Tag Archive for: torture

Hamas on October 7th: The Teachings of Islam on Display — Part 1

/in , , , , , , , /by

On October 7, 2023, at about 6:30 AM, Hamas jihadists attacked Israel.  These jihadists killed people attending an open-air music festival and people who lived in the Israeli communities close to the border.

By the time the Israeli military regained control of the affected areas in southern Israel, more than a thousand people – mostly civilians – had been killed, hundreds of houses looted and burned, and more than 230 men, women, and children taken hostage.[1]

The Hamas jihadists also displayed a callous savagery toward the people they engaged.  Among the atrocities committed by these Hamas jihadists were:

  • Beheadings
  • Burning People Alive
  • Killing Non-Combatants/Disbelievers
  • Killing Women and Children
  • Mutilations
  • Rape of Non-Muslim Women
  • Torture

There has been a great amount of outrage expressed about these atrocities.  However, there has also been a large amount of support expressed for the Hamas jihadists.  This support is found largely on college campuses and among Muslim populations.

Unfortunately, such support among Muslim populations should not be surprising.  The Hamas jihadists were following the commands of Allah found in the Koran and the teachings and example of Muhammad, Islam’s Perfect Man and a timeless example that Muslims are expected to follow if they want Allah to admit them into Paradise (see Koran Chapter 33, Verse 21).

The jihadists’ attitude toward the Jews were formed by teachings of Islam such as these:

Koran Chapter 5, Verse 51:  O you who believe!  Take not the Jews and the Christians as Auliya’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Auliya’ of each other. 

Koran Chapter 5, Verse 82:  Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun,

Koran Chapter 9, Verse 30:  And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah.  That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime.  Allah’s curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!

It was narrated from ‘Amr bin Shu’aib, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Messenger of Allah ruled that the blood money for the People of the Book is half of that of the blood money for the Muslims, and they are the Jews and Christians.[2]

Narrated Abu Hurairah: Allah’s Messenger said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight against the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, ‘O Muslim!  There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.’”[3]

And why were the Hamas jihadists following Allah and Muhammad?  Because the Koran commands them to do so, for example:

Chapter 33, Verse 36:  It is not for a believer [Muslim], man or woman, when Allah and His Messenger, have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision.  And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed into a plain error.

Chapter 59, Verse 7:  …And whatsoever the Messenger (Muhammad) gives you, take it; and whatsoever he forbids you, abstain (from it).  And fear Allah; verily, Allah is Severe in punishment.

Chapter 4, Verse 115:  And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination!

Each of the atrocities listed above is supported by the commands of Allah found in the Koran and/or the teachings and example of Muhammad.  Let’s examine each atrocity.

Rape of Non-Muslim Women

Islam allows the rape of non-Muslim women.  A non-Muslim woman captured by Muslims during a battle falls under the category of those “whom your right hands possess.”  She then becomes a slave to her Muslim captor and it becomes “legal” for him to have intercourse with her.  This is authorized by Koran 4:24, which begins by talking about how Muslim men are forbidden from marrying (and having sex with) women who are already married, but then makes an important exception:

…except those (slaves) whom your right hands possess.  Thus has Allah ordained for you…

The Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir explained the meaning of this verse:

The Ayah [verse] means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, (except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant.  Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands.  So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed…Consequently we had sexual relations with these women.”[4]

So instead of Muhammad prohibiting his Muslim warriors from raping the women they had captured in the area of Awtas, Koran 4:24 was “revealed” to him giving his Muslim warriors Allah’s authorization to also actually go ahead and rape them.

Muhammad’s attitude about how captured non-Muslim women could be treated was shown again in another eye-opening example in which Muhammad condoned the rape of female captives from the non-Muslim Mustaliq tribe.

In this story about the Mustaliq tribe we shall see that the only problem to be resolved was whether or not the ransom the Muslims were expecting for these particular female captives would be affected if those captives were returned pregnant.  In response to the question from his Muslim warriors about whether they should therefore engage in coitus interruptus with their soon-to-be rape victims, Muhammad, instead of prohibiting the rapes, merely said that coitus interruptus would not matter because every soul that was destined to be born would be born:

Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id Al Khudri (Allah he pleased with him): O Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (SAW) mentioning al-‘azl [coitus interruptus]? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (SAW) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq.  We took captive some excellent Arab women.  We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl…But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (SAW), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.[5]

So Muhammad gave his approval to the rape of these “excellent Arab women.”  It is an interesting side note that coitus interruptus was one of the “ten characteristics” that Muhammad disliked.[6]

It should therefore come as no surprise that the founders of the four major Sunni schools of Islamic Sacred Law agreed that

…when a married woman becomes a prisoner of war without her husband, her contract of marriage with her husband ends, and her new master has the right to have sexual relations with her after the birth of a child if she is pregnant, or after waiting a while to confirm the status of her womb if she is not apparently pregnant.[7]

Has there been any change in the understanding of this verse over the centuries?  The answer is “No.”  The 20th century Koran commentary Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan explained Koran 4:24 this way:

The historical background of the verse is that when pagan women were captured by Muslims in battles, they disliked having intercourse with them because they had husbands.  The Companions asked the Messenger of Allah about it.  Thereupon, this verse was revealed.  The verse allowed the Muslims to have intercourse with pagan women if they were captured in battles even if they had husbands, providing their wombs have been cleansed, that is, after one menses or, in case they are pregnant, after the delivery of the child.[8]

Although it is claimed that the Muslim warrior is not allowed to rape his captive until he has waited to make sure that she is not pregnant, as we saw above this was ignored even in Muhammad’s time.  Here are additional examples of Muhammad handing out newly captured non-Muslim women to his Muslim warriors:

  1. After the defeat of the Jewish Banu Qurayzah tribe, Muhammad divided up that tribe’s “property, wives, and children” among the Muslims, with the exception of some of the women that he sent to Najd and to Syria to be sold for horses and weapons.[9]
  2. After the defeat of the Jews at Khaybar, Muhammad had the women of Khaybar “distributed among the Muslims.”[10]
  3. After the non-Muslim Hawazin tribe was defeated, Muhammad gave Ali, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman (all later “Rightly Guided” Caliphs) each a woman from among those captured.  ‘Umar then gave his to his son.[11]  Muhammad gave other “slave girls” to some of his Muslim warriors, who, along with ‘Uthman, then had “intercourse” with their slaves.  It was reported that ‘Uthman’s slave-girl “detested him” after the “intercourse.”[12]

So we can see that the commands of Allah in the Koran and the teachings and example of Muhammad fully support the raping of non-Muslim women by the HAMAS jihadists.

Ibn Salih Al-Uthaymin, a 20th century Muslim scholar, summed it up well:

But if the dividing (of the Ghanimah) [spoils of war] takes place, and the woman from them ends up as a slave woman, then she becomes property of the right hand.  The person can have intercourse with her as a right hand possession, which is permissible and there is nothing wrong with this.[13]

On October 7th Hamas jihadists were committed to following those commands of Allah and those teachings and example of Muhammad.

Haim Outmezgine, commander of a special unit of Zaka, which collects the remains of the dead, told The Sunday Times it was clear Hamas terrorists aimed to sexually assault women.

“We collected 1,000 bodies in ten days from the festival site and kibbutzim,” he said.

“No one saw more than us. It was clear they were trying to spread as much horror as they could — to kill, to burn alive, to rape … it seemed their mission was to rape as many as possible.”[14]

Israeli officials pointed to a Hamas pamphlet discovered on Nov. 2 that gives detailed instructions about how to pronounce phrases in Hebrew including “raise your hands and open your legs” and “take off your pants.”

During interrogations, captured Hamas militants talked about raping women and children as a Hamas tactic of war. “To have our way with them, to dirty them, to rape them,” said one Hamas militant during a videotaped interrogation.[15]

Killing Women and Children

It is commonly claimed that Muhammad had issued a general prohibition against the killing of women and children, and that this was established Islamic Doctrine.  There are two popular hadiths that are often used to support this claim:

It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him.  He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah.  Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah.  Make a holy war… do not kill the children.[16]

And

Ibn ‘Umar narrated that a woman was found killed in one of the expeditions of the Messenger of Allah, so the Messenger of Allah rebuked that, and he prohibited killing women and children.[17]

So according to the first hadith, whenever Muhammad appointed anyone to lead a Muslim army or detachment, he would issue an order that children were not to be killed.  And the second hadith states that Muhammad prohibited the general killing of women and children.

However, Muhammad never issued such sweeping prohibitions.

For example, when it came to women criticizing him, Muhammad had no problem with such women being killed:

  1. “Ibn ‘Abbas told us that a blind man had a female slave…who reviled the Prophet and disparaged him, and he told her not to do that, but she did not stop…One night she started to disparage and revile the Prophet, so he took a dagger and put it in her stomach and pressed on it and killed her…The next morning mention of that was made to the Prophet and he assembled the people and said: ‘By Allah, I adjure the man who did this, to stand up.’ The blind man stood up…and he came and sat before the Prophet.  He said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, I am the one who did it.  She used to revile you and disparage you, and I told her not to do it, but she did not stop…Last night she started to revile you and disparage you, and I took a dagger and placed it on her stomach and I pressed on it until I killed her.’  The Prophet said: ‘Bear witness that no retaliation is due for her blood.’”[18]
  2. It was narrated from ‘Ali that a Jewish woman used to revile and disparage the Prophet. A man strangled her until she died, and the Messenger of Allah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.[19]

And when the actions of Muhammad are examined chronologically, one finds that instead of it being a general, all-encompassing prohibition issued by Muhammad, and therefore an established part of Islamic doctrine, the prohibition against the killing of women and children was a specific, situational prohibition based on Muhammad’s judgment at the time.  At other times he actually advocated for or allowed the killing of women and children.

For the details about this, see my article “Muhammad and the Killing of Women and Children.”[20]

On to Part 2

In Part 2 we will examine more of the atrocities committed by the HAMAS jihadists.

AUTHOR

STEPHEN M. KIRBY

Dr. Stephen M. Kirby is the author of six books about Islam. His latest book is Islamic Doctrine versus the U.S. Constitution: The Dilemma for Muslim Public Officials.

SOURCES:

[1]           “Interview: Building the Evidence for Crimes Committed in Israel on October 7,” Human Rights Watch, January 31, 2024, https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/31/interview-building-evidence-crimes-committed-israel-october-7.

