Cooking up some martyrdom for dinner in paradise 10

Christianity and Islam are both cults of martyrdom.

We’ll say no more just now about Christians seeking and applauding martyrdom. We’ll just let the gorgeous picture below tell its own story of Christians being tortured to death by Muslims and their souls winding their way to a weird sort of heaven.

But here’s a tale of Muslim martyrs that feeds our prejudice and endorses our judgment against the Muslim Brotherhood. It comes from Gatestone, and is written by Raymond Ibrahim:

New evidence indicates that some of the pro-Morsi protesters reportedly killed by the Egyptian military, after the Muslim Brotherhood president’s ouster, were actually killed by fellow pro-Morsi protesters. They did this, according to the report, to frame the military, incite more Islamist violence and unrest, and garner sympathy from America, which has been extremely critical of the military, especially in the context of the post-Morsi violence.

“Garner sympathy from America”. It’s an old Arab trick. They condemned generations of their fellow Arabs to a life of misery as “Palestinians” in order to “garner sympathy” from the West. They largely succeeded too. The West has been complicit in keeping them as beggars – the West’s way (these days) of dealing with beggar nations being to put money in the outstretched left hand while quaking at the threatening right hand raised in a fist.

The Arabic satellite program, Al Dalil, (“The Evidence”) recently showed the evidence, which consisted mostly of video recordings.

One video records events on July 8, during pro-Morsi protests in front of the Republican Guard building in Cairo, where Morsi was being held, and where the bloodshed between the military and Brotherhood began. The video shows a young man with a shaven head and a Salafi-style beard approaching the Republican Guard barrier; he gets shot, collapses to the ground, and dies — as other protesters fly into a rage against the military.

At first watching, it seems that he was shot by the military. But when the video is played “in slow motion and in zoom” it becomes apparent –

– that someone from behind him, from the pro-Morsi throng, shot him. The whole time he falls, in slow motion, he is still facing the Republican Guard. Yet when the camera zooms in, the bullet wound and blood are visibly at the back of his head; his front, facing the military even after he falls, does not appear to have a scratch. Considering that the military was facing him, it seems apparent that a fellow Morsi-supporter shot him from behind.

On the same day this man in the video and others were killed, Muhammad Mahsoub, a former Brotherhood member and politician tweeted the following: “The Brotherhood sacrifice their youth in the streets, even as the sons of their leaders are at the beach resorts …  Allah curse the hypocrites [based on a Koran verse];” and “I repeatedly warned al-Baltagi against his plan to antagonize the military in order to implicate it [in] an attack on the protesters, but he insists on his plan…”

Baltagi is a Brotherhood leader who has been especially vocal about “getting back” at the military; he apparently also enjoys close relations with the widely disliked U.S. ambassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson. 

Whose sympathies were long ago garnered by the Muslim Brotherhood.

Another video shown on Al Dalil is even more obvious. An armored vehicle appears slowly driving by a group of pro-Morsi protesters, many easily discernible with their Salafi-style beards. A shot is heard and the man nearest the passing vehicle collapses. Again, at first it appears that the men in the armored vehicle shot him.

Played, again in slow motion, however, it becomes apparent that the man in a gilbab [long Muslim style robe] standing directly behind the murdered man is actually the one who shot him, then walked over to another man near him, gave him the weapon, and then quickly walked off the scene. Even the man on the roof who is taping this scene is heard to be asked, “Did the car [armored vehicle] shoot?” only to reply, “No, no.”

Even so, the desired effect of all these “human sacrifices” by the Brotherhood was accomplished: as with the other man, shot in front of the Republican Guard, many other pro-Morsi protesters rushed to the fallen man, screaming Islamic slogans and vowing relentless war on the military, as it supposedly “shot first.” 

This second incident prompted the Freedom and Justice Party, the Muslim Brotherhood’s political arm, to call for “an uprising by the great people of Egypt against those trying to steal their revolution with tanks.”

To many Islamists, killing an ally to empower Islam is legitimate, especially in the context of two Islamic ideas: 1) jihad [war in the service of Islam], in Islamic jurisprudence — for its function, under Muhammad, of making Islam supreme — is considered the “pinnacle” of Islam; and 2) Islam’s overarching juridical idea that “necessity makes the prohibited permissible” – in other words, that a pious end, such as empowering Islam, justifies the use of forbidden means. All that matters is one’s intention, or niyya.

Thus, killing fellow Muslims, lying, prostitution, even sodomy all become permissible, so long as they are seen as ways of advancing and empowering Islam. Those who commit or promote even the most horrific crimes are exonerated, and those “sacrificed” to empower Islam — as those pro-Morsi supporters killed by the Brotherhood — are deemed martyrs who will achieve the highest level of paradise.

 

The Ten Thousand Martyrs on the Mount Ararat by Vittorio Carpaccio, 1515

A passing thought: “Carpaccio” is also the name of a dish made of sliced raw meat.

  • TyS

    I feel obligated to play Devil’s Advocate here (pun intended); many Leftists and Islamofascists attempt to relate Islamic violence with Christian violence.

    Liz has partially expanded on one flaw in this argument – I will continue with another:

    While many have performed horrid acts of violence in the name of Christianity, the Bible expressly forbids such behavior, making anyone who performs such acts, very ‘unchristian;’ to the contrary, the Quran expressly orders that non-believers be converted via force, or killed if they refuse- therefore, a so-called ‘peaceful’ Muslim is actually rather naive of their own faith, whereas the terrorists can be honestly describes as the true and faithful.

    • Jillian Becker

      TyS: “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!” Psalm 137. One of many possible examples of lauded violence (in the midst of beautiful poetry very often) in the Bible. But okay, it’s not a commandment. What IS a commandment is “Resist not evil!” I have pointed out in my comment on liz’s comment that that would ensure evil’s triumph.

      What you say about Islam is true. And no non-Muslim nation today is trying to make biblical law the law of the land, whereas the Muslims really do want to impose the horrors of sharia on all of us.

      The admiration of martyrdom in any religion is sick to my mind. Pain is pain is suffering is bad.

      And let’s never forget that all religions are immoral in that they teach lies.

      • TyS

        In my opinion Christianity is a cult unto itself – it contradicts OT, and actually consciously attempts to undo it, so it is unfair to compare the two cults of Christianity and Ancient Judaism.

        Also, in many ways, I see Christianity, and some religions, in general, as an archaic attempt to put a face and name to natural law – I doubt you’d argue that many of the non-spiritiual philosophical arguments of Christianity are entirely bad – rather, they are inherent to the human condition…and Christians have simply applied a supernatural belief to their existence, and I’d challenge you to argue that every utterance of the NT is “bad.”

        Furthermore, you have taken both passages out of context; the “resist not evil” passage should be read as an argument to not stoop to the level of the wrongdoer.

        Also, you’ve taken the “dashing of babies” scripture out of context, as well, which is a recollection of the narrator (an ancient Hebrew song, in this case) – it is not a “teaching,” and nowehere is such behavior condoned or promoted.

        Sure, the belief in the supernatural is silly, but to attempt to imply that everything about it is paramount to violence and evilness is over the top.

        • liz

          I agree that Christianity, in one of its many hypocrisies, does contradict the OT, while claiming that its the “infallible word of God”.
          But I think the “resist not evil” passage, although it is interpreted by many as you have, is pretty plain in its meaning that you are to not fight back against an aggressor, as is also obvious in “turn the other cheek”.
          So I would not say that was taken out of context, but is being fairly interpreted here.
          If followed faithfully, Christianity can and does produce pacifists, wimps, and martyrs, which is why hypocrisy is the only way to live as a Christian and retain a modicum of sanity and common sense.

        • Jillian Becker

          Please, TyS, would you give us an example or two of “non-spiritual philosophical arguments of Christianity”? Then I can tell you whether they are bad or not in my opinion.

          I agree with you of course that Christianity is hugely different from Judaism – even though it came round to adopting part of the moral law of Judaism. It rejected the essence of Judaism, justice, and substituted ‘love’, which has nothing to do with justice.

          I said that the passage I quoted was not a commandment. Just an example of violence in the OT which goes uncensured. (Incidentally, I personally am not against violence in all circumstances.)

          I have never even suggested that believing in the supernatural is in itself an approbation of violence. It is evil, or at least bad, in that it is against reason.

  • liz

    Christians (in theory, at least) have held the meaning of “martyr” to be an innocent person who dies defenselessly at the hands of an enemy for the sake of his beliefs. “Resist not evil”, etc. (Self-defeating, but at least it seeks no harm to others.)
    Muslims have completely destroyed that whole concept and twisted it into the glorifying of a murderer who dies taking as many innocent, defenseless people as possible with him in the process (for the sake of his wretched “beliefs”.)
    Quite a different mentality, there.

    • Jillian Becker

      Yes, liz, I see your point. But many Christian saints and martyrs have earned their title by violent action against others. To take just one example: St Thomas More hounded William Tyndale to the stake because he had the gall to translate the Bible in a way he – More – did not approve of.

      In Christian lore, Jesus Christ had himself tortured to death to take everyone’s “sin” on himself. To put such a burden of guilt on those who will grieve for it – the good and the innocent (even if they are also the naive) – is a very advanced form of cruelty.

      Christians value martyrdom all too highly. For the sake of the soul’s glory, they will welcome persecution and agony and death. They have even been known to invite it, if sometimes only by passivity. “Resist not evil” is a terrible commandment. The worst imaginable, I think. Obedience to it can only ensure the triumph of evil.

      • liz

        I agree. That’s why I say “in theory” only. Martyrdom is never a good idea. But leave it to Muslims to take a bad idea and make it worse!

        • TyS

          Those are loaded words…one could argue that those who died in the name of the American experiment were ‘martyrs’ in accordance with the dictionary definition of the word. Without such self-sacrifice, there would be no Bill of Rights…no Constitution.

          The key difference being, there are those who wish to live freely and peacefully, and allowed to believe as they see fit without intruding on the beliefs of others…and then there are those who think ‘martyrdom’ includes forcing your beliefs on others.

          Are you saying that you would renounce your inner beliefs, and adopt those of an aggressor to preserve your life…or do you hold any belief ‘sacred’ enough (e.g., allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and everything it stands for) that you would sooner die, than abandon what you hold dear.

          • liz

            I would say that those who died defending the country are not “martyrs” because they died fighting – not “resisting not evil”, as Christianity commands.
            They DID resist evil, thereby saving the country, which makes them heroes, not martyrs.
            This highlights one of the many contradictions in our American “Christian heritage” which we can all be thankful for!
            The founders may have called themselves Christians, but it was their religious hypocrisy that really saved the country, since by resisting evil and not submitting to King Georges authority they were not being very obedient Christians.