Muhammad (SAAW) - The Warrior Prophet

[Sarajevo071]

Muhammad: The Warrior Prophet
If Muhammad had not been an innovative and accomplished military leader, Islam might not have survived the seventh century.
by Richard A. Gabriel



The long shadow of Muhammad stretches across centuries of strife to the present. Today an estimated 1.4 billion Muslims around the globe follow his teachings—the word of God as revealed to Muhammad and set down in the Koran—making Islam the world’s second-largest religion behind Christianity. But despite Muhammad’s remarkable accomplishments, there is no modern account of his life that examines his role as Islam’s first great general and the leader of a successful insurgency. Had Muhammad not succeeded as a commander, however, Islam might have been relegated to a geographic backwater—and the conquest of the Byzantine and Persian empires by Arab armies might never have occurred.

The idea of Muhammad as a military man will be new to many. Yet he was a truly great general. In the space of a single decade he fought eight major battles, led eighteen raids, and planned another thirty-eight military operations where others were in command but operating under his orders and strategic direction. Wounded twice, he also twice experienced having his positions overrun by superior forces before he managed to turn the tables on his enemies and rally his men to victory. More than a great field general and tactician, he was also a military theorist, organizational reformer, strategic thinker, operational-level combat commander, political-military leader, heroic soldier, and revolutionary. The inventor of insurgency warfare and history’s first successful practitioner, Muhammad had no military training before he commanded an army in the field.

Muhammad’s intelligence service eventually rivaled that of Byzantium and Persia, especially when it came to political information. He reportedly spent hours devising tactical and political stratagems, and once remarked that “all war is cunning,” reminding modern analysts of Sun Tzu’s dictum, “all war is deception.” In his thinking and application of force Muhammad was a combination of Karl von Clausewitz and Niccolo Machiavelli, for he always employed force in the service of political goals. An astute grand strategist, he used non*military methods (alliance building, political assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations.
...

Full artical here:
http://www.historynet.com/magazines/mhq/7558012.html?page=1&c=y

[goesh]

I think he was more like Sitting Bull, a Hunkpapa Wasacuan (medicine man) who at the time of the Lakota's most famous historical fight, remained in camp having been told by a higher power of the outcome. Lakota's didn't doubt the infallibility of their 'medicine' but others clearly did just as many doubt the attribution of al qu'ran and its infallibility. Religious texts are more notorious IMO than garden variety history books when it comes to bias.

Then there is the matter of this element of the quote provided: "....An astute grand strategist, he used non*military methods (alliance building, political assassination, bribery, religious appeals, mercy, and calculated butchery) to strengthen his long-term position, sometimes even at the expense of short-term military considerations." Gabriel doesn't know what he is talking about.

[kehenry1]

Without denigrating the religion, per se, one of the things that we should be aware of is that the story of Muhammad and the creation of Islam bares a resemblance to our modern issues and terrorism. If we do steer clear of the religion in general, but look at the story it presents in context to the historical social structure he was born into, we can deduce some causes that reflect modern development of the so-called "revolutionaries" like Zawahiri, bin Laden and numerous others.

The romanticized version sounds like a mix of the stories of Moses and Jesus (including being "rejected" by his family in order to protect him from a greater ill by sending him first to be a shepherd in the remote hills before an angel picks him out and later being recognized by religiously important people as a "holy" child;). IN many regards this is performing the same function as the early stories of Jesus and Moses. This is to eliminate the questions of whether Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, for that matter, invented a religion as an adult or were "ordained" or "anointed" from birth, thus, "chosen by God" when they were young and incapable of complicity in such an act.

In modern times, religious fanatics often try to do something similar, though modern reasoning has made the ability to claim "chosen by God" for a mission much more difficult to accept by modern men. Further, the books of Christianity, Judaism and Islam all have directives to the faithful to reject any such later prophets as charlatan as each religion claims a final "prophet" who has delivered the "final" answer.

