Muhammad’s Tribe of Violent Killers

mohammed-with-sword.jpg
Archive Photos, Getty Images A 19th-century illustration of the Prophet Muhammad and his followers circa 620 AD.

Philip Carl Salzman is professor of anthropology at McGill University. This article is drawn from his forthcoming book, Culture and Conflict in the Middle East (Humanity Books).

I decided to run this article as it shows a brief history of the minions.
It includes a picture of the murderer mohammed which violates the Islamic edict against showing his image.
It hints that muslims are still violent tribesman.

I have not read the book and doubt I will find much that would surprise me but I will read it anyway, just because it will start a riot somewhere.

Why did the Muslim Middle East become so violent? Philip Carl Salzman explains how Bedouin politics became embedded in modern Islamic sociology

Philip Carl Salzman, January 10, 2008 National Post

Today’s religious map of the Middle East traces to the unification of the Arabian tribes under the banner of Islam in the 7th century, and their subsequent conquest of much of the known world. Muhammad’s genius was in finding a way to unite the myriad of fissiparous, feuding Bedouin tribes of northern Arabia into a cohesive polity. Just as he had provided a constitution of rules under which the people of Medina could live together, so he provided a constitution for all Arabs, but this one had the imprimatur not just of Muhammad, but of God. Submission — Islam — to God and His rules, spelled out in the Koran, bound Arabian tribesmen into the community of believers, the umma.

Building on the tribal system of “balanced opposition” — the subject of yesterday’s essay — Muhammad was able to frame an inclusive structure within which the tribes had a common, God-given identity as Muslims. But unification was only possible by creating a tribalized enemy against which Muslims could make common cause.

This Muhammad did by opposing Muslims against infidels; and the dar al-Islam, the land of Islam and peace, against the dar al-harb, the land of infidels and conflict. Through the precepts of Islam, traditional Bedouin raiding was sanctified as an act of religious duty.

With every successful battle against local unbelievers, especially after the critical early battle against the Meccans, more Bedouin joined the umma. Once united, the Bedouin warriors of the umma turned outward, teaching the world the meaning of jihad, holy war. The rest, as they say, is history.

The Arabs, in lightning thrusts, challenged and beat the Byzantines to the north and the Persians to the east, both weakened by their continuous wars with one another, thus imposing their control over the Christian majority in the Levant and the Zoroastrian majority in Persia, and therefore over the entire Middle East. These stunning successes were rapidly followed by conquests of Christian and Jewish populations in Egypt, Libya and North Africa’s Maghreb (Arabic for “the West”), and, in the east, central Asia and the Hindu population of northern India. Not content with these triumphs, Arab armies invaded and subdued much of Christian Spain and Portugal, and all of Sicily. Since the Roman Empire, the world had not seen such power and reach. All fell before the Saracen blades.

Most accounts of Islamic history, even that of the Lindholm’s esteemed The Islamic Middle East, glide over these conquests, as if they were friendly takeovers. But the truth was very different.

The evidence is overwhelming that vast numbers of infidel male warriors and civilians were slain, and that most of those spared, particularly the women and children, were enslaved for domestic and sexual servitude. While men who willingly converted were spared, their wives and children were taken as slaves. In conquered regions, children were regularly taken from parents, while on the borders — especially in Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Africa south of the Sahara — raiding for slaves was normal practice. Of the male slaves, a substantial number were made eunuchs by the removal of sex organs, in order to serve in harems. This account of the Arab campaign in northern India illustrates the usual procedures:

“During the Arab invasion of Sindh (712 CE), Muhammad bin Qasim first attacked Debal. It was garrisoned by 4,000 Kshatriya soldiers and served by 3,000 Brahmans. All males of the age of 17 and upwards were put to the sword and their women and children were enslaved. “[Seven hundred]

beautiful females, who were under the protection of Budh (that is, had taken shelter in the temple), were all captured with their valuable ornaments, and clothes adorned with jewels.” Muhammad dispatched one-fifth of the legal spoil to Hajjaj, which included 75 damsels, the other four-fifths were distributed among soldiers.”

The multitude of reports from Muslim, indigenous and other sources of the Islamic conquests are equally detailed and equally daunting to a modern reader. It is true that throughout history intergroup relations in most of the world were exploitative and repressive, and not infrequently brutal and bloodthirsty. The world of Islam was not so much an exception to this, as exemplary of it.

The theological foundation of the Arab Empire was the supremacy of Islam and the obligation of each Muslim to advance its domination. The notion of Jihad, in particular, served to establish the Muslim community’s permanent state of war against the dar al-harb until the infidels’ conclusive submission and the absolute world supremacy of Islam.

Yet even as Islamic armies were coming to dominate the known world, fissures emerged within Islam, which would give rise to the bloody internecine battles that continue to this day in Iraq and elsewhere.

Most notably, the relentless oppositions within tribal life have been reflected on a large scale in the battles between Sunni vs. Shiite, a battle originating in a squabble between closely related kin groups over the leadership of the Islamic empire following Muhammad’s death. Their divergent philosophical orientations are based on two tribal principles: Sunnism recognizes leaders based on consent; Shiism recognizes leaders based on descent. The continued anatagonism between the two groups constitutes one of the many ways in which the tribal spirit continues its dominance in the Middle East.

Explore posts in the same categories: Analysis, Jihad, know your enemy, muslim Intolerance, Radical Islam

51 Comments on “Muhammad’s Tribe of Violent Killers”

  1. islams not for me Says:

    Iyash

    Muslims who commit violence, acts of treason and worse follow after muhammads examples in the quran and hadiths.

    Or dont you know islams history?

    http://www.historyofjihad.com/

    QURAN’S PROTOCOLS FOR TOTAL WAR

    http://inthenameofallah.org/Total%20War.html

    PART 1 – THE ARABIAN PENINSULA
    PART 2 – PREISLAMIC ARABIA
    PART 3 – MUHAMMAD

    http://inthenameofallah.org/history.html

    http://inthenameofallah.org/preislamicarabia.html

    http://inthenameofallah.org/muhammad.html

  2. Truth Guy Says:

    The muslims are hating xenophobic abhorrent pieces of shit. Buncha pedophile worshiping fools.

  3. tgusa Says:

    “Now brother will betray brother to death,
    and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death.

    And you will be hated by all men for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved.’”
    Mark 13:12-13

    You first. http://www.biblegateway.com

  4. islams not for me Says:

    Actually the Christian Bible tells its followers to follow Jesus.

    The Torah tells its followers to follow the Law of Moses.

    The quran tells its followers that both groups are not part of God anymore and that thier Holy Books are done away with.

    See: 2:104-112 Torah and Gospels Abrogated

    This of course means that moslems are ‘supposed’ to be the newest people of God.

    However what good are moslems when they end up killing innocent people that are both moslem and non moslem.

  5. islams not for me Says:

    Moslems who follow muhammad are following a dead individual who claims to be a prophet like Moses, Jesus and so forth. However muhammad had no spiritual powers. Moses and Jesus had abilities that muhammad did not have.

    The god of muhammad ‘allah’ is named after the pagan god of muhammads grandpa or dont you know islams history?

  6. islams not for me Says:

    It would appear so ‘friend’ they dont bother to check the facts / history of thier system.


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 185 other followers

%d bloggers like this: