Desperate and lonely Rohingya children flee by boat

Sir john

T20I Debutant
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Runs
7,565
SITTWE, Myanmar: The two children stood on the beach, at the end of the only world they knew, torn between land and sea.

They couldn't go back to their tiny Muslim village in Myanmar's northwest Rakhine because it had been devoured in a fire set by an angry Buddhist mob. In the smoke and chaos, the siblings became separated from their family. And after seven months of searching, they had lost hope of finding anyone alive.

The only way was forward.

Hungry and scared, they eyed a rickety wooden fishing boat in the darkness. Mohamad Husein, just 15, dug into his pocket and pulled out a little wad of money for the captain. He and his 9-year-old sister, Senwara Begum, climbed on board, cramming themselves tightly between the other ethnic Rohingya in the small hull.

As the ship pushed off, they didn't realize they were among hundreds, if not thousands of children joining one of the world's biggest boat exoduses since the Vietnam War. They only understood it wasn't safe to stay in a country that didn't want them.

Mohamad had no idea where they were headed. And as Senwara looked back in tears, she wondered if she would ever see her parents again.

Neither could imagine the horrors that lay ahead.

From Malaysia to Australia, countries easily reachable by boat have been implementing policies and practices to ensure that Rohingya Muslims don't wash up on their shores — from shoving them back to sea, where they risk being sold as slaves, to flat out barring the refugees from stepping onto their soil.

Despite pleas from the United Nations, which considers the Rohingya to be among the most persecuted groups on earth, many governments in the region have refused to sign refugee conventions and protocols, meaning they are not obligated to help. The countries said they fear adopting the international agreements could attract a flood of immigrants they cannot support.

However, rights groups said they are failing members of the religious minority at their most vulnerable hour, even as more women and children join the increasing mass departure.

"The sense of desperation and hopelessness is growing," warned Vivian Tan of the UN Refugee Agency.

About 1.3 million Rohingya live in the predominantly Buddhist country of 60 million, almost all of them in Rakhine state. Myanmar considers them illegal immigrants from neighbouring Bangladesh, though some families have lived here for generations.

When the country was under military rule, young men took to the seas on small, dilapidated boats every year in search of a better life. But since the bumpy transition to democracy in 2011, sectarian violence has killed up to 280 Rohingya and forced more than 140,000 others from their homes. Now, people of all ages are fleeing, many on massive cargo ships.

Women and children made up 5 per cent to 15 per cent of the estimated 75,000 passengers who have left since the riots began in mid-June 2012, said Chris Lewa of the nonprofit Arakan Project, a group that has tracked the boat journeys for a decade. The year before, around 9,000 people fled, most of them men.

It's a dangerous voyage: Nearly 2,000 Rohingya have died or gone missing in the past two years, Lewa said. Unaccompanied children like Senwara and her brother are among the most at risk.

The Associated Press reported from Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand on their plight, interviewing family members, witnesses and aid groups. Data were collected from the UN, government agencies, nonprofit organizations and news reports at the time.

The relief the two children felt after making it safely away from land quickly faded. Their small boat was packed with 63 people, including 14 children and 10 women, one seven months pregnant. There were no life jackets, and neither sibling could swim. The sun baked their skin.

Senwara took small sips of water from a shared tin can inside the hull piled with aching, crumpled arms and legs. With each roiling set of waves came the stench of vomit.

Nearly two weeks passed. Then suddenly a boat approached with at least a dozen Myanmar soldiers on board.

They ordered the Rohingya men to remove their shirts and lie down, one by one. Their hands were bound. Then they were punched, kicked and bludgeoned with wooden planks and iron rods, passengers on the boat said.

They howled and begged God for mercy.

"Tell us, do you have your Allah?" one Rohingya survivor quoted the soldiers as saying. "There is no Allah!"

The police began flogging Mohamad before he even stood up, striking his little sister in the process. They tied his hands, lit a match and laughed as the smell of burnt flesh wafted from his blistering arm. Senwara watched helplessly.

As they stomped him with boots and lashed him with clubs, his mind kept flashing back to home: What had he done? Why had he left? Would he die here?

After what seemed like hours, the beating stopped. Mohamad suspected an exchange of money finally prompted the soldiers to order the Rohingya to leave.

"Go straight out of Myanmar territory to the sea!" a witness recalled the commander saying. "If we see you again, we will kill you all!"

