Iraq Militants Threaten to Behead 3 Turk Hostages

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

for how long does this has to continue
Beheading is such an inhuman act
and now they r threatning to behead Turkish hostages
who r most probably muslims i think
what r the actual goals of these terrorists
and to what end they can go
r they serving islam ? … r they serving their country ? absolutely NO
isn’t there any other way left for them to make ppl understand what they want

Iraq Militants Threaten to Behead 3 Turk Hostages

Sat Jun 26, 2004 01:51 PM ET

DUBAI (Reuters) - Suspected militants from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s
group have kidnapped three Turks in Iraq and are threatening to behead
them unless Ankara pulls out all forces within 72 hours, Al Jazeera
television said on Saturday.

Jazeera said it had received a statement and a video tape purportedly
from the Jama’at al Tawhid and Jihad of al Qaeda-linked operative
Zarqawi urging Turks to demonstrate against Bush’s visit to Turkey to
attend a NATO summit.

The deadline would expire before the end of the two-day summit
scheduled for Monday and Tuesday.

A brief video image showed three men – holding what appeared to be
passports – crouching before gunmen, whose faces were covered.
Jazeera said the men had read out their names in Turkish on the recording.

Turkey is not part of the multinational occupation force in Iraq but
many Turks work as contractors supplying and supporting U.S.-led forces.

According to Al Jazeera, the statement called on “Turkish forces and
companies that support the occupation forces in Iraq” to leave by the
deadline or the three workers would be killed.

Last week, the same group claimed responsibility for beheading a South
Korean hostage after Seoul rejected demands to pull military medics
and engineers out of Iraq and drop plans to send more troops.

Source :http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=XYBGFCOQC2GAKCRBAELCFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=5521355

2

sorry my Turk fellas
no replies for u
seems no one cares

3

Actually, I read the other day on the BBC website that the Turkish hostages had been released. I am not sure if it was these same hostages or other ones.

4

^ ye they r the same ppl
have been released now
now lets see and hope that they release the Pakistani Amjad Hafeez also i saw his mother appealing for his release infront of the President of Azad Kashmir here in islamabad .... she waz weeping all the time
i also feel for him cause he is from my city

5

kiling of any person who did not support americans will be allowed in islam...and abt paki solider,he should be kill to make lesson for others

6

^what r u trying to say
plz elaborate
and who pakistani soldier ???
if u r talking abt Amjad Hafeez, he is just a truck driver
no Pakistani soldier is there in Iraq

7

A truck driver for whom?

He is working for an American Company in 'Iraaq.

His ID was shown, naming him as Yousuf Amjid, an employee of US contractor Kellogg Brown and Root.

He was found a US Base in Balad working there!

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/06/28/top3.htm

Dude, he was assisting the Kuffar against the Muslims.

Just cause he’s a Pakistani, it doesn’t make him a Muslim. His actions is showing clear Alliance to the Amreeki Army of Faggots.

8

kome onn AT dont be so radical in ur approach
now does this mean that he should be beheaded
a muslim being beheaded by muslims
where in the Quran is this justified

** “Fight in the cause of Allaah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress the limits. Indeed Allaah does not love transgressors.” (2:190). **

“Anyone who has killed another except in retaliation, it is as if he has killed the whole of humankind.” (32:5)

remember he was not involved in any military action against muslims by the kuffars
he was a poor man went their to earn a livelihood for his family

9

[QUOTE]
remember he was not involved in any military action against muslims by the kuffars
[/QUOTE]

Ya akhee, he was on their base in Balad.

He was working for them.

As I said before in another post, assissting the Kuffar army with any type of assistance is Apostacy by the agreement of all the Scholars.

It does not matter if he was a dustbin man on their bases or a soldier armed with their rifles. His act was clear apostasy! I repeat again, to ASSIST THE KUFFAR AGAINST THE MUSLIMS WITH ANY TYPE OF ASSITANCE IS AN ACT OF KUFR (DISBELIEF) WHICH REMOVES YOU FROM THE YOKE OF ISLAAM.

Give tidings to the Munaafiqoon that for them there is a painful punishment, those that take the Kafiroon as allies besides the believers. Do they seek honor with them? Verily all honor is with Allah. Surah an-Nisaa' :139.

And whoever is an ally to them (the Kuffar) among you, then, indeed, he is (one) of them. Surah al-Mai'dah :51.

And to use the excuse, he was there for a job.

It's a shame, how so many poor Kuffar refused to join in this war, but a "Muslim" goes to assisst the Kuffar.

Akhee, when he is found amongst the Kuffar in their bases, even as a bin man or a cleaner, he is a legitamate target, because he is assisting the Americans.

Akhee, this is not my "Radical" view, that I just made up from my imagination - This is the Unanimous Agreement of all the Scholars of al-Islaam.

Asistance means anything that will help the Americans. By cleaning their bases, it helps the American army, by tanslating for them it helps the American army, by driving their trucks or the trucks of the companies, your helping the intruders.

I hope you understand what I am saying.

I'm not trying to be a "Radical" or an "Extreemist".

: )

10

^ ok what ever u said is justified
he may not be a very good muslim or as u were trying to prove he may not be a muslim even . but still then how would u justify the captors if they behead him

11

[QUOTE]
Asistance means anything that will help the Americans. By cleaning their bases, it helps the American army, by tanslating for them it helps the American army, by driving their trucks or the trucks of the companies, your helping the intruders.

I'm not trying to be a "Radical" or an "Extreemist".
[/QUOTE]

What about living in a western country whose gov't and/or military has supported the US efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why shouldn't those muslims also be beheaded?

I look forward to your explanation, although you'll probably just ignore me as before so as to avoid your hypocrisy.

12

[QUOTE]
What about living in a western country whose gov't and/or military has supported the US efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan? Why shouldn't those muslims also be beheaded?
[/QUOTE]

The Muslims living in those Countries which have waged War upon Islaam, need to move out of that Country. We are not allowed to live and raise our families generation after geneartion amongst the Kuffar.

If the Mujahideen attacked these countries, and we Muslims were also attacked, the Mujahideen wouldn't be blamed for that, because it is our fault for living in these countries, especially the U.K. and U.S. Every Muslim living in these countires is a potential target.

The Prophet Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Was-Sallam freed himself from every Muslim who established himself amongst the Kuffar.

[QUOTE]
I look forward to your explanation, although you'll probably just ignore me as before so as to avoid your hypocrisy.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I don't know if I ignored you before?

When?

I don't know.

I can't remember?

:S

If I did, I apologise.

My Akhee, Sheneshah..

[QUOTE]
but still then how would u justify the captors if they behead him
[/QUOTE]

If he's an Apostate, and he is found to be an Apostate, he can be killed, beheaded or not. It's permissable. The Mujahideen are not some ignorant people who don't know anything. They learnt the rulings of Jihad, they know what is permissable and what is not. They don't do these things by their imagination lol.

: )

And if they make a mistake akhee, they will be regretting it the most out of every single person on this earth. You know why? Because that mistake will affect them the most - Not you or me.

I just find it a bit strange how people always love to bash them in, when they have no knowledge about the Rules of Warfare. If you ask these people, about the Military Expeditions of the Nabi Sallallaahu 'Alayhi Was-Sallam they could not tell you much, if anything at all - Yet they make themselves an authority in talking about Jihad and the Mujahideen based upon their defeated views out of their blatant ignorance.

By the way, ^^ that is not aimed at you Sheneshah.

Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Imam 'Abdallah Ibnul Mubarak said "In times of a dispute among the Ummah seek the opinion of the warriors in the battlefields because the truth will be with them. Allah says 'As for those who do Jihad in us, We surely guide them to Our paths'" (Surah 29:69). Majmoo' al-Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyah, Volume 28, Page 442.