Thus, modern cultists and others using religion to interact with the general target populations and gain acceptance are left with a limited yet "reasonable" explanation for their claims to be directed or acting as any god or previous prophet would have directed. That explanation usually equates to either claiming direct lineage to a prophet or historical relationship to a previous religious organization.

Much in the same way that kings claimed to be anointed by God or pagan kings claimed to be descended from a god or claimed to be a god. Even in "enlightened Rome", during the imperial period, Roman emperors either claimed deification in their own life time or their successors had them deified. Generally, those who had their predecessor deified were distantly related and needed the same thing that all of the others before and after them needed: legitimacy.

We can even see that in the Roman Catholic papacy wherein popes claimed to be a descendant from a prophet and later simple anointing as "God's representative on earth".

The rejection of legitimacy based on a deity takes place post enlightenment. The three most notable revolutions that represent the scale of this rejection would be the American Revolution, the French Revolution and the Bolshevik Revolution.

The American Declaration of Independence sought to take the power of the deity away from the king by expressly giving it to "all men" who were "created equal" and given "unalienable rights" by their "Creator". Since religion still played an important part in the life of colonials, total rejection of the deity would have damaged the revolutionary movement.

The French attempted to take God out of the equation totally. This of course was in relation to the church's involvement in oppression, their wealth and position within France and, as massive land owners, the keeping of many people in virtual feudal serfdom. Particularly in rural France. The revolution sought to strip land and wealth from the church. At the same time, as the Reign of Terror began and Robespierre began experimenting with creating his own religion, there was a wave of unease that the rejection of God and faith was lending to the rejection of morality.

Eventually, the deep faith most of the rural French, the fear of deepening anarchy and some savvy negotiation by the Church in France had the church re-instated to some extent, though the laws and the paranoia about it's potential power kept it from enjoying its former power ever again. It did try during the multiple formations of the Republic and the monarchist movements.

The church in Russia suffered the same fate for the same reason, but worse as it could be considered to have been even more complicit in the continuing repression of the lower classes and the support of an increasingly isolated Tsar. The church in Russia was advising the Tsar and the mystic Rasputin, considered a religious monk, provided the basis for deep fear and rejection that allowed the atheist, communist belief to spread, even among a population that was once deeply religious.

[kehenry1]

In some ways, the modern development of the Islamist terrorist movement follows both of these classic concepts. The first is to establish their own legitimacy by establishing their relationship to the originator of Islam (descendants of Mohammud) and their relationship of their organization to later religious scholars or organizations (Al Tamamiya, Sayyid Qutb, the Ikwahn, etc, etc, etc).

The second was delegitimizing rulers who claim the same legitimacy through descent and through position as "protectors of the faith" as well as delegitimizing other religious representatives as either corrupt or takfiri. They claim there is only one true interpretation of Islam. The sixteen schools of jurisprudence as well as the untold numbers of interpretation at secondary and tertiary levels, in their eyes, has weakened Islam and are eminently illegitimate.

Third, in rejection of the current structure, they also reject an Iranian style theocracy since it still puts men above Allah's law. By rejecting any control by a secular or theocratic government, but also insisting that the common man can naturally know the laws of Allah and the right way to worship (Qutb), they seek to give the power to individual Muslims. Also, of course, legitimizing their own revolution against "the establishment" as simple members of the "ummah" that have a divine right as individuals to "defend" Islam and to turn it back to the "right" path.

At the same time, they are seeking to mimic Mohammud or, at least, legitimize their actions by claiming to perform in the same capacity. Mohammud, in establishing Islam, stated that he was re-instituting the true faith, the true manner in which to worship Abraham's (the father's) God in the true manner in which Abraham had once done so. The rejection of the sixteen schools of thought (Sunni and Shia) as well as Judaism and Christianity echoes Mohammud's supposed purpose in returning to the "right" path.