The Myanmar government denied that the Navy seized any ships during that period.

The refugees plodded on, but the boat was falling apart. A sarong stuffed in a hole could not stop water from bubbling through. The sticky rice and bits of bread Mohamad had brought for his sister were gone.

When they finally floated ashore, someone said they were in Thailand. Senwara didn't even know where that was.

Thailand is the first stop for almost all Rohingya fleeing by sea, but it does not offer them asylum. Up until a few years ago, the country had a "push back" policy of towing migrants out to sea and leaving them, often with little or no food, water or fuel. But after photos leaked of the military dragging one such boat in 2009, the government changed course.

Under its new "help on" policy, Thai authorities give basic supplies to migrants in its waters before sending them on. Other times, however, they direct the boat to traffickers who hold the asylum seekers for ransom, according to human rights groups that have interviewed scores of escapees.

Those who cannot get money are sometimes sold as slaves to work on fishing boats or in other industries without pay. Others flee, usually back into the hands of agents, where the cycle continues.

Royal Thai navy spokesman Rear Admiral Karn Dee-ubon denied cooperation with traffickers and allegations of boats being towed out to sea. He insisted the navy always follows humanitarian principles, but added that other Thai agencies could be involved in such activities.

After the children's boat entered Thai waters, all of its passengers were marched into the jungle where their hands were tied and they were told not to leave, survivors said. They were given rice and dry fish crawling with bugs.

Days later, they were put on another small boat without an engine. Then, survivors said, Thai troops pulled them far out to sea, cut the rope and left them to drift without food or water.

The boat rolled with the wind and currents. Senwara drank sea water and ate a paste of ground-up wood. She vomited, and diarrhoea poured out of her.

The next day, someone spotted what looked like a shadowy tree in the distance. The men used a little boy's mirror to flash signals in its direction.

When the boat came near, Indonesian fishermen smiled and spoke a language no one understood. The Rohingya could only make out that the crew was Muslim.

Indonesia has been sympathetic to the Rohingya, and its president has sent a letter to his Myanmar counterpart calling for an end to the crisis. Protesters in cities across the world's most populous Muslim nation have condemned the violence.

Yet Indonesia has not opened its doors to the Rohingya. It only allows them to stay until they can be resettled elsewhere, which can take years. In the meantime, they are kept in overcrowded detention centres and shelters, and no one can legally work.

The Indonesian and Malaysian governments fear that letting the Rohingya stay could lead to a greater influx of illegal migrants.

"At stake is national interest," said Yan Welly, an Indonesian immigration official. "Let alone a flood of immigrants could affect efforts in coping with problems of our own people."

The number of Rohingya housed in Indonesia jumped from 439 in 2012 to 795 last year. About 20 percent of the children who arrived were traveling alone, according to U.N. data.

Some go the official route: They register with the U.N. Refugee Agency when they arrive and wait to be resettled in another country. However, no Rohingya in Indonesia were referred for placement last year.

Ultimately, it is up to accepting nations, with their own policies and criteria, to decide whom to accept. To avoid the long delay, many asylum seekers run away and never get recorded.

In the past, thousands paid smugglers to take them by boat across a deadly stretch of ocean to Australia's Christmas Island. But that country recently took a hard line, transferring everyone arriving by sea to impoverished Papua New Guinea or the tiny Pacific island of Nauru. Australia's new policies also include towing vessels back into Indonesian waters, which has left the two governments sparring.

The boat carrying Mohamad and Senwara only made it as far as Indonesia.

After nearly a month and hundreds of miles at sea, they were rescued off Aceh's coast in the west. UN and news reports confirm the rickety ship arrived in late February 2013 and was towed because it had no engine.

The asylum seekers were transferred to a filthy detention centre with about 300 people — double its capacity — including more than 100 Rohingya. They soon clashed with 11 Buddhists from Myanmar picked up for fishing illegally in Indonesian waters, according to a police report obtained by The AP. The Rohingya complained the Buddhists were harassing their women.

A riot broke out in April 2013, and the nightmare the children thought they had escaped began replaying itself. Men threw splintered chairs and spewed rage into a darkness so black, it was impossible to see who was fighting whom. Eight Buddhist fishermen were beaten to death.

Senwara slept through the brawl in a separate quarter for women. But when she awoke the next morning, her brother was gone.

She was now all alone.

