Australian Politics Forum - Executing prisoners of war

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #45 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:45pm

The lies of the muslim flow thick and fast on this board

Quote:

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual service, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"

- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33

C'mon do you really want to rehash this again, when the Holy Book of Islam forbids it. Surely if you are against rape of slavegirls, then you must commend the Quran for condemning it. Otherwise you are just a hypocrite

&

You seem obsessed with this matter even though the Quran forbids it:

"...do not compel your slave girls to sexual service, seeking the temporary pleasures of the world, if they desire chastity"

- The Quran, al-Noor, v. 33

WHAT DOES AL-NOOR REALLY SAY?
Quote:

qur'an24.033 YUSUFALI: Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),

qur'an24.033 PICKTHAL: And let those who cannot find a match keep chaste till Allah give them independence by His grace. And such of your slaves as seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if ye are aware of aught of good in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah which He hath bestowed upon you. Force not your slave-girls to whoredom that ye may seek enjoyment of the life of the world, if they would preserve their chastity. And if one force them, then (unto them), after their compulsion, lo! Allah will be Forgiving, Merciful.

qur'an24.033 SHAKIR: And let those who do not find the means to marry keep chaste until Allah makes them free from want out of His grace. And (as for) those who ask for a writing from among those whom your right hands possess, give them the writing if you know any good in them, and give them of the wealth of Allah which He has given you; and do not compel your slave girls to prostitution, when they desire to keep chaste, in order to seek the frail good of this world's life; and whoever compels them, then surely after their compulsion Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

So there we have it. Three recognized and accepted translators of the qur'an all telling us the same thing.

Don't force your slave girls to whoredom, but if you do allah is forgiving.

So the question still remains, Why do muslims lie all the time?

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #46 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:48pm

True Colours wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:34pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 2:02pm:

True Colours wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

[

The Jews of the Qurayza Tribe also promised the enemy that they would help fight the Muslims. In the US military code just communicating with the enemy is punishable with death.
Do you have a problem also with the USMCJ?

Quote:

Article 104 (USMCJ)

“Any person who—

(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or

(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly; shall suffer death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military commission may direct.”

Now either the US military kills a heap of their own interpreters and interogators or you are deliberately misrepresenting the USMCJ, god I hope you are and you don't truly believe what you just said.

Here's a hint you don't get executed for "just talking" with the enemy.

There are a number of differences between US military interpreters/interrogators and the Qurayzas.

For example, they interrogators and interpreters are usually authorised to communicate with the enemy - it is their job.

Also, you would not normally expect an interpreter or interrogator to promise the enemy to attack their own country.

Similarly, you would not expect an interpreter or interrogator to clandestinely provide supplies to the enemy.

So you don't get executed for 'just talking' to the enemy you also have to behave traitorously toward the US.

Try to not get too emotive in your writing; traitors get executed in the US military it's just a fact, treat it as such.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49321
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #47 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 7:55pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Right. Muslims are supposed to win.

No, they are supposed to fight until either a) the oppression stops or b) the enemy inclines towards peace.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2013 at 6:56pm:

Then execute 700 people.

The enormous number of dhimis in the muslim world for centuries - a large portion of them jews - debunks your meme. The Banu Quraysa were traitors, they were a real existential threat to the fledgling muslim nation, they were given the standard punishment for treachery. Deal with it.

Gandalf, can you explain how disarmed, handcuffed prisoners are a real existential threat?

Can you give any previous examples of 700 unarmed prisoners being executed for treachery to back up your claim that this was standard?

TC:

Quote:

Similarly, you would not expect an interpreter or interrogator to clandestinely provide supplies to the enemy.

You make this claim surprisingly often, yet every time I ask you for details you come up with nothing. The same with your claim that they attacked Muhammed - nothing. The truth is they actually assisted Muhammed.

Quote:

Banu Qurayza were not POWs by any modern definition. They were criminal traitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

Quote:

When they reached the habitations of Banu Quraiza, they laid tight siege to their forts. [1][31] The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and endured the siege for 25 days. As their morale waned, Ka'b ibn Asad (the chief of the tribe) suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam, kill their own children and women, then rush out for a charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza accepted none of these alternatives. Instead they asked to confer with Abu Lubaba, one of their allies from the Aws. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Lubaba felt pity for the women and children of the tribe who were crying and when asked whether the Qurayza should surrender to Muhammad, advised them to do so. However he also "made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] would be slaughter".[7][8][9][22] According to Mubarakpuri, Abu Lubab begged Muhammad for forgiveness (on behalf of the Qurayza), but Muhammad said it is only God who can forgive him.[1][31] The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores.[24][32] The men - numbering between 400 and 900[7][33] - were bound and placed under the custody of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children - numbering about 1,000[33] - were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.[34]

According to Mubrakpuri, Muslims continued their siege for many days and were getting tired. Ali and Az-Zubair bin ‘Awwam proceeded with ‘Ali swearing that he would never stop until he had either stormed their garrisons or been martyred like Hamza.[1]

Muhammad meanwhile asked one of his poets, Hasam bin Thabit to abuse them with his poems. This is mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:449
Demise of Banu Qurayza
Surrender and execution
Tabari and Ibn Hisham mention 600-900 of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded.[3][35] Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.

After their garrisons were stormed by Ali they had no choice but to comply with Muhammad's judgement. Muhammad ordered that the men should be handcuffed, and this was done under the supervision of Muhammad bin Salamah Al-Ansari while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging Muhammad to be lenient towards them. He suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh a Muslim convert who was a former ally of the tribe, should decide their fate.

So tell me TC, that sound sound like 700 trials for the charge of treason, or the capture of prisoners of war?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #48 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 8:48pm

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Gandalf, can you explain how disarmed, handcuffed prisoners are a real existential threat?

They were to be handcuffed and detained forever? Obviously a permanent solution was required, and allowing them to go free was just too risky. He had tried banishment before, and on at least one occasion this had backfired on him. So off with your heads - so sad too bad. Self preservation comes first.

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Can you give any previous examples of 700 unarmed prisoners being executed for treachery to back up your claim that this was standard?

Bernard Lewis said it was standard practice, so do several other prominent historians. Note I didn't say this act was definitely standard - since unlike you, I acknowledge there is a split in scholarly opinion - I said punishing treachery with execution was, and always had been standard.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49321
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #49 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:38pm

Quote:

They were to be handcuffed and detained forever? Obviously a permanent solution was required, and allowing them to go free was just too risky. He had tried banishment before, and on at least one occasion this had backfired on him. So off with your heads - so sad too bad. Self preservation comes first

Does Islam permit the execution of POWs?

Quote:

Bernard Lewis said it was standard practice, so do several other prominent historians.

This is what I asked Gandalf: Can you give any previous examples of 700 unarmed prisoners being executed for treachery to back up your claim that this was standard?

Quote:

Note I didn't say this act was definitely standard

Well was it or wasn't it? Did Muhammed reach a new low or not?

Quote:

I said punishing treachery with execution was, and always had been standard.

This is not about hanging a traitor. This is about executing 700 POWs.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Baronvonrort

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18626
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #50 - Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Does Islam permit the execution of POWs?

The Islamic scholar Ibn Nuhas wrote the Book of Jihad which clearly states male POW are to be executed and raping pillaging and plundering their wealth along with selling the women and children into slavery is halal.

I started a thread on The Book of Jihad and Abu deleted it so i put it here-
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295682624

Back to top

Leftists and the Ayatollahs have a lot in common when it comes to criticism of Islam, they don't tolerate it.

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #51 - Aug 1^st, 2013 at 7:16am

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:38pm:

Does Islam permit the execution of POWs?

The Islamic scholar Ibn Nuhas wrote the Book of Jihad which clearly states male POW are to be executed

Strange, because if that were true, why did the prophet rarely execute enemy fighters? It is a fact that enemy fighters were usually not executed - even though it was common practice amongst non-Muslims at the time.

It is actually amazing to think that Muslims rarely killed captured enemy fighters. Compare that to the Christians Crusader - they killed every man, woman and child that they could get their hands on when they invaded Jerusalem in 1099

Fulcher of Chartes wrote of the massacre at Jerusalem Mosque:

Quote:

"In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared

"

All the Jews were slaughtered by the Christians as well.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm:

and raping

The anti-Muslim brigade like to keep reproducing this lie, but never produce any proof for their claim.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm:

I started a thread on The Book of Jihad and Abu deleted it so i put it here-
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1295682624

A book which contains opinions not necessarily scriptural proofs. The book does contradict your claims though.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:48pm:

The Islamic scholar Ibn Nuhas wrote the Book of Jihad which clearly states male POW are to be executed

Wrong. The book says that the leader of the Muslims should do what is in the best interests of the Muslims - and this includes the option to free POWs in order to create goodwill between Muslims and their enemies.

