Another Beheading

The recent beheadings of US journalists James Foley and Stephen Sotloff in Iraq were savage acts. Many watched the videos of their murders by Islamist State militants and were horrified. Muslim organizations around the world distanced themselves from the militants and decried the brutal slaying, making it clear that the acts did not represent Islam.

Our opinion of associating beheading with barbarism is consistent with a modernized view of capital punishment. For instance, the Romans were brutal and beheading was not uncommon. In the New Testament there was the case of John the Baptist’s head on Herod’s platter. Interestingly, the Romans considered beheading to be more honorable than crucifixion. They beheaded their own people but limited crucifixion to non-Romans.

Beheading was widely used in Europe and Asia until the 20th century. Interestingly, all the European countries that previously used beheading have now totally abolished the death penalty. As recent as 2007, 153 men and three women were beheaded in Saudi Arabia. Beheading is still practiced in Iran.
Apart from being used as a means of capital punishment by a state, the act of beheading is used to obliterate enemies. According to Ian Tuttle of the National Review Institute, “beheading is not just a warning or a promise; it is a ritual expression of an ideology. That this ideology seeks to annihilate and tyrannize is clear from the jihadists’ beheading method; not a quick, clean blow, but a slow, agonizing sawing motion that keeps the victim alive to experience his own execution.”

The vicious murders of the journalists were not done as acts of capital punishment – like Daniel Pearl of the Wall Street Journal, they committed no crime. The beheadings were done in the name of religion. It would seem as though Islamists practice beheading because they believe that God has ordained them to obliterate their enemies in this manner. Their intent is to weaken the will of opponents. 

According to Professor Timothy Furnish, “Islam is the only major world religion today that is cited by both state and non-state actors to legitimize beheadings” (The Middle East Quarterly: Spring 2005. Volume 12: Number 2).

Jihadist groups justify the decapitation of opponents with Qur’anic Scripture. In chapter (sura) 47 verse (ayah) 4 of the Qur’an it says: “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.” With little variation, Muslim scholars have translated the verse as, “When you meet unbelievers, smite their necks.”

Many modern interpretations of this verse remain consistent with those of early Islam. In his Saudi-distributed translation of the Qur’an, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote that the injunction to “smite at their necks,” should be taken both literally and figuratively. “You cannot wage war with kid gloves,” he argued (The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an, p. 1378).

In Islamic history, beheading of captives is a recurring theme. The practice of beheading non-Muslim captives extends back to the Prophet himself. The earliest biographer of Mohammad is recorded as saying that the Prophet ordered the execution by decapitation of 700 men of the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe in Medina for allegedly plotting against him (‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hisham, [translated]).

Since Mohammad’s time, many Islamic leaders have followed his model. History is replete of examples of decapitation, of both the living and the dead. For instance, the Ottoman Empire was often referred to as the decapitation state. Upon their victory over Christian Serbs at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, the Muslim army beheaded the Serbian king and scores of Christian prisoners. In the early 19th century, even the British fell victim to the Ottoman barbarianism. An 1807 British expedition to Egypt resulted in “a few hundred spiked British heads left rotting in the sun outside Rosetta.”

So much for history – we do not expect such barbaric behavior in the 21st century. As people groups migrate, they take their religious ideas with them. In the process migrants are expected to live with people who share differing worldviews. As we share opportunities for advancement, we should be free to learn about the religious or irreligious views of our neighbors.

For Christians, migration brings opportunity - opportunities to learn from others and to share with others. Like Paul on Mars Hill (Acts 17), we must be ready to share our faith in the marketplace of ideas. We must listen and learn how to share our faith without attempting to destroy others who may disagree with our approach to life.

Jesus clearly taught us how to deal with people who disagree with us. He never taught violence as an option. Instead, He instructed us to pray for those who disagree with us. As an evangelistic strategy, compassion is always more effective than confrontation.