ASIA/IRAQ - In Mosul, the Islamic Caliphate orders: no aid to Christians and Shiites, while their homes are being expropriated

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

markomalley

Guest
From Agenzia Fides:

Mosul (Agenzia Fides) - The jihadist militiamen of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who since June 9 control Mosul and have proclaimed the Islamic Caliphate, have ordered civil servants to suspend any provision of food aid and gas cylinders to the Shiites, the Kurds and the few remaining Christians in Iraq’s second city.

This is confirmed to Fides Agency by Christian sources in Mosul, after the news had been launched by the Arab website www.ankawa.com. According to what was reported by the local official Fadel Younis, representatives of the Islamic Caliphate have announced that any infringement of the prohibition will be punished on the basis of rules attributed to the Sharia.

In the city of northern Iraq - confirm sources of the Chaldean Patriarchate to Fides - even houses abandoned by the baptized are “marked” with the first letter of the Arabic word Nazarat (Christian).

The bad part is that this is an outgrowth of the “rebel” movement in the Syria conflict supported by the US Government.

May God have mercy on us.
 
markomalley said:
From Agenzia Fides:

Mosul (Agenzia Fides) - The jihadist militiamen of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), who since June 9 control Mosul and have proclaimed the Islamic Caliphate, have ordered civil servants to suspend any provision of food aid and gas cylinders to the Shiites, the Kurds and the few remaining Christians in Iraq’s second city.

This is confirmed to Fides Agency by Christian sources in Mosul, after the news had been launched by the Arab website www.ankawa.com. According to what was reported by the local official Fadel Younis, representatives of the Islamic Caliphate have announced that any infringement of the prohibition will be punished on the basis of rules attributed to the Sharia.

In the city of northern Iraq - confirm sources of the Chaldean Patriarchate to Fides - even houses abandoned by the baptized are “marked” with the first letter of the Arabic word Nazarat (Christian).

The bad part is that this is an outgrowth of the “rebel” movement in the Syria conflict supported by the US Government.

May God have mercy on us.
Click to expand...
I will just ask the standard question: Where are the stories about all the Muslims of good will standing up to say this is wrong? I am willing to wait a few minutes since modern communications are so slow.
 
They never condemn the violent actions of other Moslems, the silence is deafening, if you read the Quran its also very violent, Mohammed was violent so…
 
Trader said:
I will just ask the standard question: Where are the stories about all the Muslims of good will standing up to say this is wrong? I am willing to wait a few minutes since modern communications are so slow.
Click to expand...
The English-language news media would have to think such a story is worth reporting on. I am not sure it is. There have been plenty of condemnations of ISIS already. Do Muslim leaders really need to be interviewed for every new act of ISIS? Can’t their continued opposition be assumed?

As for the news story, someone here at CAF previously described ISIS as engaging in ethnic cleansing. I think this news item supports that view.
 
Trader said:
I will just ask the standard question: Where are the stories about all the Muslims of good will standing up to say this is wrong? I am willing to wait a few minutes since modern communications are so slow.
Click to expand...
Crickets?
 
This is so sad. No compassion. I feel like we are seeing evil that happened centuries ago and we should be more civilized by now.
 
Celtic_Maiden said:
They never condemn the violent actions of other Moslems, the silence is deafening, if you read the Quran its also very violent, Mohammed was violent so…
Click to expand...
There’s this neat little software company that puts out a neat little piece of software that would allow us to enter in some key words, such as “Muslims condemn ISIS” or “Muslims condemn terrorism”, etc, and this neat software presents the users with pages upon pages of results found on the internet. The software even has a funny name. It’s called Google.

Gee, I wonder what would happen if someone “googled” Muslims condmen ISIS or Muslims condemn terrorism. I wonder if such searches would result in pages and pages of news articles, blog articles, etc listing all sorts of Muslims, Muslim leaders, and Muslim organizations decrying both. But, if it were that easy to find Muslims speaking out against these acts, why would anyone make a claim that Muslims never condemn violence and that their “silence is deafening”?
 
Oldcatholicguy- all I HEAR is silence! I want conferences and people appearing on radio and television weekly condemning what is happening.

They are afraid.
 
Coatimundi said:
The English-language news media would have to think such a story is worth reporting on. I am not sure it is. There have been plenty of condemnations of ISIS already. Do Muslim leaders really need to be interviewed for every new act of ISIS? Can’t their continued opposition be assumed?

As for the news story, someone here at CAF previously described ISIS as engaging in ethnic cleansing. I think this news item supports that view.
Click to expand...
In my own opinion, there ought to be some Muslim leaders speak out every time a massive terrorist thing like this occurs. They need to make clear to other Muslims and also to the entire world that they condemn the actions of these terrorists. If they did this, it would probably do a lot to help the image of Muslims.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I believe that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and not radical but the fact is that there are quite a few Muslims who are radicalized. On a Youtube video recently I seen a figure that 15-25% of Muslims are radicalized. I have no idea how accurate that figure is though and when I Googled for information, I could not find any reliable estimates.

But the fact is that just because I believe most Muslims are peaceful does not mean that everyone believes that. I can’t even count how many people I have come across online who say that Muslims are terrorists and that they are automatically prone to violence just because they are Muslims. It is like people ignore the fact that Muslims are people just as much as we are. I do believe that the Islamic religion has a tendency to violence because of their teaching on jihad but I do not believe that most Muslims actually act on the violent teachings or tendencies of the Islamic religion.

I hate to go on and on but there really is a lot of Islamophobia out there and if Muslim leaders would speak out every time a massive terroristic event occurs then perhaps there wouldn’t be so much Islamophobia. Hate is a horrible thing and it is one of the causes of wars.
 
Exiled_Child said:
Thanks for posting that Agenzia Fides article, it was very interesting. I thought I’d link to this article from last November, which also has some eye opening information. Any thoughts?

telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10450617/Christians-face-extinction-amid-sectarian-terror-minister-warns.html
Click to expand...
This has been the consistent policy of the US Government for decades (these are only highlights, not a comprehensive list):

Obama:
  • Ignore atrocities against Pakistani Christians by Islamists
  • Support Islamist Revolution against Mubarak (tolerant toward Copts) in Egypt
  • Support Islamist Revolution against Qadaffi (who was no saint, but wasn’t an Islamist) in Libya
  • Withheld Support from (more secular and tolerant) Green Revolution in Iran, causing it to fail
  • Support Islamist Insurrection against (really nasty piece of work, but didn’t target Christians) Syria’s Assad
Bush 43:
  • Overthrow secular (nasty piece of work, but protected Christians) Iraq government under Saddam Hussein and allowed a weak Islamist government to take power during the US occupation
  • Utterly ignored attacks against Christians in Iraq during the occupation
Clinton:
  • Backed the Bosnians (Muslims) against Serbs (Orthodox)
  • Backed the Kosovars (Muslims) against Serbs (Orthodox)
  • Withdrew US forces from Somalia, allowing stronghold for Al Qaeda
  • Ignored massacre of Christians in Rwanda
Bush 41:
  • Allowed dhimmification of US forces protecting Saudi Arabia (forced US military women to wear niqab when in public)
(I am utterly confident that with some research I could develop a far more comprehensive list, but that’s what I can think of from the top of my head)

The point is that the US does not hardly have the best track record over the years in this regard.
 
The Muslim religion is not like the Catholic religion; there is no single voice of authority. Islam has been molded into the cultural and societal values of those areas where it has taken root, so that there is great variance in what Muslims of one region hold and believe compared to those in another region. North Africa west of Libya is all Muslim, but we never hear anything bad going on there. Likewise, Indonesia is rarely heard from, though there are pockets of extremism. Sunni Muslims despise Shi’ites, and Shi’ites despise Sunnis…in Saudi Arabia, the Wahibhist (sp?) seem to despise everyone and everything. There is no one generic form of Islam. Islam is a religion for the theologically (and intellectually) weak minded. It doesn’t take much to become and stay Muslim, other than stating that there is no God but God and Mohammed is his prophet. That’s it. It cannot compare to the deepness of Christian theology that has developed over the past 2,000 years. The people who are Muslim terrorists would still be terrorists even if they were atheists; it isn’t the religion that makes them terrorists, it is the individual.

People here expect too much from the Islamic world as a cohesive unit. It has never been like that and probably never will.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Oldcatholicguy- all I HEAR is silence! I want conferences and people appearing on radio and television weekly condemning what is happening.

They are afraid.
Click to expand...
-Those things do actually happen.
-There is a lot of truth in “They are afraid.”
 
markomalley said:
This has been the consistent policy of the US Government for decades (these are only highlights, not a comprehensive list):

Obama:
  • Ignore atrocities against Pakistani Christians by Islamists
  • Support Islamist Revolution against Mubarak (tolerant toward Copts) in Egypt
  • Support Islamist Revolution against Qadaffi (who was no saint, but wasn’t an Islamist) in Libya
  • Withheld Support from (more secular and tolerant) Green Revolution in Iran, causing it to fail
  • Support Islamist Insurrection against (really nasty piece of work, but didn’t target Christians) Syria’s Assad
Bush 43:
  • Overthrow secular (nasty piece of work, but protected Christians) Iraq government under Saddam Hussein and allowed a weak Islamist government to take power during the US occupation
  • Utterly ignored attacks against Christians in Iraq during the occupation
Clinton:
  • Backed the Bosnians (Muslims) against Serbs (Orthodox)
  • Backed the Kosovars (Muslims) against Serbs (Orthodox)
  • Withdrew US forces from Somalia, allowing stronghold for Al Qaeda
  • Ignored massacre of Christians in Rwanda
Bush 41:
  • Allowed dhimmification of US forces protecting Saudi Arabia (forced US military women to wear niqab when in public)
(I am utterly confident that with some research I could develop a far more comprehensive list, but that’s what I can think of from the top of my head)

The point is that the US does not hardly have the best track record over the years in this regard.
Click to expand...
Is US foreign policy based around the idea of doing the best for the populace in the country we are operating in/on? No.

Is US foreign policy based around the rather anti-Catholic (as in it goes against Church teachings) idea that Christians are somehow more important than non-Christians and that as long as Christians are doing good under an immoral and unjust government that government is perfectly acceptable? No.

Is US foreign policy based around what is best for US interests? Yes.

Do we have to ignore this rather obvious fact in order to validate the argument that US foreign policy is supportive of radical Islam and against Christianity? Yes.
 
oldcatholicguy said:
Is US foreign policy based around the idea of doing the best for the populace in the country we are operating in/on? No.

Is US foreign policy based around the rather anti-Catholic (as in it goes against Church teachings) idea that Christians are somehow more important than non-Christians and that as long as Christians are doing good under an immoral and unjust government that government is perfectly acceptable? No.

Is US foreign policy based around what is best for US interests? Yes.

Do we have to ignore this rather obvious fact in order to validate the argument that US foreign policy is supportive of radical Islam and against Christianity? Yes.
Click to expand...
That is how our policy is determined in many cases. We have done things based on principle in our past, as well. Protecting Christians is not one of our principles, though.

Sadly, realpolitik gets us into as much trouble as it prevents trouble.
 
7_Sorrows said:
Oldcatholicguy- all I HEAR is silence! I want conferences and people appearing on radio and television weekly condemning what is happening.

They are afraid.
Click to expand...
ISIS is an epic threat to the future of Islam itself. More than this, it is part of a worldwide movement that threatens to define what Islam is for centuries to come. The movement that ISIS is a part of , IS the rising star of Islam. The Islamism that it is a part of is well funded and is taking over mosques and countries and infecting the children of moderate Muslims everywhere.
If moderate Muslims do not want this to happen, it is really up to them to campaign long and hard and visibly against this happening. This would include supporting forces in the West that are not afraid to stand up against the Islamists, and fighting against the forces in the West that apologize for the Islamists, blame it all on the Jews and Israel, and come up with statements such as Hamas is not a terrorist organization.

Islamism is an existential threat to Islam itself.
 
Al Jazeera English has some additional information about the situation Christians face in Mosul:

The demands are blunt. Christians either convert to Islam or pay a tax that allows them to continue to practice their faith. The letter goes on to say that the decision was taken after Christian leaders in the city failed to attend the requested meeting.

The letter states they should leave the city without taking any belongings with them, and that a death penalty is the “last resort”.

Other pictures sent to Al Jazeera ‎show Christian houses marked and declared properties of the Islamic State.

From the mosques, Islamic State imams reissued the demands after Friday prayer.
…
But the city itself is far from a united capital of the “caliphate”. The eastern side is dominated not by the Islamic State but the one of the main Iraqi Sunni rebel groups, the Naqshbandi.
…
Even those left behind are confused as to who is in charge. “We just avoid anyone who has a gun. I stay at home and I don’t want to be noticed. This is is now my life, hiding in the city I was born in, that I’ve lived all my life,” says Faisal, not his real name, who I’ve been speaking to in Mosul since the city fell on June 10.
blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/middle-east/religious-prejudice-islamic-state
 
markomalley said:
This has been the consistent policy of the US Government for decades (these are only highlights, not a comprehensive list):

Obama:
  • Ignore atrocities against Pakistani Christians by Islamists
  • Support Islamist Revolution against Mubarak (tolerant toward Copts) in Egypt
  • Support Islamist Revolution against Qadaffi (who was no saint, but wasn’t an Islamist) in Libya
  • Withheld Support from (more secular and tolerant) Green Revolution in Iran, causing it to fail
  • Support Islamist Insurrection against (really nasty piece of work, but didn’t target Christians) Syria’s Assad
Bush 43:
  • Overthrow secular (nasty piece of work, but protected Christians) Iraq government under Saddam Hussein and allowed a weak Islamist government to take power during the US occupation
  • Utterly ignored attacks against Christians in Iraq during the occupation
Clinton:
  • Backed the Bosnians (Muslims) against Serbs (Orthodox)
  • Backed the Kosovars (Muslims) against Serbs (Orthodox)
  • Withdrew US forces from Somalia, allowing stronghold for Al Qaeda
  • Ignored massacre of Christians in Rwanda
Bush 41:
  • Allowed dhimmification of US forces protecting Saudi Arabia (forced US military women to wear niqab when in public)
(I am utterly confident that with some research I could develop a far more comprehensive list, but that’s what I can think of from the top of my head)

The point is that the US does not hardly have the best track record over the years in this regard.
Click to expand...
That’s quite interesting, Mark. It’s strange that I’ve never viewed US foreign policy as being specifically anti-Christianity before now, but I think you’re right, the pattern is unmistakable. This is something I’m actually going to ponder, so thank you…
 
Coatimundi-thanks for your post. What suffering these christians in iraq are experiencing. I cannot imagine the terror and anguish.
I wish somewhere in the world someone would do something to protect these people. All I can do is pray.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top