After a few months in jail with other Rohingya arrested for the fight, Mohamad was released due to his age. He soon left for neighbouring Malaysia on a small boat to find work and avoid further trouble.

For many fleeing Rohingya, Malaysia, is the preferred destination. Around 33,000 are registered there and an equal number are undocumented, according to the Rohingya Society of Malaysia. Those numbers have swelled with the violence in Myanmar.

But increasingly, migrants risk getting caught up in group arrests and sent to detention centers. Up to 1,000 have been detained in a nationwide crackdown, the Society said.

Those who arrive in the Muslim-majority country are not eligible for free health care or education, relying mainly on help from the U.N. and aid groups. But it usually doesn't take long to get illegal work on construction sites or in factories.

Mohamad found a job as a street sweeper in the city of Alor Setar, earning about $70 a month. He now lives in a tiny hovel with about 17 other Rohingya men sleeping on every inch of floor.

For the first time, he is earning a living on his own. But he remains tortured with guilt for leaving his little sister behind.

Soon after the detention centre riot, Senwara was registered as an asylum seeker. She was moved to temporary UN housing in Medan that's made of small concrete dorm-style rooms with a large play area in front. A Rohingya woman who knew Senwara's parents from childhood took the girl in.

Although Senwara smiles around her new foster parents, she remains hurt and angry that her brother left.

Mostly, her heart aches for home.

Senwara's parents didn't learn the children were safe until more than eight months after their village was burned.

On that awful night, rioters lit bottles and lobbed them into the mosque. Panicked Rohingya raced outside, slicing their bare feet on shards of broken glass left to make them bleed.

Senwara's mother, Anowar Begum, and father, Mohamad Idris, fled with two babies into a lake. They used bamboo stalks to guide them through the muddy chest-high water in the darkness.

Later, they searched frantically and found five more of their nine children. But Senwara and Mohamad had vanished. Everyone feared they were dead.

After moving from place to place, the family ended up in a squalid camp with tens of thousands of other homeless Rohingya on the outskirts of Rakhine state's capital, Sittwe.

They had given up hope for Senwara and Mohamad by the time an unknown Rohingya called from Indonesia to say they were safe. Today, 22 months after their separation, it's only through technology that the family, now scattered across three countries, can remain in touch.

Mohamad, in Malaysia, watches a video clip of his sister playing soccer in Indonesia. While the other young men in his simple, two-room flat sit on the floor chatting and scraping curry from their plates, the teenager retreats into silence. Even as he breaks down, he cannot look away from the little girl on the screen.

Back in Myanmar, a Skype video call pops up on a laptop. From inside the camp, Anowar stares at her daughter and sobs quietly into her headscarf. In Indonesia, Senwara quickly wipes away her own tears.

Two birthdays have passed since she left home. As her father asks how she's been, his weathered face trembles.

They then go through the questions every parent wants to know: Is she well? How is she doing in school? Is she getting enough to eat?

"It's really good to see you here and healthy," her father says, balancing a baby on his knee.

Soon her favourite sister, who looks just like her, starts making jokes. The whole family laughs, breaking the sadness for a few minutes.

"I'm fine," Senwara says, trying to sound upbeat. "I'm with a family that is taking good care of me. They love me. I'm learning things, English and religion."

Her father reminds her to be a good girl. He is desperate to see his children again, but believes they are better off far away. The family often goes hungry, and there's no money for medicine.

When it's time to say goodbye, Senwara keeps staring at the screen even after the faces disappear. She still doesn't understand why her village was burned or what forced her to leave home. She only knows one thing.

"I don't think I will ever be able to see my parents," she says, softly. "For the rest of my life."

link

:facepalm:
 
Lets hope that people just somehow learn to live together and don't create new countries in the name of religion.
 
It cannot be true, Buddhists are very peaceful, they would not hurt a fly, so what is happening in Myanmar has to be the Rohingya's fault
 
It cannot be true, Buddhists are very peaceful, they would not hurt a fly, so what is happening in Myanmar has to be the Rohingya's fault

Unfortunately, your comments reflect a widely held attitude and mind-set, which refuses even remotely to associate their community - whether religious or not - with anything bad, terrible, cruel, unjust, or evil.

The suffering of the minority Muslim population has been, and continues to be, widely documented by the world media. If mainstream news media are not reporting the atrocities taking place by Buddhists, it is only because they do not fit into the general narrative being scripted by politicians in the West, about how wonderfully rosy everything is now that the military junta has been removed, and how fantastic it is that democracy is flourishing in the country.

Yes, you are right. Buddhists are peace-loving, humble, devout and compassionate people. However, not all of them are. They are human beings, capable of committing vile acts, just like any other people. So remember not to turn a blind eye to uncomfortable truths when confronted with them, but rather, try to find a means of reconciling them with comforting truths.

I myself have heard first hand witness testimony from Muslims from the country, who described to me in detail the horrifying and terrifying oppression currently taking place by Buddhists against this minority group. Let us hope that the Dalai Lama, an inspirational man to many, whether Buddhist or not, will raise his voice against these injustices being committed in the name of his religion.

I suggest, Brother, that you search the internet for independent media reports of the situation in Burma, you will find disturbing pictures, accounts and first-hand detailed information about the ongoing slaughter of the Rohingya Muslims.

One final note: just as I condemn all atrocities and terrorist acts committed by Muslims against Muslims and non-Muslims, I also condemn those same acts committed by non-Muslims against Muslims. No-one, no group, community, society or nation is completely pure or completely evil. All are human beings, and as such, capable of dreadful, inhumane, cruel acts.
 
Unfortunately, your comments reflect a widely held attitude and mind-set, which refuses even remotely to associate their community - whether religious or not - with anything bad, terrible, cruel, unjust, or evil.
.

I was being sarcastic...

The level of violence in the atrocities done by the regime and militant monks in Myanmar exceeds most war zones these days. It says something when merely burning to death is a less violent way of dying compared to what some Rohingya faced.


However western media has been a bit less impartial this time, and did question the participation of supposedly peaceful monks in the violence.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/europe/0,16641,20130701,00.html

People blame the Pakistani Mullah, but for all his ills, the average Pakistani Mullah is docile compared to the militant monks indulging in killings in Burma
 
Where are the "mujahideen" busy in beheading and bombing Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi ... civilians ?
 
It cannot be true, Buddhists are very peaceful, they would not hurt a fly, so what is happening in Myanmar has to be the Rohingya's fault

Even if you were being ironic, I think it'll be legitimate to bring the question of Buddhism and its flirt with "sacred violence".

For instance Zen Buddhists in Japan were known to be amongst the most rabid ultra-nationalists, and the whole martial code called bushido, which inspires samurais, has its roots in the Buddhist (among other) faith.
Samurais themselves were modelled on European chivalry, which itself derived its ideas ("thanks" to the crusades) from Sufi warriors and their "spiritual chivalry" (futuwwa), Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) being the perfect model (an even combination of courage, ethics and wisdom).

All religions are per essence "violent", but what differentiates Islam from others is that it has formalized its jihad, in the sense that jurisprudence has limited the scope of actions the jihadis are able to do, like not attacking unarmed men, elders, women and children, burning trees, pollute water, ... ; obviously, I'm not referring to modern day "mujahideen" on "mission" (which ironically always coincides with USA's interests) in Syria who have probably spent more time in McDonald's than madaris.

That's why Western scholarship is revising its own historical axioms, and whereas the "father of international law" was thought to be Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, its paternity in reality goes, some eight centuries back, to one 9th century disciple of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), the jurist Muhammad al-Shaybani : war ethics (those dictated before, namely protection of elders, women and children, etc), rights of asylum, of refugees, ... have never been so complexily articulated, and its roots goes back to the holy Qur'an and our prophet's (pbuh) sayings.
Thus, Abu Bakr (ra) followed such imperatives :

“Do not betray or be treacherous or vindictive. Do not mutilate. Do not kill the children, the aged or the women. Do not cut or burn palm trees or fruitful trees. Don’t slay a sheep, a cow or camel except for your food. And you will come across people who confined themselves to worship in hermitages, leave them alone to what they devoted themselves for.”
(...)
“I give you ten commandments: don’t kill a woman or a child or an old person, and don’t cut trees or ruin dwellings or slay a sheep but for food. Dont burn palm trees or drown them. And don’t be spiteful or unjust.”

http://www.irfi.org/articles3/articles_4601_4700/war ethics in islamhtml.htm
 
I was being sarcastic...

The level of violence in the atrocities done by the regime and militant monks in Myanmar exceeds most war zones these days. It says something when merely burning to death is a less violent way of dying compared to what some Rohingya faced.