There is both a weakness and a strength in their message, weaknesses that are even more apparent and attackable as they are rejected in Iraq by fellow Sunnis, all be it, largely from the Hanafi school. It's clear that this difference played a major part in separating the Salafists from the rest of the Sunni enclave. Zawahiri specifically wrote Zarqawi directing him to desist in trying to force those of other schools to convert to their Salafist ideology. He rebuked Zarqawi stating that he did not have the education in theology necessary to undertake those activities.

The AQ plan was obviously to first bring in as many followers who would believe the over all message of defending Islam; second to defeat the US and coalition partners; and third, to then begin or build upon a series of discussions to convert the masses to their ideology.

This issue, along with the xenophobic nature of the Iraqi tribes against "foreigners", the fear that the Salafists would take over and reduce or eliminate the traditional tribal leaders' power and the realized fear that the Salafists had taken over a significant portion of their hereditary trade of smuggling served to create a crack in the alliance. The final spike was the killing of many Sunni men, women and children including very influential sheikhs. All because, instead of being real "defenders" of Islam, they had become the oppressors, the imperialists in search of a caliphate with no intent to leave Iraq or allow Iraqis to manage their own state after years of oppression.

All of these issues can play a significant part in crafting a better, more acceptable message to counter the message of the Salafist Islamists among sympathetic middle easterners. We can craft this message and have it stated by western pundits and politicians. However, the best people to deliver this message are Sunni Iraqis themselves. The literal act of rejecting AQ and their ideology in Iraq was the first message. Other statements from the Sunni regarding specific acts by AQ are equally important and need to be pushed out into the international press and regional press.

This message is the message (http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/NEWS04/711090370/1004/NEWS03) that should be pushed out and more often. People in the region, particularly those who either give direct or tacit support to the extremists. Those who might have sympathetic leanings and/or might be recruited:


"The secret behind our success in Anbar province was the shift in mentality in how people now reject members of al-Qaida," Al-Essawi said. "In the past, people of Anbar provided logistical support for these fighters thinking they were fighting in the name of God. When they realized they were no more than criminals and killers, their mentality shifted."

It's the message that should resonate more clearly as Al Qaida attacks on civilians in Afghanistan and in Pakistan become even more prevalent. The attack that killed 59 children in Afghanistan echoes the horrific attack in In Iraq in 2005 that killed 25 children in a suicide attack and another attack that killed 9 more in a minibus on the way to school.

This message is making its way into the regional press, though somewhat toned down. Al Jazeera reports on the cooperation (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0135731D-D628-4A85-887B-32ABAB700DBF.htm) between former allies:


Recent violence blamed on the group has taken its toll, turning residents against an organisation they now feel has let them down, local officials say.

Last month, Osama bin Laden criticised his followers in Iraq for losing the support of the locals.

Husein al-Zubaidi, a Diyala official, said: "Al-Qaeda cheated people under the name of 'jihad' and their actions were against all principles.

"They hurt all Iraqi sects, this is what pushed the national armed groups to face them strongly and bravely."

What Al Jazeera has not done is post any specifics about exactly "how" al Qaida "let them down" or "cheated" them. It gives the impression that there were a few disagreements that hurt the Iraqis' feelings or sympathies. The question now is how much more this message is being or can be promulgated in the press.

Things like "cheating" and general "lack of principles" can be rejected by the AQ base as the product of actual "criminals" who were posing as AQ. Thus, the pervasiveness, the extensiveness and the extreme cruelty need more exposure. The only way that will happen is if these same Sunni make an effort to appear in the press.

Appearances in the US may help to bolster opinion here, but may also tarnish the image of these speakers back in the middle east where association with Americans, even in the face of evil murderers, is frowned upon. Still, what we need are "legitimate" speakers who have experienced the pleasure of al Qaida style rule and can relay a legitimate message as a member of the Arab community.

[Sarajevo071]

Although, I do not agree with you in some points (especially in the start) I will agree with majority of your analyses. But, when you talking about Iraqis and they shifting alliances, do not forget that many Resistance groups said that they may be against AQ and they wrong ideas and actions, but they will still continue fighting against foreign occupation. Also, when counting dead you should skip dead, maimed and raped by US or they coalition troops. That's also have big influence in people's final decisions and long memories.

