Beheadings

[singh_comradz]

i was doing some research for my dissertation and i came across this article....

it's pretty long so here is an extract..

Killing by Beheading is Islamic!

By Syed Kamran Mirza

Syed_mirza@hotmail.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big question-‘is beheading Islamic?’

Yes, beheading is, of course, an Islamic justice to the infidels, criminals, and sinners. This cruel way of killing infidels is sanctioned by Islamic Sharia laws. Denial to the grotesque beheading of western Kaffirs by those Islamic terrorists (in Iraq) that it is not Islamic is yet another clear sign of ignorance, hypocrisy, or intellectual dishonesty by the defenders of Islam. Islamists are not ready to take the burden of ugly reality of the fact that human beheading is 100% consistent with the sacred Islamic Jihadi practices. Hatreds towards other religion such as Jews, Christians, Hindus and other polytheists are the ardent teachings of Islamic holy book Qur’an. Beheading was practiced by the Prophet Muhammad himself during the 7th century period of Islam and by the most Islamic rulers thereafter.

Saddest thing is no Islamists will ever tell you the truth about the intimate relation of beheading in Islam! 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. Look what were the answers by some erudite but hypocritical Mullahs! Imam Muhammad Adam El-Sheik, co-founder and chief cleric at the Dar Al Hijrah Mosque at falls Church, VA told to the USA today: “Beheadings are not mentioned in the Koran at all". Yvonne Haddad, a professor at the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University has agreed with the above Imam and added (to New York Newsday): "There is absolutely nothing in Islam that justifies cutting off a person's head.” You go ask any Imam or mullah in the US, you will come up with the same lies again and again.

Obviously, had it not been the sacred custom of ancient Islam, beheading would be quite unnecessary method to kill enemies by those Islamic terrorists in Iraq. Those Islamic terrorists could easily kill their infidel enemies (such as Daniel Pearl, Nich berg, Kim Sun II, Paul Johnson etc.) by a simple bullet. But those militants actually wanted to give an Islamic veneer to the infidel slayings -because killing by beheading is considered most brutal and utterly degrading, and only western infidels deserve this type of brutal killing. In fact they only tried to follow the footsteps Prophet Muhammad and devoutly followed the Allah’s order in the Qur’an. Holy Quran is replete with the harsh verses which directly order Muslims to behead Kaffirs/infidels. Let me cite some sample of those verses below:

Quranic verses that dictate beheading Kaffirs:

5:33-“The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution (by beheading), or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;”

8:12- “I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off.”

47:4- “Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), strike off their heads; at length; then when you have made wide Slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives”: thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.”

9:123: “Oh ye who believe! Murder those of the disbelievers and let them find harshness in you.”

2:191- “Kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from wherever they drove you out.”

5: 45-- “We ordained therein for them: “Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear. Tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal.”

2:193- “Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah”

9:29- "Fight those who do not believe in God and the last day... and fight People of the Book, (Christian and Jews) who do not accept the religion of truth (Islam) until they pay tribute (Zizziya tax) by hand, being inferior.”

8:17-It is not ye who Slew them; it is God; when thou threwest a handful of dust, it was not Thy act, but God’s…..” (Allah is a real merciful indeed!)

How can Islamic Mullahs blatantly hide these authentic Quarnic verses? The above Qur’anic scriptures incited early Muslim Jihadis to behead thousands of non-Muslims and other infidels. These same Quranic verses may still inciting devout/fanatical Muslims of modern days. During the early period of Islam, especially during Islamic expeditions by Prophet Muhammad himself while he was in Medina, thousands of infidels were brutally beheaded by the Jihadis. Below is a case in point collected from the authentic Islamic history to use as an example of Islamic beheading.

full link:- http://www.ropma.net/killing_by_beheading_is_islamic.htm

[Singh132]

Don't forget, Satguru Tegh Bahadur Sahib was beheaded by the Mughals in this same tradtion which is completely sanctioned and supported by the Koran and Mohammed. Yet some of our Sikh brothers still say "Mohammed was one with God too..."

[Pheena]

Don't forget, Satguru Tegh Bahadur Sahib was beheaded by the Mughals in this same tradtion which is completely sanctioned and supported by the Koran and Mohammed.  Yet some of our Sikh brothers still say "Mohammed was one with God too..."

157976[/snapback]

Beloved Veer, yes because it is easy to support every word of the Quaran as the word of Muhammed when it belittles him. Here is a quote from a Muslim Reza Aslan's, he wrote a book, No god but God.

"We have this idea somehow that Prophets invent religion, that Jesus invented Christianity or that Muhammed invented Islam, nothing could be further from the Truth. What Prophets do is that they take the social, the economical and the political milieu in which they live and they reshape it and they recast it. They don't talk about the future they talk about the present. Its the Prophets followers who then take those ideals, take those words and turn it into religion and its often the case that it has far more to do with their own ideas, their own biases then it does with what the prophet said or did."

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

"We have this idea somehow that Prophets invent religion..."

If I may ask...what did Guru Gobind Singh Ji do by making the Khalsa Panth?

[Pheena]

Sat Sri Akal:

"We have this idea somehow that Prophets invent religion..."

If I may ask...what did Guru Gobind Singh Ji do by making the Khalsa Panth?

157990[/snapback]

as always ms514 you've brought up an excellent point.

So is the 10th master a Prophet? What is the difference a between a Prophet and a Guru or is there? I believe the statement was made from an Islamic point of view where the the title of a Prophet is given to all of the role players in the religion. Just as In Islam Jesus is termed a Prophet not the Son of God.

I've always wondered what the difference is between a Prophet and a SatGuru, perhaps you can shed some light veer.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

Prophet is one who prophesizes as per the root word indicates. However, it seems that through vast misuse, it has begun to mean those who are spiritually enlightened and leaders/founders of faiths.

Muhammed Sahib is the Guru of the Muslims. He laid down the religious philosophy, the code of conduct and taught the Muslims the way to a religious life through Islam through the Qua'ran and indirectly through the Hadiths (as both these resources are quoted by Muslims in reference to proper Muslim conduct aka. the Sharia).

Jesus within the context of Islam is given very high praise and saw Jesus as a man of God, with the Prophet Muhammed only in disagreement to the Trinity that the Christians subscribe to in the Qua'ran. Hence the disagreement with calling Jesus the Son of God. But neither does Muhammed ever call himself the Last Prophet either...this is only found in the introductory pages of the Qua'ran and is written as a background to the life of the Prophet by a tertiary source...in stark contrast to the Qua'ran body proper, which is dictation from the Prophet himself and is in the first person.

The laws of the Sharia are drawn up from two primary sources...the Qua'ran (The Sacred Text) and the Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Muhammed). This is somewhat in parallel to Sikhism, in which the Rehat is also drawn up from the Guru Granth Sahib, the Dasam Granth Sahib (the Sacred Word) and historical Rehat Maryadas that are proported to be from the mouth of the Dasm Patshah (sayings of the Guru).

Therefore, I cannot agree with the statement from Muslim Reza Aslan. The Qua'ran, like the Guru Granth Sahib in the use of the word Sikh, uses the word Muslim and Islam (both which mean surrender to the Will of the Almighty) throughout the Qua'ran and deems it the path that is described by Muhammed Sahib. The Qua'ran is quite explicit and specific on the differentiation of the Muslims from the others such as the Pagans, the Jews and the Christian.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

[Pheena]

Sat Sri Akal:

Therefore, I cannot agree with the statement from Muslim Reza Aslan.  The Qua'ran, like the Guru Granth Sahib in the use of the word Sikh, uses the word Muslim and Islam (both which mean surrender to the Will of the Almighty) throughout the Qua'ran and deems it the path that is described by Muhammed Sahib.  The Qua'ran is quite explicit and specific on the differentiation of the Muslims from the others such as the Pagans, the Jews and the Christian.

Bhul Chuk Maaf.

157999[/snapback]

Thanks for that brief summery veer.

Which statement are you in a disagreement with, the first line of Prophets not creating religions or the last where the Religion in this case Islam took upon the ideals of the followers and in some or most ways veered off the teaching of the Prophet? or the entire statement? if all of it then perhaps i missed the reasoning as to why you are in a disagreement. Please do share.

[ms514]

Sat Sri Akal:

The Qua'ran is very much in the way of setting down rules and codes of conduct. The Prophet did not only do spiritual discourses, but detailed the practical implementation and procedure of the faith through the Qua'ran and the Hadiths. Muslims quote the Qua'ran and the Hadiths for justification of the Sharia and its laws. The qoutations are not vague references, but directions as to how to perform procedures (as detailed in the origional topic). The type of dress a woman should wear is defined in the Qua'ran (the jilabeb). The procedure for property distribution is described in the Qua'ran. To whom to declare war against is outlined in the Qua'ran. The number of wives a Muslim can have is stated in the Qua'ran. It is not as if Muhammed Sahib wrote "A man should not have too many wives" and the followers set the number to 4...it is detailed in the Qua'ran. Therefore, the Prophet is very much the basis of how the Muslims practice Islam. True, people may choose to emphasize different parts of the Prophet's teachings to their own agendas, but whatever is used is taken from the Qua'ran. The Qua'ran does not just make mention of Muslims as those who surrender, but tells that Muslims should follow what is in the Qua'ran. It is not the concept of one who surrenders that the Prophet Muhammed discusses, but rather also the duties, responsibilities and actions that a Muslim must undertake that are also demarcated.

In relation to Sikhism:

Just for clarification, this is being done from the Sikh perspective as the comment seeks to encompass all religions in its wording.

"We have this idea somehow that Prophets invent religion, that Jesus invented Christianity or that Muhammed invented Islam, nothing could be further from the Truth."

The reference to Guru Gobind Sahib creating the Khalsa does not mesh with this.

"What Prophets do is that they take the social, the economical and the political milieu in which they live and they reshape it and they recast it. They don't talk about the future they talk about the present."

Guru Nanak Sahib spoke of the past, present and future from the end of the Mool Mantar with "Aadh Sach, Hai Bhi Sach, Nanak Hosee Bhi Sach" Gurbani is not locked in the present, though it definitely reminds humanity to live in the present, as one cannot undo the past and the future is what the present makes it.

"Its the Prophets followers who then take those ideals, take those words and turn it into religion and its often the case that it has far more to do with their own ideas, their own biases then it does with what the prophet said or did."

The problem with this statement and Sikhism is that the path was defined and shaped by the Ten Masters. It was not as if they told the Sikhs, "Here is the teaching" and the Sikhs said "Ok, here is the religion based upon the Guru's teachings". The Ten Masters led the Sikhs hand in hand in every step of the faith's evolution to its pinnacle of the creation of the Khalsa. From the creation of the saint, to the creation of the martyr, to the creation of the soldier...every step was not only delineated by the Gurus, but the Gurus themselves set the example. Therefore, the Sikh religion was made and shaped by the Gurus, with the Sikhs only following the ideals laid down by the Gurus.

After all that blabbing, I hope I made some sense. If not...nothing unusual from my end...