The Companions done that a few times, they beheaded some Kuffar at times. And I discussed this in another post about this topic.

But, akhee, I think they may probablly let the dude go, that's what I think anyway.

But Allaah Knows Best.

13

well i am not an authority on this topic
but still then i must say something abt the military xpeditions that i know
AT we see examples from the holy prophet’s :saw: xpeditions that the prisoners of war were treated with a great attitude
like we have examples of the prisoners of Badr , they were promised to be freed if they educate muslims children … and yet not to forget the Fatah-e-Makkah every one was granted mercy

seems to be that u have been taking lectures from LeT Scholars :expressionless:

14

Who are they?

The issue of prisoners of war is a deep issue. There is a beautiful book on this topic, in 'Arabee, if you understand 'Arabic, I will send you it??

It’s called Hidayat al-Hayaraa fee Jawaaz Qatl il-Asaraa.

It’s written by Shaikh Yusuf al-'Uyayree, may Allaah have Mercy upon him - He was Martyred in “Saudia” by the Army of Fahad.

He explains it all in detail with PROOOOOF.

There are different ways to treat prisoners of war. We are allowed to let them live, negotiate with them, kill them. It’s upto the Ameer of the Muslims to decide.

I can tell you the Mujahideen in Chechnya, used to kill the Kuffar many times, instead of taking them as prisoners of war, because they didn’t have the means to fulfill the rights owed to the prisoners of war.

And likewise, in 'Iraq, the Mujahideen took these dogs, and tried to make a deal, but the Kuffar didn’t listen, so it’s permissable to kill them.

These people who they beheaded, were not treated in a Haram way. Look to what the filthy, sick, twisted Americans done with out prisoners of war. How quickly the Ummah forgets that.

The ones beheaded by the Mujahideen were not left in cold weather, in hot weather, they weren’t naked, they were fed, they were not raped, or tortured (and beheading is not torture, it’s acutally a quicker death - lol).

To behead the Kuffar in a War was actually done by the Companions and approved by the Messenger of Allaah.

http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=47&tid=48912

Also, check out this Brave and Courageous Woman from the Sahabiyat…

http://anwary-islam.com/women/m-womens_safiyah.htm

15

...

16

Alhamdulillaah Alhamdulillah Alhamdulillaah

A noble brother just give me the following article. Written by our beloved Shaikh, the Martyr, Yusuf ibn Saalih al-'Uyayree.

Enjoy : )

Guiding the Perplexed on the Permissibility of Killing the Prisoners

From Shaykh Yoosuf bin Saalih al-'Uyayri

To proceed:

Islaam came with a set of revealed legislations, delivered from above seven-heavens. In this legislation, the Legislator - subhaanah - decreed sufficiently all the matters that will come to affect the ummah. Thus Allah says, “And we revealed the book, clarifying (tibyaanan) everything”.

From amongst those matters is this issue of prisoners. This issue is not new, for it was faced by the Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa salam, and his companions and the khulafaa` thereafter, and in their actions and treatment is the greatest of guidance and wisdom for the one who seeks it.

The question is: What is the ruling on killing prisoners, and how do we reply to those who say that prisoners in Islaam are not killed but rather are either freed or ransomed, due to His saying, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam”[47:4]?

Answer: On this issue are five mathaahib (opinions):

The first is that a mushrik prisoner must be killed. No amnesty may be granted to him, nor can he be ransomed. And the ayah above is abrogated by His saying, “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.”[8:67] and; “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them”[9:5] and; “Punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson” [8:57].This is the view held by Qataadah, ad-Dahaak, as-Suddi, Ibn Jurayj and Ibn ‘Abbaas and many of the scholars of Koofa.

But this view is contradictory to what is most correct as will become clear, bi ithn illah.

The second is that all kufaar mushrikeen and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians) are to be killed. They may not be granted amnesty, nor can they be ransomed.

