Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: Muhammad (SAAW) - The Warrior Prophet

  1. #21
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Desecration of the Body and Purification and Honor

    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".
    Kat-Missouri

  2. #22
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  3. #23
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Valhalla

    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.
    Kat-Missouri

  4. #24
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    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

    Kinda like this young man
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLTE-...eature=related
    Last edited by slapout9; 11-29-2007 at 01:25 AM. Reason: add link

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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....
    !!! LOL

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    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.

  7. #27
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kehenry1 View Post
    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.)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •