Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: Muhammad (SAAW) - The Warrior Prophet

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default Muhammad (SAAW) - The Warrior Prophet

    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/...tml?page=1&c=y

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Priests and Real Warriors

    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.

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

    Default Mohammad: Socio-History of Religious figures and Modern Terrorists

    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.
    Kat-Missouri

  4. #4
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Deconstructing the Message

    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 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 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.
    Kat-Missouri

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default kehenry1,

    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.

  6. #6
    Council Member kehenry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    89

    Default Iraqis, shifting alliances and long memories

    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.
    Kat-Missouri

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default "No justice, no peace."

    Quote Originally Posted by kehenry1 View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by kehenry1 View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by kehenry1 View Post
    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!

  8. #8
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.
    "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

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Thumbs up Thanks, Sarajevo!

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

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    The history of this stuff is as important as what's going on today.
    Couldn't agree more. Thank you.

  12. #12
    Council Member Abu Suleyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Montgomery, AL
    Posts
    131

    Default Reading from the enemies playbook

    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.
    Audentes adiuvat fortuna
    "Abu Suleyman"

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,188

    Default Up Front and Bloody

    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.

  14. #14
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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...
    "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

  15. #15
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    Pretty sure that the beheading thing comes from certain jihadis taking al-Anfal 8.12 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.



  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    278

    Default

    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.

  17. #17
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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....
    "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

  18. #18
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

  20. #20
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    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)

    Blasphemy punishable in Sudan by 40 lashes...

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
  •