Iraq: Islamic State destroys Shi’ite mosques, occupies cathedrals, replacing crosses with black flag of jihad

ISde,olishingmosquesThe photographs of the destruction “were part of an online statement titled ‘Demolishing shrines and idols in the state of Nineveh.'” Ordinarily under Islamic law churches and other non-Muslim houses of worship of the “People of the Book” would be allowed to exist as long as the non-Muslims paid jizya to the Islamic state. Shi’ite mosques and shrines of various types would generally be allowed as well, as long as those involved were likewise submissive. To demolish shrines and Shi’ite mosques as idolatrous and to occupy churches, removing the crosses, is excessively fanatical and will alienate the Islamic State from Muslim support it might otherwise have received — although the Islamic State may be behaving this way because it considers the various groups whose houses of worship these are to be kuffar harbi, Infidels at war with Islam, who thus forfeit all rights. We shall see.

“ISIS destroys shrines, Shiite mosques in Iraq,” AFP, July 5, 2014:

Jihadists who overran Mosul last month have demolished ancient shrines and mosques in and around the historic northern Iraqi city, residents and social media posts said Saturday.

At least four shrines to Sunni Arab or Sufi figures have been demolished, while six Shiite mosques, or husseiniyahs, have also been destroyed, across militant-held parts of northern Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital.

Pictures posted on the Internet by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) showed the Sunni and Sufi shrines were demolished by bulldozers, while the Shiite mosques and shrines were all destroyed by explosives.

The photographs were part of an online statement titled “Demolishing shrines and idols in the state of Nineveh.”

Local residents confirmed that the buildings had been destroyed and that militants had occupied two cathedrals as well.

“We feel very sad for the demolition of these shrines, which we inherited from our fathers and grandfathers,” said Ahmed, a 51-year-old resident of Mosul.

“They are landmarks in the city.”

An employee at Mosul’s Chaldean cathedral said militants had occupied both it and the Syrian Orthodox cathedral in the city after finding them empty.

They removed the crosses at the front of the buildings and replaced them with the Islamic State’s black flag, the employee said.

ISIS-led militants overran Mosul last month and swiftly took control of much of the rest of Nineveh, as well as parts of four other provinces north and west of Baghdad, in an offensive that has displaced hundreds of thousands and alarmed the international community.

The city, home to two million residents before the offensive, was a Middle East trading hub for centuries, its name translating loosely as “the junction.”

Though more recently populated mostly by Sunni Arabs, Mosul and Nineveh were also home to many Shiite Arabs as well as ethnic and religious minorities such as Kurds, Turkmen, Yazidis and other sects.

Islamic State's caliph al-Baghdadi orders Muslims to "obey" him
Video: Robert Spencer on Sun TV on the Islamic State and the crisis in the Middle East
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. jihad3tracker says

    Al-Baghdadi and his frat boys sure seem to be on an adrenaline rush…

  2. Mac-101 says

    Anyone know why the Iranians with Russian air and SPETNATZ do NOT clean up on ISIS in Iraq and Syria? Russia could easily have Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon and Egypt under their protection with minimum effort. They most likely could topple SA and retake Libya and control the ME with practically no real assets dedicated to it!

  3. Reality Check says

    In the meantime, the silence of peaceful moderate Muslims around the world is deafening.

        • Jan Fourowls says

          Jones and Sapp have of course gained media prominence of their own and while I appreciate their frustration about the evils of Islam, I have to respectfully disagree with their book burning methods, which (1) tends to make the anti-Islam movement look like just another media circus that deters many good people from considering the facts of Islam’s risks and proven horrors based on Quranic directions, (2) concomitantly deters many good people from siding with all that is best about civilized freedom opposed to Islam, and (3) weakens arguments for free speech of all of us opposing jihad in its many forms.

          As much as I cherish my faith and relationship with God [Jesus Christ the Son (also the Father and the Holy Spirit in the trinity Islam repudiates)], and as willing as I am to share with others the Christian joy of overcoming spiritually, I would still for freedom’s sake favor Muslims (as well as Satanists) being allowed to practice their demonic religion with their demonic “scriptures” as long as I and others can tell the truth about it and expect our tax-paid governments to protect us from their criminality and oppression. (And of course I respect the free right to practice no religion at all without penalty in this world.)

          I don’t want Muslims getting press for burning mass quantities of Bibles in violation of urban burning ordinances, so why would I favor Christians publicly burning mass quantities of the Quran in pursuit of their own press?

          Instead of burning them I’d recommend that every literate American (which should be most of us) and other citizens of the world read the Quran and the Bible, cover to cover, then decide. For everybody who does not harbor an evil streak, once read the Quran would reasonably be disavowed in good conscience. Merely the Quran’s call to massacre Jews and Christians should cause disavowal (and there is so much more horror and terror recommended from cover to cover of Islam’s unholy book).

          That so-called “moderate” Muslims do not disavow the evil contents of the Quran speaks a truth of omission that I want to tell as a US citizen with constitutional rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, without burning their books.

  4. steve omara says

    Destroying Mosques, at last ,somebody is doing something useful in the Middle East…

  5. Alarmed Pig Farmer says

    Ordinarily under Islamic law churches and other non-Muslim houses of worship of the “People of the Book” would be allowed to exist as long as the non-Muslims paid jizya to the Islamic state.

    And you can bet the Christians in Nineveh are paying Jizya, but the Moslem activists opted to reneg on the deal and keep the money. I’m sure they’d like to screw the Shia there, too. But, as fellow Moslems, they don’t have to pay the Islamic State dues, they just better watch out.

  6. duh_swami says

    Equal opportunity destroyers…I bet Ayatollah’s everywhere are really mad…It getting close to Mahdi time, isn’t it?

    • Alarmed Pig Farmer says

      Do you mean when young bearded Shia men parade in public while they whip their bare backs bloody and the watching throng cheers?

      Bareback Attack

    • BC says

      Battlehardened ? That just means they have not been ‘martyred’ yet. The greatest danger of he jihadists is they want to die, that is why they are often successfull. A large body count is is reckoned as a victory by jihadis as the ‘martyrs’ have gone to parardise. It is somewhat like the Japanese in WW2, who were told surrender was shameful and they must die for their Emperor.

  7. wallyUK says

    I’m not sure why but I believe Wahhabism detests domes, for some reason, and like the shrines or tombs of Muslim holy men (which it associates with a kind of idolatry) teaches that they should be demolished whenever practical.

    • BC says

      Probably they remind them of breasts, minarets ofcourse are symbolic of the penis.

  8. gravenimage says

    Ordinarily under Islamic law churches and other non-Muslim houses of worship of the “People of the Book” would be allowed to exist as long as the non-Muslims paid jizya to the Islamic state.
    ……………………………

    Yes and no—throughout history, pious Muslims have see-sawed between exploiting Infidels for their wealth and labor and mass-murdering them or driving them out altogether.

    There are many parts of Dar-al-Islam where virtually *all* non-Muslims and all “Jahillya” have been eradicated—places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Yemen come to mind; and others where Infidels are “tolerated” more or less, but savagely exploited.

    In the last Caliphate we saw both—centuries of exploitation and enslavement, including the terrible Janissary system that seized children as well as Jizya; followed by the Armenian Genocide, which targeted *all* non-Muslims, including Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, and “Levantine” Christians, as well as Jews.

    Today there are just a handful of Infidels remaining in what was the heart of the last Caliphate—Turkey itself.

    So what is happening in the new “Caliphate”—while utterly horrifying—grimly should not surprise.

  9. BC says

    There is not a worse sort of person than a religious fanatic (excepting murderes and torturers etc. of course) I am reminded of the Puritans who ruled Britain under Cromwell who went around smashing statues in churches which they considered idolatrous. They also banned Christams for a while!

    • Mirren10 says

      ”I am reminded of the Puritans who ruled Britain under Cromwell who went around smashing statues in churches which they considered idolatrous. ”

      True, but that was over 360 years ago.

      I don’t see any Christians **now** who are going around destroying statues, or mosks, for that matter. So what’s your point ?

      • john says

        + did the puritans behead and crucify their enemies to death while doing it, all the while taking pictures with the severed bodies and boasting about how their children would kill all infidels in just a few years, either by execution or suicide bombing?