Like most of humanity, I have been stunned by the sheer savagery and cruelty of the Islamic State. Yet, thousands have flocked to the ISIS forces from the West. For me, it has been a particularly shocking phenomenon. The images that repel us, attract them. Religion is clearly a release for these people. A release from the obligations of decency and humanity. Images show Islamic State fighters laughing and enjoying the torture and murder of captives. Muslim clerics with ISIS assure them that they can treat non-Muslims as lower than animals and commit rape as an Islamically pure act. It has been an incredibly depressing time for those of us who believe that humans can aspire to true greatest of spirit and caring. This Christmas, however, my daughter showed me the YouTube clip below of a man named Matt Harding who goes around the world getting people to dance with him. After watching him, my faith in humanity was restored.
What is so striking about the Islamic State and other extreme Muslim groups is that they most hate joyous expressions from dancing to singing. They throw acid on little girls trying to become educated and destroy the houses of worship of other groups.
Nothing could be a greater antithesis to the hate of these extremists than Matt Harding and people like him:
What is even more reassuring is that he is not alone. Around the world, people are spontaneously singing and dancing. These are a few clips shared by our readers this year. Watching them restores some of the faith in the future that these extremists really cannot extinguish the joy in the world.
Nick Spinelli
Are there any other organized religions trying to create their own country by killing non believers?
——————————————-
Israel!
And regarding this one, Pogo:
““And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.” (Sura 2, verse 191).”
It is immediately preceded by:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors.” LIMITED, MEASURED SELF-DEFENSE
then immediately followed by:
“And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah (OPPRESSION) and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.” NEEDS NO EXPLANATION!
AS you see, context matters. All of the verses you quote say the same thing, defend yourself and fight back harshly, but do not overstep the bounds and do not fight those who do not fight you. Pretty humanistic I’d say!
By the way, the word unbelievers or disbelievers routinely refers only to the pagan arabs, who were avowed enemies of the Muslims, and with whom the Muslims were at war.
‘
Finally, where did the Prophet send the Muslims when the pagan arabs were oppressing and killing them? To find refuge with the Ethiopian king, who was a Christian.
Finally 2.0, did you know that the Prophet Muhamad had a Coptic wife?
Nick,
Religions don’t kill people; people kill people.
Are there any other organized religions trying to create their own country by killing non believers?
Pogo, I am back to answer you.
I’ll start with this:what do islamophobes and islamist extremists have in common? They both quote verses of the quran out of context in order to make their case. You have unfortunately done that.
Context being everything, I am offering you the context that qualifies the verses you quote. And remember to always read the verses before and the ones after, the cause is always laid out before, and the following verses qualify the course of action. Paid attention to the YOU CAN FIGHT BACK AND DO THIS TO THEM, BUT IF YOU FORGIVE, IT IS BETTER FOR YOU.
This verse :”“O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” (Sura 5, verse 51).”
is preceded by this one:
“This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.”
Then followed by these ones:
“O you who have believed, remember the favor of Allah upon you when a people determined to extend their hands [in aggression] against you, but He withheld their hands from you; and fear Allah . And upon Allah let the believers rely”: CAUSE ONE, their aggression.
”
“So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good.” CAUSE 2 plus recommendation to forgive the deceivers among them.
“O you who have believed, take not those who have taken your religion in ridicule and amusement among the ones who were given the Scripture before you nor the disbelievers as allies. And fear Allah , if you should [truly] be believers.” CAUSE 3/ their ridiculing of their the religion
“Say, “O People of the Scripture, do you resent us except [for the fact] that we have believed in Allah and what was revealed to us and what was revealed before and because most of you are defiantly disobedient?” Cause 4, their resentment
“Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammad] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” QUITE EVIDENT
“You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, “We are Christians.” That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant.”
It is apparent to me that the topic started from the general to the specific, general as in all the people of the book (jews and christian), specific as in the people of the book in that SPECIFIC LOCALITY .If you knew that history, you’d know that at that time, the Jews and Christians were allying with the disbelievers (the pagan arabs) in oppressing the muslims.
They are irrelevant? Seriously? They FAR outnumber the Muslims who are engaged in war. Amazing statement and not in a good way.
If they exist, they’ve become irrelevant.
Moreover, the very tenets of their faith demand violence to nonbelievers.
on 1, December 28, 2014 at 4:37 pmPogo Hears a Who
Inga, my quotes are internally consistent.
Islam is being used as a tool for power, clothed as a religion meant to elevate.
***************************
Pogo,
So are you saying that all of Islam is ‘hellbent’ on gathering more power? Again you seem to ignore the millions of peaceful Muslims.
“Insanity is a condition, not a value judgment. And this condition applies to everyone.”
I see what you’re driving at.
The ‘fallen nature’ of man refers to the same idea.
Inga, my quotes are internally consistent.
Islam is being used as a tool for power, clothed as a religion meant to elevate.
“The constant wars, pain, suffering, hunger, starvation, sickness, misery, anger, and all the horrible behavior of humans in the name of their religions and governments is the proof I would point to. I’m constantly amazed that more people have not come to the same conclusions, but I have realized this is normal for the human species. It’s just that we live in a worldwide society that is sick and criminal for causing or allowing these things to exist so prevalently.”
Tyger,
I appreciate your honesty and openness. I do however question your conclusion regarding the diagnosis of insanity. You offer proof and follow that up with; “but I have realized this is ‘NORMAL” (emphasis mine) for the human species.” Do you believe insanity is normal for humanity? I might agree..see below.
All the bad and all the good of humanity are found within and without organized religion. All the good and all the bad of humanity are found within civilized and barbaric cultures. I believe human nature is not evolutionary; it will always be reflective of the environment we live in.
The gift that the Age of Enlightenment gave humanity is the realization that with our existence come certain unalienable rights. It is reasonable to conclude that we are much more likely to secure our rights within some form of a social contract and I believe our constitutional form is the best. At this point, “most” of humanity has no excuse as to why they still support and defend any individual, group, organization, sect or government that would seek policies that infringe on those rights. That being said, we have those in this blog that will earnestly denounce the existence of unalienable or natural rights and it manifests itself with unbending loyalty to the progressive, administrative state.
So if you want insanity, try following the ‘logic’ against unalienable rights and the form of government ‘intended’ to best secure them.
“the UN Commission on Human Rights had condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq” ”
Beautiful, bolstering your irrelevant argument with another irrelevant argument. The American people weren’t conned into war on the grounds of “humanitarian intervention” anymore than we were conned into the war because lawyers for the Bush admin felt Saddam wasn’t in compliance with UN resolutions. We were conned into that unjust and unnecessary war under the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was in the final stages of building a nuclear weapon.
Let me ask you, when you were asked to trade your humanity for a law degree, why did that seem like such a good trade to you considering the lack of a market for new lawyers currently? You might as well have just traded your soul for the prize at the bottom of a cracker jack box.
Oops. Fix:
… Saddam was guilty: At the decision point for OIF, the UN Security Council had decided “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions”, UNMOVIC had found “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” pursuant to UNSCR 687, and the UN Commission on Human Rights had condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq” pursuant to UNSCR 688.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS6BHBai2Ug&w=420&h=315%5D
This is what you people who make excuses for Islam are supporting and making excuses for in your misguided attempt to justify these horrible people.
Like Hillary said, “What Difference, Does It Make?” “It’s Less Important Today.”
po@minutebol:
You are incorrect that “the only WMD found in Iraq were the remnants of the program WE helped Iraq build to better war against Iran”. See the sample from the Iraq Survey Group’s Duelfer Report that I block-quoted in my comment to Anarchist 2.0 at December 28, 2014 at 12:26 am. Better yet, google and read first UNSCR 687 and then the ISG findings for yourself.
In fact, numerous disarmament violations were found in Iraq.
And, Iraq’s WMD program was its own. The extent of American technical “help” to Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War was some US firms sold some items to Iraq on the international market, which while controversial, was public record – not a secret – and a practice that was banned in the Gulf War ceasefire.
More significantly, CJ Chivers’ reports that a high amount of WMD munitions were found in Iraq are, on their face, added corroboration that Saddam was in breach of UNSCR 687.
One – this should be obvious and it’s astounding that Chivers even implies it – there was no exception in UNSCR 687 that allowed Saddam to keep WMD he made before and, therefore, possessed as of the Gulf War. In fact, Saddam’s failure to account for all WMD stocks possessed as of the Gulf War was the most contentious issue for UNSCOM and UNMOVIC and most often cited disarmament violation throughout the Gulf War ceasefire.
In fact, when Clinton endorsed Bush on Iraq, Clinton’s chief concern was, “it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons”.
Two – this should also be obvious – there was no exception in UNSCR 687 that allowed Saddam to keep WMD researched, developed, or manufactured using items acquired on the international market, including from US firms.
po@minutebol:
Actually, Bush didn’t build the case against Saddam. The case against Saddam, as used by President Bush, was built by President Clinton.
Remember, enforcing the Gulf War ceasefire was not a new policy by President Bush. OIF was the coda of the US-led enforcement of the UNSC resolutions with Iraq that began when Saddam seized Kuwait in 1990 and continued through the ceasefire subsequent to the Gulf War.
By 2002, the UN-mandated standard of compliance that Saddam had agreed to abide by in 1991, Saddam’s decade-plus track record of noncompliance, and status of material breach were well established.
For example, an excerpt from the February 17, 1998 remarks on Iraq by President Clinton to Pentagon personnel (better yet, google and read the whole speech):
po@minutebol:
You are incorrect that Operation Iraqi Freedom was “based on false evidence”. That myth relies on a fundamental false premise that shifted the burden of proof away from Iraq, the probationary party, to prove compliance with the UNSC resolutions onto the US, the chief enforcer of the UN mandates, to prove Iraqi possession matched the pre-war intelligence estimates.
In fact, there was no burden of proof on the US and UN. The UNSC resolutions and US laws of the Gulf War ceasefire, including UNSCR 1441 and PL 107-243, plainly show its enforcement was compliance-based and the burden of proof was on Iraq to prove full compliance and disarmament.
Pre-war “evidence”, no matter how precise, did not and could not trigger OIF. By procedure, only evidence of Iraq’s noncompliance could trigger enforcement, and only confirmation of Iraq’s compliance with the standard mandated by UNSCRs 687, 688, and related resolutions could switch off the enforcement.
As such, the March 2003 UNMOVIC Cluster Document, which was true, was the (main) triggering evidence that Iraq remained in material breach of UNSCR 687. Bush’s decision for OIF on the evidence of the Cluster Document followed Clinton’s precedent with the December 1998 UNSCOM Butler Report, which provided the evidence that triggered Operation Desert Fox.
At the same time, Saddam was noncompliant on his non-weapons obligations, such as the humanitarian mandate of UNSCR 688, the anti-terrorism mandate of UNSCR 687, and illicit trade in the Oil for Food scandal (which funded Saddam’s illicit weapons procurement), which were also evidence that triggered OIF.
po@minutebol:
Although the intelligence community has been criticized for the pre-war intelligence estimates, you are incorrect that “false evidence was cooked up”.
In 2005, the bipartisan Silberman-Robb WMD Commission, while sharply critical of the pre-war intelligence, “found no indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction”. Then in 2008, a Democrat-slanted Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, although overtly partisan and seeking fault, analyzed pre-war statements by Bush administration officials and concluded they were largely “substantiated by intelligence”, and found no manipulated intelligence nor political pressure placed on intelligence analysts.
In their defense, the criticized intelligence agencies were unfairly judged by a burden of proof that was outside the Iraq enforcement procedure. To their credit, although imprecise, the pre-war intelligence correctly indicated Iraq was noncompliant with the Gulf War ceasefire. The imprecision of the intelligence was due to Saddam’s effective “denial and deception operations” (Duelfer Report), which were evidence of Iraq’s noncompliance in their own right. The ability of IIS counter-intelligence to adapt to Western intelligence-gathering was a known issue in the disarmament process and accounted for with Iraq’s presumption of guilt, standard of compliance, and burden of proof.
Again, the pre-war intelligence did not and could not trigger enforcement. By procedure, OIF was triggered by Iraq’s material breach of its obligations under the UNSC resolutions, including Iraq’s failure to prove Saddam was disarmed to the standard mandated by UNSCR 687.
po@minutebol:
You are incorrect that Congress voted for the 2002 AUMF “based on the info the Bush administration gave them”. Congress uses independent researchers (eg, CRS) and independent access to intelligence agencies.
In fact, most of Congress had more experience with the Saddam problem than President Bush. The legislators, especially the Democrats (and to a lesser extent, Republicans) who engaged in President Clinton’s struggle with Saddam and independently reviewed the pre-war intelligence in light of Saddam’s track record, largely shared Bush’s determination.
When Congress voted with Bush on Iraq, it was also voting with Clinton and its own decade-plus enforcement of the Gulf War ceasefire. For example, see House Resolution 322 from November 1997 that was sponsored mainly by Democrats (12 of 19), excerpt:
po@minutebol:
You are correct that there is no domestic legal controversy over the decision for OIF, but that there is an international legal controversy.
The international legal controversy is procedural rather than substantive, because Saddam was guilty: At the decision point for OIF, the UN Security Council had decided “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions”, UNMOVIC had found “about 100 unresolved disarmament issues” pursuant to UNSCR 687, and the UN Commission on Human Rights had condemned the “systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq” pursuant to UNSR 688.
I believe, on balance, the American view set by Clinton that the Gulf War authorization (PL 102-1, UNSCR 678) provided the US with standing legal authority to enforce the Gulf War ceasefire wins out over the OIF opponents’ view that each US military enforcement action required a new UN authorization.
In fact, UNSCR 1441 “recall[ed]” UNSCR 678.
OIF followed the decade-plus course pursuant to UNSCR 678 that included US-led military enforcement throughout – eg, the no-fly zones and Operation Desert Fox – without new UN authorizations. In fact, for over a decade with Saddam’s regime, specifically, and other international enforcements (eg, Balkans crisis), generally, the US had consistently deployed the military with sovereign authority, and only at times with concurrent specific UN authorization.
Structurally, the UN relies on sovereign authorities, especially American sovereign authority, for military enforcement. The US-led multilateral coalitions that have conducted international enforcements had been galvanized by and organized around American leadership rather than UN imprimatur – a norm that continued with the US-led multilateral coalition in OIF.
po@minutebol:
Secretary Powell shouldn’t regret it. The law and policy of the Gulf War ceasefire plainly show its enforcement was based on Saddam’s compliance, not pre-war “evidence”, and the facts show Saddam was noncompliant at the decision point for OIF.
The decision for Operation Iraqi Freedom was compliance-based and right on the law and justified on the policy, and so was Powell at the UN on February 6, 2003:
Wasabi is hot!
Hey Wasabi, I love your selective quoting of that NYT article. You forgot this sentence-
“Although the material could not be used in its current form for a nuclear weapon or even a so-called dirty bomb”
Also, you were hoodwinked by a typically biased article in the American media that fails to mention the site was just a nuclear waste dump, or that it had been repeatedly bombed since 1981 (more than 20 years before our latest gulf genocide), at which time it was the site of a nuclear reactor, not nuclear weapons research.
on 1, December 28, 2014 at 2:31 pmPogo Hears a Who
Neither religion nor government is to blame, but man himself.
*************************
Interesting how Pogo posts this quote only after bashing Islam in comment after comment. Now I am to believe he truly believes this quote? Please.
FTA:
BAGHDAD — American and Iraqi officials have completed nearly the last chapter in dismantling Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program with the removal of hundreds of tons of natural uranium from the country’s main nuclear site.
The uranium, which was removed several weeks ago, arrived in Canada over the weekend, according to officials.
…
American military personnel helped move about 600 tons of uranium in the form called yellowcake. It had been stored at Tuwaitha, an installation south of Baghdad that had been the site of Iraq’s nuclear program.
Cameco, a Canadian company that produces uranium and sells it around the world, bought the material, according to foreign officials knowledgeable about the transaction
etc
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/world/africa/07iht-iraq.4.14301928.html