This view is more wide-ranging than the one before, and is narrated as the view of Qataadah and Mujaahid who said: “If a mushrik is captured, it is not permissible to grant him amnesty or to ransom him so that he may return to the mushrikeen, and it is not permissible except for the woman as she is not killed, and the (aayah) is abrogated by His saying, “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them” [9:5]. This soorah was the last to be revealed, thus it is obligatory to kill every mushrik, except the one for whom there is evidence to absolve them of this, such as the women and children, and the ones from whom jizyah is taken. This is the popular view of the mathhab of Abu Haneefah, and the logic behind it is, that by not killing such individuals, it is possible that they return to fight Islaam.

‘Abdurazzaaq (in his Musannaf) mentioned: Ma’mar informed us, from Qataadah, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam” [47:4].He said: It was abrogated by: “Punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson” [8:57].And Mujaahid said: It was abrogated by: “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them” [9:5], and this is the saying of al-Hakam.

The third it is not permissible in the case of a prisoner except to grant him amnesty or to ransom him, due to His saying, subhaanahu wa ta’ala, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam” [47:4]; and they said it was the last of what was revealed unto the Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa salam regarding the prisoners, and it provides two choices: amnesty or ransom, and it is not permissible to go beyond that. They also stated that this aayah abrogates those before it. (This saying) is narrated by ad-Dahaak and others.

ath-Thawri narrates from Juwaybir, from ad-Dahaak, “Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islaamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikoon wherever you find them” [9:5] , he said: It was abrogated by “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam” [47:4]. Ibn al-Mubaarak narrated from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Ataa` who said: “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam),”so the mushrik is not killed, but rather is either granted amnesty or ransomed, as Allah says.

al-Ash’at said: al-Hasan (al-Basri) used to hate* for the prisoner to be killed, and would recite, “Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islaam)”. He claimed that it is not for the Imaam to kill the prisoner if he captures him, but has three choices: either to grant amnesty, ransom or enslave.

This view is refuted on two folds: Firstly, due to the what the Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa aalihi wa salam did, even after the revelation of this ayah and secondly, if we were to accept that this saying is strong, then it is not an evidence against us, as the war has not laid down its burden, and the aayah mentions that as a condition, “until the war lays down its burden.” [47:4]**. So there is no evidence possessed by these people.

Continued in the next thread...

17

"Asistance means anything that will help the Americans. By cleaning their bases, it helps the American army, by tanslating for them it helps the American army, by driving their trucks or the trucks of the companies, your helping the intruders."

So, if fair is fair, anyone helping a Muslim who fights against the Americans is also a fair target? His wife who cooks for him, his children who do chores, the merchants in town who provide his provisions, the mullahs who encourage him, and anyone who shelters or protects him?

You can't have it both ways. if those are the rules that you will fight by, then you must live with the consequences of your rules?

And ironically we sit here and argue about the Geneva convention, when our opponents are saying: "and he is found to be an Apostate, he can be killed, beheaded or not. It's permissable."

18

The fourth is that amnesty and ransom are possible only after the killing of a large number, due to His saying: “It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land.”[8:67] So if he was imprisoned after that, then the Imaam has a choice to kill him or (do) otherwise. This is the view of Sa’eed bin Jubayr.

The fifth is that the Imaam or someone acting on his behalf, can choose between killing, amnesty, ransom or enslaving the prisoner. This is the view of Maalik, ash-Shafi’ee, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars. It is the saying supported by the evidences, and does not cause them to (appear) contradictory, and we do not need to resort to accepting the statement regarding abrogation in this case.