[kehenry1]

But, when you talking about Iraqis and they shifting alliances, do not forget that many Resistance groups said that they may be against AQ and they wrong ideas and actions, but they will still continue fighting against foreign occupation.

I don't forget that, but I do believe that there are a myriad of political issues at hand that would break even these forces down into groups that may be negotiated with. Some may still be concerned that we are supporting Shia governance against them and that this means their subjugation, regardless of any representative government. Particularly if they don't feel they are or won't get a fair deal from such a government. That can be largely mitigated through political negotiations and actions.

Which is why US commanders in the field are either circumventing the central government or forcing certain agencies to perform as they should for the Sunni or mixed populations they are working in while the big politicos, like Crocker or Petraeus, are delicately strong arming the Maliki government.

I'm not saying it will be perfect and resolve everything, just noting their are differences. And surely, we would rather be negotiating with indigenous insurgents with a stake in the nation than murderous, non-state actors who, by doctrine, reject any political resolution.


Also, when counting dead you should skip dead, maimed and raped by US or they coalition troops. That's also have big influence in people's final decisions and long memories.

I agree. I have a rather long discussion to post about the application of violence and justice in a counterinsurgency, but the short version goes is basically a reversal of Mao as an insurgent manual and can be summed up in the words: No justice, no peace.

In other words, there was violence and inappropriate acts by coalition forces, but we do adhere to the rule of law and people will be punished for those actions. AQI, not so much. If people are killed during action, it is usually in pursuit of combatants. AQI action, again, not so much.

I believe that the choice comes down to justice and largely controlled violence v. AQI random, arbitrary, brutal and regular attacks on civilians without any recourse for redress by the population and no punishment of the actors. That is a significant reason why they were rejected. And that is a decision the population makes in its best interest.

They may never forget, but it may be more forgivable than AQI's acts.

[Sarajevo071]

I don't forget that, but I do believe that there are a myriad of political issues at hand that would break even these forces down into groups that may be negotiated with. Some may still be concerned that we are supporting Shia governance against them and that this means their subjugation, regardless of any representative government. Particularly if they don't feel they are or won't get a fair deal from such a government. That can be largely mitigated through political negotiations and actions.

Which is why US commanders in the field are either circumventing the central government or forcing certain agencies to perform as they should for the Sunni or mixed populations they are working in while the big politicos, like Crocker or Petraeus, are delicately strong arming the Maliki government.

Smart stuff you are writing here, but IMHO Maliki will never be accepted and he will need to be gone before someone else (individual or some-other then today's-coalition) steps in and be accepted by majority. But not before killings and mass imprisonment (by American and coalition troops) are ended.


In other words, there was violence and inappropriate acts by coalition forces, but we do adhere to the rule of law and people will be punished for those actions. AQI, not so much. If people are killed during action, it is usually in pursuit of combatants. AQI action, again, not so much.

I am sorry but we both know that mantra US is repeating is NOT true. How do you forgetting all those cases of overkills and civilian murders?! And who is punished and how!? Answers we know to well (just check last case by Marines and Black Water Mercs-all under US military command and rules).

That is and it will continue to be something that plague US Military and that Iraqi people, and many others, will remember...


I believe that the choice comes down to justice and largely controlled violence v. AQI random, arbitrary, brutal and regular attacks on civilians without any recourse for redress by the population and no punishment of the actors. That is a significant reason why they were rejected. And that is a decision the population makes in its best interest.

They may never forget, but it may be more forgivable than AQI's acts.

They will forgive dead, maimed and raped by US and Coalition troops but not by AQI!? I have no idea where this came from but I know that is not true.

Many people here tied resolution in Iraq with what will happen with AQI and they using AQI to excuse they murderers... That is so morally wrong and deeply strategically false. Why? Well, like I always using examples of US Military (sadly so many bad ones) and not commenting on AQI (which many here wrongly thinks I am agreeing with them) that's how Muslims and Iraqis looking at US to. Simply put, if US Military didn't do what they did and what they still do, things in Iraq will never be so bad and so late to change.

All those extreme and bad stuff you are mentioning, when they came from AQI, no one is surprised since they know how they are and what they trying to do. But when same cames from country who giving lecture to everyone about human rights, what is right and wrong, and who they should behave, people are disappointed and angry. If only US is something that they are not, if they are truly democratic society, if they are not supporting all those dictators and corrupt leaders, and if they are not supporting that apartheidic and rasistic Israel...

Thing will be settled between Muslims by them self and AQ will be long gone!

[Steve Blair]

Gonna interject here on one thing...Blackwater isn't under US military control. It's the Department of State that's running cover for them...and it disgusts me personally that they're allowed to get away with it.

And this discussion is also swinging a bit away from the history aspects. If we end up switching to more current affairs, I'll trim some posts and start a new thread in the proper location.

[Sarajevo071]

Gonna interject here on one thing...Blackwater isn't under US military control. It's the Department of State that's running cover for them...and it disgusts me personally that they're allowed to get away with it.

And this discussion is also swinging a bit away from the history aspects. If we end up switching to more current affairs, I'll trim some posts and start a new thread in the proper location.

You are right. Sorry. And thanks for correction about Blackwater (I kind know that but I wanted to mention they latest incident and that nothing really happened to them).

I will try to stay on topic if some questions or answer don't steer me away again.

[Steve Blair]

You've been bringing in interesting threads and perspectives. The history of this stuff is as important as what's going on today.

[Sarajevo071]

The history of this stuff is as important as what's going on today.

Couldn't agree more. Thank you. :o

[Abu Suleyman]

I have to say that credit must be given where credit is due. Mohammad successfully united a group (the Arabs) that before and since have never been completely united, nor successfully governed by one of their own. (I consider that the khalifa's who held the Caliphate together for a while, did so mostly on the residual strength of Mohammad.)

Additionally, today AQ, Hizbollah, and Hamas, and other similar groups draw inspiration from that success. I believe this is why beheading is popular among this type of group, because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that it was something done by Mohammad and his followers. After all socialist insurgents and terrorists, even Arab ones, usually just shot their victims. I believe that a study of the correlations between Ancient Jihad (that of Mohammad, and his immediate followers) and the modern "Jihad" may be in order. Perhaps it is worth considering that because these organizations look to the past for their spiritual inspiration, they will also do so for their tactical inspiration. It may well be that the enemies playbook is just history itself.

[goesh]

Muhammed as a visionary, politician, moral leader, diplomat and organizer is evident in the sustained legacy of Islam today but nothing in Al Qu'ran directly supports the attribution of him being a great combat leader/tactician. One could just as easily say George Bush is a great tactician, military leader having sent General P. to Iraq.

The use of the sword for lopping off heads is more a matter of efficacy and practicality than anything else. Why taint a good rope with the neck of criminal/heretic? Why expend energy hacking and stabbing him to death when the spinal cord is so easy to sever? Why expend unnecessary energy and resources over those condemned to death, and remember, in the early days there were no rifles and pistols. The only real purists when it comes to religious warriors were the animist cannibals by the way who ate their enemies thus proving beyond a doubt the superiority of their spiritual beliefs. The weakness of Monotheists is evident by all the body parts left lying around, a God who lacks the power to make enemies completely go away.

[Steve Blair]

Perhaps, goesh, but since Muhammad is viewed as a great military leader by many popular interpretations (and those interpretations have remained fairly consistent within their cultural context as far as I know), then there may be something to it. Certainly it's not something to be discounted. And your monotheism argument kinda falls short when dealing with the ritual mutilation of dead enemies by many Indian tribes, who had many gods and certainly left a number of body parts lying around...but that's for another thread and another sub-forum possibly...

[tequila]

Pretty sure that the beheading thing comes from certain jihadis taking al-Anfal 8.12 (http://www.theholybook.org/index.php/content/category/2/8/4/)in the Quran literally:


When (in the meantime) your Lord revealed to the angels: "I am certainly with you, so make firm the feet of those who believe. I will cast fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. So strike at their necks and strike at every finger (which holds a sword or bow)."

But then beheading has always been used in history as a means of terror.

[Sarajevo071]

Or maybe they pick up from those before them... And from the Bible..


Beheading as a method of killing is nothing new; it has been known in practically every nation that has ever existed (the famous French guillotine was invented to be a supposedly more humane method of execution). There are a number of beheadings recorded in Bible History, the two best-known being David's beheading of the giant Goliath, and the beheading of John the Baptist by Herod Antipas (see The Herods).

David's beheading of Goliath took place on the field of battle, after Goliath was already dead.

"And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David."

"Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled." (1 Samuel 17:48-51 KJV)

"And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem" (1 Samuel 17:54 KJV)

The beheading of John the Baptist (see also John's Last Days) was an act of murder committed by a tyrant and his spiteful, incestuous wife (see Herodias). The Bible account isn't clear, however it appears that John's head may not have been buried along with his body - John's disciples were given the body, Herodias and her daughter were given the "head on a platter":

"For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her."

"And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother."

"And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus." (Matthew 14:3-12 KJV)

I just love those "holier thou you" types bashing and bitching about others yard and they customs and behaviors when they own is full of mess, blood and injustice... You calling them rednecks, right?! Personally, I calling them morons but, hey, it's your country. :rolleyes:

[Steve Blair]

And if we're going to get really picky, I'd lay odds that one could trace the concept of beheading and other ritual mutilation back to polytheist (and monotheist) beliefs that a person who had been mutilated would not be able to find their way to the afterlife. If memory serves, that was one of the reasons behind some of the Indian mutilations, and beheading seems to be something similar. It's possibly something of a collective cultural expression that was later given religious or symbolic meaning...and also a terror method, since family members coming to bury their dead would have been forced to sort through body parts. But that's mostly speculation on my part. We'll need one of our anthropologists to drop in for cultural/social commentary and to correct any errors I might have slipped into the mix.

And Sarajevo, I consider a moron a moron, regardless of race, color, or creed...:) No one culture has a monopoly on them...some just have better internet access....;)

[wm]

The beheading of John the Baptist (see also John's Last Days) was an act of murder committed by a tyrant and his spiteful, incestuous wife (see Herodias). The Bible account isn't clear, however it appears that John's head may not have been buried along with his body - John's disciples were given the body, Herodias and her daughter were given the "head on a platter":


"For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her."

"And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother."

"And his disciples came, and took up the body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus." (Matthew 14:3-12 KJV)

Just for the record, Herod's familial descent was from the Idumaeans, AKA Edomites, not the Hebrews. Edomites were descended from Esau, not Jacob. The Edomites and Israelites were constantly at war. Edomites were not originally Jewish in religion. As Wikipedia says:

The nature of Edomite religion is largely unknown. As close relatives of other Levantine Semites, they may have worshipped such gods as El, Baal, and Asherah. The Edomites may have had a national god named Kaus or Qos.


The beheading of John the Baptist, if an historical event at all, had little or nothing to do with religion.

[SteveMetz]

Just don't name a teddy bear after him (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/28/sudan.bears/index.html).

[Stan]

Just don't name a teddy bear after him (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/28/sudan.bears/index.html).

A beheading would drastically improve the overall appearance of the accused.

Then, there is the current alternative (which, in this case, may turn out to be enjoyable) :D


Blasphemy punishable in Sudan by 40 lashes...

[kehenry1]

Well, historically, many religions or belief systems that focus on the "after life" have emphasized the wholeness of the body as being imperative to the functioning of the dead in the "after life" or in "paradise" or whatever place a person is believed to go after they have died.

Take for instance the mummification of Egyptian pharaohs, aristocrats and other notables. Preservation of the body was imperative. Even as they understood the necessity to remove certain organs and fluids to the preservation of the body, most of these organs would be preserved in other containers so that the dead could make use of them in the next life.

Desecration was feared because they believed that if these parts were removed or the body desecrated, the person couldn't cross over or function. Thus, curses placed on the entrances of tombs.

Vikings, Scythians, Gauls, Celts, Chinese and many others practiced similar concepts up to and including placing items in the burial vaults for future use. Some aspect of this has bled into modern burial practices from Greek and Roman burials where people would place coins either in the coffin or on the eyes of the dead to pay the boatman for crossing the River Styx. In Ireland and other European countries, it is still a practice to place coins on the eyes of the dead and this derives from that practice.

At the same time, desecrating the body of the enemy by mutilation or dismemberment was fairly common in these cultures for just such a purpose as preventing them from either "crossing", to keep them from functioning in the after life and to keep them from being recognized by any loved ones or others they hoped to meet in the here after.

In fact, many warrior cultures expected that they might meet their enemies in the after life and that there would be a continuation of the struggle or war between them. Thus, they sought to prevent their enemies from being able to fight by lopping off hands, legs, feet, gouging out eyes, cutting out tongues or cutting off the head.

Medieval Christianity had similar injunctions against desecrating the body for similar reasons. The Catholic church at the time believed that, at the time of resurrection, the body would be raised from the grave and re-invigorated with life. Thus, the body was required to be whole. European Christians at the time, having also come from these other earlier cultures with beliefs about the after life, the need for a "whole" body and the ancient cultural ideas of revenging themselves on the person, both now and in the after life, incorporated such mutilation practices in their punishments of certain crimes. Such as the concept of drawing and quartering traitors then sending their body parts to the four corners of the kingdom as warnings served both such beliefs.

Later, as medical science advanced and there was a serious need for cadavers for scientific discovery, this caused a serious discussion among religious and scientific scholars. It also led to the more modern interpretation of "grave robbers" since many superstitious or highly religious people objected to the "desecration" of the body for science. People were not very willing to donate their remains or those of their loved ones. Thus, "grave robbing" became a lucrative business.

There are many Roman Catholics who still believe that the body must be whole for resurrection and who believe that donating organs or bodies for science is blasphemy. Judaism has a similar concept which is why they have special units that will go to the scene of terrible accidents, fires and bombings to collect every shred of tissue and blood for unification with the body and burial.

In American Indian culture, the same ideas of mutilation and desecration of the enemy's body in order to take revenge in the next life, prevent further hostilities in the next life or make them unrecognizable to their ancestors was also common. Their culture, like many others, had concepts of "honor" for worthy opponents as well as "dishonor" and "revenge" depending on how hated the enemy or how dishonorable.

If you read the Last of the Mohicans, you can get a sense of this idea of desecrating the enemy when they cut the heart out of the enemy or burn him over a pit. These were not simple acts of torture for the sake of torture, but had very powerful religious concepts behind them.

You can also see these concepts in a very well known historical event: Custer's Last Stand. If you recall, Custer's body was severely mutilated and had many arrows shot into his legs, arms and other body parts post-mortem. According to accounts by Souix who were present, the exact purpose was to exact revenge and damage his ability to continue hostilities in the after life as well as vent their anger and send "a message".

This doesn't even touch on the history of the Aztecs and the Mayans who also practiced similar ideas of desecration and mutilation on the enemy. Some methods were considered "honorable" and others "dishonorable".

I am unsure if there were any religious imperatives in the act, but we can certainly see Genghis Khan's act of piling heads at the gate as at least a propaganda message to his enemies.

Then there is the idea of "honor" and "purification" in certain acts. For instance, medieval aristocrats believed that there was only honor in dying by the sword. Thus, they would offer certain aristocrats and kings death by beheading with a sword. As opposed to others who met their fate with an axe or by hanging and other methods.

of course, burning at the stake was an act of "purification" of a heretic in Christianity. In India, wives committing "suttee"(?) were both joining the dead in the hereafter and committing an act of purification.

When we get to Islamic history, particularly within the periods of expansion and the crusades, the idea of "honor" and "after life" also impacted the way in which they treated the enemy and those they conquered. It is likely that this concept was an incorporation of other ancient traditions prior to the advent of Mohammed, as is seen in other cultures throughout Europe.

Basically, the concepts of "honor", "purification" and "dishonor" are represented in these actions. Based on historical accounts and modern usage by Islamic states and extremists, beheading seems to be used most often as an act of "dishonor" or for the "dishonorable". In the Mohammedian period, culturally, being captured or conquered instead of dying in battle was considered "dishonorable". Thus, captives were often beheaded.

Later, during the reign of Salahdin and the crusades, he ritually beheaded hundreds of captured Hosptilar and Templar knights along with Reynald de Chatillon. At the same time, he spared many other knights, the king, his brother and the lady Eschiva who was defending Tripoli.

I believe, from the historical and modern accounts we can determine that the beheading of prisoners is not simply a directive of religion, but is bound up in cultural ideas of "honor" and "dishonor".

[Steve Blair]

Thanks for the summation! It's also interesting to note (at least in my little specialty area) that not all Indian tribes practiced mutilation. The Apache, for instance, scalped very rarely. The Sioux were nicknamed "head cutters" by some of their neighbors for their old practice of decapitation. In all cases the practices had serious cultural implications, as you mentioned, Kat. I have a nagging recollection that some segments of the Norse peoples believed that a mutilated body would not cross over into the afterlife and would in fact haunt the region looking for its lost bits...

Since most monotheistic cultures were outgrowths of these older traditions and practices, it makes sense that they would cling to or transmute some aspects of them.

[kehenry1]

I have a nagging recollection that some segments of the Norse peoples believed that a mutilated body would not cross over into the afterlife and would in fact haunt the region looking for its lost bits...

Yes. The idea of banshees and other entities have origination in such concepts of those who are unable to "cross over" due to their own acts or the acts of those who killed them. In fact, Norse mythology places this eternity in between life and the after life as a type of hell as they had no concept of "hell" as we think of it.

I also recall certain stories that had a viking cutting the hands off his opponent so he would be unable to lift a mug of ale at Odin's table in Valhalla. A terrible fate for eternity. :)

[slapout9]

Just for the record rednecks don't cut people's heads off. Wrap them in chains and throw them off a bridge or set their car on fire with them inside but head chopping is to much work:eek:

Kinda like this young man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLTE-5nvk64&feature=related

[Sarajevo071]

And Sarajevo, I consider a moron a moron, regardless of race, color, or creed...:) No one culture has a monopoly on them...some just have better internet access....;)

:D :D !!! LOL

[Sarajevo071]

Just don't name a teddy bear after him (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/11/28/sudan.bears/index.html).

Just another stupid thing that people shouldn't be bother about it... Sudan have way to more important things to worry about it. Thankfully, majority of country (like so many Muslims all around the World) knows this is not issue like the West or Sudan making to be.

I see this just like reaction on US and West pressure. It's politics and it should stay in that limits.

[wm]

Yes. The idea of banshees and other entities have origination in such concepts of those who are unable to "cross over" due to their own acts or the acts of those who killed them. In fact, Norse mythology places this eternity in between life and the after life as a type of hell as they had no concept of "hell" as we think of it.

I also recall certain stories that had a viking cutting the hands off his opponent so he would be unable to lift a mug of ale at Odin's table in Valhalla. A terrible fate for eternity. :)

Viking warriors supposedly trimmed their nails before battle. Naglfar, the ship that would carry the giants to Ragnarok was made from thje nails of the dead--so the shorter your nails, the longer until the ship would be floated and the end of the world would come. At the end of the world all the feasting in Valhalla also came to an end. (Sorry for the trivia excursus, but this stuff about Vikings' hands got the better of me.)