I see the claim that Islam outlaws hostage taking is repeated as if it were true.

If a particular taking is seen as counterproductive to the larger cause, the interpretation of the words of the "prophet" can be re-interpreted at will. Heaven on earth is the goal of Islam, it that way it has much in common with all of the utopian isms. It is a totalitarian ideology at it's core. The fantastic end promised by fundamentalist Islam justifies almost anything including hostage taking as long as the subject is classified as an "infidel" or unfaithful Muslim. A bit cultish, no? Islam does not condemn anything done in the service of the Allah and His prophet.

Anonymous:

Yet the cleric condemns it. I may be out on a limb but I suspect more Muslims believe him than you.

I'm sure that Al Qaeda is more committed to the idea of one Universal Islam than Harry, but not by much and both are well ahead of whoever is in third place

oj- The jerk is in the slammer. His lawyers are issuing the statement (fatwah?) not the "cleric"

If it helps in getting him released through a sympathetic reponse (and they can't prove his complicity in a prior terrorist bombing against innocents) he can serve Allah and his "prophet" all the better.

Yes, the fatwah serves Allah. What's your point?

Your point. The cleric didn't condemn it,his lawyers did. The guy is a terrorist.

Well, if they won't listen to the cleric, maybe they'll listen to John Kerry -- according to the "Inside the Beltway" column from the Washington Times (via LGF), Kerry has some high-powered inside connections with the Islamic theocracy.

Well, the senator may be as nutty as his ancestors. (I thought Mohammed left no adult progeny)

He did. Fatima who married Ali, inspiration for the Shias and the fourth caliph.

Ali:

Isn't that the basis of the split, that the Shi'a thought only blood should succeed Mohammed?

Yup. Sunnis thought it woud be fine to continue having the caliph come from companions and friends of Muhammad like the second and third caliphs but Shias wanted to keep it in the family.

Religious doctrine interests me not at all, except where it is invoked to fool people about what religious behavior actually is.

This blog is a monument to how easy that is to do.

The idea that Islam, in any of its manifestations, is hostile to hostage-taking is nuts

If you took more interest in the doctrine you might seem less ignorant:

Exhibition Killing: The Muslim "debate" on hostage-taking and beheading (AMIR TAHERI, October 3, 2004, Wall Street Journal)

Who are we allowed to seize as hostage? Who are we allowed to kill?

For the past few weeks these questions have prompted much debate throughout the Muslim world. The emerging answer to both questions is: Anyone you like!

Triggered by the atrocity at a school in Beslan, in southern Russia, last month, the debate has been further fueled by kidnappings and "exhibition killings" in Iraq. Non-Muslims may find it strange that such practices are debated rather than condemned as despicable crimes. But the fact is that the seizure of hostages and "exhibition killing" go back to the early stages of Islamic history.

In the Arabia of the seventh century, where Islam was born, seizing hostages was practiced by rival tribes, and "exhibition killing" was a weapon of psychological war. The Prophet codified those practices, ending freelance kidnappings and head-chopping. One principle of the new code was that Muslims could not be held hostage by Muslims. Nor could Muslims be subjected to "exhibition killing." Such methods were to be used solely against non-Muslims, and then only in the context of armed conflict.

Seized in combat, a non-Muslim would be treated as a war prisoner, and could win freedom by converting to Islam. He could also be ransomed or exchanged against a Muslim prisoner of war. Non-Muslim women and children captured in war would become the property of their Muslim captors. Female captives could be taken as concubines or given as gifts to Muslims. The children, brought up as Muslims, would enjoy Islamic rights.

Centuries later, the initial code was elaborated by Imam Jaafar Sadeq, a descendant of the Prophet. He made two key rulings. Whoever entered Islam was instantly granted "full guarantee for his blood." And non-Muslims, as long as they paid their poll tax, or jiziyah, to the Islamic authority would be protected.

In other words, Muslims may kidnap and kill non-Muslims whenever they like, as long as they've taken up arms against... Something. Anything.

I fail to see how that refutes Harry's assertation.

oj-

Just curiousd. Did you read what you just wrote?

Michael:

Yes, we allow ourselves to kill pretty much everyone so long as we're at war. the point is there's no armed conflict in the case of these kidnappings.

Well, the kidnappers and their victims are in Iraq, and the cleric they want to spring is said to lead a terrorist group.

Sounds like a lot of armed conflict to me.

Further, there's no central Muslim clearinghouse of approved armed struggle. All any Muslim has to do is find a cleric willing to issue a fatwa, and voila, a casus belli.
There's no obligation for there to be a reciprocating understanding from the other side.
America didn't understand that it was at war when the WTC was bombed in '93.

Like the Code of Chivalry of the Knights of Olde, these are pretty words that are honored in the breach, if at all.

Further, what kind of moronic code of behavior says that it's A-OK to set off a car bomb next to schoolchildren, but not OK to kidnap adults ?
It's psychologically disturbed.

Michael:

Well, if it is armed conflict then anything goes--we nuked women and children.

Well, I take a comprehensive view of these things.

The practice of hostage-taking by Muslims has been constant, so I don't care how, or even whether, they bothered to justify it doctrinally.

And many of the hostages were taken during times of peace, as taxes, for example.

And probably most of the Muslim hostages were already Muslims.

Islam is like Bolshevism. Adherents are permitted, perhaps even required, to say anything they like to fool the unbelievers.

What's odd is that Orrin is skeptical of Bolsheviks, but accepts any old claim from the mullahs, however contradictory to the evidence.

When was the last hostage taken for taxes?