[2]           Muhammad bin Yazeed ibn Majah al-Qazwini, Sunan Ibn Majah, trans. Nasiruddin al-Khattab (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 3, No. 2644, p. 521.

[3]           Muhammad bin Ismail bin Al-Mughirah al-Bukhari, Sahih Al-Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 1997), Vol. 4, Book 56, No. 2926,  p. 113.  In another hadith Muhammad said that the Jews would hide behind stones and trees, and these stones and trees would call out,

Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

Abu’l Hussain ‘Asakir-ud-Din Muslim bin Hajjaj al-Qushayri al-Naisaburi, Sahih Muslim, trans. ‘Abdul Hamid Siddiqi (New Delhi, India: Adam Publishers and Distributors, 2008),Vol. 8, No. 2922, p. 349.

[4]           Abu al-Fida’ ‘Imad Ad-Din Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir al-Qurashi Al-Busrawi, Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), abr. Shaykh Safiur-Rahman al-Mubarakpuri, trans. Jalal Abualrub, et al. (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2000), Vol. 2, p. 422.

[5]           Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, No. 1438, p. 373.

[6]           Abu Dawud Sulaiman bin al-Ash’ath bin Ishaq, Sunan Abu Dawud, trans. Yaser Qadhi (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2008),Vol. 4, No. 4222, p. 474.

[7]           Abu ‘Eisa Mohammad ibn ‘Eisa at-Tirmidhi, Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, trans. Abu Khaliyl (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2007), Vol. 2, Comments to Hadith No. 1132, p. 503.

[8]           Salahuddin Yusuf, Tafsir Ahsanul-Bayan, trans. Mohammad Kamal Myshkat (Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Darussalam, 2010, 2012 and 2013), Vol. 1, pp. 441-442.

[9]           Muhammad ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad (Sirat Rasul Allah), trans. Alfred Guillaume (Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press, 2007),  p. 466.

[10]         Ibid., p. 511.

[11]         Ibid., p. 593.

[12]         Muhammad b. ‘Umar al-Waqidi, The Life of Muhammad: Al-Waqidi’s Kitab al-Maghazi, trans. Rizwi Faizer, Amal Ismail, and AbdulKader Tayob, ed. Rizwi Faizer (London and New York: Routledge, 2013), p. 462.

[13]         The Clarification Regarding Intentionally Targetting Women and Children, At-Tibyan Publications, October 31, 2004, p. 73.

[14]         “Hamas gang raped and beheaded women at rave massacre, fresh testimony reveals,” The Jewish Chronicle, December 3, 2023, https://www.thejc.com/news/israel/Hamas-gang-raped-and-beheaded-women-at-rave-massacre-fresh-testimony-reveals-blp0ghdl.

[15]         Anna Schecter, “Their bodies tell their stories. They’re not alive to speak for themselves.,” NBC News, December 5, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/Hamas-rape-israeli-women-oct-7-rcna128221.

[16]         Sahih Muslim, Vol. 5, No. 1731R1, pp. 162-163.

[17]         Jami’ At-Tirmidhi, Vol. 3, No. 1569, pp. 341-342.

[18]         Sunan Abu Dawud, Vol. 5, No. 4361, pp. 20-21.

[19]         Ibid., No. 4362, p. 21.

[20]         Stephen M. Kirby, “Muhammad and the Killing of Women and Children,” Jihad Watch, February 23, 2021, https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/02/muhammad-and-the-killing-of-women-and-children.

Israeli Doctor Treating Released Hostages Suffering From ‘Unprecedented Level of Extremely Severe Abuse, We Have to Rewrite the Textbooks of Post-Trauma’

/in , , , , , , , /by

How does one see unimaginable depravity up close and not be forever marred by it?

Pediatrician treating freed hostages: Reports of their good condition are misleading

Dr. Yael Mozer-Glassberg provides new details about physical and psychological states of 19 children and seven women brought to Schneider Children’s Medical Center

By Renee Ghert-Zand, Times of Israel, 4 December 2023:

Dr. Yael Mozer-Glassberg, director of Israel’s pediatric liver transplantation service at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, has seen some difficult things in her 25-year career. However, nothing in her experience prepared her for treating Israeli hostages freed from Gaza after nearly two months in captivity.

“From the medical point of view, this was a terrible event. Reports that everyone is giving that the returnees are in more or less stable condition are not true,” Mozer-Glassberg.

Without breaching privacy about the conditions and experiences of specific hostages, she divulged in an online press conference Monday some new details.

Mozer-Glassberg is part of a team of six female physicians, as well as nutritionists, psychologists, and social workers who have attended to the 19 children, and seven women who were brought to Schneider after being released from Hamas captivity in a deal brokered by Qatar and Egypt with American backing.

On October 7, Hamas breached the border with Israel and attacked more than 20 towns, kibbutzim, and IDF bases. The onslaught resulted in terrorists murdering more than 1,200 people and taking some 240 hostage to Gaza.

Like dedicated teams at several other Israeli hospitals, Mozer-Glassberg and her colleagues began preparing as early as October 8 to provide initial treatment to returnees, using protocols created by the Health Ministry and the Welfare Ministry.

Mozer-Glassberg confirmed that the hostages Schneider received had lost 10-15 percent of their body weight. The statistic was similar to one shared by Prof. Itai Pessach at Lily Safra Children’s Hospital at Sheba Medical Center, where other freed hostages were brought.

“The hostages shared with us stories about how limited the food they were given was. If they were given food at all, it was sometimes only a cup of tea and a biscuit or a single dried date in the morning and rice in the evening,” Mozer-Glassberg recounted.
Advertisement

In cases where siblings were alone without their parents, the older sibling would not eat until the younger one did. For all the hostages, access to drinking water was limited.

“The captors would inflict psychological terrorism on them by forcing them to eat everything given to them after their stomachs had shrunk and hunger pains diminished after having eaten nearly nothing for days,” Mozer-Glassberg said.

As a result of deprivation in Gaza, some hostages exhibited unexpected eating habits when reintroduced to proper nutrition at the hospital. The staff had been primed to prevent the undernourished returnees from overeating and succumbing to the dangerous Refeeding Syndrome. But instead, they ate very little of the wide variety of foods offered, some of them only consuming crumbs they pulled from pieces of bread.

“It wasn’t like what we prepared for,” Mozer-Glassberg said.

The doctor reported that with access to water so limited in captivity, the hostages cleaned themselves only a few times during their 50-plus days in Gaza. Some did not bathe at all.

“They returned with extremely deficient hygiene. I have never seen hygiene this bad,” Mozer-Glassberg said. “Their head lice was the worst I have ever seen. Even with five or six treatments, the lice were not gone.”

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

POST ON X:

RELATED ARTICLES:

NY: Muslim Gunman Fires Shots Outside Albany Synagogue on Chanukah, Dozen of Preschoolers Were Inside At The Time

Red Cross Reprimanded Hostage Families: ‘Think about the Palestinians’

Jew hating Costs University of Penn $100 Million Dollars

‘All Jews Should Die’ – Muslims Indicted for Assaulting Jews in NYC

WATCH: Hamas Group CAIR Executive Director ‘Happy to See’ Oct. 7 Hamas Atrocities

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Israel, Hamas Trade Prisoners, Extend Ceasefire

/in , , , , , , , /by

Israel and Hamas agreed to a four-day ceasefire which began Friday, during which Israel has agreed to release three Palestinian prisoners for every Israeli hostage freed. As of early Monday morning, Islamist terrorists based in Gaza had released 58 hostages, including 39 Israelis, while Israel had freed 117 Palestinians. Despite alleged and real violations of the ceasefire, the combatants agreed Monday to extend the ceasefire for two more days.

Calls for a pause in fighting began immediately after Hamas terrorists invaded Israel on October 7, killing more than 1,200 Israelis, wounding more than 5,000, and kidnapping more than 240 hostages. Hamas militants directly targeted civilians, including elderly women, children, and even babies; they burned, raped, murdered, and committed unspeakable acts of brutality. In context, early calls for a ceasefire — after Hamas finished shooting but before Israel began — implicitly denied that Israel had a right to defend itself, and therefore a right to exist as a sovereign nation.

Demands for a ceasefire intensified as Israel’s air force bombed military targets and Hamas looted humanitarian stores throughout Gaza. On October 27, a majority of world governments passed a resolution of the U.N. General Assembly that called for an “immediate” truce in Gaza and contained no condemnation of Hamas. On November 1, the anti-Semitic wing of the Democratic Party pressured President Biden to reverse his rhetorical support for Israel and add his voice to the growing chorus chanting, “ceasefire now!” On November 9, Israel agreed to observe four-hour daily pauses to allow civilians to evacuate.

“Just as the United States would not agree to a ceasefire after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or after the terrorist attack of 9/11, Israel will not agree to a cessation of hostilities with Hamas,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in response to global pressure for Israel to unilaterally lay down its arms.

Circumstances changed early last week when Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) successfully completed a two-front pincer advance on Al-Shifa hospital complex in northwest Gaza, which they have long identified as sitting above a key node of Hamas operations. The IDF has produced surveillance footage showing Hamas dragging two hostages through Al-Shifa hospital on October 7, as well as stolen IDF vehicles brought to the center. Israel believes that one hostage, Corporal Noa Marciano, was murdered in the hospital before her body was later found several blocks away. They also found a weapons laboratory in the basement containing finished and half-finished mortars, warheads, thermobaric weapons, and RPGs.

The IDF has also made efforts to explore the web of tunnels underneath Al-Shifa. On Wednesday, they showed journalists a tunnel stretching for 55 meters, which led to a restroom, kitchen, a large room with air conditioning, and several smaller rooms before ending in a blast-proof door with loopholes that would allow Hamas fighters to defend it against the IDF. The IDF also found dozens of guns, ammunition clips, and grenades in the tunnel.

“The findings prove beyond all doubt that buildings in the hospital complex are used as infrastructure for the Hamas terror organization, for terror activity,” the IDF said. “This is further proof of the cynical use that the Hamas terror organization makes of the residents of the Gaza Strip as a human shield for its murderous terror activities.”

It’s unclear whether Israel has completely explored Hamas’s tunnel network under Al-Shifa. The aforementioned tunnel’s only entrance was a four-foot-square hole in the ground, which the IDF only discovered by accident. This raises the possibility that similar underground features are similarly well-concealed. IDF forces exploring other tunnel corridors have found at least one exit leading to a kindergarten and another tunnel underneath a mosque. “It’s going to take time” for Israel to unearth all Hamas hideouts under the 10-acre hospital complex, said Lieutenant Colonel Richard Hecht.

However, Israel’s capture of Hamas’s chief military post did give it an opportunity to contemplate a ceasefire. Israel’s two objectives are freeing the hostages and exterminating Hamas from Gaza. Unfortunately, the IDF did not manage to free any more hostages during their advance on Al-Shifa. The painstaking measures it adopts to protect civilians necessarily slow down its movements, enabling Hamas to spirit away its captives before Israeli rescuers can arrive. Israel is still committed to destroying Hamas, but it agreed to a ceasefire to negotiate the release of as many hostages as possible.

Before the ceasefire took effect, Israel demolished tunnels located beneath Al-Shifa and redeployed troops to the ceasefire lines.

The four-day ceasefire went into effect on Friday at 7 a.m. local time. On Friday, Hamas released 24 hostages — 13 Israeli women and children, 10 Thai citizens, and a Filipino citizen — and Israel reciprocated by releasing 39 imprisoned Palestinians. On Saturday, after a delay, Hamas released 17 hostages — 13 Israelis and four Thai nationals — and Israel released another 39 Palestinians. On Sunday, Hamas released another 17 hostages — 13 Israelis, three Thai nationals, and a dual Israeli-American citizen (a four-year-old girl whose parents Hamas killed on October 7) — and Israel released another 39 Palestinians. All told, Hamas has released 39 Israelis, 17 Thai citizens, one Filipino citizen, and one dual Israeli-American citizen, while Israel has released 117 Palestinian prisoners.

As of Monday afternoon, a fourth prisoner exchange had begun, with Hamas reportedly releasing 11 Israelis in exchange for the release of 33 Palestinian prisoners.

Thus far, all the prisoners exchanged between Hamas and Israel have been women and children. Many of the Palestinian prisoners released by Israel are teenage boys from the West Bank convicted of security offenses such as stone-throwing or disturbing the public order.

The Thai and Filipino hostages were not part of the Israel-Hamas ceasefire, brokered by the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt but were apparently released in a separate deal the Kingdom of Thailand brokered with Iran.

With the release of more hostages, the world learns more about the conditions they faced. “Their captivity sounds horrific — held underground for seven weeks, barely fed, sleeping on chairs, and denied the ability to go to the bathroom for hours; some in need of medical care, including one elderly woman in life-threatening condition,” summarized National Review’s Jim Geraghty.

On Monday afternoon, Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majid Al Ansary announced that Israel and Hamas had agreed to extend the truce for two more days, allowing for the release of another 20 hostages. This agreement would extend the ceasefire until 7 a.m. local time on Thursday.

However, the preservation of the ceasefire is not automatically guaranteed. Unspecified Palestinian militants broke the ceasefire after only 15 minutes when they fired a rocket towards southern Israel — fortunately, it did no damage. “The world barely noticed; no one really expects Hamas to uphold its end of the agreement,” interpreted Geraghty. Hamas has also separated family units, in violation of the ceasefire.

For their part, Hamas officials have complained that Israel violated the terms of the ceasefire by not allowing humanitarian aid trucks into Gaza (Israel allowed 200 trucks carrying aid to enter), not releasing prisoners in the order Hamas wanted (Israel never promised to do so), and firing at Gazans seeking to return to northern Gaza (the ceasefire forbids reentry).

Hamas broke the last ceasefire on October 7 when, after years of lulling the IDF into a false sense of security, it launched a murderous surprise attack on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Still smarting from the latest blow, Israel is in no mood to trust the untrustworthy Hamas to abide by another ceasefire.

Whether the ceasefire continues for two days only or extends much longer, there is little hope of a permanent peace between Hamas and Israel. The Iranian-backed terrorist group has stated repeatedly and publicly that it aims at the total “annihilation” of Israel. Faced with an existential threat, Israel has no choice but to make its war aim to “destroy Hamas” — at least in Gaza. Thus, Israel is prepared to resume military operations in “full force” as soon as the ceasefire ends — assuming Hamas waits that long.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Some Facts about Israel You Might Have Missed

Professor Suspended for Saying “Hamas Are Murderers”

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Elderly Hostage Freed By Hamas Details Horrific Treatment

/in , , , , , , , , /by

An elderly Israeli hostage released by Hamas terrorists Monday night detailed the horrific treatment she endured after she was kidnapped, video shows.

Eighty-five year-old Yocheved Lifshitz was kidnapped Oct. 7 after Hamas terrorists abducted her from kibbutz.

Lifshitz said a “swarm” of terrorists broke through a roughly-$615 million security gate and “stormed our homes,” according to the New York Post (NYP).

“They hit people,” Lifshitz told reporters. “They did not care about kidnapping [the] elderly and children. It was extremely painful.”

Lifshitz said the terrorists threw her onto a motorcycle sideways, with one half of her body dangling off each side.

“When I was on the bike, my legs were on one side and the rest of my body on the other side. The young men hit me on the way,” Lifshitz said, according to the NYP.

“They didn’t break my limbs, but it was extremely painful for me.”

Lifshitz said they arrived at a network of tunnels and walked several kilometers on wet ground before coming upon a group of approximately 25 other hostages. Several hours later, five of the hostages were brought from the area to a separate room guarded by a man, she said, according to the outlet.

“When we got there, they told us they believe in the Quran and will give us the same conditions they have,” Lifshitz said. She also recounted how a doctor came every few days to check on the hostages and a paramedic provided medical care to the injured hostages, according to the report.

“They took good care of the wounded,” Lifshitz said.

Lifshitz was released alongside her 79-year-old neighbor, Nurit Cooper.

Military spokesman Abu Ubaiba from the Al-Qassam Brigades said Hamas was willing to release the two women despite Israel’s refusal to stop airstrikes in the Gaza region.

“We have decided to release them for compelling humanitarian and satisfactory reasons despite the occupation committing more than 8 violations of the procedures that were agreed upon with the mediator brothers that the occupation would adhere to during this day to complete the handover process,” the spokesman said on Telegram, the NYP reported.

Lifshitz was seen allegedly turning back to wish the Hamas terrorists peace before they freed her.

AUTHOR

BRIANNA LYMAN

News and commentary writer. Follow Brianna on Twitter,

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Get Everyone Back’: Family Of Hostages Released By Hamas Say They’re Focused On Helping More Return

THE WAR ON X: WW III • The Global War Against Islamic Terrorism — Day 17

Socialist Party Founding Member Renounces Membership Over Group’s Hamas Support

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Did Muhammad approve of torture?

/in , , /by

In FrontPage today I discuss yet another dishonest attempt to portray Muhammad as a man of peace — an attempt that appears especially cynical and dishonest in light of the Sydney and Peshawar jihad attacks:

Did Muhammad approve of torture? For Ahmadi Muslim leader Qasim Rashid, the answer is “no” – a “no” so unequivocal that Rashid holds up Muhammad as an example for the U.S. – newly sullied, in his view, by the just-released torture report – to follow in its treatment of prisoners of war.

This all sounds like a mainstream media dream: a moderate Muslim invoking Muhammad to rebuke the U.S. for its torture practices. The only problem with this gloriously multicultural scenario is that Qasim Rashid is a relentlessly disingenuous writer. Previously he has whitewashed the reality of jihad violence and Sharia oppression; dissembled about the Qur’an’s sanction of deception of unbelievers; lied about the presence of violent passages in the Qur’an; lied about the Qur’an’s sanction of beating disobedient women; lied about the nature of Sharia; and called for limitations on the freedom of speech and expression to outlaw behavior and speech some Muslims may find offensive. When challenged about the “facts” he has presented, he (like virtually all other Islamic supremacists) responds with furious ad hominem contempt, but no substance.

But he tells the mainstream media establishment what it wants to hear and fosters the complacency and ignorance of non-Muslims regarding jihad terror, and so his abject inability to defend his preposterous claims is of no import: he continues to be given a platform all over. Here he takes advantage of the controversy over the just-released torture report to claim that Muhammad rejected torture — while cynically refraining from mentioning all the evidence to the contrary.

In “5 Lessons From Prophet Muhammad to Stop Torture” in the Huffington Post (of course) last Wednesday, Rashid claimed:

…Were the world to adopt Muhammad’s example of compassion, tolerance, and civility, such a torture report would not exist, because torture itself would not exist.

Yes, because Muhammad would never have approved of harsh interrogation techniques, would he? Well, let’s see: Muhammad’s earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, records that when Muhammad was trying to determine whether or not his favorite wife, Aisha, was guilty of adultery, he asked a slave, Burayra: “So the apostle called Burayra to ask her, and Ali got up and gave her a violent beating, saying ‘Tell the Apostle the truth.’” (Ibn Ishaq 734) Muhammad is not recorded as having rebuked Ali for violently beating this woman.

Nor was that an isolated incident, as we shall see.

Rashid continues:

Here are five lessons the CIA, ISIS and humanity at large can learn from Prophet Muhammad on how to stop torture.

1. Stop engaging in pre-emptive war

Prophet Muhammad forbade pre-emptive war, all forms of terrorism, violently revolting against a government no matter how unjust, and even went to the extent of forbidding civil disobedience lest it lead to violence.

All forms of terrorism? But Muhammad is reported as having said: “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror…” (Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220). One may argue that he didn’t mean modern-day terrorism, but given the other incidents that I will recount in this article, the claim that he forbade “all forms of terrorism” is fanciful in the extreme.

While not mentioning that hadith or the Qur’an verse telling Muslims to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (8:60), Rashid plows on:

When Muslims faced incessant and brutal persecution in Mecca from 610-620, Muhammad forbade any violent or incendiary response to the governing authorities. He offered his companions three options — remain and bear the persecution, try to change laws through peaceful argumentation, or leave.

Many Muslims left — some to Abyssinia where they sought and received refuge under the righteous Christian King Neghus. Others left to Medina, where they forged a peaceful alliance with the Jews and soon established a unified secular state governed by the Charter of Medina. Fighting was then only permitted in self-defense once Muslims were pursued and attacked, just as the Qur’an 22:40 allows: “Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged — and Allah indeed has power to help them.” Once in defensive war, the Qur’an only permits killing active combatants, as elaborated next.

Rashid omits all mention of the Qur’an’s teaching on offensive fighting. Ibn Ishaq explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.” The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193; cf. also 8:39) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history. According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

As an Ahmadi, Rashid may reject this understanding of the Qur’an and jihad, but it does exist, and he must know it exists. To ignore it entirely and give the impression that it doesn’t exist is cynical and deceptive.

And his cynicism and deceptiveness don’t end there. He continues:

2. Stop justifying collateral damage

Drone strikes, indiscriminate bombing, and collateral damage have each sadly become part of the American military experience. Prophet Muhammad categorically condemned any act of violence in which civilians, property, or places of worship were harmed.

Following Muhammad’s guidance, Abu Bakr the first Khalifa commanded to the Muslim army about to embark on battle,

“O people! I charge you with ten rules; learn them well… for your guidance in the battlefield! Do not commit treachery, or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”

As history’s first major figure to condemn collateral damage in word and in deed, Prophet Muhammad demonstrated a high precedent that even the most advanced nations today cannot match. Today’s leaders can end the war atrocities engulfing our world by following Muhammad’s example of justice and compassion.

Collateral damage: “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.” (Muslim 4321)

There is still more. Rashid says:

3. Stop indefinite detention for POWs

The Afghan and Iraq wars are long over. Yet, America continues to maintain numerous POWs in Guantanamo Bay, and likely in other undisclosed locations. Prophet Muhammad categorically condemned this practice. After permitting Muslims to only fight in self-defense, the Qur’an 47:5 next commands Muslims to release POWs immediately as war comes to an end.

Actually, Qur’an 47:5 says: “Soon will He guide them and improve their condition.” That is not in any clear sense a command to release POW’s immediately as war comes to an end. Ibn Abbas in his commentary on this verse explains: “He will give them success to perform righteous deeds (and improve their state) and improve their condition and intention; it is also said that this means: He will save them in the Hereafter and improve their state and accept their works on the Day of Judgement.” To whom is Ibn Abbas referring? Not to prisoners of war, but (according to his gloss on 47:4) to “those who are killed in obedience of Allah on the Day of Badr, referring here to the prophetic Companions.” Ibn Kathir interprets the verse in a similar way, without any reference to freeing prisoners of war at the end of the war.

Without mentioning this anomaly, Rashid goes on:

Maintaining POWs well after the war has ended creates distrust and animosity among allies and enemies alike, and is beneath the standard of a civilized country. Rather than usurp human rights with indefinite detention, rather than provide propaganda material to extremists, rather than violate its own Constitution and international law, we should all learn from Prophet Muhammad’s example, and justly release POWs.

4. Stop mistreating POWs

POWs, during and after the war must be treated with the dignity all human beings deserve. Historian Sir William Muir well records how Prophet Muhammad commanded his companions to treat POWs:

The Refugees had houses of their own, received the prisoners with kindness and consideration. “Blessings on the men of Medina!” said one of these in later days: “they made us ride, while they themselves walked afoot; they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.” It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the captives, yielding to these influences, declared themselves Believers, and to such their liberty was at once granted. The rest were kept for ransom. Such as had nothing to give were liberated without payment; but a service was required… To each were allotted ten boys, to be taught the art of writing; and the teaching was accepted as a ransom.

Mind you, this was at a time in Arabia when Muslims captured during battle suffered the fate of torture and death. Yet, in response, Muslims demanded the ransom of education, fed POWs with their own food and sheltered them with their own shelter. Once war ended, Muhammad immediately released all POWs. This is how he brought lasting peace to a former Arabian wasteland engulfed in constant war.

Mistreating POW’s: “When Muhammad saw Hamzah he said, ‘If Allah gives me victory over the Quraysh at any time, I shall mutilate thirty of their men!’ When the Muslims saw the rage of the Prophet they said, ‘By Allah, if we are victorious over them, we shall mutilate them in a way which no Arab has ever mutilated anybody.” (Al-Tabari, vol. 7, p. 133; cf. Ibn Ishaq 387)

And: “Anas reported: Eight men of the tribe of ‘Ukl came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: Why don’t you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels’) milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died.” (Sahih Muslim 4131)

Rashid concludes with a dishonest coup de grace:

5. Stop justifying torture

Nothing justifies the torture the CIA meted out to those 119 human beings. Indeed, in response to those arguing safety, the report concludes that America was not made any safer as a result of these barbaric practices. This was just one among many reasons Prophet Muhammad categorically forbade torture.

For example, as recorded in Sahih Muslim, “Hisham ibn Hakim passed by some people in Syria who had been made to stand in the sun and had oil poured over their heads. He asked, “What is this?” It was said,

“They are being punished for not paying taxes.” Hisham said: I heard Prophet Muhammad say: “Verily, Allah will torture those who torture people in this world.” Likewise, Jabir ibn Abdullah reported that Prophet Muhammad commanded: “Do not torture the creation of Allah the Exalted.”

Indeed, Prophet Muhammad’s compassion extended beyond humans as he also specifically forbade torturing animals, declaring, “A woman was punished because of a cat she had imprisoned until it died; thus, she entered Hellfire because of it. She did not give it food or water while it was imprisoned, neither did she set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth.”

Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, didn’t just justify torture. He ordered it: “Kinana b. al-Rabi`, who had the custody of the treasure of B. al-Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (T. was brought) to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, ‘Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?’ he said Yes. The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr b. al-Awwam, ‘Torture him until you extract what he has,’ so he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud.” (Ibn Ishaq 515).

After his tour de force of disingenuousness, Rashid concludes:

It is not a lack of intelligence, but a lack of morality that permitted this barbaric act of torture to occur at all. The CIA, ISIS, and indeed the world at large can learn volumes about compassion, justice, mercy, and morality from Prophet Muhammad, the man who successfully brought peace to a warring world.

The world is warring all over today because of Muhammad’s teachings. It is a peculiar lack of morality that would create this deceptive piece, with its calculated omissions and frankly false conclusion. If Rashid is asked about this post, he will sneer that it is not peer-reviewed; he will not answer any of its substantive refutations of his dishonest claims. He cannot do so — both because the traditions about Muhammad don’t bear out his claims, and because of his own intellectual and moral dishonesty.

Qasim Rashid apparently doesn’t want the world to know that Muhammad commanded and approved of torture. He wants people to think that he forbade it. The effect of this will be to foster ignorance and complacency about the jihad threat. The blood of the next victims tortured by Islamic jihadists will cry out to Qasim Rashid from the ground on which it is spilled.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pakistan: Jihadis burn teacher alive in front of students, behead children

Sydney jihadi’s ex-wife sought refuge in US before she was murdered

Islamic State propagandist’s parents: “Our son is a devout Muslim. He had learnt the Quran by heart.”

Islamic State tortures Christians in their own Churches

/in , , , /by

“Bishop Kevin?”

“Yeah, you got ‘im.”

“This is Imam Mohammed down at Masjid Amr ibn al-As…”

“Mo! Hey, buddy, great to hear from ya! How’s it going? Look, I gotta tell ya, the baba ghanouj at last week’s outreach was…to die for –”

“I am so glad you liked it, Your Grace, but I am calling you about an urgent matter.”

“Hey, Mo, fire away. Anything you need, you can count on me, buddy.”

“Yes, I know. Listen, I’ve gotten word that one of your parishes out in the suburbs is hosting a speaker on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East.”

“Yeah, Mo, have you heard the latest from Iraq? Good gravy, Father Bud was telling me about it this morning after Mass.”

“Your Grace, I have told you about that Father Bud–”

“I know, I know, yeah, Mo, I know he can be a bit officious, but it’s so hard to get good guys these days, you know? I am sure you good folks have the same problem.”

“Actually we have a flood of applicants for seminary. But that is beside the point.”

“Hey, Mo, that’s great. Wow, that’s terrific news. More power to ya, eh, buddy? Anyway, look, so Bud was telling me about how in Iraq, they were torturing Christians in their own churches. Now, I know you condemn–”

“Yes, Bishop Kevin–”

“Hey, Mo, call me Kev.”

“Uh, yes. Kev. Anyway, of course we condemn all forms of extremism, Muslim, Christian, and Jewish. But I want to make sure you understand: if you allow a talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that they have perpetrated globally, it might undercut the positive achievements that you as Catholics have attained in your inter-religious dialogue with devout Muslims. It might possibly also generate suspicion and even fear of people who practice piously the religion of Islam.”

“Oh, my word. Cripes, Mo, I had no idea. You know how much the dialogue means to me. That baba ghanouj! What do you want me to do, buddy?”

“Your Grace, I want you to cancel this talk, and to disallow any discussion of the persecution of Christians in majority-Muslim countries on Church properties.”

“Mo, hey, no worries. You got it. I wouldn’t dream of offending you, Mo. After all, we’re such good buds! You can count on me. I will call the parish and get that speaker canceled in a jiffy.”

“I knew I could count on you, Your Grace–”

“Kev!”

“Uh, yes. Kev. Thank you. See you next week at the mosque.”

“You betcha, Mo! I wouldn’t miss it for the world! Make sure there is plenty of baba ghanouj!”

“Oh, I will, Your Grace. I will.”

“Isis in Iraq: Christians tortured in churches, photos show men being whipped for drinking wine,” by Thomas Wyke, International Business Times, December 14, 2014 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Iraqi Christians are reportedly being tortured in local churches by Islamic State in northern Iraq.

In an interview with the Sunday Times, a Christian resident from the Islamic State-held city of Mosul, said: “These two churches are being used as prisons and for torture.Three of the Christian prisoners died because they were sick and nobody cared for them.”

The man, known as Abu Aasi, claims that Christian prisoners in the churches are being forced to convert and that Islamic State have been “breaking all the crosses and statues of Mary”.

Whilst the claim could not be independently verified, thousands of Christians have fled Mosul since the city was seized by Islamic State in August 2014.

Faced with the prospect of conversion, paying a special tax or execution, up to 20,000 Christians reportedly fled Mosul in just 45 days, according to a UN report….

RELATED ARTICLES: 

When It Comes to Sexually Enslaving Women and Underage Girls, ISIS Has a Message for the U.S.

Islamic State stones couple for adultery, beheads four for blasphemy

The Perpetuity of Jihad

Germany: Thousands take to the streets to protest “Islamization”

Somalia: Islamic jihadists behead two policewomen