theme that motivates terrorists is humiliation," he said. "The terrorism is an attempt at empowerment. Look at the images; [the executed] wearing the same orange as the prisoners of Guantanamo wore. It is the revenge of the hooded people. It is tit for tat."

Amid shock and outrage across the Western world in wake of the latest beheadings in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, it is interesting to find that a prominent UAE daily joined those strongly criticizing the practice. The beheading of the South Korean hostage by his captors in Iraq was firmly and straight-forwardly condemned by a Gulf English language daily.

"They are cowardly murderers who will one day be brought to justice," said the Dubai-based Gulf News in an editorial entitled "A most cowardly act of murder" on the killing of Kim Sun-il.

"The cycle of barbarity continues as militant groups behead their helpless captives and thereby surrender all links to humanity," noted the paper.

The group had kidnapped him to put pressure on the South Korean government not to dispatch 3,000 troops to Iraq.

"Let us be clear and unequivocal about this. There was no justification for this cold-blooded murder: those who committed it must be brought to justice."

The brutal death of Kim, the paper argued, serves no purpose except to reveal just how depraved and twisted the group who killed him is.

In Gulf News' viewpoint, no one is to blame for Kim's death except those who carried out "this despicable act." "The cowardly way that his captors tried to shift the blame for their own deeds shows the paucity of their morality and conviction," remarked the newspaper.

The report continues by saying that just minutes before Kim's death he is seen with his hands tied with his kidnappers reading a statement saying, "This is what your hands have committed - your army has not come here for the sake of Iraqis but for cursed America".

There is certainly no argument regarding the US brutal crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Arabs and Muslims should take a stand on the troubling matter of beheadings of foreigners and voice their opinions against these acts. Even though such objections won't directly lead to an end of this phenomena, they may, however, show the world that Al Qaeda is not the only voice of Islam.

(Albawaba.com)

http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=281430&lang=e&dir=news

[Arsalan]

Thanks for the reminder bro.

[Abu Mus'ab]

Thanks for the reminder bro.
Reminder?

This thread is a joke right?

[Arsalan]

Reminder?

This thread is a joke right?

Dunno man didnt read all of the posts, just abit at the top.. about how ppl make a hoohaa out of beheadings when in actual fact they are punishment that is even prescribed in Saudi and elsewhere in the world, and even used by non muslims historically to execute traitors and collaborators.

[Al-Irhaab]

Dunno man didnt read all of the posts, just abit at the top.. about how ppl make a hoohaa out of beheadings when in actual fact they are punishment that is even prescribed in Saudi and elsewhere in the world, and even used by non muslims historically to execute traitors and collaborators.

oh u shld have read the rest of it... apparantly... dr 'scholars' and tantawi say its haram... :rolleyes:

[Arsalan]

oh u shld have read the rest of it... apparantly... dr 'scholars' and tantawi say its haram... :rolleyes:

Cant trust some scholars nowadays at all.

Just need to look at the example of Salahudin and his armies and their exertise in this area.

[Al-Irhaab]

Cant trust some scholars nowadays at all.

Just need to look at the example of Salahudin and his armies and their exertise in this area.

exactly mashallah...

but some peple just continue to quote tatawi as an 'islamic opinion' :rolleyes:

[bint]

i think there should be a ban to these kind of threads.

its annoying when 5-6 posts are the main topic of discussion. :torture:

[Abu Mus'ab]

oh u shld have read the rest of it... apparantly... dr 'scholars' and tantawi say its haram... :rolleyes:
Yeah that's what i was going to say,i didn't bother reading it all it's a waste of my precious time,i'd rather vacuum the house with that time *Roll Eyes*

[Al-Irhaab]

Yeah that's what i was going to say,i didn't bother reading it all it's a waste of my precious time,i'd rather vacuum the house with that time *Roll Eyes*


you vacuum the house... nah man ... u need to get married... :torture:

[Abu Mus'ab]

you vacuum the house... nah man ... u need to get married... :torture:
It's not as hard as you think *Roll Eyes*

It's just when you feel lazy then you dont feel like doing it *Roll Eyes*

[Abu Hurairah]

oh u shld have read the rest of it... apparantly... dr 'scholars' and tantawi say its haram... :rolleyes:
These 'scholars' need to hit the books again- decapitation is in our Seerah quite clearly and was done by Ali (ra) and other Sahabah (ra) under orders of Rasul'Allah (saw) thus how can it be not from Islaam? And not permitted? :rolleyes:

Their trying to re-write Islaamic History and thus the dean for their own ends with fake free fatwah, besides a little decapitation now and again never hurt nobody. :)

[Abu Mus'ab]

These 'scholars' need to hit the books again- decapitation is in our Seerah quite clearly and was done by Ali (ra) and other Sahabah (ra) under orders of Rasul'Allah (saw) thus how can it be not from Islaam? And not permitted? :rolleyes:

Their trying to re-write Islaamic History and thus the dean for their own ends with fake free fatwah, besides a little decapitation now and again never hurt nobody. :)
I think they're hadith rejectors,because i skimmed the article and they said something about "they'll quote a Hadith to support their view of beheading but there is no such order in the Qur'an"

Though they spell the qur'an koran,and they talks about islamists etc *Roll Eyes*

These things don't even know how to spell Qur'an but they want to give fatwas,what is this world coming to? *Roll Eyes*

[*Muhammad*]

oh u shld have read the rest of it... apparantly... dr 'scholars' and tantawi say its haram... :rolleyes:
haram! what! if so how were they killing the people at the time of the prophet (saw) as a punishment:rubeyes:

[abdulhakeem]

Issues and Concerns

Nick Berg

Dr. `Abd al-Wahhâb al-Turayrî

When Islam came to this world there were no international organizations or treaties. Instead, Islam brought a revelation from Allah that came to secure the happiness and wellbeing of all humanity for all time. Among the teachings brought by this revelation – which are embodied in the Qur’ân and Sunnah – is how prisoners of war are supposed to be treated.

Islam declared that the Muslims have to feed their prisoners of war and never allow them to go hungry. Moreover, the type of food that they have to provide for them must be, in both quality and quantity, equal to that which the Muslims eat themselves, if not better.

Allah says: “And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the prisoner of war.” [Sûrah al-Insân: 8]

Abû `Azîz b. `Umayr, a prisoner who was captured after the battle of Badr, described how the Muslims treated him. He said: “I was among some people of the inhabitants of Madinah when they were returning from Badr. Whenever they received lunch or supper they would give me priority to have the bread and they sufficed with dates because of the recommendation given to them about us by the Prophet (peace be upon him). Whenever a piece of bread would come into the hands of any one of them, he would give it to me.”

Islam, by its mercy and justice, commands Muslims to treat prisoners of war kindly. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “I entreat you to treat the prisoners of war in the best manner.”

Someone once asked the great jurist Mâlik: “May a prisoner be tortured in hopes of extracting information about the vulnerabilities of the enemy?”

Mâlik denounced the idea, saying: “I have never heard of such a thing.”

The fate of the prisoners of war after their capture, is dictated to us by the Qur’ân, which instructs us with: “…either generosity or ransom”. [Sûrah Muhammad: 4]

These are the two options: to either release the prisoner without any ransom, which is the meaning of Allah’s saying “generosity”; or to ransom them for their release. This may take place by way of a prisoner exchange or by taking a payment from the prisoner.

The Prophet (peace be upon him) accepted ransom from some prisoners of Badr. That ransom was for them to teach the children of the Muslims how to read and write.

Killing the prisoner is not an option at all. It was not mentioned in the verse.

On some occasions, the Prophet (peace be upon him) executed some prisoners. However, they were not killed because they were prisoners of war, but because of heinous crimes that they had committed. They were executed for what would now be referred to as war crimes.

