GOODBYE MESSAGE FROM AUSSIE MUSLIMS

 
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. Collapse Details
    Is this true of Ottomans impaling people? 
    #1
    . Sister.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,233
    Default
    Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impalement

    The Ottoman Empire used impalement during the last Siege of Constantinople in 1453,[13] though possibly earlier. Ottoman soldiers and authorities would later use impalement quite frequently in the same region during the 18th and 19th centuries, especially during some of the more brutal repressions of nationalistic movements, or reprisals following insurrections in Greece and other countries of Southeast Europe.
    During the Ottoman occupation of Greece, impalement became an important tool of psychological warfare, intended to put terror into the peasant population. By the 18th century, Greek bandits turned guerrilla insurgents (known as klephts) became an increasing annoyance to the Ottoman government. Captured klephts were often impaled, as were peasants that harbored or aided them. Victims were publicly impaled and placed at highly visible points, and had the intended effect on many villages who not only refused to help the klephts, but would even turn them in to the authorities. The Ottomans engaged in active campaigns to capture these insurgents in 1805 and 1806, and were able to enlist Greek villagers, eager to avoid the stake, in the hunt for their outlaw countrymen.[1]
    During the Serbian Revolution (1804–1835) against the Ottoman Empire, about 200 Serbians were impaled in Belgrade in 1814, as punishment for a riot in the aftermath of Hadži Prodan's Revolt.[16]
    The agony of impalement was eventually compounded with being set over a fire, the impaling stake acting as a spit, so that the impaled victim might be roasted alive.[17] Among other atrocities, Ali Pasha, an Albanian-born Ottoman noble who ruled Ioannina, had rebels, criminals, and even the descendants of those who had wronged him or his family in the past, impaled and roasted alive.[17] During the Greek War of Independence (1821–1832), Athanasios Diakos, a klepht and later a rebel military commander, was captured after the Battle of Alamana (1821), near Thermopylae, and after refusing to convert to Islam and join the Ottoman army, he was impaled, roasted over a fire, and died after three days.[1] Others were treated in a similar manner. Diakos became a martyr for a Greek independence and was later honored as a national hero.[18]
    is it true?
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    This won't answer everything, but it does explain a lot about the practice of impaling and how it was used against the Muslims by Dracula.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtZUgikJtsM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qAzfK43IU0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rL7A9sWnYo
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to AbuAA For This Useful Post:

    Melb (02-Apr-2012)

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Wa Alaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

    For this episode I admit I did have to move on quickly through the comments as I knew we had limited time.. May Allah reward those who helped out in the show, they did a great job, however it is correct that the producers were insisting that they interject often as it would make the show interesting, and as they didn't want to, they ended up making comments that sometimes didn't quite fit in well

    The story itself is amazing, knowing how the Muslims fought Dracula. Most people freak out once you mention the premise and say "Whaaaat? Dracula???" That's why I love history
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AbuAA For This Useful Post:

    Islam_Junkie (03-Apr-2012), Melb (03-Apr-2012)

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    . Sister.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    7,233
    Default
    Wa alaikum assalaam.
    Thanks akhi omar . That's a possibility I suppose.

    Musa your videos about the history of Dracula, or 'Vlad the Impaler', were what led me to look up impaling and that's how I came across the part about Ottomans.

    I just thought of how the Prophet forbade mutilation of bodies and thought if that shaytaan Vlad III was disgusting enough to impale people, why would the Ottomans stoop to his level? I know his head was impaled and taken to Constantinople but that was after he was killed and I reckon he deserved it anyway, but why would later Ottomans impale people especially for crimes they didn't commit (i.e. killing of those men whose forefathers had raped and tortured 2 of Ali whatshisname's female ancestors).

    But if it really was just enemies of Islam impaling people while pretending to be Muslims then that's another story.
    Whoever remembers death often will find a small amount (of worldly things) sufficient for him; and whoever includes his speech in his deeds will speak little.

    Indeed, the wasteful are brothers of the devils, and ever has Satan been to his Lord ungrateful. (Surat al Isra': 27)
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Impaling is not mutilation. Rather it is a form of capital punishment. It is in some ways not too dissimilar to crucifixion which is something that does not only cause death but intends to prolong it and to cause the person being killed to suffer. As you would know, crucifixion is a punishment mandated in the Qur'an for certain crimes:

    إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment. [5:33]
    Therefore I don't see it to be unreasonable that an Islamic Qadhi (judge) may reason to allow this means of execution if it is deemed suitable. As you saw, the Ottomans had thieves and people who caused corruption to be impaled, sometimes it would take days for them to die, as with crucifixion.

    I would suggest looking further into any documents which may show orders of judges or commanders to execute enemies of the Islamic state by impaling to see if there are any discussions regarding the practice and how it may have first came into use by the Ottomans.

    Regarding mutilation of dead bodies, this is what was not allowed by the verses of the Qur'an after Uhud. Meaning if someone were killed by crucifixion, beheading, impaling etc. and then you were to go and slice their body up (as an insult to the dead body) this is what would not be allowed.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to AbuAA For This Useful Post:

    Sister. (03-Apr-2012)

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Regarding impaling, in many cultures it is seen as a form of crucifixion as is attested to in many references where impaling would be referred to as crucifixion.

    When it comes to the hadd punishment, a qadhi may give a ruling that may specify a specific way for the person to be killed. As you see in the verse it says the person is to be killed or crucified, this is why the way in which the killing is done will differ. Usually it is beheading, though its not uncommon to read of Islamic judges using other methods. I remember recently reading about a qadhi of recent times who commanded a killing to be done by gunfire.

    This is why I say it may not be unreasonable to suggest that some Ottoman judges or commanders of the past may have used impaling to carry out the punishment.

    Regarding surviving impaling, it depends how it is done. If it is done from bottom to top passing the whole body then no doubt the person would not survive. However other times it will be done so only part is impaled.

    I am not sure as there is not much that I can find that mentions anything with surety, but it may be that Dracula's head was cut off in the fighting and all that was recovered was his head. This may explain why only the head was taken.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Akhi Omar, please read again what I wrote

    I did not say it is an acceptable way to kill, rather I said maybe some Ottomans of the past reasoned that it may have been so. In fact I suggested that we should look to documents of the past to see if this were the case.
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Yes, do re-read it, I never stated that it is sanctioned in the Qur'an or Sunnah as an accepted way of carrying out punishments, however I reasoned that it would not be too odd if a Qadhi decided for it to be acceptable.
    But, above you’ve written, to the contrary, that impaling is not mutilation, and that it is in fact an acceptable Islamic way to kill (i.e. a fitting punishment under certain circumstances).
    It is not mutilation when it is done to kill the person. It is mutilation when it is done after the person is killed, I guess I did not clarify this point.

    Just again, I never said at all it is an acceptable Islamic way, however I suggest that if you want to see why the Ottomans may have done it, it may have been based upon a ruling that allowed it. It would be interesting to look into.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    9,968
    Default
    Wa Alaykum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu

    It is for a Mufti or Qadhi to decide, not for us. If a Mufti or qadhi decides so, then we look at his evidences.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Senior Member DerGen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    336
    Default
    They did what they did. Where ever they went they brought peace with them. once sultans were the khalifat and ruled by the islam.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Servant of Allah abu rashid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Allah's Dunya
    Posts
    3,921
    Default
    There's about as much chance of hearing the truth about the Ottomans from the Greeks as there is of hearing the truth about Palestine from the Zionists.

    The Ottoman period has entered Greek folklore filled with all sorts of imaginary atrocities and claims, most of which are completely fabricated. In fact if one looks at the history, one finds Greeks actually committed the atrocities against Muslims, that they accuse the Ottomans of. European/Christian witnesses themselves, during the various Greek civil wars of "independence" witnessed that the Greeks were utterly brutal in completely eradicating the entire Muslim population of Greece.
    الشعب يريد خلافة من جديد
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to abu rashid For This Useful Post:

    *saRah* (13-Jun-2012), At-Ta'if (17-Apr-2012), Palo $oldier (03-Jul-2012), Sister. (17-Apr-2012)

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    686
    Default
    Bosnia and Kosovo are just recent examples
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    melbourne
    Posts
    4,048
    Default
    At a very young age when we were in Greece it was drilled into us to hate Turks.
    Not for any other reason than the fact that 'they hated us'.
    As I got older my grandfather would talk to me and get into it deeper, he didn't hate each individual Turk but hated what happened to the Greeks.
    I'm not going to get into it too much but Alhumdulillah I don't hate Turks or any other nationality for that matter.
    There are some horrible things that happened that can't be denied.
    But Muslims also suffered.
    It's easy to say Greeks made things up, it's also easy to pretend nothing horrible happened.
    The greeks are extremely nationalistic and I would never ever try to sit down and tell a Greek that they're wrong about anything especially the whole Turk issue.
    It's easier to just ignore it.
    It's been hard enough for some of my family to accept me wearing a scarf let alone argue with them about the history of the country.
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Explorer For This Useful Post:

    Bilal Ibn Rabah (18-Jul-2012)

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Senior Member Janissary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Melbourne/Istanbul
    Posts
    271
    Default
    I'll cut it short.. JUST ANOTHER GOOD OL' GREEK MYTH ... just like how they used to refer to the Ottomans as 'barbarians' - they wouldn't admit they were outclassed in all aspects - Iman (faith), war technology and strength . They still choose to ignore the massive contributions the Ottomans made to the world
    "Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will her
    leader be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Servant of Allah abu rashid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Allah's Dunya
    Posts
    3,921
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
    There are some horrible things that happened that can't be denied.
    But Muslims also suffered.
    It's easy to say Greeks made things up, it's also easy to pretend nothing horrible happened.
    Sister, with all due respect the vast majority of it is indeed fabricated. The Greek hatred of Muslims & Turks stems not from any actual atrocity committed by the Ottomans, it stems from their resentment of the Ottoman rule of Greece for so many centuries.

    I'm sure some isolated cases of atrocities may have been committed against Greeks, but it completely pales in comparison to the systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, Russians and other Christian peoples carried out against the Muslim Ottomans during the period. Entire nations of Muslims, like the Caucasian Muslims, Tatars, Circassians were almost entirely eradicated from existence, with only small groups of some of them left, who fled to Anatolia as refugees. Entire towns and villages all over Greece were ethnically cleansed of their Muslim populations, until not a single one remained. And this is reported by Western/Christians themselves, who were in many cases appalled by the absolute barbarity of the actions carried out. Foetuses torn from their mothers' wombs, infants/toddlers hurled en masse into the sea, it was just absolutely astounding the kinds of acts they committed. Nothing even remotely like this can be corroborated as being carried out by Ottomans against Greeks. There may have been the occasional pogorom as retalliation against these kinds of inhumanities, but nothing that remotely compares to it.

    Here are some quotes from the time:

    "A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops" (23rd May 1921, the Inter-Allied commission)

    "Manisa... almost completely wiped out by fire...10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas... [destroyed]. Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Muslims. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete. Alaşehir, hand pumps were used to soak the walls of the buildings with Kerosene. As we examined the ruins of the city, we discovered a number of skulls and bones, charred and black, with remnants of hair and flesh clinging to them. Upon our insistence a number of graves having a fresh-made appearance were actually opened for us as we were fully satisfied that these bodies were not more than four weeks old. [the time of the Greek retreat through Alaşehir]" (James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in Constantinople)

    Quote Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
    It's been hard enough for some of my family to accept me wearing a scarf let alone argue with them about the history of the country.


    You're wise not to discuss it with them, as nationalism surely would blind them from listening anyway.
    الشعب يريد خلافة من جديد
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to abu rashid For This Useful Post:

    At-Ta'if (10-Jul-2012), falah (10-Jul-2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •