I know it's a long read, and I don't expect to "convert" anybody to moderate views,; this is simply to inform you that Muslims here in Europe (and in canada, where the below blog originates) are extremely alarmed by ISIS and are concerned that Egypt and saudi Arabia are doing/saying nothing about the whole matter.

http://muslimmatters.org/?s=Khawarij+Ideology%2C+ISIS+Savagery%3A+Part+I

As ISIS continues its murder and violence across the provinces it controls and seeks to control, and as it continues to plague the conscience of the great majority of Muslims around the world, what's worth recalling is that we've seen this before in history with the sect called the Khawarij (anglicized to Kharijites). So before tackling ISIS, let's look at their forerunners; the Kharajites, to whom their pedigree can be traced.

The hadith canons relate that shortly after the battle of Hunayn while the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) was distributing charity to a few people whose hearts needed to be reconciled, there came a man with a thick beard, prominent cheek bones, deep sunken eyes, protruding forehead and shaven head. He exclaimed: Fear Allah, O Muhammad! The Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) responded: 'Who will obey Allah if I were to disobey him? Am I not [sent as the] most trustworthy person on earth; and yet you trust me not?' The man then turned back, whereupon one of those present asked for permission to kill him. But the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) said: 'Verily, from the progeny (di'di) of this [man] shall come a people who will recite the Qur'an but it won't pass beyond their throats. They will slay the followers of Islam and would spare the people of idolatry. They will pierce through the religion just like an arrow which goes clean through a prey.[1]

Another hadith records that this man's name was Dhu'l-Khuwaysirah, from the tribe of Tamim, about whom the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) alerted: 'Leave him; he has comrades whose prayer and fasting will make your prayer and fasting seem insignificant. They recite the Qur'an but it doesn't go beyond their throats. They shall pass through the religion as an arrow that pierces clean through its prey such that, on inspecting the head; then the shaft; then the fletching; then the nock, would see no traces of blood or viscera on it whatsoever.'[2] Ibn al-Jawzi said: 'The first of the Khawarij, and the most wretched of them, was Dhu'l-Khuwaysirah … His problem was that he was too puffed up with his own opinion. Had he been granted grace, he would have realized that no opinion was above that of Allah's Messenger ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him). The followers of this man were those who fought against 'Ali b. Abi Talib, may Allah ennoble his face.'[3]

A few decades after this post-Hunayn happening, and as had been prophesied, Dhu'l-Khuwaysirah's ideological comrades and offspring took on the shape of the very first sect (firqah) to deviate from the main body of the Muslims: the Khawarij (culled from the Arabic word kharaja – “to go out” or “to leave” the main body of Muslims). Indeed, their very name was mentioned by the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) himself, who said: al-khawarij hum kilab al-nar – “The Khawarij are the dogs of Hellfire!'[4] The emergence of the Khawarij as a sect occurred during the caliphate (khilafah) of 'Ali, in the immediate aftermath of a civil war and its arbitration at Siffin.

Ibn al-Jawzi tells us: ''Ali returned from Siffin and entered Kufah: the Khawarij did not follow. Instead, they settled in Harura. There were 12,000 of them, and they were declaring: la hukma illa li'Llah – “There is no judgement, except Allah's.” This is how they initially started.'[5]

Imam Muslim narrates from 'Ubayd Allah b. Abi Rafi', a freed salve of the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him), that the Khawarij came out against 'Ali, and declared: 'There is no judgement, except Allah's.' So 'Ali replied: 'A word of truth, intended for something false (kalimatu haqq urida biha batil).'[6]

Imam al-Nawawi explains: 'Meaning, the basis of their statement was true. Allah says: The judgement is for none but Allah. [12:40] What they intended by it, however, was to reject 'Ali's [acceptance of] arbitration, may Allah be pleased with him.'[7]

As with Dhu'l-Khuwaysirah who, blinded by his warped piety and self-righteousness, thought he had a keener sense of justice than the Prophet ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him), the Khawarij were also possessed of holier-than-thou pretensions and smug convictions. It is this puritanical, embittered self-righteousness – devoid of any true glimmer of knowledge or spiritual wisdom – that is the hallmark of the Khawarij and their ideological cousins who drink from the same murky theological waters today. Of course, along with such fanatical zeal, their other great infamy was takfir – declaring other Muslims to be disbelievers, and spilling their blood because of it.
II

The historians al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir chronicle alarmingly precise accounts of their intimidation, violence and terror. Under the events of 37H/657CE they detail how the Khawarij began terrorizing the countryside around Nahrawan, Iraq, subjecting those whom they caught to an imtihan or “inquisition”. If the answers failed to satisfy their zeal for purity, or agree with their understanding of things, then the punishment was death. Things came to a head when they chose 'Abd Allah, son of an early companion, Khabbab b al-Aratt, as their victim.

A number of the Khawarij rode into his village for supplies and thought to make an example of him. They fired their loaded questions at him. They first asked him about the caliphates of Abu Bakr, 'Umar and 'Uthman. 'Abd Allah extolled them all and praised their successive caliphates. So far, so good. They then asked him about 'Ali, and his state before and after the arbitration or tahkim. 'He has far greater knowledge about Allah than you do,' replied 'Abd Allah, 'and has much more piety in terms of his religion and possesses greater insight.' With that, his fate was sealed. They bound and dragged him and his pregnant wife to an orchard laden with date palms, next to a river.

As they were proceeding to kill him, a date fell to the ground, so one of the Khawarij picked it up and put it in his mouth. 'Do you do that without the owner's permission and without paying for it?' said one of his Kharajite comrades. He spat it out instantly. Another Khariji, wielding his sword in threatening circles, accidentally killed a cow that had been wandering behind him. His comrades insisted he should go and find the owner and pay him the full price of the animal. They waited whilst he did so. Thus, having acted most righteously in the matter of the date and the cow, they slit 'Abd Allah's throat and then disemboweled his wife. Date spat out, cow paid for, husband, wife and unborn child butchered; and with the clearest of consciences, they purchased their supplies and went on their way.[8]

Theologians have differed as to the precise meaning of the Prophet's words ṣallallāhu 'alayhi wa sallam (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him): 'They will pierce through the religion (yamruquna min al-din) as an arrow which goes clean through a prey.' The idea of maraqa – an an arrow 'piercing' or going 'clean through' its prey with such force and velocity that it exits its prey without any trace of blood or flesh sticking to its tip or shaft, describes emphatically how the Khawarij immerse themselves in religion, but exit straight through it. The question, however, is do they exit the fold of orthodoxy (and become heterodox, deviant Muslims), or do they leave the actual fold of Islam? A minority of scholars went with the latter view; most went with the former.[9] The majority view takes its cue from 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, who was asked: Are the Khawarij mushrikun? He said: 'They flee from shirk.' Are they munafiqun? He said: 'The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.' Then what are they? He said: 'They are our brothers who transgressed against us (ikhwanuna baghaw 'alayna), so we fought them for their transgression.'[10]

NOTES:
1. Muslim, no.750.

2. Ibn Majah, no.176. Al-Albani graded it as sahih in Sahih al-Jami' al-Saghir (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1987), no.3347.

3. Cited in Ibn al-Jawzi, Talbis Iblis (Beirut: Dar al-Qalam, 1982), 89-90.

4. Dabiq (issue #9: Sha'ban, 1436), 52; the official online magazine of ISIS. The quote starts 13 minutes, 12 seconds into the audio.

5. Abu Dawud, no.2504. Its chain is sahih, as per al-Nawawi, Riyadh al-Salihin (Riyadh: Dar Ibn al-Jawzi, 2000), no.1357, but with the wording: ' … with your wealth, lives and tongues.'

6. Al-Raghib al-Asbahani, Mufradat Alfaz al-Qur'an (Beirut: Dar al-Qalam, 2002), 208; under the entry, j-h-d.

7. For the merits and shari'ah status of the inner jihad against the unruly ego, refer to my article: The Greater Jihad.

8. Ibn Hajr al-Haytami citing al-Zarkashi, Tuhfat al-Muhtaj bi Sharh al-Minhaj (Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1972), 9:211.

9. Bukhari, no.3024; Muslim, no.172..

10. Ahmad, Musnad, no.695. Its chain was graded sahih by Ahmad Shakir, al-Musnad al-imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Egypt: Dar al-Ma'arif, 1954), 2:84-5, despite the presence of two questionable narrators in the chain: Faysal b. Sulayman and Iyas b. 'Amr.

As for when the Muslim army is in the thick of a religiously-sanctioned war, then this is where the following verses of the Qur'an (and their like) come into play: Slay them wherever you find them; drive them out of the places from which they drove you. [2:190-91] Also: Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them [captive] and besiege them, and lie in ambush for them everywhere. [9:5] And then, of course, there is this: But if they incline towards peace, incline to it too. [8:61]

Lastly, let's touch upon the following: the believer's love of martyrdom. In one hadith, we see the Prophet ﷺ relish the following: 'By Him in whose hand is my life. I would love to be killed in Allah's way and then be brought back to life; then be killed and be brought back to life; then be killed and be brought back to life; then be killed.'20 The Prophet ﷺ cherished martyrdom, not because of the love of blood and gore; nor for the glory of war itself; nor for the clanging of steel or the thrill of the fight. He loved it because of what it manifested of the highest service and the ultimate sacrifice for God. To surrender to Allah one's actual life, for a cause Allah loves and honours, is the greatest possible expression of loving Allah. It's no wonder, then, that the Prophet ﷺ said: 'Whosoever dies without partaking in a military expedition, or even desiring to do so, dies upon a branch of hypocrisy.'21 Believers, though, whilst they long to meet a martyr's death, strive to live a saintly life. For how can one truly desire to die for God, if one doesn't sincerely try to live for God?
VI

ISIS has no qualms in shamelessly flaunting its cruelty and deviancy. Although the so-called khalifah hides away from the public's gaze, the khariji ideology and attitudes he propagates and presides over are on display for all to see. But ideology isn't always the core appeal. Some are drawn to ISIS, not because of its ruthless ideology, but because for them it represents a rallying force against taghut rulers, establishments that have failed them, and western foreign policies. The claim to have reestablished the khilafahis the ultimate rallying force to galvanise the disaffected and disempowered. But has ISIS really reestablished the Caliphate? Is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi truly the khalifah, the amir al-mu'minin, of all Muslims? Is there an Islamic duty upon each of us to give him the oath of allegiance, or bay'ah? The short answer to all these questions is: Of course not! And here are a few reasons why:

1. The khalifah must be appointed by consultation (shura) of the ummah's movers and shakers: its senior scholars, political leaders, wealthy ones, and any others who exert influence on large factions of the ummah and whose agreement is vital to bring about a unified stance. Without their approval, any claims of a khilafah is both unachievable and illegitimate. If anything, it will have the exact opposite effect. It will be the cause for schisms, divisions and civil unrest to erupt. 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, said: 'Whoever gives the oath of allegiance to a man, without consulting the Muslims, is not to be sworn allegiance to, nor is the one whom he swore allegiance to, for fear they both may be killed.'22 From this angle alone, there simply is no shari'ah legality to al-Baghdadi's claim to be khalifah. For consultation with a few unknowns and misfits doesn't count as shura in such a key public affair.

2. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah wrote: 'The Prophet ﷺ ordered us to obey leaders who were both present and well-known (al-a'immah al-mawjudin al-ma'lumin); those who wield executive political authority and have the capability to address the political needs of the people. He did not [order us with] obedience to leaders who are absent or unknown; or to those who lack executive authority and have no real governing power over anything.'23 So these are a few more reasons which make al-Baghdadi's claim of being caliph bogus. He's an unknown (as are the many former high-ranking Ba'athists he's chosen to fill top organisational positions in ISIS). Moreover, his political clout is confined; it doesn't extend globally, nor reach into Muslim majority countries.

3.  Ibn Hajr al-'Asqalani wrote of one of the pragmatic rulings that have shaped Sunni political theory and its rules of governance (ahkam al-sultaniyyah): 'The scholars have united upon the obligation to obey the ruler who gains ascendency by force … For in it lies preservation of blood and public order.'24 The rationale here is quite simple: al-bay'ah khayrun min al-furqah – 'Oath of allegiance is better than dissension.'25 Now it has been argued that since al-Baghdadi and ISIS have conquered territory and gained sovereignty by force, this somehow makes him khalifah. This is nonsense; as shown by the previous point. At best, ISIS is an emirate and al-Baghdadi is its amir, or leader. At worst, it temporarily controls conquered territories in an ongoing war zone, and al-Baghdadi a calculated fitnah-maker falsely claiming the title of Caliph; splitting the ranks of those who are fighting Syria's tyrant; and turning his guns on mujahidun and anyone else who disagrees with his caliphal claim. Either way, ISIS most certainly isn't a khilafah by any stretch of the imagination. Those that aid and abet ISIS, only aid and abet murder, mayhem and misguidance.

Then there's the matter of whether multiple rulers (ta'addud al-a'immah) are lawful or not in Islam, or are Muslims always required to be politically unified under one single ruler or caliph? Here's an outline of the issue:

4. After citing the hadith, 'Whoever comes to you whilst your affairs are unified under a single person, seeking to undermine your unity or divide your ranks, execute him,'26al-Qurtubi remarked: 'This is the strongest evidence prohibiting the establishment of two leaders [simaltaneously]. For this will lead to hypocrisy, dissension, schisms, civil strife and the removal of blessings. But if the lands are far apart and independent, like Anadulsia and Khurasan, it becomes permissible.'27

5. First stating the ideal, then supplying this dispensation on the topic, Ibn Taymiyyah wrote: 'The Sunnah is for the Muslims to have a single ruler (imam), with others being his deputies. But if it happened that the ummah left this, due to sin from some and inability from others, so that it had multiple rulers, it would them be incumbent upon each ruler to establish the prescribed punishments and preserve peoples' rights.'28

6. Adapting to the changing realities and seismic political shifts of the eighteenth and nineteenth century Muslim world, the jurist and murajjih, imam al-Shawkani, stated: 'However, as for after Islam became widespread and had reached many far away lands, then as is known, there arose in each province or territory a state with its own leader or ruler. This happened in all regions. The authority of each of them does not extend to the area of others, hence there is no harm in there being a number of leaders and rulers. Obedience to each of them, after the oath of allegiance, is obligatory upon the people of that area where his orders and prohibitions are operative. The same goes for the ruler of each area … So realise this. For it is in full accord with the principles of the shari'ah and agrees with what the texts indicate. Ignore what is said contrary to this, since the difference in the condition of the rule of Islam in the beginning and the condition today is clearer than the daytime sun.'29

7. Although Muslims being split into countries, states and kingdoms is nowhere near ideal – given that sectarian strife and political discord exists in and among them; and many of their rulers are shabby tyrants, unfit for purpose, or have betrayed their trust as political caretakers – there is no shari'ah duty to establish the khilalfah via terror or savagery or the destruction of peoples' lives, property and honour. As the saying goes: al-'aqil la yubni qasr wa yahdamu misr – 'The intelligent one does not build a palace by laying waste to the city.' Rather, each subject or citizen lends their hand to obedience and law-abidingness, in that which does not entail disobedience. Shaykh Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab said: 'For a very long time, since before the time of imam Ahmad, till nowadays, the people have not united under one single ruler. Nor is it known that any of the scholars have said that there is any ruling which is not correct except with the greater imam (al-imam al-a'zam).'30
♦

In Part 2, we've seen reasons why ISIS's claim of a caliphate is fraudulent and invalid, and how some of its key views on warfare and jihad do not reflect normative readings or attitudes at all. ISIS, rather than being a true defender and carer of Muslim sanctity and lives, has gone out of its way to murder Muslims and perpetrate violence against them on a horrific scale. That their glossy media machine is now pushing the-idyllic-life-in-the-Islamic-State image, more than their usual blood and gore one, should not hoodwink anyone. If ISIS had done what they've done, under the name of politics and power grabbing, that would have been one thing. But it has done so under the name of Islam; using Islamic rhetoric; trying to justify its deeds with gross misreadings and misapplications of shari'ah texts. This is what makes ISIS so utterly shameless. This is what makes ISIS so Khawarij-like in its self-righteous obstinacy. We ask Allah that He guide us and them and forgive us our sins. We also ask Him that He steer them aright or break their backs.

