Casting the first stone

Apropos "Quran and sex slaves", http://magree.blogspot.com/2016/06/quran-and-sex-slaves.html

Given that Muslims call Christians and Jews people of the Book. shouldn’t Muslims also heed the the words of Jesus?  Especially when it comes to punishing others: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” - John: 8:7

This would apply equally to ISIS punishing others for their beliefs and punishing ISIS for its adultery.

Too bad ISIS and its ilk won’t “go and sin no more”.

Quran and sex slaves

Isn’t it adultery when ISIS, Boko Haram, and others take sex slaves?  I think they must have cut passages dealing with adultery out of their Qurans.  But that is the way of "true believers" of any kind: their way is the only way, even if their texts say otherwise.

“The adulteress and the adulterer-whip each one of them a hundred lashes, and let no pity towards them overcome you regarding God's Law, if you believe in God and the Last Day. And let a group of believers witness their punishment.”  Quran: 24:2 (The Light: an-Nur)

Excerpt From: Talal Itani. “Quran In English. Modern English Translation. Clear and Easy to Understand.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/lvcp2.l

Also see "ISIS Committed Genocide Against Yazidis in Syria and Iraq, Panel Says"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/world/middleeast/isis-genocide-yazidi-un.html

Insecure believers and non-believers

"Insecure believers sometimes cling to a rigid and simplistic faith."
- David Brooks, "The Subtle Sensations of Faith", New York Times, 2014-12-23

The insecure believers make the headlines or the history books.  Think of all the "Islamists" who want to kill anyone who does not believe as they do.  Think of the Ku Klux Klan, the Protestants and Catholic gunmen of Northern Ireland, the Communists of North Korea, and many more "true believers".

We also have so-called non-believers who have to attack those who claim to believe.

Maybe I'm being a hypocrite here because I have questioned the texts that many base their beliefs on.  However, it is only the texts I question, not the belief in something greater than oneself.  But I have no problem with people who believe in something I don't believe in.  My problem is with those who want to "prove" that they are right because of something somebody long ago wrote as "fact".

For example, did Adam and Eve really exist?  Or are they metaphor for our hubris that we "know better than God"?

What we really should consider is "moral truth" over "mythical truth".  For example, was God really tempted by Satan to severely test Job, or is the Book of Job an exploration of why bad things happen to good people?

Playing God

ISIS is playing God.  It is deciding who should live or die based on a narrow religious belief.
If Allahu akbar (God is great) means anything, then shouldn't Allah be the One deciding who should live or die?  If God is so dissatisfied with those who don't believe as ISIS does, then shouldn't God be the one sending a Great Flood to punish all the sinners?  If God destroyed the sinful cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, shouldn't God be the one destroying the cities of the Yazidis for their "blasphemy" rather than ISIS?

Speaking of blasphemy, aren't those who charge blasphemy against others being blasphemous themselves.  Is the supposed blasphemy against God or against their interpretation of God and God's laws?

These truly blasphemous acts have been going on for millennia by people with all kinds of religious beliefs.

Jewish law called for stoning those who blasphemed against Yahweh.  But didn't Yahweh give a commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."  Yahweh had no qualifiers on that commandment.  Yet within a few years Joshua destroyed dozens of cities, supposedly on the command of the Lord God.  Was Joshua playing God to assume that he could freely kill the residents of these cities?  He “destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded”.  The Book of Joshua is one big compendium of violence and giving the spoils to the victors.

Irenaeus was a bishop in the early Christian Church.  He railed against those who didn't believe as he did.  He was so successful in banning alternative beliefs that books expounding other beliefs never made it into the Canon, and those who had these books buried them in the desert.  An example is the Book of Judas.

Tomás de Torquemada was appointed as Grand Inquisitor in Spain.  He had many Jews and Muslims tortured and killed because he deemed that they didn’t fully and sincerely convert to Christianity.   His name has become synonymous with overbearing interrogation.  Ironically, he himself was a descendant of Jews.

Of course, Protestants weren't innocent either.  Jean Calvin, originally a Catholic, was an active opponent of Michael Servetus’ anti-trinitarianism.  Calvin was instrumental in having Servetus burned at the stake on order of the Geneva city council.

The Church of England, albeit not strictly Protestant, fined people in the 1500’s for not attending church. The 1559 Act of Uniformity penalized those who conducted unofficial services.  Some who did conduct unofficial services were executed for sedition.

The Pilgrims escaped England because they did not like the trappings of the Anglican Church and the imposition of religious conformity.  One group fled to North America and landed in Massachusetts.  They in turn demanded conformity.  The Quakers upset this conformity, often with disruptive acts.  The Pilgrims tried throwing them out and they would return.  They hung some and bored holes in the tongues of others.  Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses should be glad they live in our times.  They only get doors slammed in their faces.

Is it any wonder that the writers of the Constitution included ““no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”?  It is also a wonder that many “strict constructionists” want to have prayer breakfasts, have candidates meet with religious leaders, and call into question the Christianity of the President.

Jack Whitley was asked to resign as chairman of the Big Stone County Republican Party because of his facebook comments that Muslims are “parasites” and “terrorists”.  What if he had an “Office or public Trust under the United States”?  Would his vile remarks be considered failing a “religious” test?

Unfortunately, these hateful attitudes are not just held by those who call themselves Christian or Muslim.  From “Gandhi” with Ben Kingsley, I remember the hateful remark of a distraught Hindu father, “Muslims killed my baby!  I want to kill Muslims!”  Muslims in Burma have been persecuted by Buddhists many times for over 600 years; it continues even to today.  This doesn’t resonate with one of the Eight Truths of Buddhism: Right Action: Acting in a non-harmful way.

I am always suspicious of anyone who claims to speak for God, whether they go up a mountain or read from some book that is full of contradictory advice.  Especially when they call for the expulsion or murder of people that don’t hold exactly the same views as they do.  These hateful people forget one of the most important words in their holy books: forgiveness.

In addition to the Buddhist Right Action, there are:

“thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”: Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39 (and elsewhere)

“...and you should forgive and overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you?” Qu’ran: Surah 24, v. 22.

My favorite though is:

“What is hateful to yourself, do not to do to your fellow man.  That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary.  Go and study it.” - Rabbi Hillel (a contemporary of Jesus), Talmud Shabbat 31a.

This article was also published in the Reader Weekly of Duluth, 2014-12-04 at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/12/04/4460_playing_god

Is ISIS Islam's Ku Klux Klan?

The Ku Klux Klan has a corrupt version of Christianity.  If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely.  ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) has a corrupt version of Islam. If you don’t behave as they wish, they think they have the right to kill you, gruesomely. 

The Klan wore white hoods to hide their identity.  ISIS wears black hoods to hide their identity. 
The Klan is still alive and well in the U.S., maybe not as deadly as before, but just as hateful towards those they don’t like.  See “At Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members”, Al Baker, New York Times, 2014-08-29.  The Klan’s targets are immigrants.

The Klan bombed black churches.  ISIS bombs Shiite mosques.

Christian leaders outside the South condemned the Ku Klux Klan.  Those Christian leaders in the South who spoke out against the Klan would be intimidated overtly or covertly.  An illustration of how much courage it took to stand up for the rights of Negros is “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee.

Muslim leaders outside the areas controlled by ISIS have spoken out against ISIS.  One is Othman Atta, Executive Director of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee.  Some British imams have issued a fatwa calling ISIS “heretical” and stating that it is “prohibited to support or join” ISIS.  A Muslim cleric in India declared ISIS is “not just anti-Islamic but are enemies of humanity as well.”  I can’t verify it with multiple sources, but supposedly ISIS executed 12 clerics in Mosul because they would not swear fidelity to ISIS.

For more see “How Islamic State resembles the Ku Klux Klan”, Brian Denson, The Oregonian, 2014-08-24, http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/08/how_islamic_state_isis_resembl.html

Some are calling on President Obama to do something about ISIS and do it yesterday.  But what can the United States do other than make matters worse?  It is an outside power that really doesn’t understand all the dynamics of other countries and cultures.  Look at the messes in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They were in turn caused by one man, Osama bin Laden, a former ally, who didn’t like the U.S. putting troops into his Holy Land, Saudi Arabia.  Bin Laden decided to strike back at the U.S. and did so several times.  Will ISIS strike back in similar ways?

Consider that fighting ISIS may be fighting two enemies with different agendas.  ISIS are a set of fanatical jihadists who want everyone to follow their way or die.  They are allied with Sunnis who resent the Iraqi government, dominated by Shias, exercising too much control over the Sunni dominated areas.

Wouldn’t you think that Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would be under a bigger threat from ISIS than the U.S. would?  All of these have bigger armies than ISIS.  It seems only Iran is making any known effort to contain ISIS, and even that is trying to be done with a low profile.

The United States gave over one billion dollars in military assistance to Egypt in 2012.  Egypt can easily spend that as it sees fit.  It has an estimated annual military budget over seven billion dollars.  ISIS supposedly has stolen over two billion dollars, but who will be selling it arms and how much of that money can it actually access and use, like gold bullion?

Saudi Arabia is a big customer of military suppliers.  It has 233,500 active military personnel, over a thousand tanks, and over 200 attack aircraft.  Should not that force be sufficient to overwhelm ISIS with firepower and personnel?  ISIS has more than ten thousand fighters as of July 2014 and estimates keep climbing.  Even if ISIS has 100,000 fighters, would they be a match for Saudi Arabia with all of its aircraft?

King Abdul of Saudi Arabia said recently, “Fight terrorism with force, reason and speed.”

Turkey has been fighting ISIS at its border with some success, but groups like ISIS will keep coming back.

It seems this is another case of “Let’s you and him fight.”  Let the U.S. come in and settle other people’s problem (or think it had) and let the U.S. take the blame if things go wrong.  When it comes to war, Murphy’s law definitely applies.

So I have two big questions.  Why haven’t Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran taken a much larger and forceful role in combatting ISIS?  ISIS is a much greater existential threat to them than to the U.S.  Is President Obama pushing on these countries to do more?

So, your Majesty, why not be the leader of the Islamic world and take on ISIS?  Don’t you have the advantage of force, reason and speed?  You don’t have to get your parliament’s permission, tacit or otherwise.  And you don’t have to get the backing of your people.

Mel keeps wondering who elected the President of the United States as “leader of the free world.”

Published in the Reader Weekly at http://duluthreader.com/articles/2014/09/04/4020_is_isis_islams_ku_klux_klan, 2014-09-04.

The blog version includes corrections to the published version.

Let’s you and him fight

The Middle East is in turmoil because there are fanatics who think their way is the only way and those who disagree should die.  Many seem to think the United States should take responsibility for this mess and clean it up.  But as we have seen from Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. military cannot solve local and cultural political problems.

We are sending billions of dollars to Egypt, sell billions of armament to Saudi Arabia, and ostracize Iran.  All three plus Turkey have a greater interest in regional stability.  Why not encourage them to take leadership in attempting to solve the regional problems.

Consider also, that U.S. involvement in Middle East just encourages the recruitment of the susceptible for direct attacks on the United States.

Muslim opposition to ISIS is growing because ISIS is the anti-thesis of Islam.  See “Top Saudi Cleric: ISIS is Enemy No. 1 of Islam, ‘Destroying Human Civilization’”.

Now if the Muslim states in the area would take more action than words in curbing ISIS.