Universalism? Some Really Bad People Don't Seem To Ever Change

I am very sympathetic to the universalist position which says that at the end of the day all human beings will enter heaven, even if only after aeons of purgation (whether this view is compatible with Catholicism is another story). But at the same time empirically I know some people who don't change their wicked ways, no matter what happens to them or how much loving help they receive. I know some people who have had really traumatic things happen to them, things which should have changed them for the better, but they still continue on in their wickedness and show no inclination to change for the better. I am not confident that for such people extending their existence for aeons will incline them to change for the better, rather than for the worse. The disturbing fact is that there are some truly devilish people out there who simply don't seem like they'll ever change. But at the same time I know that God's capacity to change even the most darkened of hearts is not bound by my concievability. In the end, it seems to me that since God is a maximally great being, his love will pursue us forever. And who can run away from the love of God forever?

Must Any Omnipotent and Omniscient Entity be Omnibenevolent?

It seems plausible to me that any entity that is omnipotent and omniscient has to be omnibenevolent.

Here's my reasoning: I think every person qua person is at least mildly inclined towards that which he believes is the morally best choice (where 'best choice' here is defined as a choice such that there is no better). To be sure, this inclination may be very small, and it is certainly overcome in many of us by overriding inclinations, but it is nonetheless there. So any omnipotent and omniscient agent OO, qua personal agent, has to have this inclination as well. Now what are things that can cause a person's inclination to that which one thinks is best to be overridden? It seems to me that it is either (i) ignorance, (ii) passions, (iii) coercion, or (iv) desire for personal gain. (Help me out if you think there is something else).

My inclination to do that which I think the best choice may be overridden by my inclination to not do it because of ignorance -- I may falsely believe there is a better choice. Bob's inclination towards being faithful to his spouse may be overridden by his (sexual) passions to sleep with his physically attractive colleague. Mary's inclination to tell the police what she saw at a crime scene may be overcome by peer pressure or coercion from her criminal friends. Judge Stephen's inclination to render an impartial verdict in a very public court case may be swayed by his desire for fame (personal gain). All of these things may cause our inclination to that which is best, which we have by nature, to be overridden. But the thing is that none of (i) - (iv) can override OO's inclination to do that which is best. He cannot choose something under the mistaken impression that it is the best choice because he, by stipulation, cannot be mistaken -- he is omniscient. This entity also cannot be subject to his passions because he is omnipotent. Furthermore, it seems that any omnipotent and omniscient being has to be immaterial anyways, and so won't be subject to passions (any material entity will be subject to physical laws and will have his capacity for knowledge limited by physical constraints). And obviously an omnipotent being cannot be coerced, or be subject to peer pressure. And with respect to personal gain, an omnipotent being already has everything he needs, so he won't act out of personal gain. So any omnipotent and omniscient being OO has to be omnibenevolent as well -- i.e., any such being has to be all good. Q.E.D.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is a good representation of the argument in a numbered-premise-to-conclusion format:

1. Any agent A has an inclination towards that which it perceives to be morally best.

2. Any agent that is omnipotent and omniscient has no overriding inclinations against doing that which it perceives to be morally best.

3. If (1) and (2), then any omnipotent and omniscient agent would be omnibenevolent.

Therefore:

4. Any omnipotent and omniscient agent is omnibenevolent.

Robin Dembroff Paper Parody, Inspired by Anscombe

The nerve of Dembroff and Wodak (2018) is that <we have a negative duty to not use any gender-specific pronouns to refer to anyone, regardless of their gender identity>. While there may be much to be said for this view, still it does not seem right on the face of it.

Traditional Theism and the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic

It is interesting to note that traditional theism is incompatible with the Simplest Quantified Modal Logic. Personally, I do not think that this is a problem for the theist since SQML has unacceptable implications —like the idea that everything that exists must exist. In any case, here is one proof that traditional theism, which entails that (i) possibly, only God exists, is incompatible with SQML. 

Take a Quantificational Modal Logical System that includes Brouwer, and allows free variables. Call such a system SQML- (since it is slightly weaker than SQML). It is a theorem of such a system that <If possibly, only one thing exists, then only one thing actually exists.>

Informal Proof: Suppose that there is a possible world W at which only one thing exists. So at W it is true that x=y. The necessity of identity states that ∀x∀y(x = y → □(x = y)). So it follows that (x=y) → □(x=y). But by Modus Ponens, it follows that □(x=y). But by Brouwer, it follows that x=y is true at @. 



[1][2]

Even if one thinks that abstract objects necessarily exist along with God, or that God has proper parts, ~TT is still a theorem of SQML-. This is at least because TT entails that (ii) possibly, the only essentially minded entity that exists is God, and (iii) possibly, something is essentially minded and numerically distinct from God.^[3]

(Very) Informal Proof: BF, CBF, and □NE are all theorems of SQML- (cf. Menzel SEP proofs). So it is a theorem of SQML- that if something exists at a possible world, then it exists necessarily (i.e., there are no contingent entities). Given this and (ii), it follows that necessarily, some minded entity exists that is numerically distinct from God. This contradicts (i). So ~TT.

---

[1] Although this would normally not be licit, since the domain at w is just a singleton set, this is in fact a licit move.

[2] Kripke proved this follows from QML and the premise that □∀x□(x = x). And this premise is actually a theorem of SQML-. Observe: ∀x(x = x). By the Rule of Necessitation (RN), it follows that □∀x(x = x). By Converse Barcan Formula (CBF), which is a theorem of SQML-, it follows that □∀x(x = x) →  ∀x□(x = x). So it follows by Modus Ponens that ∀x□(x = x). But by RN it follows that □∀x□(x = x).                                   

[3] Trinitarians can read (i)-(ii) as follows: (i) possibly, the only essentially minded entities that exist are the Father (F), Son (S), and Holy Spirit (HS); (ii) Possibly, something is essentially minded and numerically distinct from F, S, and HS. The proof would still, mutatis mutandis, go through.

Atheists and Agnostics Tend To Be Smarter Than Religious People

From my anecdotal experience, the average atheist and agnostic is more intelligent and has greater general knowledge than the average religious person. That's just from my experience. But there is also evidence from empirical studies that substantiates this as well.

For example, here is the abstract of the meta-analytic study discussed by Russia Today:

Abstract

**A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.** The association was stronger for college students and the general population than for participants younger than college age; it was also stronger for religious beliefs than religious behavior. For college students and the general population, means of weighted and unweighted correlations between intelligence and the strength of religious beliefs ranged from −.20 to −.25 (mean r = −.24). Three possible interpretations were discussed. First, intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. Second, intelligent people tend to adopt an analytic (as opposed to intuitive) thinking style, which has been shown to undermine religious beliefs. Third, several functions of religiosity, including compensatory control, self-regulation, self-enhancement, and secure attachment, are also conferred by intelligence. Intelligent people may therefore have less need for religious beliefs and practices.

A link to the meta-analytic study can be found here. The meta-analysis (an analysis of many studies of the same issue), which apparently looked at almost a century of data, found a negative correlation between IQ level and religiosity.

Here's another interesting study by the Pew Research Center, showing that atheists and agnostics are generally more knowledgeable about religion than religious people. In this study, Americans were given a religious knowledge quiz of 32 questions and, surprise surprise, atheists and agnostics had the highest scores.

The conclusion is inescapable: atheists and agnostics are generally smarter than their religious peers. That doesn't mean that they are right. But the data is what it is. .

The Cognitively Dissonant Mind of the Religious Apologist

From my experience, having observed a lot of religious apologetics, the mind of the religious apologist is frequently prone to cognitive dissonance and close-mindedness with respect to matters of religion. The mind of the religious apologist is a mind prone to reflexively defend a religious position without first thoroughly examining the relevant evidence. In the apologist the tribalistic mentality of man is on full display. The mind of the religious apologist is frequently not so concerned with sincere truth-seeking as it is concerned with defending the values of the tribe. Intellectual tensions are swept under the rug in an effort to conform with the religious tribe. The following video is a good example of how cognitive dissonance and a tendency to close-mindedness can operate in even very educated and smart apologists. Watch what the world-class synthetic chemist and Christian James Tour says in 12:30 - 14:00 of this video. It is cringeworthy. He relates how he tells Nabeel  Qureshi to repent for sincerely thinking about important questions pertaining to the veracity of the Bible; Tour reminds him that "every word in this book is true," and so Qureshi "has some repenting to do." Thereafter they both get on their knees, and Tour leads Qureshi to "repent" for not "taking every word in [the Bible] to be true." At this point I am just facepalming. Imagine grovelling on the floor asking the supremely rational entity to be forgiven for sincerely seeking truth!

What in the world? I say again: what in the world? Apparently the "lesson" that Tour gave Qureshi was to be close-minded. You see, for many a religious apologist, sincerely questioning the veracity of a religious text, by entertaining good arguments on the other side, is unacceptable. Even polymath Christian apologists like William Lane Craig are on record saying that lay Christians should just read Christian apologetic works, and leave works arguing against Christianity to trained individuals like himself (though I forget the link). The implicature is that for Craig, a lay Christian's reading the best works for and against Christianity is to unnecessarily and perilously infect himself with pernicious ideas! You see, in his mind he already has the truth, and so lay Christians should just read what conforms to his opinions about the truth. This is very cringeworthy. If you want to sincerely seek the truth about a certain issue X, then you should read the best arguments for and against X. Don't just read books in favor of Christianity if you are a Christian--read the arguments of atheists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. God gave you a mind, and so he intended you to use it. You have an obligation to follow the evidence wherever it leads--even if it leads you outside the precincts of your tribe. At the end of the day if you do your best to try to get at the truth, then you are not culpable if you get some things wrong. We are all human beings. None of us is infallible. And each one of us probably has some sincerely held justified or unjustified beliefs that are false. Do not be cowed by the religious tribalist who threatens you with eternal perdition, as if he is the gatekeeper of Hell. If you try your best to believe what is true and act in an upright manner, you will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, whether you be an atheist, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, etc. The maximally great being is all-just and all-loving. So don't be afraid of using your mind as best and as honestly as you can. And don't repent to anyone for doing so!

A Simple Argument Against the Incarnation

I just thought of a simple argument against the Christian dogma of the incarnation. Here it is:

1.       If it is possible that there is something that has two natures, then it is possible that there is something that has a potentially infinite number of natures.

2.       But it is not possible that there is something that has a potentially infinite number of natures.

3.       Therefore, it is impossible that there is something that has two natures.

4.       Therefore, it is impossible for the Christian doctrine of the incarnation to be true.

I think premise (1) is obviously true. The crux of the argument lies with premise (2). Is it impossible that something have a potentially infinite number of natures? Is it impossible for something to have something like 10^10000000000000000 natures? It honestly seems like it to me, but I admit that this is just an intuition. Premise (2) seems reasonable to me. So, since the argument is logically valid, (3) and (4) follow. But there is a problem for the orthodox Christian here, since he is committed to the truth of (~4). He believes that the second person of the Trinity, the Logos assumed a second human nature unto his divine person in the incarnation.

What is the solution here? I do not know the solution. I think the Christian's best bet is to deny (2), and claim that the divine persons could, if they so wanted, incarnate in a potentially infinite amount of types of things—i.e., that they could take on a potentially infinite amount of natures. So perhaps panentheism is possibly true, something which I am not sure is consistent with orthodox Christian theology. But I suppose that someone may respond by saying that the divine persons cannot take on non-rational natures, but only rational natures, and so it's not the case that panentheism is possibly true—rocks could never be hypostatically united to the Godhead. So while it may be true that a divine person could take on a potentially infinite number of natures, those natures would have to be rational natures.

In any case, I cannot help but think that the critic of orthodox Christianity is well within his epistemic rights in thinking that this argument is sound, even if it is ultimately unsound. Of course, this, as well as many such prima facie eminently reasonable arguments against orthodox Christianity, may be problematic for the perhaps overly exuberant orthodox Christian evidentialist.

I should add that I have left nature undefined here, and just intend it to pick out whatever we commonsensically take to be a nature, which is probably something like a Finean or Aristolelian essence. Now how something can have two such essences or natures is not even something that I can frankly even conceptualize. But perhaps the reader can help me out here.

ISIS, Islamism and the War on Icons

On 8 June 2016, ISIS released two or three videos, rather versions of a video,^[1] of its latest abominable act, the blowing up in Mosul, Iraq of the remains of the Assyrian temple of Nabu at Nimrud and of its bulldozing of the Nergal Gate at Nineveh. Here is a link to the first version. In the second version of the video a black-clad ISIS member, a certain Abu Naseer al-Ansari, is shown pointing with one hand to the huge explosions shattering the Nabu temple behind him. He does so while inveighing against those Muslims who hold these ruins of antiquity, which were built by the infidels, in high esteem and who feel so proud of these ruins as to consider them part of their history. As al-Ansari utters these denunciations, a picture of an Egyptian pyramid side by side the Sphinx is superimposed on the scene. The message is obvious: the pyramids and Sphinx would suffer the same fate and be reduced to rubble at the first opportunity.

But ISIS is not alone in its desire to destroy Egypt’s Pharaonic monuments, which are extraordinary feats of human engineering. The list of Islamist advocates of such destruction is quite lengthy. For example, British-based Islamist Anjem Choudary, now in jail for supporting ISIS, is reported to have said the following: “when Egypt comes under the auspices of the khalifa (caliphate), there will be no more pyramids, no more Sphinx, no more idolatry.” Similarly, Ibrahim al-Kandari, a Kuwaiti Islamist preacher, explained, "the fact that early Muslims who were among prophet Muhammad's followers did not destroy the pharaohs' monuments upon entering the Egyptian soil does not mean that we shouldn't do it now." Furthermore, in an interview on an Egyptian TV channel in 2014, the Egyptian preacher Murgan Salem al-Gohary advocated the destruction of the pyramids and Sphinx, just as during his jihad spell in Afghanistan he supported the Taliban’s destruction of the two Buddhas of Bamiyan back in 2001.


In its jihad against ancient statues and archaeological artefacts and sites, ISIS draws inspiration from the Qur'an, the ahadeeth, and the Sunna, which call for the destruction of idols and temples of non-believers. Notably, Qur'an 21:52 and Q 21:56-59 refers to Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham), who smashed the idols of his kin. If that were not enough an inspiration, Muhammed himself set the example when he entered Mecca as a conqueror. Some of our earliest sources on Islam record that he personally destroyed the statues adorning the Ka’ba, interestingly only sparing an icon of Jesus and Mary.[2] There are also sahih (correct) ahadeeth reinforcing the iconoclastic injunctions against idols and against raised graves. For example, Sahih Muslim, the second most trusted collection of Sunni ahadeeth, contains the following hadith:

Abu’l-Hayaaj al-Asadi said: ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib [Muhammed’s cousin and the fourth rightly-guided Caliph) said to me: “Shall I not send you with the same instructions as the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent me? ‘Do not leave any image without defacing it or any built-up grave without leveling it.’

This hadith is cited on the Saudi sheikh, Al-Munajid's Islamic question-and-answer web site; it begins the response to the question of why the companions of Muhammed did not destroy statues in the lands they conquered. ISIS, of course, has been engaged in levelling graves and demolishing tombs, as we shall see later on. And it is not alone in carrying out those iconoclastic practices. In March 2012, for example, Islamist Libyan vandals desecrated a British war cemetery near Benghazi and shot a video to brag about their feat.^[3] A decade earlier in 2001, Taliban used dynamite to demolish the two Budhha statues in Bamiyan, Afghanistan. Their justification: implementing the Shari’a, the injunctions of destroying un-Islamic symbols which are worshipped by unbelievers and polytheists.


The answer given by Al-Munajid's Islamic quesion-and-answer website is informative here. We learn that the Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun (786 – 833 A.D.), famed for his learning and for his protection of thinkers who did not toe the official religious line, wanted to destroy the pyramids, those relics of the past, but could not. In this connection, it is interesting to note that in one version of a video released by ISIS, an ISIS commentator explains that monumental structures like the pyramids were not destroyed earlier when the Muslim armies conquered Egypt in the early seventh century because of their sheer size, which made it impossible to smash them to pieces. The implication is that smashing them now is possible and desirable, since bombs, dynamite, and other explosive devices can be used to demolish any edifice, no matter how huge. In other words, there can be no excuse now not do perform the religious duty of smashing idols. Case in point, the Taliban’s blowing off and smashing of the famous two Buddha statues of Bamiyan, a feat that took them some twenty-five days back in 2001 to complete, considering that the statues were 170 feet high and 115 feet high respectively.


Other Islamists, like al-Kandari, claim that such monuments in Egypt and elsewhere were not visible at the time for the Muslim conquerors to see because they were buried in the sand. Similar arguments suggest that it was only in recent centuries that the Western "infidels" excavated these monuments. The tension between the story of Caliph al-Ma’mun's wanting to demolish the monuments and the monuments being buried in the sand is readily apparent.


It is important to note that Muslim religious sites which were considered places of shirk (idolatry) by ISIS were not spared ISIS’ axes, bulldozers, and dynamite. ISIS, a fanatical Sunni Islamist group, blew up several Shi’i mosques and even a number of Sunni shrines in Mosul, Iraq, notably Nabi Younis or Prophet Jonah’s shrine, as well as Nabi Sheet (Sheth) and Nabi Daniel's shrines.
Demolishing shrines, shattering statues, and levelling graves are consistent with ISIS’ embrace of the extremist Salafi ideology of Wahhabism with its strict, puritanical jurisprudence and its call to go back to the early and "unadulterated" Islam of Muhammad, the Companions, and at-tabi'un (the followers of the companions). Indeed, Salafis are so averse to shrines that they have many times tried to attack the ones present in Mecca, the holiest city of Islam.


Many Muslims, however, do not share the Salafi obsession with the destruction of archaeological sites, ancient statues, and Muslim shrines. Even with the blowing up of the two Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, delegations of clergy, including Yusuf al-Qaradhawi, the chief mufti of the Muslim Brotherhood, went to Afghanistan, no doubt motivated by the world’s outcry, in a fruitless attempt to dissuade the Taliban from carrying on their barbaric act of destroying the two statues. In Libya, some elderly people intervened to stop the Islamist thugs who were on a rampage desecrating the graves at the British war cemetery. At the end of the video showing the demolition of the Nabi Younis (Prophet Jonas) shrine in Mosul, Iraq, a local is heard lamenting, “Oh, God. Nabi Younis is gone!”


The destruction of shrines in Iraq and Syria served to send a message to other Muslims not to revere such shrines. Many local Muslim residents of Mosul, it is believed, lamented the destruction of these shrines, which long have contributed to giving Mosul its distinctive character. Muslim moderate voices, however, have become few and far between in the face of the rising tide of Salafi and other extremist trends in Islam.


Ever since ISIS swept like a whirlwind over large areas of Syria and Iraq, it has waged a vicious and relentless jihad against the landmarks of the ancient civilizations that pre-date Islam. Literally, no stone has been left unturned in this jihad, which ISIS has been waging to eradicate what it describes as idols and idolatry. Archeological sites and ancient artifacts that have weathered the sands of time and successive invasions for hundreds of years have been smashed to smithereens by ISIS over the past few years. In Syria, to the shock of those who do care, archaeological sites in Palmyra and several Christian religious sites in Aleppo were destroyed by ISIS.


In Iraq, the city of Mosul, itself old and historic and at the center of the sites of Nineveh, Nimrod, and Hatra and several other ancient sites, was subjected to a vicious and relentless campaign of cultural annihilation. In February 2015, ISIS released a video of the Mosul Museum, showing ISIS thugs smashing priceless ancient statues and sculptures from Assyrian sites and from Hatra. Though it is hoped that some of these smashed artefacts could have been replicas of the originals, the same cannot be said of the final part of the video, which shows ISIS fanatics chiseling with electric drills at an Assyrian winged-bull at the Nergal Gate, one of several gates at Nineveh. Of course, there are credible reports that ISIS has resorted to plundering and trafficking ancient artifacts to fill its coffers. The hypocrisy of ISIS in this case is justified by the oft-quoted statement Muslim, “in extenuating circumstances, the forbidden becomes permissible (المظورات تبيح المعضورات)."


In his aptly titled “The Cultural Cleansing of Mosul,” Christopher Jones provides a descriptive catalogue of the archaeological, cultural, and religious sites and shrines in Mosul and nearby areas that have been destroyed or damaged by ISIS. ISIS reportedly demolished Yazidi holy sites as well as old churches and monasteries: for example the 1,400 years old monasteries of Mar Behnam and Mar Iliya (Elijah), and the 10,000 years old Mar Gergis, all near Mosul. Furthermore, ISIS bulldozed a number of graveyards in the Christian towns and villages of the Nineveh plain, and they broke and removed the crosses from the top of the churches and hoisted their ISIS black flag in their stead.[4]
ISIS knows very well that the ancient sites and statues in Syria and Iraq are no longer places of worship and have not been so for two millennia. ISIS knows very well that the archaeological sites are not visited by worshippers (unless those who marvel in awe at the cultural and artistic achievements of antiquity are described as worshippers) but by scholars, archaeology and history specialists, students and tourists. ISIS knows very well that these temples, gates, statues, and artefacts serve no sacred function at present, not for the last two thousand years.


Be that as it may, ISIS bases its practices on the Koranic injunctions against idols and idol worshipping. It models itself after Mohammed, whose first act upon entering Mecca as a conqueror was to smash the statues in the Ka’bah. That the statues in the Ka’bah were worshipped by the Meccans during Muhammad's time, whereas the Assyrian statues of some three thousand years ago are merely standing in the Mosul Museum or the Nineveh archaeological sites for people, including scholars and tourists, to view and marvel at makes no difference to ISIS.


But there is a more important message in the destructive acts. For the destruction of these shrines, notably the Nabi Younis’ tomb, is also an assault on the monotheistic religions that pre-date Islam. Indeed, some Biblical scholars have noted that the demolition of the Biblical shrines is an attack on the Bible. For example, Professor Sam Hardy from the American University of Rome, told The Washington Post that the blowing up of Jonah’s shrine shows that ISIS is willing to destroy “basically pretty much anything in the Bible.” He added, “it indicates they are going for total eradication not just of their enemies but even of the possibility of people living together under their rule.” Similarly, Joel S. Baden and Candida Moss, professors of biblical scripture at Yale Divinity School and the University of Notre Dame, respectively, wrote that the blowing up of the Nabi Younis shrine was “an attack on both those Christians living in Iraq today and on the rich, if little-known, Christian heritage of the region.”


Why is this obsession with eradicating any traces of pre-Islamic religions, cultures, and civilizations? Why does ISIS direct its ire at pre-Islamic and non-Islamic antiquities and heritage, whether sacred or profane? The smashing of Biblical shrines, ancient monasteries and churches, as well as archeological sites of pre-Islamic civilizations is a calculated strategy to “cleanse” Mosul of its religious and ethnic diversity and is directed primarily at the local Christian communities, communities that are among the oldest in the world.


Indeed, in the case of Mosul and the Nineveh plain, ISIS’ acts of religious and cultural violence against Yazidi shrines and Christian churches and monasteries as well as against archaeological sites are aimed at eradicating memory, that which ties Christians to their heritage and land since their presence there predates the Muslim invasion. Ever since the swarming of the Muslim armies over Iraq and Syria, the local Christians have survived, though continuing to dwindle in numbers generation after generation, by turning the other cheek and by accepting their status as subjugated dhimmis. They survived religious and ethnic cleansing campaigns that punctuated their history—the genocide of Christian communities during WW1 one hundred years ago is still fresh in their memory as they have been recently reminded by ISIS’ assault on them and on their religious symbols, churches, and monasteries. It is sad that the local Christians (mostly Chaldean Catholics, Nestorians,[5] Syriac Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox) of Iraq and Syria, who are proud of their Eastern Christian heritage as well as of their pre-Christian ancient civilizations which once radiated their splendor in Iraq and Syria and beyond, are leaving their ancestral homes to the diaspora.


What is happening to the Christians and Yazidis in the region is a consequence of the concerted and calculated effort to eradicate the memory and to sever the connection of non-Muslim ethnic groups, mainly Christians, the majority of whom are Aramaic–speaking, to their history and cultural heritage. A similar scenario is taking place in Syria. Zainab Bahrani, Professor of Ancient Near Eastern Art and Archaeology at Columbia University, herself of Muslim background, noted:

this is a form of genocide and a form of cultural cleansing… —this is not just a destruction of cultural heritage, this is an attempt to erase the representation of groups of people. Thousands of years of history—whether Islamic, pre-Islamic, early Christian, or Yazidi—is being wiped out as ISIS attempts to rewrite it in its own vision. This is a genocide.

Future generations of Iraqi and Syrian Christians will almost certainly have no remembrance of things past. Indeed, one million (that is, two thirds) of Iraqi Christians have already left the country since 2003, with most remaining Christians relocating to the Kurdish area or waiting in line in Jordan and Lebanon to join the diaspora in the West. A similar number of Christians have left Syria. To all intents and purposes, Christianity in Iraq, and increasingly in Syria as well, is on the verge of extinction. It is within this context that we have to understand ISIS’ ultimatum to the Christians of Mosul in July 2014 to either pay the jizya (toll tax) and live as subjugated people, convert to Islam, leave Mosul within twenty-four hours, or be killed. ISIS branded the homes and businesses of Mosul Christians with the Arabic letter ن (Noon) to indicate Nasara (Nazerene), a pejorative Qur'anic appellation used by Muslims to refer to Christians. For the first time since the coming of Christianity to Mosul more than seventeen hundred years ago, Mosul is empty of Christians, in the language of ISIS—“cleansed.”


The expulsion of the Christians of Mosul, the oldest inhabitants of the city, was followed by ISIS’ attack on the Christian villages and towns in the Nineveh plain, an attack which led to these Christians fleeing to the relative safety of the Kurdish areas. Syria’s Christians in Islamist-controlled areas are facing a similar fate like that of their Iraqi co-religionists. The destruction of Christian churches and monasteries in Syria and of the ancient sites in Palmyra is further evidence of ISIS’ Jihad against the rich cultural heritage of the region. The Copts of Egypt, who under the best circumstances would take need many years and Herculean efforts to get a mere approval from the Egyptian authorities to repair an old church, and no less than a miracle to get approval to build a new one, are now threatened with attacks on their civilizational heritage. Will the world wake up one day to the sight of the blowing up of the Sphinx to pieces or the destruction by explosives of the pyramids? Unfortunately, world powers like the United States must do much more to help stop Islamist groups in the Middle East, otherwise the refrain of "never again" rings hollow.

---

[1] ISIS was in the habit of releasing two or three videos of the same event, with different ISIS members proselytizing.
[2] Prior to the rise of Islam, our sources say that the Ka'aba was adored with numerous idols.
[3] “The video, shot by the militiamen themselves, shows more than thirty armed men kicking down the gravestones of British servicemen while comrades use sledgehammers to break the cenotaph. ‘Break the cross of the dogs!’ one man can be heard shouting as another soldier perches on a ladder to smash the cenotaph cross with a mallet.”
[4] Interestingly, with respect to the graveyards, there are Sahih ahadeeth where Muhammad says "God damn Jews and Christians, as they have taken the graves of their prophets as places of worship."
[5] That is, members of the Assyrian Church of the East.