Why are you so sure?

Because the world is a large place, and people of faith will, instinctively, recoil at the thought of intentionally burning alive a young non-combatant studying the affects of radiation on babies. Because I take seriously the honest assertions made to me that such an action should be condemned. And because, frankly, if I didn't have some faith in that fact, I'd be a lot more cynical human being than I am.

Most Muslim groups have issued condemnations of terrorism and other atrocities multiple times. It would probably be better PR for them if they loudly and insistently reissued their stance every time things like this happened. OTOH, if I were a Muslim, I would probably get tired of being expected to issue ritual condemnations of every bad thing Muslims did anywhere in the world, for every new incident. "Yes, I think this week's suicide bombing was horrible and un-Islamic. Yes, last week's too. Yes, 9/11 too. Yes, blowing up schoolbuses full of children too. Yes, threatening to burn people alive, that's bad too. Yes, yes, yes.... etc." And then being accused of maybe secretly approving of terrorism if I miss one.

Amadan: I take your point, but here we have a group who are threatening to kill an 18-year-old peace worker in a manner which hasn't been approved of among most of the world since we decided that witches weren't best served toasty. In many respects, it's an escalation. Furthermore, I'd say that however 'ritual' it might be, such condemnation bears repeating, and certainly in an unambiguous fashion.

It's interesting that you bring this up, because these kidnappings were condemned by none other than Muqtada al-Sadr: http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9239502%255E1702,00.html Irrespective of what you may think of the man, I think his condemnation carries considerable weight in light of the current circumstances. Furthermore, as a Muslim, I take exception with your assertion that Muslims must condemn each atrocity that is committed in the name of Islam. From the perspective of our community, Muslims have been the victims of numerous atrocities that do not evoke similar condemnations. For instance, I have not heard unambiguous condemnations from mainstream Jewish groups of Israel's occupation, settlement building, IDF killing of innocent civilians, etc. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of Muslims regard the current war as immoral and illegal, yet there have been no unambiguous condemnations from any organization within the political mainstream.

Sabir: First, thank you--that link is just what I was looking for. Second, I would note: I didn't say there should be condemnation of each atrocity committed in the name of Islam. However, this is a case of particular and lurid barbarism--we're talking about burning an 18-year-old non-combatant alive--which I think it enough to warrant a mention by significant figures in the Muslim community. There's a line between 'each and every' and 'particularly extreme cases.' Finally, let's take a quick look at your comparisons. There are legitimate differences of opinion over whether this war is 'immoral and illegal,' and throughout the West there's been quite a lot of discussion on the matter, with voices in the mainstream coming down on either side. Similarly, the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation, settlement building, and IDF killing of civilians is something on which opinions differ, but statements are commonly made. (For the last, I'd point out that IDF killing of 'innocent' and 'civilians' is what the debate is normally about--few are arguing that it's OK to randomly kill innocent civilians.) Heck, there's even a reasonable amount of debate on the legitimacy of terrorism--it's not impossible to find those who believe that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" and that this should be a legitimate form of assymetric warfare. But what we've got here is a group, in the name of a given religion, kidnapping members of a third party and threatening to burn them alive if certain demands aren't met. The three are the softest of soft-targets: two aid workers (one an opponent of the war) and a photojournalist, from a country whose troops make up a fraction of those on the ground. Even assuming that one believes that the taking of civilians as hostages is a legitimate form of assymetric warfare--a concession I don't make--the threat is barbaric and inhuman. Further, there's no question of intent. This isn't death from a mistake in bomb targetting; this isn't someone caught in a crossfire between belligerents; this isn't a mistake or error in an attempt to further some other goal. The graphic burning of three human beings is the policy being promoted. The functional equivalent from the state of Israel, in terms of barbarism, would be a formal decimation legitimated by the Knesset. And in a sense, yes, I do think that the large official Muslim groups should condemn each and every such atrocity which is committed. First, even if it were ritual, the discomfort and loathsomeness of the ritual serves to enforce a separation. It means that those who identify with the larger groups like CAIR think a bit harder before trying to justify Saraya's actions. It means that groups like Saraya can't claim succor, support, and legitimacy. And it's good for those making the condemnation--the desire not to make the next one may prompt action to avoid it. Certainly, I don't think that this should be limited to Muslim groups. When some nutcase murders an abortion doctor, whatever my feelings on abortion I expect to see church websites and religious groups spring up with condemnation. And they do: I've helped my churchgoing friends edit webpages specially after such things. When an atrocity is unambiguous, it should be condemned, for credibility's sake. It makes the lines clear. If you think that Israeli settlements are similarly immoral actions that should be condemned, you may point to any mainstream group that fails to condemn them and say, "These people think such and such an action is OK." If there are groups that have condemned them, they'll point it out--if not, then everyone knows where they stand on the debate. But the deliberate and planned execution by immolation of three individuals in order to force the withdraw of an army whose military significance is far less than its political import? This is a no-brainer. Any group thinking it's within the realm of debate I wouldn't take seriously on any other issue--they'd have no moral compass to speak of. I'd hope that CAIR, or any other Muslim group, would want to condemn such clearly, unambiguously, and often in order that the mistake couldn't reasonably be made. It has nothing to do with moral equivalence with Israel or any other opponent, and everything to do with one's own credibility.

Fair enough; however, you raise some other interesting issues that merit further discussion. I don't know of any group that would condone the actions of the Saraya al-Mujahiddin (as I've pointed out, even staunch "fundamentalists" such as Sadr's group condemned them). However, the notion of a "moral compass" in world politics can't be discussed without acknowledging how political interests play a role. Any atrocity, any immoral action, any illegal war can be spun to at at least appear within the realm of debate based on the political climate. Israel is an excellent example of this. Normally, if a group of people formed an organized movement to reclaim a particular region that their ancestors once inhabited, displace most of its current inhabitants, establish a new state on their land, and restrict immigration to that state to their ethnic/religious group, the whole world would be up in arms against them. But because this scenario involved Jews who were seeking to create a homeland in the heart of the Ottoman Empire--upon which Britain and France had imperialist designs--the endeavor was spun in a manner that gave it moral legitimacy. A more modern and succinct example is US policy towards North Korea and Iraq: both are ruled by brutal dictators guilty of human rights violations, the former openly acknowledged attempts to acquire WMD and admitted to pursuing an ambitious weapons program yet was never regarded as more than a secondary foreign policy concern, the latter consistently denied having WMD and yet was subjected to sanctions, inspections, and eventually war (not to mention the fact that Saddam Hussein was no less repressive when he was being armed and supported by the US). From the perspective of many Muslims, the above are unjustifiable crimes morally equivalent to terrorism, but because of political circumstances, they are considered within the realm of debate.

Those political circumstances that differ between Iraq and North Korea are driven by the radically differing geopolitical situations. Control N. Korea and you've got control of....fairly resource poor land at the top of a peninsula. Control Ur (Iraq) and you've got the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates in your grasp, and can use the twin levers of water and oil to do a hell of a lot to Africa, Asia and Europe. More map reading, less Koran, would be my prescription for a clearer understanding of these issues.

David: A reminder on the note above about being careful with language--that last can seem less than kindly. Sabir: Without getting into a debate on the moral legitimacy of Israel, what you're talking about shows the importance of making clear condemnations--not merely failing to condone an action. I do not, however, believe that "[a]ny atrocity, any immoral action, any illegal war can be spun to at at least appear within the realm of debate..." Rather, you're mentioning large-scale political activities: whether or not to go to war, whether or not to create homelands. If you think these are moral equivalents, well, I suppose you can look at any Israeli group, say, "You haven't yet condemned the blatantly immoral act of establishing the state of Israel." Third parties can then note the response and make their own decisions. Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes. What you'll get is debate, which is never bad. But the moral equivalency here is misleading. It's a far easier case to argue that the specific act of kidnapping, hostage-taking, and threatened immolation is beyond the pale than any of the comparisons you've given. The subject of condemnation is concrete, the issue less debatable, the case for specific condemnation far, far greater.

As for the difference between Iraq and North Korea, what's generally considered the most salient difference is that an attack on Iraq was likely to succeed with only the relatively limited casualties seen so far. An attack on North Korea would be a far bloodier matter. There's the small matter of possible damage to South Korea via missle attack and proximity to China, who isn't going to be happy to have a large military action going on next to their border. You don't have to go to morals or worries about oil to distinguish the two situations, and it's certainly easier to defend morally than executing three people by the torch.

The debate above I leave to you guys. However I would suggest that war zones breed extreme behaviour and hatred. The crime in question required a few willing bodies, a handful of guns and a video camera to commit. This being Iraq the video camera may have been the expensive part. I don't think it odd that with the country having been through what it has some small group of desperate and deranged people would conceive of an act that shocks the world. I also don't think it strange that other desperate folk would witness this, the profound reaction it got and seek to repeat it. Hence the current spate of kidnappings. This has quite frankly fuck all to do with the heart of Islam and everything to do with the desperation and hatred stirred by the occupation. As for the novelty or medievalism of burning civilians alive, take a look

I don't know what the hell goes through these peoples minds. I mean killing innocent people including their own is not what humans do. I will think twice before even slapping somebody accross the face but these animals just kill people for nothing. And they do this to show that they are in control of their territory. First of all, 911 has affected every single non-american. Everyone stares at you even if you are not a muslim, i am not a muslim (Thank god). I respect the ground i stand on and respect the people arround me. America is a great country for everyone who wants to become something. But what the damn insurgents and other mother-F*****S are doing is not good. And it is going to lead them to no where.

I don't know what the hell goes through these peoples minds. I mean killing innocent people including their own is not what humans do. I will think twice before even slapping somebody accross the face but these animals just kill people for nothing. And they do this to show that they are in control of their territory. First of all, 911 has affected every single non-american. Everyone stares at you even if you are not a muslim, i am not a muslim (Thank god). I respect the ground i stand on and respect the people arround me. America is a great country for everyone who wants to become something. But what the damn insurgents and other mother-F*****S are doing is not good. And it is going to lead them to no where.