Peace prospects? Slim to none after Netanyahu's speech

Uri Avnery, the activist of activists in Israel for peace, has written a strait forward article on Benjamin Netanyahu's speech regarding a Palestinian state. Basically, Bibi is playing the same old Israeli game of saying Israel wants peace, but then making proposals they know the Palestinians and Arab states will not accept, such as a demilitarized state, no refugee negotiations, etc.

The point of the speech was to appease Obama, while making Israel seem like it was willing to work for a two-state settlement. Anyone who knows anything about Netanyahu, knows damn well Obama will probably have to point a gun to Bibi's head in order to ever get him to agree to a Palestinian state. The odds of Netanyahu and the current Israeli government ever agreeing to a historic agreement with the Palestinians are almost none in my opinion.

THE ENTIRE speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Israel. Except in some tired old clichés, Netanyahu spoke about them, not to them.

He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions, every one of which is designed to make certain that no Palestinian, no Arab and indeed no Muslim will agree to enter negotiations.

Condition 1: The Arabs have to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” (and not just “a Jewish state”, as many in the media erroneously reported.) As Hosny Mubarak has already answered: No Arab will accept this, because it would mean that 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel are cut off from the state, and because it would deny in advance the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees - the main bargaining chip of the Arab side.

It should be remembered that when the United Nations resolved in 1947 to partition Palestine between a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”, they did not mean to define the character of the states. They were just stating facts: there are two mutually hostile populations in the country, and therefore the country has to be divided between them. (Anyhow, 40% of the population of the “Jewish” state was to consist of Arabs.)

Condition 2: The Palestinian Authority must first of all establish its rule over the Gaza Strip. How? After all, the Israeli government prevents travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and no Palestinian force can pass from one to the other. And the solution of the problem by establishing a Palestinian unity government is also ruled out: Netanyahu flatly declared that there would be no negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that includes “terrorists who want to annihilate us” – his way of referring to Hamas.

Condition 3: The Palestinian state will be demilitarized. This is not a new idea. All peace plans that have been put forward up to now speak about security arrangements that would protect Israel from Palestinian attacks and Palestine from Israeli attacks. But that is not what Netanyahu has in mind: he did not speak about mutuality, but about domination. Israel would control the air space and the border crossings of the Palestinian state, turning it into a kind of giant Gaza Strip. Also, Netanyahu’s style was deliberately overbearing and humiliating: he obviously hopes that the word ‘demilitarized” would be enough to get the Palestinians to say “no”.

Condition 4: Undivided Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule. This was not proposed as an opening gambit for negotiations but presented as a final decision. That by itself ensures that no Palestinian, nor any Arab or even any Muslim, could accept the proposal.

In the Oslo Agreement, Israel undertook to negotiate about the future of Jerusalem. It is an accepted legal rule that if one undertakes to negotiate, one accepts to do so bona fide, on the basis of give and take. Therefore, all peace plans provide that East Jerusalem - wholly or partly – will be returned to Arab rule.

Condition 5: Between Israel and the Palestinian state there will be “defensible borders”. These are code-words for extensive annexations by Israel. Their meaning: no return to the 1967 borders, not even with a swap of territory that would allow for some of the large settlements to be joined to Israel. In order to create “defensible borders”, a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories (which altogether make up just 22% of pre-1948 Palestine) will be absorbed into Israel.

Condition 6: The refugee problem will be solved “outside the territory of Israel”. Meaning: not a single refugee will be allowed to return. True, all realistic people agree that there can be no return of millions of refugees. According to the Arab peace initiative, the solution must be “mutually agreed” – which means that Israel has to agree to any solution. The assumption is that the two parties will agree on the return of a symbolic number. This is a highly charged and sensitive matter, which must be treated with prudence and the utmost sensitivity. Netanyahu does the opposite: his provocative statement, devoid of all empathy, is clearly designed to bring about an automatic refusal.

Condition 7: No settlement freeze. The “normal life” of the settlers will continue. Meaning: the building activity for the “natural increase” will go on. This illustrates the saying of Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO: “We are negotiating about sharing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it.”

All this was in the speech. No less interesting is what was not in it. For example, the words: Road Map. Annapolis. Palestine. The Arab peace plan. Occupation. Palestinian Sovereignty. Opening of the Gaza Strip border crossings. Golan Heights. And, even more important: there was not a hint of respect for the enemy who must be turned into a friend, in the words of the ancient Jewish saying.

Read the rest.

Greenwald on Iran

The astute Glenn Greenwald points out the hypocrisy of the right wing leadership. Sometimes they want just want to kill everyone within the nation they despise without hesitation, and at other times those very people they would have succumb to nuclear annihilation are their newest friends and allies.

In addition, I will stay out of the Iran election issue. I don't know a thing about the issue and it seems most analysts are having a difficult time figuring out whether the election was rigged or not. I wouldn't be surprised if the election was rigged, but then again, what does it matter if it was? It's not like either of the candidates actually controls anything in Iran. They are simply a mouthpiece for the Ayatollah who is in total control of the Iranian nation.

However, I have been a bit surprised by the tone of some left-wingers like Keith Olbermann, who has seemed to join the chorus about "what should the United States do about Iran," as if this issue has something to do with us Americans. It has absolutely nothing to do with us. How absurd would we look at a television host who would ask "what should the Iranian Republic do about the United States election results?" This is more hubris and needs to be discarded if our nation is going to be seen as one respecting other nations and their affairs without seeming to meddle in their internal politics.

I'm going to leave the debate about whether Iran's election was "stolen" and the domestic implications within Iran to people who actually know what they're talking about (which is a very small subset of the class purporting to possess such knowledge). But there is one point I want to make about the vocal and dramatic expressions of solidarity with Iranians issuing from some quarters in the U.S.

Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.

Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called "attack on Iran" or "bombing Iran" in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many -- obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it's some abstract decision in a video game.

Read the rest.

Frank Gaffney is off his rocker

Thought those "Obama is a secret Muslim" smears were over? Think again.

Daniel Luban, writing on Jim Lobe's Blog, comments on Frank Gaffney's moronic piece in the Washington Times. Also, as serious as Robert Spencer and other anti-Islam bloggers are about their jobs, how can they associate themselves with someone like Pam Geller? LGF's Charles Johnson already dismissed her as a crackpot, but I am seriously surprised David Horowitz has not sent a memo to Spencer advising him to stay the hell away from Geller.

Readers in need of entertainment should really check out Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney’s howler of an op-ed in the Washington Times today. While optimists may have thought that the “Obama is a secret Muslim” rumor would fade following the 2008 elections, Gaffney’s piece demonstrates that it is back with a vengeance in the wake of Obama’s Cairo speech.

Of course, Gaffney never explicitly endorses the “secret Muslim” thesis, but rather declares that the jury is still out: “This is not to say, necessarily, that Obama is a a Muslim…” Later, he speaks of “mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but may still be one himself.” (Obama may “still” be one because Gaffney takes it for granted that Obama was a Muslim during his childhood years in Indonesia.) In a rather hilarious attempt to grant a facade of seriousness to his conspiracy theories, Gaffney loftily declares that “[i]n the final analysis, it may be besides the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim.” And later: “Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant.” This appears to be the standard debater’s trick amongst right-wingers who fancy themselves Serious Thinkers (cf. The New Criterion’s Roger Kimball) designed to separate them from the outright lunacy of the likes of Pamela “Obama is the illegitimate child of Malcolm X” Geller. Although evidence may suggest that Obama is a secret Muslim, Gaffney and Kimball proclaim, we have no way of knowing for sure. After all, one wouldn’t want to say anything crazy.

The particulars of Gaffney’s argument are just as entertaining as the general thesis. For instance, he claims that Obama’s phrasing about the “Holy Koran” having been “revealed” marks him as a believing Muslim. But as my colleague Eli Clifton points out, none other than George W. Bush (whose Christianity, I assume, is not under suspicion) used identical formulations. Similarly, Gaffney takes Obama’s use of the phrase “peace be upon them” as proof that he is a Muslim, when the same phrase is also used (albeit less frequently) in the Jewish tradition. (And if gestures of respect toward Islam make Obama a secret Muslim, how can we be sure that he isn’t also a secret Jew?)

Perhaps the most remarkable sentence in Gaffney’s op-ed is this one: “The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.” Of course, it is an unwritten rule that every neoconservative foreign policy column must include at least one Neville Chamberlain reference, and Gaffney has always been more than willing to oblige. (Eli points out these 2002 op-eds, in which Gaffney compares Colin Powell to Chamberlain before concluding that the analogy “may be unfair to Prime Minister Chamberlain.”) But as Jeffrey Goldberg notes (credit where it’s due), Gaffney’s use of the Munich analogy here is novel in that it casts Obama as Hitler rather than Chamberlain. Moral equivalence, indeed.

While none of these arguments would be particularly surprising coming from fringe figures like Geller, I must admit that I was startled to see them coming from Gaffney, a pillar of the neoconservative foreign policy establishment with deep ties to the defense industry. It makes sense that Gaffney has recently been palling around with Geller — just one indication of the burgeoning alliance between neoconservative hawks and the far-right Islamophobic fringe.

UPDATE from Jim:
Of course, not only has Gaffney enjoyed the generosity of the defense industry, he has also received funding from casino king Irving Moskowitz, long-time backer of the most radical and aggressive elements in the Israeli settlement movement on the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Did Obama quote the Qur'an incorrectly? Part II

A friend of my blog, Ebad, pointed out to me in the comments section of my post below that the verse Obama quoted was probably Surah 33, verse 70, which reads: "O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right" (Yusuf Ali's translation).

This verse seems to be more in line with what Obama quoted, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth," than what Spencer cited as the verse Obama quoted, "O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful."

The translations are all slightly different, but in either case, as I demonstrated below, it doesn't make much of a difference (because even the verse Spencer claims Obama cited has nothing to do with "jihad warfare") except to show that it was probably Spencer who quoted the Qur'an "out of context" and then blamed Obama for quoting a verse that had to do with "jihad warfare."

Spencer should find out which verse Obama quoted and if Obama did in fact cite to Surah 33, verse 70 as Ebad noted, then he should be very, very quick to offer an apology to the President.

But when has Mr. Spencer ever been willing to admit his guilt in anything?

Did Obama quote the Qur'an incorrectly?

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is arguing that Obama quoted a verse of the Qur'an out of context. He says this:

He quoted one Qur'an verse in connection with speaking of our shared interests as human beings:

As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Ironically, the Qur'anic passage from which his quote comes actually is about fighting unbelievers, and doesn't remotely lead to thoughts of coming together with people with whom one has differences.

Obama quoted 9:119, which Pickthall renders this way: "O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful."

Spencer adds this:

Obama picked out of this one sentence that made it appear as if the Qur'an was simply counseling one to speak the truth, mindful of the divine presence. In reality, the passage is about the necessity to wage jihad warfare against unbelievers, and not to fail to perform this duty. He took a passage about warfare and division and passed it off as part of a call for us all to come together and sing kumbaya.

Not exactly. I think it would be more accurate to say Obama cited that verse in reference to him speaking his mind to the Muslim world. He then adds some words about coming together, but I do not think those words about coming together have anything to do with the verse he cited, as Spencer makes it seem.

In fact, the tafsir regarding this verse that Obama mentioned does not discuss "jihad warfare" at all, but is restricted to discussions about honesty and truthfulness. Now, the context where the verse is placed within that surah is definitely about warfare, but that particular verse is clearly about being truthful and being with truthful people. There is only one tafsir I could find that mentioned anything about warfare in regards to this verse and it is in the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs:

(O ye who believe!) 'Abdullah Ibn Salam and his followers as well as all other believers (Be careful of your duty to Allah) obey Allah in that which He has commanded you, (and be with the Truthful) with Abu Bakr, 'Umar and their companions when they stay behind and when they participate in jihad.

Even here, the tafsir is simply telling believers to be with the truthful people in whatever they are doing, whether in peace or war. Probably because God likes truthful, sincere people. Abu Bakr and Umar are most definitely amongst the most truthful and sincere of the believers so it is obvious that the believers of that time should follow those two Companions.

Another example demonstrates further that this verse is not about "jihad warfare" but about truthfulness and being with those who are truthful. From Imam al-Suyuti:

(be with the truthful) It contains the command to be truthful in everything and in every situation. It is used as evidence by the one who says that it is not permitted to lie in any situation either overtly or indirectly. Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted that from Ibn Mas'ud. He said that the lie is not proper either in seriousness or in jest, and he recited this ayat. He said, "You will not find any allowance for lying." It is transmitted that al-Hasan said, "If you want to be with the truthful, then must have asceticism in this world." It is transmitted that Qatada said about this ayat, "Truthfulness is in the intention and truthfulness in the action and truthfulness in night and day and truthfulness in the secret and in public."

