Saw this article by Olga Nezhnikova on UAinfo today. Not something extraordinary for Ukrainians to say but most of Westerners definitely lack such kind of mental clarity and resolve regarding Russia. So I chose it for translation, adding several links and footnotes for better understanding.
You know why I don’t believe that Russia can become a normal country, not even in distant future? Reason isn’t really Putin alone or zombie propaganda, folks. And comparisons to Hitler’s Germany won’t do here as well.
Now I’m observing some kind of chemical action in dumb ruskie ass-heads. Currently, regarding the bridge named after Kadyrov Sr. and Mannerheim plaque1 in St.Petersburg. Ruskies are just outraged, unable to get it. And some of them, those who were fire-farting for their tzar only several months ago, now have skimpy nervous impulses burrowing through putrefactive matter in their heads. Like, “maybe the tzar is not genuine”2 after all?
But the problem isn’t that it will end in failure and no one comes out to protest. Even with protests, nothing will change basically. Even with overthrow – NOTHING will change. The problem is that those 86%, or 90%, or whatsoever are absolutely immoral by their nature. Like amoebas, or liver flukes, or staphylococcus. They simply don’t have genes responsible for morality and decency.
Putin didn’t turn russians into such creatures. On the contrary, russians chose that fish-eyed pathetic bald mongrel to praise as their tzar. And if yesterday they all were straining their asses with eyes popping out to endorse Putin who “taught those damn Ukries3 a lesson” and “scared the entire world”, today they’re whispering to each other carefully – what if things would preserve that course, will the renounce of Crimea become imminent in the end?
The biggest fear of ruskies, making them sleepless in cold sweat at night, is that someday they’ll be forced to return what they stole. To give up dreams of “russian world” and “radioactive ashes”. To apologize for their thuggish escapades. What such a creature will do, realizing that the tzar is not genuine? It will come and find another tzar, big bad one who won’t be “pissing himself” and will “nuke those damn pindoses for good”!
Slowly, understanding of a fact that Putin is a small-time wimpish street thug comes to russians. Very slowly, but it happens. Not with everyone, not en masse yet – just like lone first swallows. But there is completely no understanding of their own abominations and it’s not gonna change. And that is the most terrible thing.
Concerning the Washington Post material. Before evil Finns have decided to side with even more evil Germans in WW2 and watch in vicious rapture how poor kind-hearted rusisans are dying in Leningrad, there was a little event named Winter War. In which USSR attacked Finland, repeatedly bombed Finnish cities and captured Karelian Isthmus. But politically correct idiots from AP apparently have their own version of History, “strangely” resembling commie bullshit.
A catchphrase from well-known Soviet comedy, humorously depicting outrage of serfs.
Newly invented russian ethnic slur for Ukrainians.
Often, I see how common people without fancy education and overwhelming set of academic degrees are demonstrating much better understanding of politics (and reality in general) than specially prepared elitists. Russians are indeed nation of congenital subhuman thugs with unsatisfiable lust for wars and genocide that can’t be even peacefully isolated, let alone converted to civilized one.
Currently, it’s problem of Ukraine mostly, but by either deliberate denial of reality or corrupt servitude to Kremlin, Western elites are pushing the world towards dreadful times when russian thuggery will become everybody’s problem.
commie, communism, corruption, eisenhower, friendship, Hellstorm, history, marshal, politics, red terror, revisionism, russia, russophilia, stalin, thuggery, ussr, viktor suvorov, war, war crimes, WW2, WWII, zhukov
Show me your friends and I will tell you who you are.
An ancient wisdom
Though Hellstorm authors did a thorough job exposing Allied war crimes, their narrative regarding Soviet ones is very facile, bearing resemblance to National Socialist propaganda. Like a horde of mongoloid savages incited by evil Jews with poor russians somewhere in between enduring horrors of war. I’ll return to those stereotypes later; now it’s time for little-known facts about dear friends of western Allies, important not only for understanding who was who in the past. Modern impunity of a terrorist state named Russia is in fact a continuance of things that happened in WW2 – unfortunately, mostly missed in Hellstorm.
Many terrible things are being told in documentary about Dwight Eisenhower. However, not a single word about his warm relations with commies. I can’t understand why Hellstorm authors were so reluctant even to mention Eisenhower’s russian counterpart and dear friend, soviet marshal Georgy Zhukov. Like it was said centuries ago, friends can describe someone as good as personal dossier. The following facts are not classified; they can be found in open sources and books, but most of them remain in original (Russian or Ukrainian) language. As far as I know excellent works by Viktor Suvorov on this matter (“Shadow of Victory”, “Marshal of (Cou)Rage1”) have never been translated into English. Even revisionists pay a little attention to such facts (and that’s one of their biggest mistakes).
Everyone in revisionist community knows about Soviet war crimes in Europe, but very little is known about Soviet war crimes in USSR. A nickname “The Butcher” wasn’t provided to Zhukov for nothing. Even the most vile deeds of Eisenhower look like childish play compared to what Zhukov used to do – with his own people.
Beginning his career in Tsarist Empire cavalry he quickly changed his allegiance in 1918, becoming a Red Army volunteer. After taking part in a number of genocidal raids against own population that opposed Soviet regime (gassing villages, executing peasants during Tambov unrest etc.), he was quickly promoted to Stalin’s favored circle of top dogs where he not only survived so-called “purge” in late 1930s but managed to advance even higher.
Even fellow commie goons were disgusted by Zhukov. Marshals Budyonny, Yeryomenko, Rokossovsky, Vasilevsky, Konev all like one remembered him as power-hungry and violent in their not-so-known notes. And his unlucky subordinates saw nothing more than extremely dumb, often drunk, sadistic perverted narcissistic asshole tyrant with typical thuggish habits of NKVD staff. If Zhukov was inspecting troops in some town, local boys (best friends and admirers of the military) had a non-stop watch to help officers avoid meeting him on the street. Yes, you got it right – officers of the “glorious” Red Army were running away from their own high commander.
