-Jewish Businessman Buying Christians and Yazidis Enslaved by ISIS
by Dr. D ~ August 13th, 2015
A Jewish businessman is buying back Christians and Yazidis who were captured and enslaved by ISIS. Here’s the story from The Blaze:
A Canadian Jewish businessman inspired by the work of Oskar Schindler during World War II has successfully rescued some 120 Christian and Yazidi girls seized by the Islamic State group, a British Christian publication reported.
“We liberate children from their captors through the use of on-the-ground brokers,” Steve Maman, who founded the Liberation of Christian and Yazidi Children of Iraq told the British Catholic publication the Tablet.Maman is aided by Iraqi negotiators to rescue the girls, some of whom were kidnapped as sex slaves and raped multiple times.
In a profile of the rescue efforts, the Tablet reported that the charity is funded mostly by Maman’s Jewish business associates who have been “remarkably generous.” They are now reaching out to others through the online platform GoFundMe.
Response: What a great example. May Steve Maman and all the others involved be blessed by their efforts.
It is also a clarion call for Christians, Christian business folks, and Christian ministries to get involved and ransom as many as possible from ISIS. Even though the funds may end up helping ISIS, the rescue of hundreds of young Iraqi Christians and Yazidis from brutal lives of slavery is far more important.
To help rescue more, here’s a link to the ‘Liberation Iraq Christian & Yazidi’ GoFundMe page. *Top
August 13th, 2015 at 8:34 am
Bless his heart! Great to see positive efforts to free as many as possible from the grip of evil.
August 14th, 2015 at 8:24 am
Mark – I am 100% sure that his intentions are good and that he is rescuing many who need rescuing. But I am troubled — is he not simply encouraging more kidnappings by providing a cash “reward” for the release of a kidnap victim? While the article does not expressly say that money is changing hands, there are “brokers” involved and negotiations, both of which suggest that ransom is being paid.
August 14th, 2015 at 8:55 am
I wouldn’t sacrifice a person’s life for fear of repeated kidnapping. It may have the effect of establishing release of prisoners and formalized negotiations as the norm instead of summary execution (hold rather than kill captives for potential future ransom). In short, it could save future lives.
August 15th, 2015 at 6:32 am
Brian, I support this work because ISIS is going to continue to kill older Christians and Yazidis and turn younger ones into slaves regardless of what we do. There is still slavery in Muslim lands and it is a long held Muslim custom to sell captive young women and try to convert and turn boys into soldiers during war.
There are only three ways to help these folks.
1. Utterly and totally defeat ISIS. But we have a president that claims that killing will not defeat ISIS.
2. Rescue the captives through military action. But that would need boots on the ground to accomplish and that is not going to happen according to the White House.
3. Ransom as many as we can. It will provide ISIS with additional funds but they are going to continue to enslave captive Children anyway and sell them to the highest bidder regardless of our participation. At lease we can rescue some from a horrible life.
August 15th, 2015 at 7:33 am
In the 1500’s, there arose a band of Muslims known as the Barbary Pirates. They attacked ships (but only Christian ships) all over the Mediterranean, plus raids on towns as far away as Ireland. By some estimates, as many as 1.25 million Christians were taken away as slaves by these raids.
The response from European powers was ransom. It did not work, but only emboldened the Barbary Pirates (by the way, we in the West and especially in the US have a picture of pirates as a buccaneer on the Spanish Main in the 1600’s — this is wrong — the buccaneers were the aberration but the rule was the piracy for many centuries was an Islamic phenomena).
The US was involved in payment of ransom too. In 1800, TWENTY PERCENT OF THE US GOVERNMENT’S BUDGET went to pay ransom. Frustrated with continuing Barbary pirate depredations, in 1801 the US Marines were sent “to the shores of Tripoli” (hence the first line of the Marine Corps Hymn). By a combination of blockading pirate ports, and essentially threatening to level (by naval artillery) any coastal town that harbored pirates, and actually landing and seizing one city, the the US obtained a treaty in 1805 that saw the release of about 300 Americans.
In 1807, the Barbary Pirates resumed their attacks on US ships. The US was distracted by war with England in 1812, but a second US expedition to the Mediterranean was launched in 1815. With destruction of all Moslem coastal cities threatened, the Moslems capitulated and surrendered a number of American (and other European) slaves.
Emboldened by the US success, the European powers (a) stopped paying annual protection money, and (b) launched their own military expedition. In 1816, the British won the release of their ambassador (enslaved!) and 1,000 + other European slaves.
The Barbary pirates stopped their attacks.
August 15th, 2015 at 8:36 am
So when you say the ransom system didn’t work, does that mean they killed the hostages anyway? It is logical that they did release the hostages, in which case…it worked. Omitted from your commentary is the simple fact of saving a life here and there, from which I infer you aren’t much of a humanitarian.
August 15th, 2015 at 9:08 am
mark, actually I am sure that Brian is a humanitarian but one who believes that military action is the best possible way to stop ISIS and rescue hostages.
I agree with Brian that it would be the best way ultimately but we must face the reality that our current president will not do it. So ISIS and the Boko Haram continue their destruction and enslavement of captives.
Therefore in this case, the best we can do is ransom as many as possible. Otherwise, they are are to be sold to other Muslims as slaves and live horrible lives.
It is not exactly the same situation as the Barbary pirates who treated Christians well until their ransom came through which is comparable to the what the Somali and Sudanese pirates are still doing today– solely for monetary gain.
ISIS and the Boko Haram are at war with us and killing and enslaving people regardless. They are going to sell these slaves to somebody anyway so we might as well save as many as possible.
August 15th, 2015 at 9:24 am
Read this account today on Christian Post concerning the treatment of several captive women. This is not at all similar to the Barbary pirates:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/isis-leader-repeatedly-raped-us-hostage-kayla-mueller-who-refused-to-escape-to-save-yazidi-girls-142859/
August 15th, 2015 at 9:33 am
I think neither of you are humanitarians. If it takes 6 months to put an effective army in place, and lives can be saved by ransom during those months, would it not make sense to do so. You can define humanitarian ethics in terms of long term goals, I define it as those people in imminent danger as being important (a temporal concept which states that a particular person is important in real time).
I will not discuss this further as I can clearly see the lack of sincerity in both of your comments, having the prime intention of assailing the current administration.
August 15th, 2015 at 10:16 am
mark,
Actually I support the ransom right now or I wouldn’t have posted on it in the first place.
I really do not think it is appropriate to question the sincerity or motives of others merely because of disagreement of the best possible tactics.
I happen to agree with both you and Brian in this case. Ransom now and utter destruction of ISIS later to end it all. Unfortunately military action is sometimes necessary and the only way to completely stop evil like ISIS and ethnic cleansers like a Hitler.
August 15th, 2015 at 10:43 am
Mark – go back to my first posting on this thread. I wrote Mr. Maman is rescuing “many who need rescuing”
I don’t criticize Mr. Maman for doing what he is doing. What I do question is whether this needs to become a long term solution, or whether military action is advisable (regardless of whether the US and Europe have the stomach for it) and necessary.