Hmm, seems like a lot of talk about truthfulness. No mention about how being truthful has anything to do with "jihad warfare." The verse seems to be reminding the believers to be fair in all of their dealings. This is probably why the Tafsir Jalalayn says this: "O you who believe, fear God, by refraining from [acts of] disobedience to Him, and be with those who are truthful, in [their] faith and covenants, by adhering to sincerity." Again, no mention about how this verse has anything to do with "jihad warfare."

Maybe I'm missing something the ever insightful Mr. Spencer can point out to me.

Obama's Big Speech

Wajahat Ali has a good take on the speech, on what it was and what it was not.

Obama's speech, which was meticulously and strategically crafted as if penned by a chess master, had to simultaneously appease millions humiliated and dejected by a hypocritical and brutal U.S. foreign policy, and also justify U.S. objectives without appearing imperialistic or apologetic.

Indeed, many in the right wing pundit-sphere have already lambasted Obama's attempt at cordiality and self awareness of sins past -- such as his mentioning of U.S. helping overthrow democratically elected Iranian President Mossadegh in 1953 - as a form of "weakness." These antiquated relics of Yosemite Sam, cowboy diplomacy fail to realize Bush's ill-fated ventures in Iraq and his belligerent rhetoric of unilateral aggression have soured vital relationships with Muslim communities. These diverse communities should have been treated as allies especially after the global empathy directed towards America following the 9-11 tragedy.

Then the bad stuff he left out.

However, the reality remains the U.S. has killed thousands of innocents with their unilateral, reckless and unnecessary war in Iraq. The current military offensive in Pakistan and Afghanistan continues to yield causalities rising on a daily basis. Furthermore, the U.S. supports brutal dictators to the tune of billions annually, such as Egypt's very own Hossni Mubarak, which paralyzes the people's legitimate attempts at democratic reform.

Although Obama acknowledged Muslims have suffered under the yoke of colonialism and their countries have been selfishly used as "Cold War proxies," he did not apologize for what many in the world deem as American intransigence. Obama promised the U.S. is not a "self interested empire" although the devastating casualties of 50 years of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East would surely cause most to disagree.

Instead of dealing with this historical legacy -- which would be inconvenient to say the least -- Obama is seeking a "clean break" and urged that if we are "bound by the past, then we can't move forward."

Despite his shameful silence over Israel's recent brutal bombardment of Gaza, which killed more than 1,300 civilian Palestinians, Obama deserves credit for acknowledging the suffering of the Palestinian people whom he said have "endured the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable."

Although Obama reassured the world the U.S. bond with Israel is "unbreakable," and the onus on stopping violence lays on both parties -- despite a global acknowledgment of the vast disparity between the occupied and occupiers -- it was refreshing, honest and most welcome to hear a U.S. President refer to the Palestinians as actual human beings with a legitimate source of grievance. Obama's reference to the civil rights struggle in America comparing the plight of African Americans for recognition and dignity to the Palestinian hope for self-determination and respect was bold and inspiring.

Obama's desire for a two-state solution and his adamant stance on the illegitimacy of Israeli settlements on occupied Palestine land will undoubtedly cause friction with the bellicose hawk Netanyahu and the powerful AIPAC lobby. The world waits to see if Israel continues on its course of settlement building, which would not only undermine the peace process and continue to inflame extremists, but also seriously humiliate America as a neutered superpower that cannot influence its ally, even though it supplies Israel with billions in foreign aid.

Read the rest.

Disciplining the Blog

I finally came around for a new title to my blog. It's a play on words. The famous sufi book, Disciplining the Soul, by Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali is one of forty books he wrote for his Ihya Uloom al-Din, the Revival of the Religious Sciences, and is probably my most favorite sufi text.

As many of you know, my blog has pretty much become a defense of Islamic tradition against anti-Islam bloggers and extremists from al-Qaeda, the Ikhwan, and other Islamist/Salafi organizations. I find no greater enthusiasm for this topic than I do for any other. The title of my blog reflects my desire to infuse the traditional understanding of classical Islamic authorities into the modern debate about Islam.

But my time is dedicated to other things as well and so I have to concentrate on certain topics and may and will likely be slow on addressing other important topics. When I have time, I will respond, God willing.

In the meantime, I hope my blog can become a source for refuting the extremism of the right wing and the extremists. While they share hatred for one another, in my opinion they are the common enemy of the people of this world. It's high time to refute them both.

Islam and the Golden Rule

I have been away for a while. But I have been keeping up with responses for Jihad Watch's usual assortment of ridicule and smears for Islam and Muslims.

A few weeks ago, Ali Sina, Robert Spencer's friend and fellow co-author for a book they wrote, said the following:

The problem with the good teachings of Muhammad is that they are reserved for fellow Muslims. When the hadith says “None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself,.” it is talking about the fellow Muslims. The brotherhood in Islam does not extend to everyone.

Does the brotherhood of Christianity or Judaism extend to everyone? If I die as a Muslim, what will happen to me under Christianity, i.e. heaven or hell? Anyway, he also said this:

A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29): “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.” This is the perfect definition of fascism.

There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The non believers have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is a breach of the Golden Rule. The Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), smite their heads (47:4), etc. Are these verses compatible with the Golden Rule?

Islam is the only doctrine that calls upon its believers to do evil to others for the simple fact that they are not believers.

There's a lot more, but it's quite a bit to respond to.

So, what is the Golden Rule exactly? It is the idea to want for others what you would want for yourself. In Islam, the greatest thing a believer could want is to be obedient to God's commands. Likewise, this is what any believer in God would want for his fellow human being, to be obedient to God's commands. I doubt devout Christians like Sina would argue with this perspective since in his faith the greatest thing any Christian could want is to also gain "salvation."

The erudite scholar of Islam, Shaikh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, said the following regarding the hadith Sina quotes above:

Imams al-Nawawi and Ibn al-'Imad (may Allah be pleased with them both!), for instance, were among our scholars who understood "brotherhood" in this Hadith (from the phrase: li-akhIhi [his brother] in the matn) to include all of humanity, i.e., the brotherhood of mankind (in the other ta'wil, brotherhood simply refers to Muslims). In fact, Imam Najm al-Din al-Tufi, the Hanbali mufassir, more plainly than any other medieval interpreter of this Hadith, used the expression "mahabbat al-insan" [the love for mankind]. [Tufi, Ta'yin, 125]. This, it turns out, is not astonishing, for his own Mujtahid Imam related a Hadith (reproduced below) that bears out the full relevance of our topic.

The implication of mahabba [love] with respect to brotherhood, whether taken in its universal sense (of mankind) or in its limited sense (of Muslims only), is that we wish for him what we wish for ourselves as well. So in the case of Muslims, for example, our wish is for him to remain in Islam while for the non-Muslim, on the other hand, our wish is for him to be in Islam; the motivation for this love, of course, should be none other than the sincere concern, ultimately, for well-being in the Hereafter. In fact, according to Imam al-Ghazali ( may Allah be pleased with him!), this principle is the acme of sukun, i.e., being at peace with the rest of creation, of which the sum is in fact, good manners or good Adab among people. And the peak of good Adab, says the Hujjat al-Islam, is that "you do not burden people according to your own pleasure, but burden yourselves according to their pleasures so long as they do not violate the Shari'a." [Ghazali, Ayyuha l-Walad, 131]

The most judicious explanation of this Hadith, indeed, was given by the collector, Imam al-Nawawi himself (and the same sharh was again related, but later ascribed by some to another Shafi'i jurist, the meticulous Ibn al-'Imad):
"It is better for that [saying of the Prophet, may Allah's blessings and peace be upon him!] to be interpreted in the sense of universal brotherhood, so that it includes the non-Muslim and the Muslim. Thus he wants for his non-Muslim brother what he would want for himself, that is [read: min li-l-bayan] his converting to Islam; just as he wants for his Muslim brother, his remaining in Islam. That is why it is recommended to supplicate for divine guidance [Hidaya] on behalf of the non-Muslim." [Nawawi, Sharh Arba'in, 123].

So Sina is wrong. The hadith he quotes is not limited to only Muslims, but as some of the great scholars of Islam have noted, it includes non-Muslims as well. While Sina argues that the hadiths mentioned in his article are limited, his proofs are references to verses from the Qur'an that say nothing regarding the nature of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in the sense of communal relations. The verses he cites have to do with Muslim relations between them and the polytheists of Mecca.

Sina cannot find a verse that says Muslims should wish for the bad health of non-Muslims, or that Muslims should wish for them to suffer poverty, or that Muslims should wish for their destruction. No, in fact there is nothing like that in a general sense in the Qur'an. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and prayers of God be upon him, cared deeply for his people in Mecca, even when they treated him like complete garbage. He wished the best for them, which was that they did not encounter God's wrath by failing to become believers.