The heroic face of Islamic militancy in Kashmir- killing unarmed non-protesting civilians and taking children and women as hostage

Posted on August 27, 2008. Filed under: Hindu, India, Kashmir, Muslims, Politics, terrorism |

The great Gazis and Shahids and Jihadis of Islam in history have always used their Prophet’s injunction that “war is deception”, and a common tactic for Muslims has always been to capture something of great emotional value to non-Muslims and use that not only to preserve themselves from retaliation after unprovoked acts of looting, massacre and destruction but as a means of imposing Islam or enslavement. In Jammu, terrorists dressed as police entered a residential area and opened fire indiscriminately killing civilians. They then holed themselves up in a house and took children below the age of nine and women hostages. Using women and children as pawns in violence is a very old characteristic in Islam, and dates right from the very beginning of its advent in Arabia.

Here are a few relevant quotes from the Hadiths :

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:
Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, “They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans).” I also heard the Prophet saying, “The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle.”

This Hadith is a very peculiar one : Hima normally in Arabic means “protected/inviolate region/territory/environment”. Mentioning this in the same context of night attacks possibly endangering women and chilldren of “infidels” can only mean one things that – women and children of “pagans” are not inviolate [ abstract use of the term Hima in other parts of the Hadiths are well established, implying that such an abstract association is allowed]
The Raid on Bani al-Mustaliq by Muhammad-December, 627CE
Bani al-Mustaliq was a branch of the Khozaa (Jewish) tribe. Two months after Muhammad returned from Dhu Qarad campaign, Allah suddenly told him that B. al-Mustaliq, under the leadership of Haritha b. Abi Dirar was mobilizing forces against him. B. al-Mustaliq were friendly to Muhammad but the rumour was spread that B. al-Mustaliq were now joining with the Quraysh to launch an attack against the Muslims. The Muslims even killed a man from B. al-Mustaliq alleging him to be a spy. On this pretext Muhammad rallied all the fighting men around him to assail the B. al- Mustaliq. B. al-Mustaliq were a prosperous Jewish clan who had immense wealth and property, and after the successful ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Medina the B. al-Mustaliq Jews took all precautionary measures to prevent such an invasion on them. They sought help from other clans as well. Muhammad gave no opportunity to this clan to embrace Islam before facing ethnic cleansing. On previous occasions, he used the rule that the infidels be given a three days reprieve to decide whether to accept Islam or face liquidation.

Sahih Muslim on this raid:
Book 019, Number 4292:
Ibn ‘Aun reported: I wrote to Nafi’ inquiring from him whether it was necessary to extend (to the disbelievers) an invitation to accept (Islam) before meeting them in fight. He wrote (in reply) to me that it was necessary in the early days of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) made a raid upon Banu Mustaliq while they were unaware and their cattle were having a drink at the water. He killed those who fought and imprisoned others. On that very day, he captured Juwairiya bint al-Harith. Nafi’ said that this tradition was related to him by Abdullah b. Umar who (himself) was among the raiding troops.
Further confirmation of this sudden pillage is referred in Sahih Bukhari: Volume 3, Book 46, Number 717: Narrated Ibn Aun: I wrote a letter to Nafi and Nafi wrote in reply to my letter that the Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day. Nafi said that Ibn ‘Umar had told him the above narration and that Ibn ‘Umar was in that army.
Ali b. Talib killed a few wounded B. al-Mustaliq people; among them were Malik and his son. Muhammad seized their cattle herd, took many as captives and divided them among the Jihadists. Two hundred families were taken as captives, two thousand camels and five thousand sheep and goats, as well as a huge quantity of household goods were taken as booty. Juwayriah, the young, beautiful and vivacious daughter of B. al-Mutaliq chief was one of those captives. The household goods were sold in an auction to the highest bidders. During the battle a Muslim was mortally wounded by another Muslim by accident. Muhammad allowed the Jihadists to rape the B. Mustaliq women captives. Here is a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari:Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459: Narrated Ibn Muhairiz: I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, “We went out with Allah’s Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, ‘How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah’s Apostle who is present among us?” We asked (him) about it and he said, ‘It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist.”
After raping his captive-girl, Said al-Khudri took this young girl to the nearest slave market for a quick sale. Here is the continuation of the above story, as told by al-Waqidi (vol.i, p.413) and excerpted by Rodinson: “A Jew said to me: ‘Abu Said, no doubt you want to sell her as she has in her belly a baby by you.’ I said: ‘No; I used the ‘azl.’ To which he replied [sarcastically]: ‘Then it was lesser child-murder!’ When I repeated this story to the Prophet he said: ‘The Jews lie. The Jews lie.’”

