Posted on 09/15/2014 7:42:54 AM PDT by SJackson
Four American noncombatants have been beheaded by Islamic fanatics, and the videos of their murders brazenly circulated over the internet for the world to witness. Another Westerner – David Cawthorne Haines, a security expert hired by international aid organizations – faces the same gruesome fate.
Why do they behead us?
The question goes to the method, not the motive, of the madness. Murderers’ motives don’t matter much in the Middle East. In local eyes, there are so many causes to kill for, and so many victims deserving death. But assuming one is inclined to butcher, why do so by the particularly peculiar method of beheading? Why not butcher by shooting, or by hanging, or by detonation?
This is, to put it mildly, a grim inquiry. But it is worth the trouble to explore. For the answer may tell us something about the nature of the evil we face.
Others have asked the same question and come up with their own theories. David Brooks of the New York Times believes Islamic fanatics choose beheading because the act represents a defilement of something sacred: the human body.
A beheading … is not just an injury or a crime. It is an indignity. A beheading is more like rape, castration or cannibalism. It is a defacement of something sacred that should be inviolable. ….We’re repulsed by a beheading because the body has a spiritual essence. The human head and body don’t just live and pass along genes. They paint, make ethical judgments, savor the beauty of a sunset and experience the transcendent. The body is material but surpasses the material. It’s spiritualized matter.
Brooks’ observations are eloquent, but they are not persuasive. The Islamic fanatics hold no monopoly on beheading. Until 1981, the sole method of execution allowed in France was the guillotine, which was viewed, at the time of its adoption during the Revolution, as “humane” (it was quick) and “democratic” (it was administered to aristocrats and peasants alike).
And contrary to Brooks, any method of execution – not just beheading – is an indignity and a defacement of the human body. For there is no way to snuff out a human life without doing grievous injury to the body. Hanging breaks the spinal cord. Shooting shreds vital organs. Even the supposedly “civilized” method of lethal injection defiles the body; it paralyzes the lungs and diaphragm, rendering the condemned unable to breathe.
Michael Rubin, writing in Commentary Magazine’s online blog, believes that the answer lies in the Qur’an. He cites sura (chapter) 47, containing this ayah (verse): “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” He cites other scholars who have explained that the Qur’anic injunction to “strike at the necks” of non-Muslims means that no prisoners should be taken until the enemy has been completely crushed.
This theory too has some merit, but ultimately it does not fully answer the question. First, the Quar’anic passages cited by Rubin apply to enemies on the battlefield, not to civilians. Neither Pearl nor Berg nor Foley nor Sotloff was a combatant. Berg was a freelance radio tower repairman and the others were journalists. Second, the beheadings have not been limited to non-Muslims. Indeed, most victims have been Muslims. In Syria, ISIS murderers are beheading their co-religionists. On the other side, the Free Syrian Army, backed by the United States, has beheaded their fellow Muslim ISIS prisoners. So religious doctrine fails to provide a complete answer.
Explaining why Islamic fundamentalists behead us requires a deeper look into this dark subject. It requires examining the relationship between the executioner and the executed, and their strange and ancient mutual obligations.
An executioner – whether employed by a state, or a religious movement – must believe that he is not a common murderer. He must believe that his act of homicide deserves some kind of legal or moral sanction, and is not merely a callous act of violence. The best way to secure that sanction is to enlist the condemned in the process of his own death.
In many places, this involves allowing the condemned to have a say in the manner of his execution. In a number of American states, the law grants, or until recently, has granted, death row prisoners choices. Convicts in Alabama, Arkansas (convicted before 1988), Florida, Kentucky (1998), South Carolina, Tennessee (1998), and Virginia can choose between lethal injection and electrocution. Convicts in Arizona (convicted before 1992), California, Maryland (1994), and Missouri can choose between lethal injection and lethal gas. Convicts in Delaware (convicted before 1986) and Washington can choose between lethal injection and hanging. Convicts in Utah, until 2004, could choose between lethal injection and the firing squad.
Allowing choice is not an act of benevolence. Rather, it is an act of transformation. It elevates the process of execution above that of common murder. For a common murderer allows no such options to his victim.
Another obligation between executioner and condemned is the custom of granting the right to choose a last meal. This ritual finds its origin in the traditional code of conduct between guest and host. By accepting food from his host, the guest agrees to a state of peace. He agrees to forego violence or vengeance. Similarly, by choosing and accepting his last meal, the convict symbolically makes peace with his executioner, and forswears vengeance from beyond the grave.
The last meal tradition is widespread, provided even to the most odious criminals. The Israelis followed it before hanging Adolf Eichmann, the Nazi mass murderer. He declined the offer of a special meal, preferring instead a bottle of Carmel, a dry red Israeli wine. He drank about half of it.
It hardly needs saying that observance of these obligations does not placate the condemned. He may go to his death hating his executioner, and bitterly resenting his fate. He may fervently wish that he could turn the tables, and kill his killer. But even if he does not agree that his executioner is meting out justice, he must concede that his executioner thinks that he is meting out justice. Thus, even the condemned is unlikely to consider his executioner a mere murderer.
When officers of civilized states carry out a sentence of execution, the process is designed to convey this message to the world:
This condemned man deserves to die. His sentence has been delivered and is being implemented in accordance with a set of legal and moral principles. The condemned man may hate and curse us for executing him. But by witnessing and participating in the rituals surrounding his death, he has acknowledged that we, his executioners, are trying to do justice, at least by our lights. Therefore, even if we are wrong, we are not mere murderers.