The killing in Iraq of the American Nick Berg in that repugnant way is clearly contrary to the teachings of Islam. First of all, killing a civilian is never allowed. Killing a prisoner of war who is a member of the enemy military is also impermissible, upon the strongest saying of the scholars, unless that prisoner has a clear record of war crimes.

Even supposing a certain prisoner was a war criminal and legally deserved the death penalty; such a repugnant and degrading way of killing is even then unlawful, regardless of the enormity of the person’s crimes. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “If you kill, then kill properly.” This is what the Prophet (peace be upon him) said regarding slaughtering an animal for food. Then how about when it comes to killing a human being?

We should recognize that these vile actions only represent the individuals who committed them. They do not represent Islam in any way. The teachings of Islam are clearly discernable in the Qur’ân, the Sunnah, and the biographies of the Companions and the Successors.

In fact, the strict adherence of these earliest Muslims to the true teachings of Islam in times of war was a reason why so many people embraced Islam. They were merciful to all human beings, as was their Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who had taught them.

These are our values that are immutable, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the conduct of others. We must never go against our values, since they are, in essence, our Islam.

http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=29&sub_cat_id=673

[abdulhakeem]

Treatment of prisoners-of-war in Islam

Question: How are prisoners of war treated in Islam?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:

Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them); or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic da’wah. In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them, we may take prisoners and bind a bond firmly on them [cf. Muhammad 47:4], because in that case it is more in tune with the idea of mercy by choice (not because we are afraid of them); at that point war should not continue any longer than is necessary. War in Islam should not be waged for the sole purpose of shedding blood or seeking vengeance. If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam.

Thumaamah ibn Athaal – the leader of Bani Haneefah – was brought (to Madeenah) as a prisoner and tied to one of the pillars of the mosque. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to him and said, “What do you think, O Thumaamah?” He said, “What I think, O Muhammad, is good. If you kill me, you will kill one with blood on his hands – i.e., I will deserve to be killed because I have killed Muslims – and if you release me you will release one who will be grateful. If you want money, then ask, and I will give you whatever you want.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) left him for three days, and each day he would come and ask him similar questions, and Thumaamah would give similar answers. After the third day, he commanded that he should be released. Thumaamah went to a stand of date-palms near the mosque where he bathed (did ghusl), then he came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said, “I bear witness that there is no god except Allaah and I bear witness that Muhammad is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger.” Then he said: “O Messenger of Allaah, by Allaah there was no one on earth whose face was more hateful to me than yours, but now your face is the most beloved of all faces to me. By Allaah, there was no religion that was more hateful to me than your religion, but now your religion has become the most beloved of all religions to me. By Allaah, there was no land more hateful to me than your land, but now your land has become the most beloved to me. Your cavalry captured me when I was on my way to perform ‘Umrah, so what do you think I should do?”

The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) congratulated him, and told him to go for ‘Umrah. When he came to Makkah, someone asked him, “Have you changed your religion?” He said, “No, but I have submitted with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and by Allaah you will not get a grain of wheat from al-Yamaamah unless the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) gives permission.”

Think about this story, may Allaah bless you, and how the kind treatment of Thumaamah led to his embracing Islam, which could not have happened were it not primarily by the grace of Allaah, and also the kind treatment which Thumaamah received.

In the Qur’aan, Allaah says of the righteous (interpretation of the meaning):

“And they give food, in spite of their love for it (or for the love of Him), to the Miskeen (the poor), the orphan, and the captive,
(Saying): ‘We feed you seeking Allaah’s Countenance only. We wish for no reward, nor thanks from you’”
[al-Insaan 76:8-9]

Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn ‘Abbaas said: in those days their prisoners were mushrikeen; on the day of Badr the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded them to be kind to their prisoners, so they used to put them before themselves when it came to food… Mujaahid said, this refers to the one who is detained, i.e., they would give food to these prisoners even though they themselves desired it and loved it.”

The ruling on tying up prisoners:

It is well known that if prisoners are able to escape they will not hesitate to do so, because they may be afraid of dying and they do not know what awaits them. Hence the Muslims were commanded to tie up their prisoners and to tie their hands to their necks, lest they run away. This is something that still happens and is well known to all people.

The wisdom behind permitting the taking of prisoners is so as to weaken the enemy and ward off his evil by keeping him away from the battlefield so that he cannot be effective or play any role; it also creates a means of freeing Muslim prisoners by trading the prisoners whom we are holding.

Detaining prisoners

Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests. He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners preferred death to life.

Ahkaam al-Sijn wa’l-Sujana’ wa Mu’aamalat al-Sujana’ fi’l-Islam by Hasan Abi’l-Ghuddah, 256

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=13241&ln=eng

[abdulhakeem]

Health care for prisoners in Islam (http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=5157&ln=eng)

Question: i have a project in the quality of health care in the prison.. do the prisoners have the same health care like other people.. what is the isalmic prespective of justic and equality in this case??

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Islam pays great attention to the matter of prisons and the circumstances of prisoners; it is rare to find anything similar to this in any place or time. The fuqahaa’ discussed in their books the rulings pertaining to prisoners, their circumstances and how they should be treated. This concern stems from the Islamic concern for the protection of man and respect for his humanity.

To make the matter easier to understand and to make the rulings more clear, the scholars divided the subject-matter into two parts: the rulings pertaining to the personal health of prisoners, and the rulings pertaining to health care in the place that is used as a prison.

One: Rulings pertaining to the personal health of prisoners

Imprisoning a sick person. The fuqahaa’ discussed the matter of imprisoning a person who is sick in the first place – do the authorities have the right to imprison a sick person? The answer is that this is the matter of ijtihaad, and the final decision rests with the Qaadi (judge) who must weigh up the reason why this person is to be imprisoned, the seriousness of his disease and the possibility of taking care of him in jail. If sufficient health care is available for this sick person in prison, and he is not suffering a serious illness which could kill him if he is detained, it is permissible to imprison him. If such care is not available, the judge may hand him over to someone who can treat him and guard him, without releasing him completely, until it is possible to imprison him again.

If a prisoner becomes sick whilst in jail. If a prisoner becomes sick whilst in jail and it is possible to treat him there, then he must be treated without bringing him out. Doctors and servants should not be prevented from going in to see him, treat him and serve him. If not treating him leads to his death, criminal charges are to be laid against those who were the cause of that, and they are to be punished. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed by a prisoner who was in chains, and he called out, "O Muhammad, O Muhammad!" He came to him and said, "What is the matter?" He said, "I am hungry – feed me. I am thirsty – give me water." The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that his needs should be met. (Narrated by Muslim, 3/1263). And no doubt medical treatment is what the sick person needs.

But if it is not possible to treat him inside the prison, he must be taken out to a place where it is possible to treat him, under the supervision of the jail or whoever is delegated to the task of watching and guarding him.

With regard to these rulings, the fuqahaa do not differentiate between physical illness and psychological illness (true psychological illness, that is, as opposed to the made-up psychological illness or the regular psychological illness which many lawyers use as a means of getting criminals let off). Hence the fuqahaa’ (may Allaah have mercy on them) stated that it is not permissible to lock the door on the prisoner – so long as there is the certainty that he will not run away – or to put him in a darkened room, or to harm him in any way or to do anything that will make him terrified. His relatives should not be prevented from visiting him, because this will have an effect on his health and psychology.

It is prescribed for the authorities or their representative to set up a special medical wing in the prison, to take care of the prisoners’ health needs. This will spare them the need to take them out to public hospitals and expose them to possible insult and humiliation.

Prisoners should be allowed to see their wives and to have intimate relations with them, if there is a suitable place for that in the jail, as a protection for them and their wives.

The fuqahaa’ stated that it is obligatory to enable prisoners to do wudoo’ and purify themselves, which is undoubtedly an important protective precaution against sickness.

Two: Rulings pertaining to health care in the place that is used as a prison

The place that is used as a prison should be spacious, clean, well-ventilated, lit by natural sunlight, and furnished with the necessary facilities such as washrooms, etc.

It is not permissible to gather such a large number of prisoners in one place that they will not be able to do wudoo’ and pray.

Three: there follow some of the things which the fuqahaa’ stated it is haraam to use when disciplining or dealing with prisoners:

Mutilating the body: it is not permitted to punish a prisoner by cutting off any part of his body or breaking any of his bones. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mutilation of prisoners-of-war and said: "Do not mutilate." (Narrated by Muslim, 3/1357).

Hitting the face, etc., because of the humiliation involved. By the same token, it is not permitted to put chains on prisoners’ necks or to lay them on the ground to whip them, even if this is the hadd (Islamic punishment) prescribed for them, because this involves humiliation and harms their health and bodies.

Punishment by fire, strangulation or holding a prisoner’s head under water – except in cases of qasaas and where the punishment needs to fit the crime. For example, if a person has committed aggression against another by burning him, it is permissible to exact retribution against him in the same manner.

Starving prisoners or exposing them to the cold, or feeding them harmful things, or preventing them from wearing clothes. If a prisoner dies because of such things, his jailer may be executed in retribution (qasaas) or be required to pay diyah (blood money).

Removing prisoners’ clothing, because this uncovers their ‘awrah and exposes them to physical and psychological illness.

Preventing them from relieving themselves, doing wudoo’ and praying. It is obvious that this is harmful to the prisoners’ health.

Examples of Muslims’ concern for prisoners:

The hadeeth mentioned above shows how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) issued commands that prisoners should be cared for and their needs for food and drink met. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) often used to hand prisoners over to his companions and urge them to treat them well.

The Rightly-Guided Khaleefah ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) used to inspect the prisons, meet the prisoners in them and enquire about their circumstances.

‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, the fifth Rightly-Guided Khaleefah, used to write to his employees, telling them to see how the prisoners were and to take care of the sick among them.

The ‘Abbaasi khaleefah al-Mu’tadid allocated 1500 dinars of the monthly budget to be spent on the needs and medical treatment of prisoners.

When the ‘Abbaasi khaleefah al-Muqtadir imprisoned one of his wazeers, Ibn Muqlah, the wazeer got sick. So the khaleefah sent the famous doctor Thaabit ibn Sinaan ibn Thaabit ibn Qurrah to treat him in jail, and he urged him to treat him well. The doctor used to feed him with his own hand and treated him very kindly.

At the time of the khaleefah al-Muqtadir, the wazeer ‘Ali ibn ‘Eesaa al-Jarraah wrote to the head of the hospitals of Iraq at that time, telling him: "I have been thinking, may Allaah grant you long life, about those who are in prison. With their large numbers and rough accommodation, they are not free from disease. They are prevented from doing things which will benefit them and meeting with doctors whom they can consult about the sicknesses they are exposed to. So you have to appoint doctors for them who will go in and see them every day and take them medicine and drinks, and who will go around to all the jails and treat the sick in them and prescribe medicine for them." This care lasted throughout the khilaafah of al-Muqtadir, al-Qaahir, al-Raadi and al-Muttaqi.

For more information, please see: Ahkaam al-Sijn wa Mu’aamilat al-Sujanaa’ fi’l-Islam, p. 367-379; al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, part 16, p. 320-327

And Allaah knows best.

Ahkaam al-Sijn wa Mu’aamilat al-Sujanaa’ fi’l-Islam, p. 367-379; al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, part 16, p. 320-327

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=5157&ln=eng