In WW2 Zhukov demonstrated a complete lack of any strategic skills that cost his country millions of soldiers, countless amount of resources wasted in chaos of first days of war (thanks to “not answer to provocations” directive) and then catastrophic offensive operations. But he cared a little, openly boasting “we shouldn’t pity soldiers – women will give birth to more!”, if not using cannon fodder tactics to eliminate “enemy” people.
During the battle of Dnipro (Dnieper), that rabid Stalin’s dog ordered to send newly recruited untrained Ukrainians, often without any weapons right on German pillboxes – of course with NKVD SMGs pointed at their backs. And he spoke about that, literally, “Why the fuck we should arm those khokhols? They’re all traitors! The more we’ll drown in Dnieper now, the less we’ll have to deport to Siberia!”
The war still had one more year ahead but red scumbag Zhukov was already planning post-war genocide. His signature was under the order to deport all Ukrainians “familiar with life during German occupation” to Siberia. Crimean Tatars and small Caucasian nations shared the similar fate. Only a catastrophic lack of transport in post-war USSR prevented this from happening as planned.
That was not only one order of such kind signed by red butcher Zhukov. In 1941, he supported execution of hostages from POW families. Anyone captured by Germans was declared a “traitor” and subjected to death sentence (should he return from captivity by any means) as well as POW’s family members. In 1942, punishment was lowered to exile or GULAG term. In practice, some Soviet POWs were falsifying their data in German camps to save their families…
But let’s get back to the battlefield. Or more likely, safe rear where Zhukov preferred to dwell. In final days of the war, a supply truck passed his motorcade in attempt to deliver ammo to the battlefront collapsing before fierce German resistance. Hopping in rage, Zhukov sent his goons to chase and capture unfortunate truck driver, then tore his driving license to little shreds and ordered to, literally, “beat him up, piss on him and throw to ditch!” (Luckily for driver, he was released when rabid Stalin’s dog didn’t stay to watch how such orders will be enforced.)
As a marshal, Zhukov decided to loot like a boss and that’s where he crossed the line of basic russian rule “thou shalt not steal more than thy kingpin”. That could be an epic commie showdown, if not his buddies from high command (according to Victor Suvorov’s opinion, acting in fear of a second “purge” that could be triggered by Zhukov’s arrest). So the glorious thug was silently moved to less influential position with his “hero” status preserved and multiplied for the nation of serfs each new generation, later becoming one of untouchable idols of victory rabies cult that replaced Stalin himself in “history” written by red lackeys.
In 1956, Zhukov participated in suppression of Hungarian anti-communist revolution. For that the bastard was awarded with his 4th “Hero of the Soviet Union” star. He didn’t abandon his love towards butchering of own soldiers as well; in 1954 nuclear weapons have been tested on Soviet army live targets near Totskoye (Ural district) under his direct command.
Ruskies adore to portray their leaders as bearers of titanium balls, much helped by choir of Western dumbasses. Zhukov was no exception, being praised by russophiles for his fake machismo in the same way as now the corrupt Right glorifies thug Putin. And just as him, Zhukov loved to cry like a little girl. The reason could be promotion to lesser position than expected, lack of guests at New Year feast or denial of invitations to party meeting. Titanium balls indeed, as genuine as glorious russian photos and alive WW2 veterans with Tsarist Empire decorations.
Of course such an example of commie virtues was also very chaste in has personal life, preaching morality and family values at every opportunity. And having 4 “wives”, interloping and fighting each other (it’s only what was known for sure). And giving to his “field-campaign wife”2 Lidya Zakharova, officially, a simple nurse, Orders of the Red Star, the Red Banner and lieutenant’s rank (in Soviet medical troops, the highest rank allowed for nurses was a sergeant). Obviously for her moral “purity” of the same kind.
Knowing all that, I feel no slightest surprise being told about war crimes and post-war genocide made by commie-loving Eisenhower and his buddies. I wouldn’t expect anything other from anyone who befriends russian thugs with such a zeal that russophilia becomes a family tradition3. However, I am surprised by stupidity of the West that failed to realize an obvious thing: Regardless of loud statements of the past or mawkish speeches of modern days, it is NOT possible to stand for Justice in coalition with lowlife subhumans that embraced thuggery as a lifestyle. Those who claim otherwise have either no brains or no conscience.
The WW2 indeed was the worst in History, but not because of what Hellstorm authors are saying. It was the worst war in History because it has been waged in alliance with red thugs and in their favor by both of other main belligerents. Because its outcome made red thuggery a sacred cow, giving it right for existence and a free way to all kinds of dirty deals with red mafia state. Because it has allowed red thugs to torture and exterminate enslaved nations in a frenzy of thuggish impunity for many decades. And last but not least – because it created a solid basis for new Red Terror escapades and terrorist campaigns.
All that is result of befriending red thugs.
TO BE CONTINUED
1. Language-specific wordplay. Direct translation would be “Marshal of Trouble”. Russian word for “victory” is “pobeda”, without two first letters this word turns into “trouble” (“beda”) which is often used in jokes, or in this case, in Suvorov’s bitter truth.
2. Soviet slang name for affairs with female army staff.
3. Eisenhower’s granddaughter went even further when she married Roald Sagdeev, whose lapdog efforts to support Soviet repressions are not being concealed even by PC media. (BTW, how did he manage to bypass U.S immigration law that forbids entry for inciting political persecutions?)
The aforementioned facts create an easy impression that 3rd Reich and USSR were equally evil. Equally totalitarian, anti-human, militarist countries, so it was OK to help any of those two to eradicate another one without much difference. Even in such case it doesn’t speak very high of Western politicians who considered it possible to make a deal with either side, leaving entire nations to mercy of evil chosen by a bunch of smart-ass analysts; but the real matters were much more hideous and vile than that.