As for my brothers and sisters whose hearts have not been dulled by the dunya; whose souls yearn to strive in Allah's cause; whose blood flows with the love of tawhid, piety and justice; but who may have become persuaded by the ISIS narrative or feel inclined to its call – please think! Think about the proofs and arguments laid out here, as well as the words of the people of knowledge cited here. Do not dismiss them out of hand merely because the heart of the one writing this has long ago been numbed by dunyaand courage no longer courses through his veins. Instead, think about what is written here on its own merits. Consider it carefully. Consider also the many hadiths which warn against the Khawarij, and how they shall appear throughout time – even until close to the End of Days. Then ask yourselves: Who do these numerous hadiths refer to in our present day and age? Who best fits their description in these recent times? And then, with anger and emotion aside, be led by knowledge, piety and the courage of your conviction; and see ISIS for what it truly is. As for those preparing to secretly sneak away from home and join the so-called caliphal caravan, let me leave you with the following:

Describing how the Khawarij sent a call out to recruit people, urging them to secretly leave their homes and join their ranks, al-hafiz Ibn Kathir wrote: 'How superb is what one of the salaf said about the Khawarij, in that they are the ones mentioned in Allah's words, exalted is He: Say: 'Shall We tell you those whose works will bring the greatest loss.' Those whose efforts have been wasted in the life of this world while they thought they were doing good. Those are they who disbelieve in the signs of their Lord and the encounter with Him. Therefore their works are in vain, and on the Day of Resurrection We give no wait to them. [18:103-5] The point is that such ignorant and misguided ones, wretched in both words and deeds, agreed upon rebelling against the Muslims …'31

If you don't mind......Pecatori, I'll wait until after bot Snopes it, to read, or not  

I don't know anything about this bunch who call themselves Isis. I only get the tales from the media. I'm remembering the horror of the Taliban, and, all I Know of them is that when they were ruling, the poppy crop was at an all time low. After WE, the Just Say No capitol of the world, invaded and occupied, now it's setting records,,
I suspect that we have had a hand in the creation of these bad guys, for perpetual war.

MnSpring wrote on 10/11/15 at 19:12:48:


MnSpring, nobody here is discussing immigration, you're off topic.

I am a regular member of a Canadian Forum called "Muslim Matters" (and have been for years) and they are discussing ISIS not as Canadians but as Muslims.
The end of the story is:
1. Such extremism has always existed, ever since the Prophet Muhammad himself,
2. Moderate Muslims are not at all happy about ISIS, of how it regualrly destroys Sanctuaries and monuments regardless of their origin, and are concerned by the apparent indifference of the Powers That Be.

In other words, they are more concerned than most Americans appear to be concerned.

I created this post in order to show all those who participate in this Forum (including a few "holier than thou" Christians who paste nothing but hate on their Facebook page) that there is more, much more than the eye can see at first glance.

DesertRat wrote on 10/11/15 at 14:57:42:




Man, you break me up ! You are really good, you should be doing stand-up comedy !!!

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/24/middleeast/syria-isis-palmyra-shrines/
"ISIS fighters have destroyed two ancient Muslim shrines in the oasis city of Palmyra, the Syrian government confirmed Wednesday, the latest act of cultural vandalism by the Sunni extremists.
ISIS seized control of Palmyra, a UNESCO World Heritage Site dating back 2,000 years"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34111092
"Syria's head of antiquities had suggested on Monday that the Temple of Bel was still standing, despite reports of a massive explosion at the weekend.
But Unosat analysts said the main structure had been reduced to rubble, as well as a line of columns beside it.
IS captured the Unesco World Heritage site from government forces in May."

http://nypost.com/2015/09/04/isis-destroys-ancient-tombs-in-latest-crime-agai...
"Islamic State militants destroyed three ancient tower tombs in the central city of Palmyra in the last few days, a Syrian government official said Friday.
Tower tombs, built on high ground, are a particular feature of the Roman-era ancient caravan city.
Maamoun Abdulkarim, the head of the Antiquities and Museums Department in Damascus, said Friday the militants destroyed the tower tombs, including the Elahbel tower that dates back to the 103 A.D."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3035534/Video-Islamic-State-group-des...
"Shock new video shows ISIS thugs smashing historic Iraqi city of Nimrud with barrel bombs, bulldozers and jackhammers in orgy of destruction slammed as a war crime by the United Nations
   ISIS fighters destroyed ancient ruins of Iraqi Assyrian city of Nimrud dating back to the 13th century B.C.
   The attack, near Mosul, took place last month, but a seven-minute video of destruction has now emerged
   It shows militants hacking and drilling away at 3,000-year-old relics and blowing up the ancient ruins
   The U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called the destruction of the Nimrud ruins 'a war crime'"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150414-why-islamic-state-destroyed...
"Why ISIS Hates Archaeology and Blew Up Ancient Iraqi Palace


On April 11th, a brief video appeared on social media and quickly became the subject of international news headlines and the target of global condemnation.
It was exactly what the Islamic State (ISIS) wanted.
The roughly seven-minute video shows the destruction of what experts confirm is the Northwest Palace at Nimrud, built in the ninth century B.C. by the Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal II.
“Whenever we take control of a piece of land, we remove the symbols of polytheism and spread monotheism in it,” a jihadi tells the camera before the structure is destroyed with explosives.


By invoking the sins of shirk, or idolatry, the Islamic State is trying to establish their legitimacy as the proper heirs to the legacy of earlier “destroyers of idols,” including the prophets Abraham and Muhammed, says Christopher Jones, a PhD student at Columbia University who has been documenting damage to ancient sites in Iraq at the Gates of Nineveh blog.
The Islamic State’s notion of shirk not only applies to pre-Islamic sites like Nimrud, but also any Islamic heritage that does not follow their strict Sunni interpretation of Islam, as well as sites belonging to the region’s religious minorities, including Yazidis, Kurds, and Christians.
   Their primary target is what they refer to as the ‘near enemy,’ being anyone other than Salafist Sunni Muslims. After that they target pre-Islamic heritage.
   According to ISIS, 'these monuments should not be excavated and restored, but viewed with 'disgust and hatred.'"

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/183392#.VhtP9WsllnQ
"ISIS Destroys Tombs of Biblical Prophets Jonah, Daniel
Eyewitnesses claim ISIS rigged both tombs with explosives, despite the fact that both prophets are considered holy to Muslims.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has destroyed the tomb of Biblical Jonah, according to Arabic media outlets, in a show of disdain for non-Islamic cultures.
“ISIS militants have destroyed the Prophet Younis (Jonah) shrine east of Mosul city after they seized control of the mosque completely,” a security source, who kept his identity anonymous, told the Iraq-based al-Sumaria News Thursday. “The militants closed all of the mosque doors and prevented worshipers from entering to pray."
Jonah the Prophet is known as the paradigmatic example of teshuva, repentance, in the Bible, and his story is recorded in the Koran as well.
According to Al-Arabiya, Jonah's tomb was dated to the eighth century BCE, and his tomb was also one of the many historic mosques said to have been destroyed by ISIS Islamists.
A local Mosul official, Zuhair al-Chalabi, also told Iraqi news outlets last week that Prophet Daniel's tomb was also destroyed."

THIS IS NO LAUGHING MATTER !

OR... are you secretly condescending WBC ?  

Dedicated to those who can understand a little Spanish - very interesting videoclip.
It's all documented history.

If you don't understand Spanish, may the cartoon suffice.

This is not about proving who was right or wrong or misled or whatever,
this is about how we can correct the mistakes of the past
in order to avoid those future ones, made by those who are too blind to see beyond the tips of their noses.

http://www.facebook.com/fpaniorte/videos/10207603254664027/?fref=nf

Mark, that line reminds me of how it's been for eons with the ruling class. Trading bibles for resources. Convert or DIE.