Those who decapitated Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, James Foley, and Steven Sotloff, on the other hand, had no interest in observing any mutual obligations between themselves and the condemned. They allowed them no say in the manner of their execution. On the contrary, they selected a method as alien as possible, because, for these butchers, there was no need to persuade the world of anything, not even that that their victims deserved to die. Note that in the speeches written by the executioners and recited by their victims under duress shortly before their deaths, there were no arguments to show that the men were guilty or that they deserved their fate.
When Islamic fundamentalists behead Western civilians, and publicize their grisly acts to the world, their process is designed to convey this message to the world:
These condemned men do not deserve to die. They have done nothing wrong. Yet we kill them anyway, and we do so in our own way, without any pretense of any relationship between us. We do not recognize any mutual obligations between us and our victims. We do not seek their sanction, nor do we seek the world’s. We do not pretend to care about justice. We kill because we can.
Theirs is a message intended not to pacify, but to terrify. It is highly doubtful any of these murderers ever read Percy Bysshe Shelley, but if they did, they might be tempted to paraphrase his poem Ozymandias, set, like the executions, in the desert, and to point to the severed heads and tell us: “Look on my works, oh ye moral, and despair!”
Kind of like the what the Iroquois and Algonquians use to do to do to their captives, men and women.
....................................................
The book I read said the Moslems made a Jewish Butcher do the flaying of Bragadino. In 1580 the skin was stolen from Constantinople and brought to Venice. But the Moslems of that time were probably not Moslems any more than ISIS/ISIF/IS are Moslems of today./sarc/
“The skin was preserved first in the church of San Gregorio, then interred with full honors in the Basilica di San Giovanni e Paolo,[5] where it still is.” Wikipedia
There is a good reason for the Dracula story and its name is islam.
ok, sorry my sarcasm detector doesnt work very well sometimes
They do it to show they can do whatever they want, and to show they don’t need to accept Western morality or “rules of engagement” or logic or any other standard of behavior connected with the WestThe author said
These condemned men do not deserve to die. They have done nothing wrong. Yet we kill them anyway, and we do so in our own way, without any pretense of any relationship between us. We do not recognize any mutual obligations between us and our victims. We do not seek their sanction, nor do we seek the world’s. We do not pretend to care about justice. We kill because we can.And I agree with you both. They're expressing their rejection of the west, and their belief they will prevail over western values.
I'm not rejecting the Islamic support for beheading mentioned by many on the thread. But the Islam connection is the need for dominance over the infidel. Beheading is simply a means which gets our attention. You'll recall the burning and hanging of bodies in Iraq a decade or so. Got some play in the media, but nothing like this. If it had, they'd be burning journalists. Recall the War of Jenkins' Ear. If it could attract the attention they need for recruiting they'd be chopping off ears. They're sending us a message
“Behead Us”? Siskind can speak for himself but not for me. Our journalists should go armed to the teeth or no story. Otherwise, their heads become the story.
Cause and effect...
Revelation 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Yeshua and for the word of ELoHIM, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Moshiach for a thousand years.
Mark in the forehead...
Quran
Surat Al-Fatĥ
48:29 Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah ; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark is on their faces from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers - so that Allah may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.
You get marked in the forehead from bowing to Mecca...
Journalist Once Held by Islamic State Militants Reveals Why He Believes Beheading Victims Appeared So Calm Before Their Deaths
Sep. 16, 2014 10:15am Billy Hallowell
One of the many elements surrounding the Islamic State’s horrific beheadings has been questions surrounding why — and how — the victims appear so calm just seconds before dying.
A French journalist who was once held by the terror group believes that the captives likely didn’t realize what was about to happen.
Europe 1 radio reporter Didier Francois, 53, who was released earlier this year after 10 months of confinement with the Islamic State, said that militants put captives through a number of mock executions and, as a result, they were worn down and didn’t know what was to come, according to the Daily Mail.
“They did not realise that this time it was the real thing,” he said.
Francois claimed last month that he saw James Foley, an American journalist with whom he was detained, being forced to stand against a wall and pose as though “he had been crucified” before his death.
Observers have also pondered how the three victims — British aid worker David Haines and American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff — remained composed in light of their horrific circumstances, which were recorded by the terror group.
“All three men have appeared to display a quiet acceptance of their fate, leading to speculation that they either did not realise what awaited them or, that after a long and desperate confinement, any release was preferable to remaining in the hands of their tormentors,” the Guardian’s Martin Chulov wrote Sunday.
One diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Chulov that the victims appeared to be used to being tortured and threatened with death.
“It seems to me that each of those poor men had been used to mock executions,” he said. “They had been forced to do this sort of thing before. This is how depraved this group is.”
As for Francois, who was held for 10 months and released in April, he initially remained silent upon returning, keeping quiet for the sake of his former fellow prisoners.
“I never spoke about it publicly because the kidnappers had threatened reprisals on the remaining hostages if we spoke,” Francois said in a recent interview. “We contacted the families of the kidnapped and the American authorities, but publicly we decided to keep quiet
They do it for the same reason the Japanese did it - to induce terror and to compel surrender. And it works.
Because they are genetic throwbacks and socially retrograde.
This IS the 21’s century and yet, not one of THEM could score above two digits on an IQ measure that any 12 year old in the US would ace.
Instilling fear is one. But ‘War Trophies’ is the other. Displaying body parts of the enemy publicly is a very old practice. Visually & symbollically, the head of a dead enemy sends a particularly powerful message. War trophies are actually banned by (western) military law.
Remember who the Muslims worship, the one whom Jesus said was “from the begining a liar, a thief, and a murderer”.
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.