Posted on 03/09/2017 5:19:42 AM PST by SJackson
Jihadis have been “taking a bite” of infidels from the beginning…
Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center
In light of recent revelations that the Islamic State is teaching its followers to eat non-Muslims, surely we can now all agree that, at least in this, ISIS is truly not Islamic?
Alas, no. Even the eating of “infidels” has precedents throughout Islamic history, especially as a terror tactic. Two well-documented anecdotes come to mind:
The first concerns that jihadi par excellence, Khalid bin al-Walid (d.642). Dubbed the “Sword of Allah” by Muhammad for his prowess, he holds a revered position among jihadi groups (ISIS’ black flag with white Arabic writing is a facsimile of the banner Khalid carried in battle). During the Ridda—or “apostasy wars” on several Arab tribes that sought to break away from Islam following Muhammad’s death—Khalid falsely accused Malik bin Nuwayra, a well-liked Arab chieftain, of apostasy. After slaughtering him, Khalid raped—Muslim sources call it “married”—Malik’s wife. Not content,
He [Khalid] ordered his [Malik’s] head and he combined it with two stones and cooked a pot over them. And Khalid ate from it that night to terrify the apostate Arab tribes and others. And it was said that Malik’s hair created such a blaze that the meat was so thoroughly cooked [from Muslim historian al-Tabari’s multi-volume chronicle, al-bidaya w’al nihaya (“the Beginning and the End”; Arabic excerpt here).
The second anecdote concerns the Islamic conquest of Spain. According to Muslim chronicler Ibn Abdul Hakam, after capturing a group of Christian winemakers, the Islamic invaders
made them prisoners. After that they took one of the vinedressers, slaughtered him, cut him in pieces, and boiled him, while the rest of his companions looked on. They had also boiled meat in other cauldrons. When the meat was cooked, they threw away the flesh of that man which they had boiled; no one knowing that it was thrown away: and they ate the meat which they had boiled, while the rest of the vinedressers were spectators. These did not doubt but that the Moslems ate the flesh of their companion; the rest being afterwards sent away informed the people of Andalus [Christian Spain] that the Moslems feed on human flesh, acquainting them with what had been done to the vinedresser [source].
Tarek ibn Ziyad—another jihadi extraordinaire, revered for burning his boats on reaching Spain’s shores as proof of his commitment to jihad or “martyrdom”—also had Christian captives slaughtered, cooked up, and apparently eaten in front of their fellow hostages. Then, according to Muslim historian Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Maqqari, the jihadi hero “allowed some of the captives to escape, that they might report to their countrymen what they had seen. And thus the stratagem produced the desired effect, since the report of the fugitives contributed in no small degree to increase the panic of the infidels” (The History of the Mohammedan Dynasty, p. 276).
Note that, according to the above cited Muslim chroniclers, the jihadis engaged in these cannibalistic practices to terrorize and create panic among infidels and apostates, that is, as a form of psychological warfare.[1] This is further pronounced when, as they often do, the chroniclers quote or paraphrase Koran verses that call for “striking terror” into the hearts of nonbelievers (e.g., 3:151, 8:12, 8:60) in juxtaposition to the savage accounts they relay.
There are more and related anecdotes. During the earliest Muslim invasions of Christian Syria, one of Muhammad’s companions, ‘Ubadah bin al-Samat, told a Christian commander that “We have tasted blood and find none sweeter than the blood of Romans,” meaning Byzantines and/or Christians. Whether literal or figurative, clearly such bloodthirsty references inspire the Islamic State’s worldview as evidenced by the latter’s assertion that “American blood is best, and we will taste it soon.”
Incidentally, veneration and/or emulation of early jihadi barbarity is not limited to “radical” or extreme outfits that, so we are always told, “have nothing to do with Islam.” None other than Al Azhar—the Muslim world’s most prestigious university, where Obama gave his 2009 “New Beginning” speech—teaches these accounts of Muslims eating infidels. The reason is simple: such a heritage doesn’t belong to ISIS any more than it does to Al Azhar. It belongs to Islam.
A final note: one school of thought maintains that in the aforementioned historical anecdotes, Muslims did not just pretend to devour their victims; they really did. However, later Muslim chroniclers, embarrassed by the bestial savagery of their coreligionists, portrayed the cannibalism as only pretend. If true, this further validates why ISIS isn’t merely teaching Muslims to pretend to devour their infidel victims, but to eat them in reality—as when one jihadi cut out and dug his teeth into the heart of a fallen Syrian soldier, after saying “I swear to Allah, soldiers of Bashar, you dogs—we will eat your heart and livers! Allahu Akbar!” (Yes, video here.)
This may also shed light on the unsatisfactory explanation given by the Daily Mail on why ISIS is promoting cannibalism. According to Haras Rafiq, the Daily’s authority whom it describes as a “practicing Muslim,” ISIS is promoting cannibalism “if there are no food supplies available during what they describe as a time of jihad.” Under such circumstances, “terrorists were encouraged to kill non-Muslims or Muslims who do not share their version of Islam for food.”
To be sure, eating humans in times of extreme duress and starvation—or “non-halal” food—is not particularly shocking and has been committed many times, past and present, by peoples of all races and religions. One is therefore left to wonder if Rafiq is yet another in a long line of embarrassed Muslim authorities trying to rationalize away their coreligionists’ depraved practices in the name of Islam.
________________
[1] I watched and linked to a video some years back of a modern day Egyptian cleric also making it clear that Khalid’s actions were calculated to terrify the apostates. Although YouTube has, as usual, taken the video down by now, here’s my original translation of what he said: “People wonder how our lord Khalid could have eaten from such meat? Oh yes—he ate from it! Our lord Khalid had a very strong character, a great appetite, and everything! All to terrorize the desert Arabs [apostates]. The matter requires determination; these matters require strength—terrorism.”
From Wikipedia:
“The Siege of Maarat, or Ma’arra, occurred in late 1098 in the city of Ma’arrat al-Numan, in what is modern-day Syria, during the First Crusade. It is infamous for the claims of widespread cannibalism displayed by the Crusaders.”
Let’s not jump the shark and conclude that Christianity is inherently a force for cannibalism.
Taqiiya allows for anything done in the name of the moon god and its pedophiliac, thieving and murderous, so-called prophet.
It all ties in now, reminds me of the woman’s bowel movement.....they all came back today and acting out at work. UGH
Yep....they love their muzzies the gals they do!
Yeah, I was ok with it til now, but...
Islam must die as a religion. This death cult can’t be allowed to continue.
In my opinion, ISIS is mainstream Wahabbism (the State religion of Saudi Arabia) - a formerly fringe movement with islam, which has become increasingly mainstream, since the Saudis got rich on oil (1970’s).
Islam is fundamentally flawed from its founding - essentially coopting religion to support Muhammad’s absolute dictatorship. But since it vests so much authority in the ruler, it’s practice and interpretation have been bent to suite rulers ever since.
The Saudi ruling family allied themselves with the extreme fundamentalist Wahabbis, because they provided the motivated fighters that the Saudis needed to take power (maybe there were some cult members among them as well).
Most muslims, through most of history however, had more reasonable interpretations of islam, which allowed Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian communities to relatively flourish in their midst for 1,400 years. Sufis and Ahmadiyya, as well as Shi’ites (before the politization from Khomeni in Iran) have significantly different interpretations and practices.
Even among “mainstream” Sunnis, the the school of interpretation (fiqh) that the Wahabbis use (Hanbali) is still the smallest of the four widely used. But the Saudis have built mosques and madrassas around the world, trained and pay the Imams, and print the textbooks, to recruit and train more extremists like themselves. They are gradually displacing the local variants of islam in dozens of countries, and form the bulk of the organized islam in new countries, like the West.
All of the violent radical islamist terrorist groups (ISIS, al Queda, Boko Haram, al Shabab, Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood) adhere to the Saudi/Wahabbi/Hanbali rules of interpretation. They insist on only literal reading of specific versions of three texts (Quran, Hadith, Sira), with no rational or moral analysis allowed (arguing that human minds can’t grasp God’s thinking, which is assumed to be perfect in their books), and that any conflict (of which there are many) be strictly resolved by the later verse abrogating the earlier (so much for perfection in the books). Those rules limit you to inevitably concluding that you must violently conquer all the world by pretty much any means, and force Saudi-style Sharia on all.
You are an imbecile.
Since we’ve gone into the “flavors” of Islam mode, was Muhammad Islamic? Starting with the fall of Damascus in 635, Islamists have viciously persecuted everyone who isn’t an Islamist.
But; was it FAKE NEWS?
But; I'm an ACCURATE one!
Well it was definitely a false equivalence.
Similar M.O. to what Pershing did to THEM in the Philippines.
Muhammad was a brutal dictator, who became increasingly megalomaniacal as time went on. He massacred prisoners, broke treaties, engaged in slave taking routinely, “consumated” his “marriage” to Abu Bakr’s daughter Aisha when she was only nine years old, enslaved and raped Rayhanna in Medina the same day that he had her husband and father executed.
His early band of muslims was essentially a gang of caravan raiders, out of which he took 20% of the spoils, and first pick of the slaves. There are basically no absolute moral restrictions in islam, if it is in the interest of the gang or the gang leader - murder, rape, lying, theft, homosexual pedophilia (pederasty), whatever - it is OK if it advances the interests of islam, or just if you are a loyal member in many cases.
When he was starting out in Mecca, he preached tolerance of other religions (e.g. “there is no compulsion in religion). As time went on though, and Muhammad became increasingly powerful (politically and militarily) he became increasingly intolerant of other religions, or even slight insubordination (a big reason that the Wahabbi rule of abrogation leads to such extreme outcomes).
By his end, Muhammad had come all the way to the ultimate extreme goal of universal conquest (I have been called to fight until all men accept Allah), and absolute intolerance of other religions, declaring that “there should not be two religions in Arabia”. Apparently, he was poisoned shortly thereafter in an internal power struggle with his rich patron Abu Bakr, who then took over the empire.
He is an atrocious example of character - another basic flaw with the Wahabbi rules of interpretation. They regard Muhammad as the most perfect single human ever. Any issue that cannot be resolved after referring to their three texts, is next evaluated based on the example of Muhammad (WWMD?).
Bottom line, Islam sucks..
Stuff happens...
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Didja hear the one about the cannibal that passed his neighbor on the forest path?
No ones posted...
“I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.”
...yet?
I had that episode up to watch on Netflix. Thanks for ruining it for me - “It’s a cookbook!”
When I was in Irian Jaya (Papau New Guinea) the natives there would joke and call us white guys “Long Pig”.
“Oh funny - because we have pink skin like a pig!”
“No - because you taste like pig! Haaa Haaaa Haaaaaa!! Oh - um, at least that is what our elders have said. From many years and years ago.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.