al-Imaam al-Qurtubi says in explanation of this aayah that there are five views [as mentioned above], and added: “The ayaat are decisive (muhkama) and the Imaam has a choice in every case. This is narrated by ‘Ali bin Abi Talhah from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and it was said by many scholars from them Ibn ‘Umar, al-Hasan, ‘Ataaand it is the mathhab of Maalik, ash-Shafi’ee, ath-Thawri, al-Awzaa’i and Abi ‘Ubayd and other than them, and it is the choice (of mine). For the Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam, the righteous khulafaa did all that. The Messenger, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam killed ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu’eet and an-Nidr bin al-Haarith on the day of Badr, and ransomed the rest of the captives. He granted amnesty to Thumaama bin Athaal al-Hanafi, whilst he was a prisoner, and took from Salamah bin al-Awka’ a female-slave, and freed by her some of the Muslims. A group of the people of Makkah entered on his (territory), so he took them, sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam and granted them amnesty. He also granted amnesty to the slaves of (the tribe of) Hawaazin and all this is established from the Saheeh. This view is narrated by the people of Madeenah, ash-Shafi’ee, Abi ‘Ubayd, and at-Tahaawi stated that it is a mathhab of Abi Haneefah, but what was mentioned earlier is what is more known (about his view) on this matter, and with Allah ‘azza wa jall lies Allah success”.

al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah says in al-Fataawa [34/116]: “The Imaam has a choice with the prisoners to kill, enslave, ransom or grant amnesty. So it is up to him to decide what is better for the benefit of the Muslims.”

al-Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim says in Zaad al-Ma’aad [3/109]: “He - sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam - used to grant amnesty to some, and kill some, and ransom some for money and others for other prisoners of the Muslims, and he did all that in accordance with the benefit of the Muslims,” and then he mentioned the evidences for each.

al’Atheem Abaadi said in ‘Awn al-Ma’bood [7/247-248]: “Chapter: Killing the prisoner and he is not offered Islaam. The Prophet sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam granted security (when he entered Makkah) to all except four and two women and he said regarding them, ‘Kill them, even if they were holding unto the curtains of the Ka’bah’, (they were) ‘Ikrimah bin Abi Jahl, ‘Abdullah bin Khatal, Muqees bin Subaabah and ‘Abdullah bin Sa’d bin Abi Sarh”.

al-Imaam as-Sarkhasi said in al-Mabsoot [10/137-138]: “And I asked him - Abu Haneefah - regarding a man who captures a man from the enemies, is it (permissible) for him to kill him, or must he bring him to the Imaam? He said: Whichever of those is good. And when Ummayah bin Khalf was killed after he was captured at Badr, the Messenger sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam did not admonish those who killed him, but if he brings him to the Imaam it would be better, as it is a preservation of the significance (hurmah) of the Imaam, but the first (option) is better in showing harshness on the mushrikeen and weakening of them. So it is incumbent on him to choose what is better and more benefitial for the Muslims."

See also: al-Jasaas in Ahkaam al-Quraan [5/268-270]; Ibn Katheer in his Tafseer [4/174]; Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughni [9/179-180]; Ibn Hajr in Fath al-Baari [6/151-152], as-Suyooti in al-Ashbaah wan-Nathaair [1/121], al-Kaasaani in Badaai as-Sanaa`i [7/11]; ash-Shawkaani in Nayl al-Awtaar [8/145-147], and al-Mubaarakpoori in Tuhfat al-Ahwathi [5/158].

And Allah Knows Best and may Allah send His peace and blessings upon Muhammed, and upon whoever follows Him until the Day of Judgement.

Footnotes:

(*)As mentioned by al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, and Abu Ishaaq ash-Shaatibi in al-I’tisaam when al-ikraah is mentioned in the terminology of the scholars of the Salaf, it implies prohibition (tahreem).

(**)Check the ayah fully, to understand.

19

All of the sudden I don't feel so bad about Abu Graib anymore!

20

At-Tawheed, no offence, sir, but seems that you are way over-qualified for this forum. I am not sure what exactly is your point so kindly explain it briefly in simple words so mere mortals can understand.

What some may understand from your long C&P is that all Prisoners of War should be killed by the muslims, or at a minimum a large number of them must be killed first before one starts thinking about amnesty or ransom.

Is that what you are saying?