No ideology can exist, let alone be researched in pure paper form. Unfortunately, the latter is exactly what historians (both mainstream and revisionist) are trying to bring about in their studies and politicians are using as cornerstone for all real-life actions. Meanwhile, the truth is so simple and natural that most people fail to see it, seeking for complex theories instead of perceiving the reality as it is. Or was.
All emotions aside, let’s compare the good, the bad and the ugly things in 3rd Reich and USSR.
Used to incarcerate and eliminate political opponents, evident Jews and gypsies.1
Used to eliminate entire “enemy” society classes and ethnicities, outstanding individuals or just anyone caught to meet the plan2.
Self-made man. Military veteran. Political prisoner.
Habitual felon without any proper education or military career.
Anything not hostile to official doctrine was tolerated.
Not praising official doctrine or even non-reporting disagreement with it was enough for prison term.3
Private property. Private ownership of means of production.
“No private property” doctrine. All means of production belonged to state. Farm ownership was effectively banned.4
Always punished by GULAG terms or death.
Selectively-restrictive, banning weapon possession for Jews.
Restrictive, banning private possession of all handguns6
(w/o death camps)
No famine cases known
Artificially created, regular famine as communist method of holding the power
Rapid advance thanks to (then) famous German engineering and favoring regulations.
Forced industrialization that relied on slave labor. Traditional lagging in terms of quality and reliability.
Experiments on humans
Carried out with a purpose to create superior soldiers.
Carried out with a purpose to create ape-human hybrid.7
To create a great European empire for Germans and their allies without regard to “inferior” nations.
World domination a.k.a. “World revolution”
An ideal citizen
“Aryan” human being granted with superior physical abilities and beauty, loyal to his/her country and leader.
1. Passports in 3rd Reich had no “ethnicity” mark, unlike in USSR. Many not-so-evident (by appearance and given name) Jews have been able to avoid persecution, enlist the military or even help the regime serving in police forces. Now those facts are abused in all ways possible by sensation-happy conspiracy theorists.
Moreover, before coming to “final solution” Nazis tried different ways to banish “unwanted” people from Germany. In contrast to that, commies practiced ultimate eradication of “public enemies” since 1917.
2. There was a plan for everything in USSR. Even for number of “public enemies” to be arrested and executed (top secret evidence, very unpleasant for ruskies and their comrades).
3. Soviet laws determined “non-reporting of anti-soviet speeches and activities” (virtually anything could be interpreted as the latter) as act of treason punishable by long-term GULAG incarceration.
4. Peasants, forced into kolkhoz, were forbidden to have a passport until 1974. In fact that was restoration of serfdom with full state monopoly.
5. The most noticeable example was protest of German women married to Jews at Rosenstraße, Berlin in 1943. Not only the protesters avoided any harm; their arrested husbands were granted full amnesty.
6. The handgun ban enforced by bolsheviks still remains in effect in modern Russia.
7. When the relevance and usefulness of such subhuman “experiments” became obsolete, the Soviets switched to experimenting on human brains, most likely with the same purpose. Try to use a Web translator on this unique material if you can’t read Russian.
Did you notice that columns aren’t named “National Socialism” and “Communism?”
Like I said, there is no bare ideology without people who follow it. And here, we see a very interesting (and very politically incorrect) thing: even creating evil totalitarian regimes, not all nations are doing it in the same way. That’s why population of territories once conquered by Soviets (Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Caucasus) was greeting advancing Germans and many people willingly joined the Wehrmacht or even SS troops. Racial theory was the last thing they were thinking about. I’ll return to that matter later on.
Knowing no words of Conscience and Honor, Stalin was about to act just like in times of his political career when he backstabbed his way to the top. One must admit that Germans were smart and brave enough to strike first facing imminent threat of red invasion***, therefore saving at least the Western Europe from being completely overrun by red thugs but again, it’s hardly a merit of Stalin-loving, russophilic Nazi administration that planned co-existence with USSR. Being inferior in numbers but far more superior in skills and morale, Germans almost brought an end to enemy of all humankind – unfortunately, saved by corruption of Allied powers. And by “corruption” here I do not mean fighting against Hitler’s regime (like many revisionists do). I mean fighting in favor of Stalin’s regime of congenital thugs and subhumans.
*** Suvorov’s “Ice-breaker” is the best piece of analysis here. However, there are many other mutually independent sources like memoirs of German soldiers or civilian witnesses that confirm the fact of Soviet offense preparations.
This is an official statement of Dr. Sergei Melnikoff regarding current events in Riga.
Fifth column’s edge. Target: Baltic countries
I draw the attention of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, the Council of Europe, the Constitution Protection Bureau of the Republic of Latvia, as well as other competent bodies, on the following circumstances and persons, whose activities are aimed at undermining of the constitutional order in Latvia and in general, creation of unstable situation in entire Baltic region for benefits of Russia that is currently conducting a policy of open military and economic aggression.
Russian fifth column and its leaders in Riga joined their efforts in a choir against the international project “The People of Maidan” and its land of birth – the free Ukraine. Analysis of open sources allows to find with a high degree of reliability that this war against an international project has been coordinated by the Mayor of Riga Nil Ushakov and Modest Kolerov, the latter now living and acting under the pseudonym “Mike Collier”.
Mike Collier, or Modest Kolerov (his real name is hidden in the depths of FSB, whose director Mr. Patrushev was secretly awarded by “hero of Russia” title for murdering children in Beslan with flamethrowers and involved in bombing of sleeping apartment blocks in Moscow) in August 2012 was declared a persona non grata in Latvia due to “threat to the territorial integrity and economic security”. Before that, he was banned to enter Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia. But today this Russian emissary is roaming around the EU carelessly after losing some weight and pulling a cap over his eyes. Simple anthropometric study of Mike Collier’s and Modest Koverov’s portrait photos shows that it is the same person. It’s purely rhetorical question who helped a russian spy to return to Riga under slightly changed name, without even caring to alter physical appearance significantly.
Actions of Ushakov and Collier are coordinated with hundreds of media outlets not only in Latvia. Analysis of open sources reveals the existence of entire tree-structured network of russian-speaking media on Latvian territory, entirely controlled by hostile Russia. During my conversations with advisors in Riga on the possible purchase of “Baltkom” radio station I was told openly and directly about existence of such network and its purpose to prepare the people for “X” hour, should the “unexpected” invasion of Russian troops take place on the territory of Latvia. Constantly repeated surname “Ushakov” indicated complete lack of any attempts to conceal the actions of the Mayor of Riga, exceptionally beneficial for russian intelligence and thieves-oligarchs of this country.
Media attacks on Ukraine and socially significant projects dedicated to development of friendly relations between Ukraine and EU countries (in particular with the Republic of Latvia, like “The People of Maidan” project) are closely administrated by Ushakov-Coller group, Russian embassy in Latvia and FSB spy residents in Riga together with all more or less significant media outlets of the Russian Federation.
Hundreds of articles with groundless accusations of Ukrainian project and a series of attacks committed by so-called “vandals” right next to Latvian Cabinet of Ministers must cause deep concern not only of the supreme government bodies of the Republic of Latvia, but also of the Council of Europe, where a demonstration of “The people of Maidan” is planned.
All efforts to discredit the Government, the Seimas and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia, skillfully directed by Ushakov-Coller tandem with using of the dirtiest tricks in Russian-controlled mass media, must receive competent and comprehensive assessment.
This official statement and analytical note with factual materials are being sent by me to government and counter-intelligence authorities of the Republic of Latvia, the United States and the Council of Europe.
Sergey Melnikoff, aka MFF
Author of the global exhibition project “The People of Maidan”
Afghanistan, ATO, atrocities, Chechnya, corruption, explosives, genocide, IED, invasion, mainstream, russia, subhuman, terrorism, terroRussia, thug putin, thuggery, toys, turpitude, Ukraine, war, war crimes
One and only true RTBS-English dictionary. No political correctness, no mainstream, no censorship or popular restrictions. With it, you will never feel lost even in a crowd of brainwashed RTBS junkies!
Alternative (viewpoint, opinion, etc.)
Calling duck a pig and hopping mad when someone says that pigs can’t fly.
The same as “Nazi thug” but of Ukrainian origin.
One-way war executed by Russia.
Decadent West/Extremist East
Any country a bit cleaner than russian shithole.
Cheating, boorishness, mockery.
Any russian citizen who doesn’t lick Putin’s ass.
Complete denial of any human morality or law standards.
Great Patriotic War
Part of WW2, where bigger evil named communism devoured lesser evil named Nazism.
Fiction written by bolshevist lackeys.
Military assistance for russian terrorists, disguised as humanitarian cargo.
Annexation made by Russia.
Any government planning national defense against russian invasion.
Backed by Russia.
Any russian citizen who doesn’t want KGB thug Putin in office.
Anyone who opposes Russia.
Anyone able to fight against russian invasion.
Russian variant of ISIS.
Opposition (inside Russia)
Kremlin-approved jesters who regularly lead dumb russian herd under police batons.
Worshiping KGB and lowlife scumbags dressed as priests.
Agreement with some dumb Western politicians who end up like anyone trusting a thug – beaten, robbed and mocked.
Will to catch a bullet and be buried like a dog for own slavery and kingpin’s luxury existence. Or lose some limbs, return home and beg for change to buy vodka.
Invasion war won by Russia.
Protection of children (against homosexuals)
Exclusive right of native russian perverts to molest and abuse russian children.
Protection of russian-speaking population
Reasonless invasion war, genocide of all non-putinists (including russians) by terrorism and thuggery.
Voting at the wrong end of AK barrel.
GULAG lifestyle extended to entire society.
Attempt to enforce “russian world” somewhere.
A non-translatable mix of swine grunting, ape screams, prison slang diluted with profanities.
Persistence of “russian world” and personal safety of KGB asses.
Anyone who fights a guerrilla war against russian invaders.
Common russian activities (drinking cheap booze, whacking each other, sleeping in own drunken vomit and mating with drunk Natasha or drunk Emelya when there is no natasha available).
Anything approved by Putin’s dogs.
Actions against thuggery.
1. Consequences of russian invasion. 2. Imaginary events existing within russian mind exclusively (crucified boy, butchered bullfinches, Banderovite tortures, etc).
Any reasonable Western politician who considers russian commie thuggery inappropriate and tries to call for REAL resistance.
abomination, animal abuse, antisemitism, asshole, commie, invasion, nazi, red nightmare, russia, russian morality, russian orthodox church, russian world, russism, scumbag, subhuman, terrorism, thuggery, traditions, Ukraine, untermensch, war
I may be a bit late with time of this publication, but it’s never late to remember the Heroes. Especially in those days of celebrity worshiping and crooked stereotype ideologies.
At the 1st of February, veteran of two Chechen wars, commander of international peacekeeping battalion named after Dzhokhar Dudaev, Isa Munaev, met a Warrior’s death fighting against russian invaders on Ukrainian battlefield.
Those days, every man’s duty of avenging own family is considered something unusual (if not despised by oh-so-civilized sheeple). Losing his daughter, sister and father during a “mopping-up” russian genocide, he made only one decision a true man can take and never rested in his glorious quest of enforcing it.
For the people of Ukraine, there is no difference between own countrymen and refugees who fight against vile russian invaders. They mourned death of Usa Munaev and his fallen Ukrainian brothers in arms together.
Of all words of sorrow I’ve found this speech by Borys Filatov the most explaining and thoroughgoing.
“I think, my Friend, that you don’t feel offended with your life, your death and your friends.
You felt like caged lion in boring pastoral Denmark, longing for justice and revenge. In Ukraine, you found both.
Scumbags that conquered your country tried to root out your name, your glorious deeds and fight from the memory of your people. But you didn’t let this happen.
The Parliament of 45-million country stood up for moment of silence, honoring your memory.
We will always remember you as devoted Muslim and very civilized man simultaneously. Always calm, polite, silent, yet unyielding and desperate. Educated and well-mannered.
You did everything right.
You triumphed upon your enemies with not strength of weapon alone, but with the might of your spirit as well.
They are decay, roadside dust, surgical waste, nameless trash.
And you, the symbol of Caucasus resistance are the symbol of national Ukrainian resistance now. You are the part of our History, where you went as undefeated Hero.
I’d like to say “rest in peace”. But I know that you won’t, otherwise it won’t be you. You won’t have rest until revenge is done. You did everything right my Friend. Forgive us for not being able to preserve your life.”
This is my translation of a recent publication by Chechen human rights activist and dissident Mairbek Taramov for IPVNews.org.
Numerous photos and videos made by ISIS operators caused a worldwide uproar. Mass shooting of half-naked people lying flat on sun-baked ground, cutting throats, let alone beatings and humiliation. Their victims are POWs and civilians of different religious beliefs. Here we see shocking footage of execution of American and British journalists with throats being slashed. And all that is being done by people who call themselves Muslims. How such atrocities relate to Islam really?
Any Muslim says in the beginning of a new deed should say “Bismillahi Rahmani Rahim” (“In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful”). Do ISIS combatants say this before their mass murders and how the latter are related to mercy?
(Here and onwards in this text, Mr. Taramov points to verified russian translations of Qur’an and theologist commentaries. My translation has matching quotes from original acknowledged English versions.)
Surah 47, ayah 4-6:
“So when you meet those who disbelieve [in battle], strike [their] necks until, when you have inflicted slaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either [confer] favor afterwards or ransom [them] until the war lays down its burdens. That [is the command]. And if Allah had willed, He could have taken vengeance upon them [Himself], but [He ordered armed struggle] to test some of you by means of others. And those who are killed in the cause of Allah – never will He waste their deeds.
He will guide them and amend their condition
And admit them to Paradise, which He has made known to them.”
Beware, that is only rules of the war where both sides have the same goal (crush the enemy and win). Apparently more humane than Geneva convention.
Yusuf Ali commentaries:
“4820 When once the fight (Jihad) is entered upon, carry it out with the utmost vigour, and strike home your blows at the most vital points (smite at their necks), both literally and figuratively. You cannot wage war with kid gloves.
4821 In the first onset there must necessarily be great lass of life; but when the enemy is fairly beaten, which means, in a Jihad, that he is not likely to seek again the persecution of Truth, firm arrangements should be made to bring him under control. I thus construe the words “bind a bond firmly (on them)”, but others have construed the words to mean, “after the enemy’s numbers are fairly thinned down, prisoners may be taken”. With this passage may be compared 8:67, and n. 1234.
4822 When once the enemy is brought under control, generosity (i.e., the release of prisoners without ransom) or ransom is recommended.”
Abul Ala Maududi commentaries:
This is the first verse of the Qur’an in which preliminary instructions have been given about the laws of war. Below is given a resume of the injunctions that are derived from this verse and the Holy Prophet’s and his Companions’ practice according to it and the juristic inferences as based on this verse and the Sunnah:
(1) The real aim of the Muslim army in war is to break the fighting power of the enemy till it is crushed and the war lays down its arms. Under no circumstances, should the Muslim’s lose sight of this aim and start taking the enemy soldiers as captives. Captives should be taken after the enemy has been completely crushed and its numbers thinned down. The Arabs have been so instructed at the outset lest in the greed for ransom and taking slaves they should forget and overlook the real aim of the war.
(2) About the prisoners taken in war it has been said: “You have the option whether you show them favor or accept ransom from them. ” This gives the general law that the prisoners of war should not be put to death. Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar, Hasan Basri, `Ata’ and Hammad bin Abi Sulaiman favour this view, which is quite valid. They say that a man can be killed only during the war. When the war is over and one has been made a prisoner, it is not lawful to kill him, Ibn Jarir and Abu Bakr alJassas have related that Hajjaj; bin Yusuf handed over one of the prisoners of war to Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar and commanded him to put him to death. He refused to obey and cited this verse and said: “We are not allowed to kill a man when he is a prisoner.” Imam Muhammad in As-SiyaT al-Kabir also has related that `Abdullah bin ‘Amir had commanded Hadrat `Abdullah bin `Umar to kill a prisoner of war, and he had refused to obey the command for this reason.
(3) But since in this verse it has neither been clearly forbidden to kill the prisoner the -Holy Prophet understood this intention of Allah’s Command, and also acted accordingly, that if there was a special reason for which the ruler of an Islamic government regarded it as necessary to kill a particular prisoner (or prisoners), he could do so. This is not the general law, but an exception to it, which would be applied only when necessary. Thus, the Holy Prophet put to death only `Uqbah bin Abi Mu’ait and Nadr bin al-Harith from among the 70 prisoners taken at Badr, and only the poet Abu `Azzah from the prisoners taken at Uhud. Since the Bani Quraizah had surrendered on the condition that they would accept whatever decision Hadrat Sa`d bin Mu’adh would give in their regard, and he had decreed that all the males of the Quraizah should be killed, the Holy Prophet had them executed. From among the prisoners taken at Khaiber only Kinanah bin Abi al-Huqaiq was put to death because of his violating the agreement. At the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet commanded in respect of only a few particular persons from among all the inhabitants of Makkah that any one of them who was captured should be put to death. Apart from these exceptions, the Holy Prophet never killed prisoners of war, and the same also continued to be the practice of the righteous Caliphs. During their times also killing of prisoners of war was rare, which was resorted to only for a special reason. Hadrat, `Umar bin `Abdul `Aziz also during his caliphate put to death only one prisoner of war for the reason that he had persecuted the Muslims very cruelly. On this very basis the majority of the jurists have held the view that the Islamic government can put a prisoner to death if necessary. But it is for the government to take such a decision; every soldier is not permitted to kill any prisoner he likes. However, if there is the danger of a prisoner’s running away or of his committing a dangerous mischief, the guard can kill him. In this connection, the jurists of Islam have also made three other points: (a) That if a prisoner accepts Islam, he cannot be killed; (b) that the prisoner can be killed only as long as he is in the government’s custody; if he has been allotted to, or given in somebody else’s possession by sale, he cannot be killed; and (c) that if the prisoner has to be killed, he should be killed in a straightforward way; he should not be tortured to death
(4) The general command that has been given about the prisoners of war is: “Show them favor, or accept ransom from them. ” Favor includes four things: (a) That they should be treated well as prisoners; (b) that instead of killing them or keeping them in captivity for lifetime, they should be handed over to the individual Muslims as slaves; (c) that they should be put under jizyah and trade dhimmis; and (d) that they should be set free without ransom.
There are three ways of ransoming them: (a) That they should be set free on payment of a ransom; (b) that they should be set free after taking some special service from them; and (c) that they should be exchanged for the Muslim prisoners of war who are in the possession of the enemy. The Holy Prophet and the Companions at different times acted in one or the other way as the occasion demanded. The Divine Law has not bound the Islamic government to act in only one particular way. The government can take any action it deems appropriate on a particular occasion.
(5) The practice of the Holy Prophet and the Companions confirms that as long as a prisoner of war is in the government’s custody, the government will be responsible for his food and clothing, . and his treatment if he is ill or wounded. Islamic Law does not permit prisoners to be kept without food or clothing, or be subjected to torture. On the contrary, instructions also have been given to treat them well and generously, and precedents of this very practice are found in the Sunnah. The Holy Prophet distributed the prisoners of Badr in the houses of different Companions and gave the instruction: “Teat these prisoners well.” One of those prisoners, Abu ‘Aziz, has reported: “The Ansar Muslims, in whose house I was kept, gave me bread morning and evening, but as for themselves they had only dates to eat. ” About another prisoner; Suhail bin ‘Amr, the Holy Prophet was told: “He is a fiery speaker, and has been making speeches against you: please have his teeth broken. ” The Holy Prophet replied: “If I have his teeth broken, Allah will break my teeth, although I am a Prophet.” (Ibn Hisham). When Thumamah bin Uthal, the chief of Yamamah, was brought as a prisoner, he was provided with good food and milk on the Holy Prophet’s orders as long as he remained a captive. (Ibn Hisham). The same was the practice in the time of the Companions. No precedent is found when a prisoner might have been mistreated in their time.
(6) Islam has not permitted that the prisoners be kept in captivity for ever so that the government may subject them to forced labor as long as it likes. If they are not exchanged for other prisoners of war, or ransomed, the method enjoined of doing them favor is that they should be made slaves and given in possession of individuals, and their masters instructed to treat them well This method was acted upon during the time of the Holy Prophet as well as of the Companions, and the jurists of Islam have unanimously upheld it as permissible. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that a person who might have accepted Islam before being taken as prisoner, and then is somehow made a prisoner, will be set free, but the acceptance of Islam by a person who accepts it after being taken prisoner, or after being given in possession of somebody, will not gain him freedom automatically. A tradition has been related in Musnad Ahmad. Muslim and Tirmidhi on the authority of Hadrat `Imran bin Husain that a person from among the Bani ‘Uqail was brought as a prisoner and he said: “I have accepted Islam. ” Thereupon the Holy Prophet said: “If you had said this when you were free, you would certainly have attained to success. The same thing was said by Hadrat `Umar: “When a prisoner becomes a Muslim after falling into the hands of the Muslims as a captive, he will not be killed, but will remain a slave.” Oh this very point. the jurists of Islam have unanimously ruled that the prisoner who becomes a Muslim after being taken captive cannot escape slavery. (Imam Muhammad, As-Siyar al-Kabir). And this also is quite reasonable. If our law had been that anyone who embraced Islam after being taken a captive, would be set free, no prisoner would be so foolish as not to win his freedom by pronouncing the Kalimah.
(7) The third manner of doing favor with the prisoners according to the Law of Islam is that they may be put under jizyah and made dhimmi subjects of the Islamic state and allowed to live as free citizens of dar a/Islam (abode of Islam) just like the Muslims. Imam Muhammad writes in his As-Siyar a/-Kabir: “Any person who can be made a slave, can also be made a dhimmi and put under jizyah. ¦ At another place he says: “The ruler of the Muslims has the right to levy jizyah on than and a tax on their lands and set than absolutely free. ” This method has been practised generally in the condition when the territory of the people who have been made prisoners, is’ conquered and annexed to the Islamic state. The Holy Prophet, for instance, practiced this method in the case of the people of Khaiber, and then Hadrat `Umar followed and practiced it extensively on the conquest of `Iraq and other territories. Abu `Ubaid writes in his Kitab al-Amwal: “After the conquest of `Iraq a deputation of the leading men of that country came before Hadrat `Umar and submitted: `O Commander of the Faithful, before this the people of Iran had subdued us: they subjected us to harsh treatment and committed all sorts of excesses against us. Then, when God sent you, we became very pleased, and we neither put up any resistance against you nor participated in the war. Now, we hear that you want to make us slaves.’ Hadrat `Umar replied: `You have the option either to become Muslims, or accept to pay jizyah and remain free.’ They agreed to pay the jizyah and they were granted full freedom. ” At another place in the same book. Abu `Ubaid says: Hadrat `Umar wrote to Abu Musa al-Ash’ari: Set free every farmer and peasant from among the people who have been captured in the war. ”
(8) The fourth favor is that the prisoner be set free without ransom. This is a special concession that the Islamic government can give only in case the special conditions of a prisoner demand it, or when it is expected that the concession will win the prisoner’s gratitude for ever, and help turn him a friend from an enemy, or a believer from a disbeliever; otherwise, obviously it would in no way be a wise thing to set free a person of the enemy camp, who could again return to fight the Muslims. This is why the Muslim jurists generally have opposed it, and imposed the condition: “If the ruler of the Muslims finds it expedient to set the prisoners, or some of them, free as a favor, there is no harm in doing so.” (As-SiyaT al-Kabir). Many precedents of this are found in the time of the Holy Prophet, and in almost every case expediency seems to be the reason.
About the prisoners taken at Badr, he said: “If Mut’im bin `Adi were alive, and had spoken to me in respect of these treacherous people, I would have Iet them go for his sake.” (Bukhari, Abu Da’ud, Musnad Ahmad). The Holy Prophet said this because when he had returned from Ta’if to Makkah, Mut’im at that time had given him refuge, and his armed sons had escorted him to the Ka`bah. Therefore, he wanted to repay his debt of gratitude in this way.
According to Bukhari, Muslim and Musnad Ahmad, when Thumamah bin Uthal, the chief of Yamamah, was brought as a prisnoner, the Holy Prophet asked him: “Thumamah, what do you say?” He replied: “If I am killed, then such a one would be killed, whose blood has some value: if I am shown favor, then favor would be shown to a person, who appreciates favor; and if you want wealth, ask for it, you will be given it.” For three days the Holy Prophet asked him the same thing and he gave the same reply. At last, the Holy Prophet ordered that Thumamah be set free. On attaining freedom, he went to a nearby oasis, washed himself and came back, pronounced the kalimah and became a Muslim, saying: Before this day nobody was more detestable than you and no religion more odious than your religion in my sight, but now for me no man is more lovable than you and no religion more lovable than your religion.” Then he went to Makkah for ‘Umrah and gave the people of Quraish a notice to the effect: “After this no grain will reach you from Yamamah unless Muhammad (upon whom be Allah’s peace) permits it.” So, he stopped the grain supply and the people of Makkah had to request the Holy Prophet that he should not stop the supply of grain for them from Yamamah.
From among the prisoners of the Bani Quraizah, the Holy Prophet forgave Zabir bin Bata and ‘Amr bin Sa’d (or Ibn Su’da), the former because he had given refuge to Hadrat Thabit bin Qais Ansari in the Battle of Bu’ath, in the pre-Islamic days of ignorance; therefore, he handed him over to Hadrat Thabit that he may repay him for his favor. And he forgave ‘Amr bin Sa`d because it was he who was exhorting his tribe not to be treacherous when the Bani Quraizah were committing breach of the trust with the Holy Prophet.
After the Battle of Bani al-Mustaliq, when the prisoners were brought and distributed among the people, the Holy Prophet paid Hadrat Juwairiyah’s ransom to the person to whom she was allotted to secure her freedom and then married her himself. At this all the Muslims set their own prisoners free, saying: “Now they have become the Holy Prophet’s relatives. ” Thus, the prisoners of a hundred families became free. (Musnad Ahmad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d, Ibn Hisham).
On the occasion of the treaty of Hudaibiyah, at about dawn, 80 men came from the direction of Tan’im with the intention of launching a sudden attack on the Muslim camp, but were all captured, and the Holy Prophet set all of them free lest it became a cause of war on that critical occasion. (Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Nasa’i, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad).
At the conquest of Makkah, the Holy Prophet forgave all the people of Makkah except only a few men, and did not kill more than three or four of even those who had been made an exception. The whole of Arabia was well aware of what atrocities the people of Makkah had committed against the Holy Prophet and the Muslims; yet the large-heartedness with which he forgave them after attaining complete victory over them, gave the Arabs the satisfaction that they had not been overpowered by a tyrant but by a merciful, affectionate and generous leader. That is why after the conquest of Makkah the Arabian peninsula did not take longer than two years to be completely subdued.
After the Battle of Hunain, when the Hawazin deputation came to secure the freedom of their prisoners, the prisoners had already been distributed. The Holy Prophet called the Muslims together and said: “These people have come with repentance, and I am of the opinion that their men should be rearmed to them. The one who would like to set the prisoner allotted to him free willingly without ransom, should set him free, and the one who would like to take ransom, shall be paid it out of the first income that is received in the Public Treasury.” Thus, six thousand prisoners were set free, and those who wanted to take ransom, were given it by the government. (Bukhari, Abu Da’ud, Musnad Ahmad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d). This also shows that the government is not authorized to set the prisoners free after they have been distributed; this can be done by the willing approval of those in whose possession the prisoners have been given, or by paying them the ransom.
After the Holy Prophet, precedents of setting the prisoners free as a favor continue to be found throughout the period of the Companions also. Hadrat Abu Bakr set fret Ash’ath bin Qais al-Kindi and Hadrat ‘Umar granted freedom to Hurmuzan and the prisoners of Manadhir and Maisan. (Abu ‘Ubaid, Kitab alAmwal).
(9) The precedent of setting the prisoners free on payment of the ransom in the time of the Holy Prophet is found only on the occasion of Badr, when the prisoners were set free on payment of one thousand to four thousand dirhams each. (Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Amwal). No precedent of this is found in the time of the Companions; and the jurists of Islam have generally disapproved it, for it means that we should take money and set a man free so that he may again rise against us with the sword. But since taking of ransom has been permitted in the Qur’an, and the Holy Prophet also acted according to it once, it is not absoluutely forbidden. Imam Muhammad writes in his As-Siyar al-Kabir that if the need arises the Muslims can free their prisoners on payment of the ransom.
(10) The criterion of freeing a prisoner for a service rendered is also found in connection with the Battle . of Badr. For those of the Quraish prisoners who had no ransom the Holy Prophet imposed the condition that they should teach reading and writing to ten Ansar children each to win their freedom. (Musnad Ahmad, Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d, Kitab al-Amwal.
(11) Several instances of the exchange of prisoners are found in the time of the Holy Prophet. Once he dispatched Hadrat Abu Bakr on an expedition and he brought some captives, including a beautiful woman, who fell to the lot of Hadrat Salamah bin Akwa’ . The Holy Prophet urged him to give her back, then sent her to Makkah and had several ‘ Muslim prisoners released, in exchange for her. (Muslim, Abu Da’ud, Tahawi Kitab al-Amwal of Abi `Ubaid, Tabaqat Ibn Sa`d). Hadrat ‘Imran bin Husain relates that once the tribe of Thaqif arrested two men of the Muslims. Some time later, a man of the Bani ‘Uqail, who were allies of the Thaqif, was arrested by the Muslims. The Holy Prophet sent him to Ta’if and got both the Muslims released in exchange for him. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad). From among the jurists Imam Abu Yusuf, Imam Muhammad, Imam Shafe`i, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmad hold . the exchange of the prisoners as permissible. A ruling of Imam Abu Hanifah is that exchange should not be practiced, but according to another ruling of his exchange can be practiced. However, there is a consensus that the prisoner who becomes a Muslim should not be handed over to the disbelievers for the purpose of exchange.
This explanation makes it abundantly clear that Islam has formulated a comprehensive code in respect of the prisoners of war, which contains provision for this problem in every age under all sorts of conditions. Those people who take this Qur’anic verse in its simple meaning that the prisoners of war should “either be shown favor and set free or freed for ransom”, do not know what different aspects the question of the , prisoners of war has, and what problems it has been creating in different ages and can create in the future.
Now look what ISIS combatants are doing. Neither of those rules from Qur’an and comments of theologists are fulfilled! What “Islamic” state are they talking about? Their actions have a purpose to discredit Islam causing disgust amongst non-Muslim community and Muslims both.
Their actions remind of similar deeds in pre-war Chechnya, when some “radical group” demonstrated severed heads of engineers from Britain and New Zealand and videos of russian POWs execution to entire world.
Who got the benefit from this horrible footage? Only Kremlin and Lubyanka who sent it by diplomatic mail to all foreign embassies in Moscow. The result was immediate – almost the entire world turned away from Chechnya and Putin was granted with full impunity which he immediately used. His atrocious genocide made without any cover is comparable to Rwanda massacre.
ISIS. To whose benefit?
Now let’s think, who supports, finances, arms ISIS fighters? Any investigation should build its versions around the question: cui bono? In the light of recent events in Ukraine and following U.S.A and EU sanctions, there is only one answer. Acts of ISIS terrorism benefit only Kremlin administration and their loyal ally Assad. For the latter, it’s very important to make the West believe that the main danger to the West comes from the ISIS.
Terrorist acts of ISIS in Iraq who act by orders of Kremlin and Lubyanka can be classified only as answer to economical sanctions of the West which has certain interests (mostly energy sources) in the area.
Open your eyes
Let’s return to ayahs of the Qu’ran, sent to people 1436 years ago. Many famous theologists say that one should not take all Qu’ran literally, blindly copying 1.500-years-old actions, as the God gave noesis to people for thinking and understanding.
Any reasonable man should understand why Our’an ordered Muslims “strike their necks” back then. Neck was the most vulnerable body part, often not protected by armor due to movement requirements. When people were fighting with sabers, arrows, spears etc. a blow to the neck was the quickest and least painful way (as said in the comments above) to kill the enemy.
Unfortunately not every Muslim understands such things. But even if one tries to copy Qu’ran so literally, why ISIS fighters wouldn’t get on camels and fight with blades and arrows? But here they understand they will lose despite any superiority in numbers. So fanatics embrace the reality and prefer modern weapons obviously superior to ones used in times of Mohammed. Isn’t such a selective following of the most convenient things a pure hypocrisy?
It’s much worse. According to well-known khadi of the Prophet, Islam has three deadly enemies: a militant atheist, a theologists who falsifies explanation of Qu’ran ayahs and an ignorant fanatic.
ISIS consists of all those categories of whom the largest is the latter one. Unfortunately there are even Chechens amongst them. The question is what they forgot in Syria and Iraq while their deadly enemies, russian cuttroats who tortured and murdered their families in Chechnya, destroyed their beautiful homeland, came to Eastern Ukraine with their thuggery now?
The following ayah is addressed to those radical Muslims who joined so-called ISIS.
“O people, beware of exaggeration in religion for those who came before you were only destroyed because of exaggeration in religion.” (Sunan ibn Majah 3029)
I think there shouldn’t be any comments.
I still have some comments for you who made it to the end or just skipped all Qu’ran quotes. While demonstrating extreme condemnation of ISIS atrocities, the West almost begun praising TerroRussia by tradition ignoring its commie butchery. Looks like an old trick of a KGB thug Putin who is the first to yell about “Islamic terrorism” as soon as the West begins to notice something. For that, he always can sacrifice some of his own serfs.
I do not deny the fact of Islamic terrorism. I call things with own names. Looking at habitual “fun” of “novorossiya” thugs (beheadings, humiliation, rape, butchery) and executions of “infidels” made by ISIS, one can see more resemblance than difference. And russian subhumans bark about their “true faith” as much as fanatic Al-Qaeda preachers, while butchering innocent people.
So-called ISIS and so-called Novorossiya are like twin brothers of the same depraved family with elders residing somewhere in Lubyanka. There is much more to consider than just resemblance (sufficient alone to stop and think seriously), and the future of the West mostly depends on actual ability to think on its own, without blindly following orders from Moscow that remind of relations between molester and mentally challenged child more and more as the years go by.