FATHER FRANK’S RANTS - Syria’s Future

Rant Number 538       15 May 2013

A video showing a Syrian rebel eating the heart of a fallen enemy has gone viral. But I wonder whether this barbarian is aware of his deed’s echoes in the history of his religion. Has he heard of Hind?

Hind Bint Utba was the wife of Abu Sufyan, a chief of the Quraysh, the Meccan tribe bitterly inimical to Islam’s Prophet. Her father and brother being slain in battle fighting the Muslims, Hind thirsted for revenge. Tradition has it that she paid an Abyssinian slave adept at the javelin, Wahshi, to kill Muhammad’s uncle, the valiant Hamza. Ibn Ishaq’s Life of Muhammad relates how the slave saw Hamza fighting like a lion at Uhud, cutting down men with his sword. Then Wahshi threw his lethal spear. It ‘pierced the lower part of his body and came out between his legs’. The indomitable warrior staggered on but tottered and fell down dead. Victory went to the Meccans.

Hind and other women mutilated the Muslims’ dead bodies, cutting off their ears and noses and turning them into anklets and chains. Then Hind ‘cut out Hamza’s liver, sunk her teeth into it and chewed it.’ (Other sources say it was Hamza’s heart that Hind ate. Discuss.)

Later, Muhammad being triumphant, Hind joined Islam. She never suffered the wrath of the Prophet. One of her sons, Mu’awwiya, became the founder of the Damascus caliphate.

Hind’s cannibalism went hand in hand with her paganism. She was an idol-worshipper and her mores came out of that. It was savage tribalism. Primitive and barbarous. Islam largely put paid to that. Neither the Qur’an nor sharia’ sanction mutilating the dead, as far as I know. The question arises therefore as to the symbolism of the cannibal’s deed. Hind should not be a heroine of Islam, although amazingly some count her amongst the sahaba, the Prophet’s companions. Still, whoever remembers Irene Papas playing Hind in the didactic, al-Azhar-approved ‘70s movie,The Message, would retain an impression of the woman as of a deadly enemy of the Prophet. Not quite a role model for the Syrian rebels, as so many wrap themselves in the green banner of Islam. It is puzzling.

Was the cannibal perhaps so very ignorant of his religion? I suspect the plausible intention was to terrorise the enemy. ‘See what awaits you, you dogs?’ A ferocious warning. Actually, quite apart from the bad name the video gives the rebels, it may strengthen the regime’s will to resist. Who would ever wish to surrender to cannibals?

Bashar Assad is no angel, of course. He and his father have ruled Syria with an iron fist. No doubt his militias have committed atrocities. It is a ghastly civil war. I do not know the country but when I was in the Middle East I befriended some Syrian students. They gave me Arabic lessons. They were humorous, open, easy-going lads. One thing struck me as significant, though: whenever I happened to mention their president, they shut up like clams. They would not say a word about the man. I had touched a subject it was not safe for them to discuss, I realised. Still, their fearful silence spoke volumes. Bashar is bad, make no mistake about it, but...are his opponents better?

‘This is not Syria’s future’, a Foreign Office minister said. No, insh’allah, but it is Syria’s present. Of course, I do not expect the FO to give a damn for the plight of Syrian Christians. I am not that naive! Two Syrian Orthodox bishops are kidnapped and unheard of to date. Does the FO do anything? Do they care? Assad gave minorities some protection, at least. Now ordinary believers suffer from kidnapping, theft, rape and murder. The unchristian British government keeps mum. The blood of Christians is cheap. Maybe the rebel cannibals have eaten them up? Why should Cameron, Hague and their gang give a twopence? Of course not. Christians are fair game. Kill and rape them, that’s fine. Christians to the lions! What’s new?

‘This is not Syria’s future.’ Ahem, could it be Britain’s future? The British government is giving aid, money and support to the rebels. Many of those fighters are foreigners, holding various European passports. (‘Why not be proud of British people fighting for freedom in Syria?’ some nitwit tweeted way back. Freedom to cannibalise their enemies’ bodies? Did he mean that?) Fanatics imbued with jihadist ideology, having tasted the blood of Christians, Kurds, Alawites and Shia’, like vampires they will crave for more. They will not easily embrace desk jobs. Will they perhaps continue their bloodthirsty crusade (sic) in their home countries? Slaughter a few infidels and heretics in the Tube? Who knows?

Already London is getting reverberations. Another u-tube video shows a demo by shaggy-bearded guys in Edgware Rd, heart of Londonistan. A poster fingers three villains: Assad, Ahmadinejad and...Hasan Nasrallah. Nasrallah? I thought I saw double. How so? The Hezbollah sheikh who led his people’s resistance to Israeli invasion.  One of the rare Muslim leaders who have actually fought and won. For his country and against aggression, under the banner of Islam. Even Lebanese Christians rejoiced for his example. How could he be a bad guy?

Sectarianism. Christians know all about it. But our internecine hatreds are well-nigh extinguished. Maybe that’s not totally good – have we become lukewarm, indifferent to what’s important? Still, butchering fellow believers in the name of God – that can never be good or right or holy.

Syria’s future. It should be peace. Peace against all barbarism. So peacemaking, however impossible, must be the only option. Why doesn’t the government pursue that goal? Yes, peacemaking. It is an imperative from on high, from Jesus Christ himself: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers because they will be called sons of God’.

Revd Frank Julian Gelli