The book even goes on to say that a Muslim who unlawfully kills a POW can be punished:

Quote:

If a Muslim kills a POW, the Amir [commander] has the right to punish him by Ta’zeer...[this means the commander has several options in punishment including jailing or lashing]

Now if we want to talk about what is allowed in regards to killing the enemy, I am sure that you must be concerned by Israeli government-funded rabbis telling people that they can kill babies:

Quote:

Who is funding the rabbi who endorses killing gentile babies?

...government ministries regularly transfer support and funding to a yeshiva whose rabbi determined that it is permissible to kill gentile babies...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/who-is-funding-the-rabbi-who-endorses-killing-gentile-babies-1.4005

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49321
At my desk.

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #52 - Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:32pm

True Colours wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 6:45am:

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 9:55pm:

Ah, so that's why he executed 700 POWs?

Since when are criminal traitors who aid the enemy POWs? If a bikie gang attacks police, will you call them POWs?

TC this is not the first time I responded to you. Instead of repeating yourself and pretending no-one can counter your claim, why don't you try addressing what people say? It is hardly a good look for you when the only thing you can do is repeat yourself, apparently incapable of comprehending what everyone else is saying to you.

freediver wrote on Jul 31^st, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Quote:

Banu Qurayza were not POWs by any modern definition. They were criminal traitors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

Quote:

When they reached the habitations of Banu Quraiza, they laid tight siege to their forts. [1][31] The Banu Qurayza retreated into their stronghold and endured the siege for 25 days. As their morale waned, Ka'b ibn Asad (the chief of the tribe) suggested three alternative ways out of their predicament: embrace Islam, kill their own children and women, then rush out for a charge to either win or die; or make a surprise attack on the Sabbath. The Banu Qurayza accepted none of these alternatives. Instead they asked to confer with Abu Lubaba, one of their allies from the Aws. According to Ibn Ishaq, Abu Lubaba felt pity for the women and children of the tribe who were crying and when asked whether the Qurayza should surrender to Muhammad, advised them to do so. However he also "made a sign with his hand toward his throat, indicating that [their fate] would be slaughter".[7][8][9][22] According to Mubarakpuri, Abu Lubab begged Muhammad for forgiveness (on behalf of the Qurayza), but Muhammad said it is only God who can forgive him.[1][31] The next morning, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and the Muslims seized their stronghold and their stores.[24][32] The men - numbering between 400 and 900[7][33] - were bound and placed under the custody of Muhammad ibn Maslamah, who had killed Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, while the women and children - numbering about 1,000[33] - were placed under Abdullah ibn Sallam, a former rabbi who had converted to Islam.[34]

According to Mubrakpuri, Muslims continued their siege for many days and were getting tired. Ali and Az-Zubair bin ‘Awwam proceeded with ‘Ali swearing that he would never stop until he had either stormed their garrisons or been martyred like Hamza.[1]

Muhammad meanwhile asked one of his poets, Hasam bin Thabit to abuse them with his poems. This is mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:449
Demise of Banu Qurayza
Surrender and execution
Tabari and Ibn Hisham mention 600-900 of the Banu Qurayza were beheaded.[3][35] Detail from miniature painting The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah, illustration of a 19th century text by Muhammad Rafi Bazil.

After their garrisons were stormed by Ali they had no choice but to comply with Muhammad's judgement. Muhammad ordered that the men should be handcuffed, and this was done under the supervision of Muhammad bin Salamah Al-Ansari while the women and children were isolated in confinement. Thereupon Al-Aws tribe interceded begging Muhammad to be lenient towards them. He suggested that Sa‘d bin Mu‘adh a Muslim convert who was a former ally of the tribe, should decide their fate.

So tell me TC, that sound sound like 700 trials for the charge of treason, or the capture of prisoners of war?

Quote:

Strange, because if that were true, why did the prophet rarely execute enemy fighters?

Because it wasn't conveneint for him to do so? Are you suggesting that Islam forbids execution of POWs, and that Muhammed was so mentally challenged he couldn't tell the difference?

Quote:

It is a fact that enemy fighters were usually not executed - even though it was common practice amongst non-Muslims at the time.

If it was so common, you won't have any trouble giving an example of some other lunatic Arab warmonger who executed 700 POWs. Will you?

Quote:

It is actually amazing to think that Muslims rarely killed captured enemy fighters. Compare that to the Christians Crusader - they killed every man, woman and child that they could get their hands on when they invaded Jerusalem in 1099

No-one worships warmongers TC, except for Muslims. Can you tell the difference? We are not bringing this up because of what someone did 1400 years ago, we are bringing it up because you appear to think that this is an example to follow.

Quote:

Wrong. The book says that the leader of the Muslims should do what is in the best interests of the Muslims - and this includes the option to free POWs in order to create goodwill between Muslims and their enemies.

Didn't you just have trouble understanding why Muhammed would refrain from slaughtering POWs?

You appear to be agreeing and disagreeing at the same time - not executing POWs is an 'option'????

Does Islam permit the execution of POWs? And why are Muslims so afraid to answer this question?

Quote:

The book even goes on to say that a Muslim who unlawfully kills a POW can be punished:

When is it unlawful? Always? Or only when they are not permitted to by superior officers? Is this yet another transparent attempt at misleading non-Muslims?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: On Islamic historical sourcing Reply #53 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:09am freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:32pm: No-one worships warmongers TC, except for Muslims. muslims don't worship Muhammad. There are plenty of "warmonger" prophets in all three Abrahamic religions. Islam is not unique in following a statesman-prophet who waged war.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40764
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #54 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29am

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:09am:

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:32pm:

No-one worships warmongers TC, except for Muslims.

muslims don't worship Muhammad.

There are plenty of "warmonger" prophets in all three Abrahamic religions. Islam is not unique in following a statesman-prophet who waged war.

really ? So who do they worship ?
a green jellybean ?

you have a false indoctrination of the message of the bible.
You have no idea.

The Bible teaches values, morals, illuminates humanity, shows karma in action, elevates discernment and self sacrifice.
The koran is dreadful to read, dogmatic, sexist, promotes violence and intolerance.

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #55 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:39am

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29am:

really ? So who do they worship ?

God.

To worship Muhammad would be tantamount to shirk - the greatest sin in islam.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29am:

you have a false indoctrination of the message of the bible.
You have no idea.

I'm not making any judgments about the bible - merely stating the fact that christians, as well as jews and muslims all have a large number of prophets, who waged war in the name of religion - like Muhammad.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 40764 Gender:	Re: On Islamic historical sourcing Reply #56 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:50am typical muslim lying deflection I expect you sort to lie deflect now. Such is your history
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: On Islamic historical sourcing Reply #57 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 1:01am So what would be a non-deflective response to your claims sprint? How dare I explain myself in response to being accused of being a "false indoctrinator" (whatever that means). You don't even have an argument other than to hurl insults at me. Is there even any point me appealing to you for a rational discourse?
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40764
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #58 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 1:41am

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:29am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 12:09am:

freediver wrote on Aug 1^st, 2013 at 5:32pm:

No-one worships warmongers TC, except for Muslims.

muslims don't worship Muhammad.

There are plenty of "warmonger" prophets in all three Abrahamic religions. Islam is not unique in following a statesman-prophet who waged war.

really ? So who do they worship ?
a green jellybean ?

you have a false indoctrination of the message of the bible.
You have no idea.

The Bible teaches values, morals, illuminates humanity, shows karma in action, elevates discernment and self sacrifice.
The koran is dreadful to read, dogmatic, sexist, promotes violence and intolerance.

what would be a non deflective reply you say ......

'yes, as insulting moh is a crime punishable by death, obviously we worship moh.'

'no, i have not read the whole bible myself. My own basis on commenting on it is false'

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

True Colours

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2837
Gender: male

Re: On Islamic historical sourcing
Reply #59 - Aug 2^nd, 2013 at 7:38am

The Qurayzas were not POWs, but traitors living in Madina who supplied the enemy, plotted with the enemy, and even conducted raids inside Madina on behalf of the enemy.

As for genuine POWs, Islam does permit them to be executed in extreme circumstances.

Islam also permits either freeing of POWs or keeping them as prisoners.

Usually there is more advantage in freeing POWs or keeping them as prisoners.

You want to hold Islam to some impossible standard that nobody else would follow.

Hundreds of Japanese POWs were killed on Australian soil by Australians during WWII. Does that bother you?

The US bombings of Japan in 1945 killed millions of Japanese civilians not POWs.

If Westerners can accept the killings of millions of civilians in war, why should it be an issue if some of the most aggressive/hostile/treacherous POWs are occasionally executed?

Back to top

IP Logged