However western media has been a bit less impartial this time, and did question the participation of supposedly peaceful monks in the violence.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/europe/0,16641,20130701,00.html

People blame the Pakistani Mullah, but for all his ills, the average Pakistani Mullah is docile compared to the militant monks indulging in killings in Burma


I apologise to you for taking your words literally :(

Tragically, both the mullahs (no idea what that word means, btw) and the monks are doing an immense disservice to their co-religionists and religion.
 
Where are the "mujahideen" busy in beheading and bombing Syrian, Afghan, Iraqi ... civilians ?

We certainly do not need extremists to travel to Burma in order to spread chaos, murder innocents, and create hell for Buddhists, or Muslims.

Having said that, you raise a very interesting point. Why are Muslims so unwilling to save their own co-religionists in places like Burma, and yet so willing to engage in mass murder in places like Syria?

Also, why do Muslim countries refuse to offer asylum, refuge to Muslims being persecuted in countries like Burma, and yet condemn the West for the manner in which the latter (mis)treat Muslims in nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and so on?

The Syria catastrophe is, imho, related to Ahadith accounts about the creation of a Khalifat in the country, which - apparently - will usher in the advent of the Mahdi and/or Jesus (pbuh). But, I could be wrong, probably am.

The main point at issue is the level of Muslim suffering in many regions of the world - we could employ the word extreme, in the sense of the suffering being characterised, or described, as extreme.
 
incredibly sad stuff. :(

All religions are per essence "violent", but what differentiates Islam from others is that it has formalized its jihad, in the sense that jurisprudence has limited the scope of actions the jihadis are able to do, like not attacking unarmed men, elders, women and children, burning trees, pollute water, ... ; obviously, I'm not referring to modern day "mujahideen" on "mission" (which ironically always coincides with USA's interests) in Syria who have probably spent more time in McDonald's than madaris.

That's why Western scholarship is revising its own historical axioms, and whereas the "father of international law" was thought to be Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, its paternity in reality goes, some eight centuries back, to one 9th century disciple of Imam Abu Hanifa (ra), the jurist Muhammad al-Shaybani : war ethics (those dictated before, namely protection of elders, women and children, etc), rights of asylum, of refugees, ... have never been so complexily articulated, and its roots goes back to the holy Qur'an and our prophet's (pbuh) sayings.
Thus, Abu Bakr (ra) followed such imperatives :



http://www.irfi.org/articles3/articles_4601_4700/war ethics in islamhtml.htm

top post man ! however i found these as well which are interesting hadeeths.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256 :

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "The are from them.

so he clearly allowed killing children & women in 1 instance at least.

the term " children " also needs definitions. See this hadeeth for e.g.

Book 38, Number 4390 :

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

i´m personally not sure. does the growth start from 12, 13 or what age ?
 
top post man ! however i found these as well which are interesting hadeeths.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256 :

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "The are from them.

That would contradict ahadith found in Sahih Bukhari in the very same book and the very next traditions (4/52/257-258) or Sahih Muslim (19/4458), sources from which the formidable jurist of Medina, Imam Malik in his Muwatta, derived a chapter entitled "prohibition against killing women and children in military expeditions", quoting different narrations (21/08-11). So how to reconcile these "contradictory" statements not only from the prophet (pbuh) himself but such companion as Abu Bakr as Siddiq (ra), and others ? To simply read the chapter of Sahih Muslim (which relates the same episode in 19/4319-4323), namely, "permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate", considering that during night raids if the enemies couldn't be recognized and children happen to be casualties it's not a crime (and naturally, that's how traditionalists like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani have interpreted it).

the term " children " also needs definitions. See this hadeeth for e.g.

Book 38, Number 4390 :

Narrated Atiyyah al-Qurazi:

I was among the captives of Banu Qurayzah. They (the Companions) examined us, and those who had begun to grow hair (pubes) were killed, and those who had not were not killed. I was among those who had not grown hair.

i´m personally not sure. does the growth start from 12, 13 or what age ?

First of all, this is found in Sunan Abo Dawood, and is a particular case concerning the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayzah who wanted to be judged by the Torah after breaking the treaty, and, on their request, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, who knew the Jewish penal code, was made the mediator and gave the punishments in respect of their holdy texts ; the Jews accepted the verdict (see Sahih Bukhari 04/52/280, 05/59/447, 08/74/278 ; Sahih Muslim 019/4368).
In fact, Sa'd has been relatively better to the Jews than what their holy scriptures prescribed, considering that, following the Jews' law, nothing should have been spared (whereas here the women and children weren't killed, and in fact not all of men either) ; Abdullah Yusuf Ali commentating verse 33:26, notes #3703-3704

...Sa’d applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted. In Deut. XX. 10-18, the treatment of the city “which is very far off from thee” is prescribed to be comparatively more lenient than the treatment of a city “of those people, which the Lord thy God gives thee for an inheritance,” i.e., which is near enough to corrupt the religion of the Jewish people. The punishment for these is total annihilation: “thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth” (Deut. xx.16). The more lenient treatment for far-off cities is described in the next note. According to the Jewish standard, then, the Quraiza deserved total extermination- of men, women, and children. They were in the territory of Medina itself, and further they had broken their engagements and helped the enemy.

Sa’d judged them the milder treatment of the “far-off” cities which is thus described in the Jewish Law: “ Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and al that is in the city, even al the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord they God hath given thee” (Deut. XX 13-14). The men of the Quraiza were slain: the women were sold as captives of war: and their lands and properties were divided among the Muhajirs.”

So it's a case and not a rule, you can't infer a general conception of male puberty in Islam (which has been done by quoting others sources) based on this hadith which actually deciphers the Bible's position on violence.
In fact, again, the women and children who were supposed to remain slaves too benefited from Islam's lenient point of view, Maulvi Chiragh Ali

The rest of the Bani Koreiza,—male adults, women, and children,—were either liberated or got themselves ransomed. We read in Oyoon-al-Asar by Ibn Sayyad-al-Nas some account of the ransom. Osman-bin-Affan gathered much money by the transaction. But Sir W. Muir quotes from Hishamee, that the rest of the women and children were sent to be sold among the Bedouin tribes of Najd, in exchange of horse and arms. But there is no authority for this story. Abul Mo'tamar Soleiman, in his Campaigns of Mohammad, gives another account which is more probable. He writes:—

"Out of what was captured from Bani Koreiza Mohammad took seventeen horses and distributed them among his people. The rest he divided into two halves. One-half he sent with Sád bin Obádd to Syria, and the other half with Ans bin Quízí to the land of Ghatafán, and ordered that they may be used there for breeding purposes. They did so, and got good horses."

Compare it with the Lord in the Old Testament who says that, of the Amalekites, Jews should "...totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Samuel 15:3).
In fact, there are so many instances of literal appeals to genocides in the Old Testament that I don't think I'll need to be more eloquent on that.
 
Last edited:
The issue is whether Rohingya are Indigenious Burmese or are they illegal immigrants.But in no case violence can be justified.If they are indigenous then they should get all the rights,starting from citizenship.If they are illegal immigrants then they should be rehabilitated and their country of origin must also take certain steps to help them.

The militant mujhadeen rebellion by the Rohingyas in past hasnt helped their cause one bit.Esp. the ones where they tried to separate their province and merge it to Bangladesh.

Similar problems exist in Assam as well,where illegal Bangladeshi immigrants clash with local population.Similar clashes have also been reported in Bengal as well.

The crux of the problem is rights of the local people versus the acts of illegal immigrants.
 
That would contradict ahadith found in Sahih Bukhari in the very same book and the very next traditions (4/52/257-258) or Sahih Muslim (19/4458), sources from which the formidable jurist of Medina, Imam Malik in his Muwatta, derived a chapter entitled "prohibition against killing women and children in military expeditions", quoting different narrations (21/08-11). So how to reconcile these "contradictory" statements not only from the prophet (pbuh) himself but such companion as Abu Bakr as Siddiq (ra), and others ? To simply read the chapter of Sahih Muslim (which relates the same episode in 19/4319-4323), namely, "permissibility of killing women and children in the night raids, provided it is not deliberate", considering that during night raids if the enemies couldn't be recognized and children happen to be casualties it's not a crime (and naturally, that's how traditionalists like Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani have interpreted it).



First of all, this is found in Sunan Abo Dawood, and is a particular case concerning the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayzah who wanted to be judged by the Torah after breaking the treaty, and, on their request, Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, who knew the Jewish penal code, was made the mediator and gave the punishments in respect of their holdy texts ; the Jews accepted the verdict (see Sahih Bukhari 04/52/280, 05/59/447, 08/74/278 ; Sahih Muslim 019/4368).
In fact, Sa'd has been relatively better to the Jews than what their holy scriptures prescribed, considering that, following the Jews' law, nothing should have been spared (whereas here the women and children weren't killed, and in fact not all of men either) ; Abdullah Yusuf Ali commentating verse 33:26, notes #3703-3704



So it's a case and not a rule, you can't infer a general conception of male puberty in Islam (which has been done by quoting others sources) based on this hadith which actually deciphers the Bible's position on violence.
In fact, again, the women and children who were supposed to remain slaves too benefited from Islam's lenient point of view, Maulvi Chiragh Ali



Compare it with the Lord in the Old Testament who says that, of the Amalekites, Jews should "...totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" (1 Samuel 15:3).
In fact, there are so many instances of literal appeals to genocides in the Old Testament that I don't think I'll need to be more eloquent on that.
thanx for clarifying. appreciate that. so the bit about the jew tribe is accepted. with no offense to anyone bible is full of " GREAT " stuff if you know what i mean. dont want to hurt any jew or christian out there .

however saving only those who dont have pubic hair yet is disappointing whether ts less strict than bible or not. i mean to say here , even 15 YO have them. i would rather have wanted someone compassionate to interfere to make Sa'd ibn Mua'dh see some sense , even though he´s already being lenient than what bible says.

coming back to killing of children & women.

you say "provided its not deliberate". problem is that, the words in hadeeth are very brief. they say " they are from them ". WHY DOESNT it talk anything about it being not deliberate etc ? " they are from them ". this clearly implies that it might´ve been allowed for once at least.

considering that during night raids if the enemies couldn't be recognized and children happen to be casualties it's not a crime

why ignore women here ? how hard is it to recognise women in dark ? a mere scream from them tells you all.

anyway i was just curious. muslims are free to add in between the lines what doesnt originally exist in the text. the hadeeth just says "they are from them. " deliberate etc isnt even mentioned in the text. its all in tafseers what i´ll still accept. no problem. but the hadeeth just says " they are from them ". no offese to anyone.
 
incredibly sad stuff. :(



top post man ! however i found these as well which are interesting hadeeths.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256 :

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "The are from them.

so he clearly allowed killing children & women in 1 instance at least.

coming back to killing of children & women.

you say "provided its not deliberate". problem is that, the words in hadeeth are very brief. they say " they are from them ". WHY DOESNT it talk anything about it being not deliberate etc ? " they are from them ". this clearly implies that it might´ve been allowed for once at least.



why ignore women here ? how hard is it to recognise women in dark ? a mere scream from them tells you all.

anyway i was just curious. muslims are free to add in between the lines what doesnt originally exist in the text. the hadeeth just says "they are from them. " deliberate etc isnt even mentioned in the text. its all in tafseers what i´ll still accept. no problem. but the hadeeth just says " they are from them ". no offese to anyone.

Although I never believed this Hadith anyway from day one, and I´m of the firm belief that it must be false, but recently I came across three Ahadith in Sahih Bukhari which contradict the above one, and in which case points further towards it being not the case as is mentioned in the Hadith posted by you.

"Narrated Humaid: Anas bin Malik said, "Whenever the Prophet went out with us to fight (in Allah's cause) against any people, he never allowed us to attack till morning and he would wait and see: if he heard Adhaan he would postpone the attack and if he did not hear Adhaan he would attack them." Anas added, "We reached khaibar at night... " - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab-al-Adhaan.

"Narrated Anas: Whenever Allah's Messenger attacked some people, he would never attack them till it was dawn. If he heard the Adhaan (i.e. call for prayer) he would delay the fight, and if he did not hear the Adhaan, he would attack them immediately after dawn. We reached Khaibar at night" - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab-al-Jihaad.

"Narrated Anas: The Prophet set out for Khaibar and reached it at night. He used not to attack if he reached the people at night, till the day broke. So, when the day dawned, the Jews came out with their bags and spades. When they saw the Prophet; they said, "Muhammad and his army!"... " - Sahih Bukhari, Kitaab-al-Jihaad.

So there you go, I reject the narration that you posted, and I´m not being an apologetic. It´s true though that this is a conclusion that I´ve drawn fully on my own (as I´m unaware of this being proposed anywhere online), as otherwise I´ve seen Muslim scholars, such as even those at Islamqa.org, trying to offer other type of clarifications and defence.
 
Back
Top