Raid against Umm Qirfa of B. Fazarah by Zayd b. Haritha/Abu Bakr-January, 628CE
When Zayd b. Haritha’s first raid at Wadi al-Qura failed, Zayd conducted several raids. In one of these he set out for a mercantile trip to Syria to do some border trading there. When he arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he again raided i but his caravan was waylaid and was attacked by B. Fazarah tribe. During the fighting B. Fazarah killed a number of Muslims including Ward b. Amr, one of Zayd’s dear comrade-in-arms. Zayd himself was wounded. After Zayd returned to Medina with his wound he vowed to avenge the death of his comrade by raiding B. Fazarah again. After his recovery from the injury Muhammad sent Zayd with an army against the B. Fazarah. He attacked them at Wadi al-Qura and inflicted heavy casualties on them. He took Umm Qirfa (her real name was Fatimah bt. Rabiah b. Badr), the wife of Malik b. Hudhayfah, the chief of B. Fazarah, as a prisoner. Umm Qirfa was a very old woman having a young and extremely beautiful daughter. She (Umm Qirfa) was the aunt of Uyeina and was married to her cousin, Malik, the uncle of Uyeina. Zayd took her daughter as a captive and ordered a Jihadi, Qays b. Mohsin to kill Umm Qirfa. Qays tied each of her legs with a rope and attached the ropes to two camels. Then he drove the camels in opposite directions thus renting her in two. Rodinson writes that Umm Qirfa was torn from limb to limb by four camels. Two brothers from the same family were also brutally executed. When told, Muhammad fully approved this ferocious punishment meted out to a grand old lady. When Zayd brought Umm Qirfa’s daughter to Muhammad, he allocated her to Salamah b. Amr al-Akwa, a Jihadist who captured her. She belonged to a very distinguished Arab family. Then Muhammad found that one of his maternal uncles, Hazn b. Abi Wahb was eyeing on Umm Qirfa’s beautiful daughter. So he asked her owner, Salamah b. Amr b. al-Akwa, if he would give her to his (Muhammad’s) uncle. Salamah readily agreed to Muhammad’s request. This distinguished lady was then passed on to Muhammad’s uncle for his private use.
Another version of this story says that the leader of this raid was Abu Bakr b. Abi Quhafah (told by Salamah) and runs like this:
Muhammad appointed Abu Bakr as the leader of this raiding party. When Abu Bakr arrived at Wadi al-Qura, he ordered his troop to rest there; then they prayed. After prayer, Abu Bakr made a raid on B. Fazarah. The Muslims killed a number of B. Fazarah people and captured a number of their women and children. Among them was Umm Qirfa, a very old lady, wearing a worn-out piece of leather coat. With her was her young daughter, the fairest of the Arabs. Abu Bakr gave Umm Qirfa’s pretty, young and vivacious daughter to, the Jihadist, who had captured her as a booty. After Salamah b. al-Akwa returned to Medina and met Muhammad at the market place, he (Muhammad) asked Salamah to give this pretty young lass to him. Salamah told Muhammad that he liked her but had not had sex with her yet. Then he offered her to Muhammad.
Quoting Salamah, Tabari (Tabari, vol. viii, p.97) writes:
‘When I returned to Medina, the messenger of God met me in the market and said, “Salamah-how excellent the father who begot you!-give me the woman.” I said, “Messenger of God, I like her, by God, and I have not uncovered her garment.” He said nothing to me until the next day, when he met me in the market and said, “Salamah-how excellent a father begot you!-give me the woman.” I said: “Messenger of God, I have not touched her garment. She is yours, Messenger of God.” The Messenger of God sent her to Mecca, and with her he ransomed some Muslim captives who were in the hands of the polytheists.’
There is a similar Hadith from Sahih Muslim (Refer to: Sahih Muslim: Book 19, Hadith number 4345)

When Muhammad entered Mecca he granted a general amnesty to the Meccans except for eight people (or ten people, according to Ibn Sa’d). He ordered that those were to be killed even if they were found under the curtains of Kaba. Previously shedding of blood in the holy precinct was strictly forbidden by the polytheists. Muhammad proclaimed that Allah had permitted only him to cause bloodshed in the holy sanctuary, just for a few hours. Here is a Sahi Hadith from Sahhi Bukhari Volume 3, Book 34, Number 303:Narrated Ibn ‘Abbas: Allah’s Apostle said, “Allah made Mecca a sanctuary and it was neither permitted for anyone before, nor will it be permitted for anyone after me (to fight in it). And fighting in it was made legal for me for a few hours of a day only. None is allowed to uproot its thorny shrubs or to cut down its trees or to chase its game or to pick up its Luqata (fallen things) except by a person who would announce it publicly.” ‘Abbas bin ‘Abdul-Muttlib requested the Prophet, “Except Al-Idhkhir, for our goldsmiths and for the roofs of our houses.” The Prophet said, “Except Al-Idhkhir.” ‘Ikrima said, “Do you know what is meant by chasing its game? It is to drive it out of the shade and sit in its place.” Khalid said, “(‘Abbas said: Al-Idhkhir) for our goldsmiths and our graves.”
Sunaan Abu Dawud: Book 14, Number 2678: Narrated Sa’id ibn Yarbu’ al-Makhzumi: The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: on the day of the conquest of Mecca: There are four persons whom I shall not give protection in the sacred and non-sacred territory. He then named them. There were two singing girls of al-Maqis; one of them was killed and the other escaped and embraced Islam. Sarah was the freed slave-girl of one of the sons of Abd al Muttalib. Muhammad claimed that she used to molest him while he was in Mecca. It is reported that Muhammad eventually forgave Sarah. Hind bt. Utbah, the wife of Abu Sufyan b. Harb. She chewed the liver of slain Hamzah at Badr II. She accepted Islam and Muhammad pardoned her. Later, Umar killed Sarah by causing his horse to trample her at al-Abtah. Another source lists that on the day of occupation of Mecca, Muhammad commanded that six men and four women be killed. The women were: 1. Hind bt. Utbah b. Rabiah, 2. Sarah, the freed slave girl of Amr b. Hashim b. Abd al-Muttalib; she was killed (waqidi) on the day of invasion. 3. Quraybah; killed on the day of invasion, 4. Fartana escaped death and lived until the Caliphate of Uthman.

Sahih Muslim: Book 019, Number 4321: It is reported on the authority of Sa’b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
Surprise Raid on B. Khatham at Talabah by Qutbah ibn Amir ibn Hadidah-August, 630CE
During this period Muhammad sent Qutbah ibn Amir at the head of twenty men to conduct a surprise raid on B. Khatamah, inhabiting Tabalah near Turbah, and no reason is given in any of the Hadiths. The Muslims killed a man who pretended to be dumb. Then they attacked the infidels while they were asleep. The Muslims slaughtered whomever they could and took a great number of camels, goats and women as booty.

Whatever be the claim of modern spokespersons of Islam as regards treatment of women and children of non-Muslims, we have to understand that core traditions of Islam use them as potential property – either as slaves, as future soldiers of Islam or for sex and reproductive resource, and their safety is not of paramount importance in Islamic warfare.

The non-Muslims should carefully read the principal Hadiths, and the biographies of the Prophet of Islam, either in the original unabridged form or translations made by western authors prior to the emergence of Communist power.

The only way this sort of Jihadist violence on unarmed and non-combatant civilians of non-Muslims and on their women and children can be stopped is to ensure that each such raid aimed at reducing the number of non-Muslims and increasing the number of Muslims results in an actual reduction of believers in Islam – not a physical liquidation a-la-Islam but creations of conditions where “muslims with a good heart” feel ashamed of remaining Muslims and come out of Islam. On the other hand if Muslims really believe in “peace” they should make such declarations in public that they will come out of Islam if any non-Muslim is killed in such violence – this perhaps could be the only starting point for restoration of trust between Muslims and non-Muslims. In reality the Islamic terrorists in Jammu have done a great favour to the struggling Hindus and non-Muslims of the state of Kashmir – it will only make their resolve harder, getting a reminder of what living under Islam means, and will go a long way towards the eventual cleaning of the subcontinent of the creed of Islam. It will be worthwhile for the non-Muslims to also consider the possibility that “deception is war and war is deception in Islam” – and such attacks simply could be part of a general strategy to draw security forces away from areas of infiltration just as the Pakistani army consistently shoots repairing team of Indians of the control fences at the LOC, and try to push in militants under cover of heavy shelling or firing.

related previous post on Kashmir


Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

2 Responses to “The heroic face of Islamic militancy in Kashmir- killing unarmed non-protesting civilians and taking children and women as hostage”

RSS Feed for Dikgaj’s Weblog Comments RSS Feed

Thanks for the good research. I have seen some
of this before, but you make a solid position
when considering what many Muslims are
attempting to tell us.

A reader has posted a very long comment trying to justify and sanitize the continuing Islamic theological acceptance of the practice of slavery as core doctrine in the Quran, as well as giving excuses for the acts of violence on non-Muslims. He wants us to remember the “context” of such cases of “violence”. I can see that he includes in his possible list of reasons behind the “Quranic” and Hadithic sanction for killing women and children of non-Muslims as consequence of a night raid – that “those women and children could have been planning to join hands to kill Muslims”. I see no reason to doubt the level of “Islamic ratonality” that can imagine women and children planning and preparing to kill Muslims at night when they are unexpectdly raided ny Muslims.

He also mentions that sexual enjoyment of captured women is sanctioned in Islam and that this is not prostitution. He attempts to give the standard excuse that this was done to take care of large number of widows as a result of wars of the period and conveniently fails to mention that the question of automatic annulment of marriage of a captive is explicitly considered in the core texts – which means that captives were not all widows. Moreover, if the slave is not being married, and any sexual relationship outside “marriage” is not halal, why is it not enforced prostitution? Islam specifically and explictlt considers the “den-mohar” paid (or promised to be paid) during marriage ceremony as price for the use of the “buza” or the sexual organs of the woman. If prostitution is defined as paying materially or money in return for sex, why isnt this whole concept a kind of prostitution? Moreover, a married woman is not allowed to refuse the use of her body at any time by her husband, which means that the money paid or promised buys the body and its use and woman no longer has any rights over her body. This is consistent with property and commodity whose ownership and enjoyment rights are transferred to who buys the commodity.

I request the commentator to publish his long post elsewhere.

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: