Daily Archives: June 22, 2019

We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. — Quran 5:45

In my research I come across a lot of interesting things. This verse from the Quran caught my eye. Of course there are different English translations for this verse, but I was struck by the phrase “But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself.” In some English translations of this verse “atonement” is written as “expiation,” both of which are synonyms.

Atone is from Middle English (originally in the sense ‘make or become united or reconciled’, rare before the 16th century): from “at one” in early use; later by back-formation from atonement. Expiate is from the late 16th century (in the sense ‘end (rage, sorrow, etc.) by suffering it to the full’): from Latin expiat- ‘appeased by sacrifice’, from the verb expiare, from ex- ‘out’ + piare (from pius ‘pious’).

This came up when I researched the Arabic term Qisas. According to Wikipedia,

Qiṣāṣ (Arabic: قصاص‎) is an Islamic term meaning "retaliation in kind", "eye for an eye", or retributive justice. In traditional Islamic law (sharia), the doctrine of qisas provides for a punishment analogous to the crime. Qisas is available to the victim or victim's heirs against a convicted perpetrator of murder or intentional bodily injury. In the case of murder, qisas gives the right to take the life of the killer, if the latter is convicted and the court approves. Those who are entitled to qisas have the option of receiving monetary compensation (diyya) or granting pardon to the perpetrator instead.”

According to this verse, if the victim of a crime remits retaliation, it is regarded as atonement for his or her own sins. I know next to nothing about Islam and the Quran, but this seems like an acknowledgment of karma, and a way to dissolve karma. In an “eye for an eye” society where retribution is common, an individual has himself or herself likely committed harmful acts toward another, so the act of forgiveness of similar acts done to him or her cleans up the victim’s karmic ledger. Even if the victim has led a blameless life, the act of remittance is regarded (so it would seem) as a counting against the ledger of the victim’s sins – if he or she chooses to exercise this option – and says nothing about the perpetrator.  

Of course the victim can choose punishment that fits the crime – in the case of murder, death to the perpetrator. But the option is open for monetary payment or even complete forgiveness. By atoning or expiating the crime, one becomes united or reconciled to the act by suffering it to the full.

This is the meaning of forgiveness. One cannot truly forgive (as opposed to mouthing affirmations of forgiveness) unless one has fully and completely confronted and resolved the emotions generated by the harmful act. If one “suffers it to the full,” it is possible to completely release the negative emotions associated with the incident. One then becomes united, or reconciled, to the harmful act. This is forgiveness on a very deep and spiritual level. It is the type of forgiveness taught by the Christ. It is also what happens in Traumatic Incident Reduction, which has the client go over and over the incident (suffering it to the full) until all negative emotion has been dissolved and the client can forgive.

I was pleased to see this in the Quran. Islam has been twisted by the dark and has been demonized in the West, but so have other religions. Twisting and de-legitimizing religion (and spirituality) is one of the primary goals of the dark, for the light of God is at their foundation. The dark is mired in materialism and cannot see past the biology, or contact the Higher Self. But forgiveness and remittance is common to all religions and spiritual practices.

Qisas, Iran, and Recent Events

Media reported (see previous blog posts) that Donald Trump authorized, then pulled back an attack on Iran in retaliation for Iran’s shooting down a U.S. drone in the Gulf of Oman. Who knows who did what to whom; some have speculated that the shooting down of the U.S. drone was a rogue element of our own military. Nevertheless, Trump’s tweet about this was interesting:


Notice he said, “10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportional to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

Here we have a president who apparently understand the doctrine of Qisas – “wounds equal for equal.” The drone is property; the Iranian tankers and the Iranian port and the Iranian ships that were set ablaze in early June were property. Interestingly, the refinery that blew up in Philadelphia shortly after the Iranian port was set on fire is also property (See NBC News, “Massive Fire, Explosions at South Philadelphia Refinery Contained, But Not Yet Extinguished,” https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Massive-Fire-Reports-of-Explosions-at-South-Philadelphia-Refinery-Philadelphia-Energy-Solutions-I-76-Closed-511615281.html.)

In each of these incidents no lives were lost. Are the drone shooting, the refinery blazes, and the tanker attacks a form of Qisas? The Shiite leaders in Iran understand this concept very well, and it seems that President Trump does as well. Calling the attack on Iran off can be regarded, from the Quran definition, either as a "remittance," or as a strict following of the "wound for wound" doctrine. If it's a remittance, then according to Qisas, Trump's calling off the attack would be regarded by the Iranians as an atonement for Trump's own sins. Wow. Human relations are complicated! This battle between dark and light isn't for wimps.

There is way too much disinfo out there for citizens like me (who get info from publicly available sources) to state definitively who is behind this destruction of property in Iran and in the US. I sure as hell don't know whether the two refinery explosions are connected or not. But it looks like these events are following a strict program of retributive justice.

Before 2016 I thought Donald Trump was a moron. Now I think he might be a lot smarter than anyone thought.

We’ve heard a lot of talk from Democrats, especially younger Democratic leaders like Ocasio-Cortez, about impeaching President Trump. Ocasio-Cortez tweeted again on June 21: “This president needs to be impeached.”

I say, go for it!

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, careful not to antagonize moderate independent and Democratic voters, has issued many statements about impeachment since January, when Democrats regained control of the House. Failing impeachment, the House can censure the president.

 According to Politico,

The California Democrat [Pelosi] remained firm in her opposition to opening an impeachment inquiry into Trump right now but quashed the notion of censure — a less severe reprimand for public officials. Pelosi’s censure comments are significant because she is leaving the House with one option if they want to punish Trump — impeachment. ‘I think censure is just a way out. If you want to go, you gotta go,’ she said. ‘If the goods are there, you must impeach. Censure is nice, but it is not commensurate with the violations of the Constitution should we decide that’s the way to go.'”

(Source: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/19/nancy-pelosi-mueller-report-1369894

Well, why not? The House should impeach and get this over with. Then, during the Senate trial, Trump and his lawyers can bring forth all of the evidence in support of their claim – that officials in the Obama Administration, including Barack Obama himself – conducted an attempted coup against a legally elected president. I say, let’s get this impeachment evidence out into the open, or as much of it as possible. Then we can hopefully get on with governing this country in a rational manner, instead of the constant and pointless fighting between the two parties.

We know that the House writes the Articles of Impeachment, but what does the Senate do? It hears evidence and holds a trial. If two-thirds of Senators vote in favor, impeachment is successful and Trump is kicked out of office.

Here is what the United States Senate website says about impeachment:

Impeachment is a very serious affair. This power of Congress is the ultimate weapon against officials of the federal government, and is a fundamental component of the constitutional system of ‘checks and balances.’ In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called ‘managers,’ acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate Chamber serves as the courtroom. The Senate becomes jury and judge, except in the case of presidential impeachment trials when the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official is removal from office. In some cases, disqualification from holding future offices is also imposed. There is no appeal.”

How is evidence collected during an impeachment trial?

In 1934, Senator Henry Ashurst of Arizona, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, offered the resolution that became Rule XI after its adoption the following year. Rule XI provided: That in the trial of any impeachment the Presiding Officer of the Senate, if the Senate so orders, shall appoint a committee of senators to receive evidence and take testimony at such times and places as the committee may determine...

...The impeachment of Harry E. Claiborne in 1986 finally put into action Rule XI, and the Senate established a special trial committee to hear evidence and report to the full Senate. Likewise, Senate trial committees considered evidence in the cases of Alcee Hastings (1989), Walter Nixon, Jr. (1989), and G. Thomas Porteous, Jr. (2010), all of whom were convicted and removed from office. Nixon challenged the use of an impeachment committee on constitutional grounds. In 1993, in the case Nixon v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld the Senate’s right to determine its own procedures, including the use of a trial committee.”

Source: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm

So – the House impeaches and the Senate convicts. A special trial committee hears and collects this evidence in the Senate. Let’s lay it all out on the table: the Democrats present their evidence of obstruction and Russian collusion, and whatever else is in the Articles of Impeachment; the Republicans present their evidence of a Democratic coup, and any other evidence they have to support the president.

Nothing is being done in Congress anyway, except the appointment of more Trump judges, so why not get the impeachment thing over with now, before the 2020 election ramps up? The Democrats have everything in the Mueller Report. Adam Schiff keeps telling us the president is guilty as sin.

Democrats should stop talking and start acting! Either that, or STFU about it and get on with the business of the legislative branch.