Introduction
I asked the reasoning version of ChatGPT the following two questions (in the quotation box).
The answer to the latter question is presented below.
This issue is one of many that contrasts the social and economic implications of Islamic injunctions vs. those of other religions. In summary, the Islamic notion of dogs as religiously impure focuses Muslims' attention towards other humans for social and emotional support. I believe that is superior to a society that redirects such attention to animals. 
@Northwest

TLDR
The proposition that an Islamic-oriented society—with religious reservations about dog ownership—places a greater emphasis on human-human relationships than dog-friendly societies finds support in cross-cultural consumer research and Islamic marketing scholarship. The religious designation of dogs as impure curtails intensive anthropomorphic tendencies, leading consumers in Islamic contexts to channel social and emotional resources primarily toward family, friends, and community members. Consequently, marketing strategies and consumer behaviors in these contexts underscore interpersonal bonds, charitable obligations, and group cohesion rather than pet-centric consumption.
By contrast, in societies that celebrate and encourage dog ownership, anthropomorphism significantly shapes consumer behavior, often shifting a portion of emotional and financial resources to human-dog relationships. These differences highlight how deeply cultural and religious frameworks influence the scope and nature of anthropomorphism, delineating the ways consumers allocate their relational capital between human and non-human companions.
 

1. Anthropomorphism and Relationship Substitution
Pet Humanization in Secular or Dog-Friendly Societies
In many societies that promote dog ownership, there is a pronounced tendency to anthropomorphize pets—assigning them human-like traits and emotions (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007; Journal of Consumer Research). Pet ownership often translates into emotional bonds that parallel, or sometimes even substitute for, human-human connections. For example, Belk (2013; Journal of Consumer Research) discusses how dogs are seen as “extensions of the self,” enabling individuals to fulfill social, emotional, and identity-related needs. In marketing contexts, this humanization of pets manifests as substantial expenditures (e.g., premium dog food, grooming, dog-friendly travel) and even the creation of communities around pet ownership.
Religious and Cultural Boundaries in Islamic Contexts
Islamic teachings often classify dogs as najis (impure), especially concerning their saliva, leading to social and religious restrictions on close physical interactions (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019; Journal of Islamic Marketing, Emerald). While not all Muslims adhere to the same level of strictness (diversity exists across regions and jurisprudential schools), in many contexts, dog ownership is minimized or relegated to functional roles (e.g., guard dogs, herding), reducing the emotional human-pet bond. Anthropomorphism, thus, is largely muted. This diminished emphasis on dog-human relationships can redirect emotional and social energies toward more robust human-human ties, as there is little inclination to invest in a being commonly viewed as “impure” within a domestic setting (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
2. Emphasis on Human-Human Relations
Communal and Familial Bonds
Several studies on Muslim consumer behavior note a pronounced focus on family cohesion, kinship obligations, and community welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing; Emerald). This cultural emphasis is partly derived from key Islamic principles like ummah (community) and zakat (almsgiving). Since dogs are not typically incorporated as household companions, the emotional investment that might be directed toward pets is instead often channeled into human relationships—strengthening family ties, neighborhood communities, and broader social networks. Social gatherings, frequent family visits, and kin-based reciprocity form the core of daily life (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture, Taylor & Francis).
Social Interaction Rituals
Societies that discourage dog ownership frequently invest in elaborate human-centric rituals: communal prayers, frequent visits to relatives, large-scale cultural festivals such as Eid, and extended family gatherings (Essoo & Dibb, 2004; European Journal of Marketing). These rituals encourage sustained human-human interaction. By contrast, in dog-friendly contexts, social rituals often include pet-oriented activities—visits to dog parks, “puppy parties,” or dog adoption events—showcasing how some communal bonding can revolve around animals rather than solely around human interaction (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Journal of Business Research, Elsevier).
3. Consumer Behavior Implications
Expenditure Flows
Dog-Friendly Societies: A significant proportion of household expenditures—such as premium dog food, veterinary care, and leisure activities—can be allocated to pets (Hirschman, 1994; Journal of Consumer Research). Over time, this fosters an entire “pet economy,” often reinforced by emotional satisfaction drawn from anthropomorphized relationships with dogs.
Islamic-Oriented Societies: Due to religious constraints, there is limited demand for dog-centric products and services. Instead, expenditures that might have been channeled toward pet care could be redirected toward communal obligations (e.g., charitable giving, gifts to family, social events). The consumer culture thus prioritizes human welfare, strengthening what might be viewed as social capital within human networks (Jafari & Goulding, 2008; Consumption, Markets & Culture).
Marketplace Signaling and Sociocultural Values
Signaling Communal Responsibility: Consumers in Islamic contexts may signal piety and communal commitment through active participation in social events or charitable acts, reflecting a cultural script that values direct human welfare (Wilson & Grant, 2013; Journal of Islamic Marketing).
Signaling Affection for Pets: In Western or dog-friendly contexts, owning a pampered dog can signal care, empathy, and a nurturing personality, reinforcing a sense of belonging in communities of pet lovers (Belk, 1988; Journal of Consumer Research). Marketers leverage anthropomorphism in advertising, depicting dogs as “family members” to appeal to consumers’ emotional investment in pets (Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010; Trends in Cognitive Sciences).
4. Societal and Cultural Outcomes
Stronger Intra-Human Bonds in Islamic Contexts
The proposition that Islamic-oriented societies have a stronger emphasis on human-human relationships can be understood through the lens of “resource allocation” in consumer behavior. With limited scope for dog-human emotional or social investment, individuals are more inclined to strengthen kin networks, community relations, and collective identity (Ibrahim & Al Kamdah, 2020). This focus on human-centered relationships is further reinforced by religious teachings promoting empathy, community service, and direct human engagement over companionship with creatures deemed ritually impure (Alhussain & Thakur, 2019).
Diverse Relationship Portfolios in Dog-Friendly Societies
In societies where dogs occupy central roles in households, individuals often have “relationship portfolios” that include significant non-human elements (Belk, 2013). Emotional fulfillment, social activities, and even identity expression can revolve around pet ownership, potentially substituting or complementing human-human connections. While this can enrich daily life for pet owners, critics argue it may diminish time and investment in broader community involvement (Holbrook & Woodside, 2008; Hirschman, 1994).
 
Key References
Alhussain, T., & Thakur, R. (2019). Religious beliefs and consumer behavior: A conceptual framework and research propositions. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 10(3), 948–962. [Emerald]
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168. [University of Chicago Press]
Belk, R. W. (2013). Extended self in a digital world. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(3), 477–500. [University of Chicago Press]
Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. [APA; frequently cited in marketing and consumer research]
Essoo, N., & Dibb, S. (2004). Religious influences on shopping behaviour: An exploratory study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 536–553. [Emerald]
Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616–631. [Oxford University Press for the Association for Consumer Research]
Holbrook, M. B., & Woodside, A. G. (2008). Animal companions, consumption experiences, and the marketing of pets: Transcending boundaries in the animal-human distinction. Journal of Business Research, 61(5), 377–381. [Elsevier]
Ibrahim, B., & Al Kamdah, A. (2020). Exploring the Islamic marketing ethics from macro and consumer behaviour perspectives. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 11(5), 1295–1312. [Emerald]
Jafari, A., & Goulding, C. (2008). “We are not terrorists!” UK-based Iranians, consumption practices and the ‘torn self.’ Consumption, Markets & Culture, 11(2), 73–91. [Taylor & Francis]
Wilson, J. A. J., & Grant, J. (2013). Islamic marketing – A challenger to the classical marketing canon? Journal of Islamic Marketing, 4(1), 7–21. [Emerald]
Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J. T., & Epley, N. (2010). Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 219–232. [SAGE, frequently cited in consumer research]
These references illustrate how socio-religious norms and cultural frameworks (particularly in Islamic contexts) shape the nature and direction of anthropomorphism and, consequently, influence where consumers channel their social and emotional investment—ultimately affirming the proposition that Islamic-oriented societies often place a stronger emphasis on human-human relations.

[This post was initially published as 'A little conspiracy theory of mine' on Oct 25 2016. I've now retitled it and linked some of the text with the notion of the Great Replacement Theory.]
Summary
Britain, after the Second World War ostensibly recruited workers from various developing countries in order to fill skill shortages. However, around the same time, there was a concerted effort by Australia to recruit working-class Britons. A possible explanation to this anomalous situation is that there was a concerted policy by Britain and Australia to ensure that Australia remained white. This is one argument against the idea that inward migration into the West is somehow an attack on white people. The two examples of migration examined here represent the opposite.
The Great Replacement Theory
According to Prof Matthew Feldman there is a lite of versions of The Great Replacement Theory and a full-fat one and the latter holds that:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
In this post, I will argue that at least in terms of one example, this is indeed the case, but rather than representing some form of surrender on the part of the 'white race' as the far right claims the policy represents, it is actually the opposite.
The Windrush Generation
This is the narrative all Britons have been brought up with (the following is from the UK government's own website):
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/citizenship/brave_new_world/immigration.htm
It sounds very multi-culti, liberal and nice. Britain needed labour, brown people needed jobs and everyone would get along swimmingly in post-war Britain. This was not illegal immigration, it was planned and made good economic sense.
Here's some more justification from the British Library:
http://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/item107671.html
To help immigration into the UK, the British Nationality Act of 1948 gave rights to all people from the commonwealth to settle in the country. West Indian immigration to the UK from the 1940's to the 1960s was about 170,000. In Britain, there was an increase of about 80,000 people originating from the Indian sub-continent from 1951 to 1961.
So if there was such a shortage of labour in postwar Britain, surely the British government would have been aghast at the prospect of Britons leaving the UK? And trying to put a stop to it?
Apparently not.
The Assisted Passage Scheme from Britain to Australia
Australia's 'Assisted Passage Migration Scheme' started in 1945 and involved 1 million people migrating from Britain to Australia.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7217889.stm
The following paper adds some nuance to this:
Yet despite the 'reluctance' we still get:
Stephen Constantine (2003) British emigration to the empire- commonwealth since 1880: From overseas settlement to Diaspora?, The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 31:2, 16-35, DOI: 10.1080/03086530310001705586
From the same paper the following motivation, which refers to policies in the nineteenth century could perhaps explain the flow of people observed at the top of this post:
 
Conclusion
In sum, Britain was allowed to go a bit brown, because it was essential that Australia, Canada and other dominions remain essentially white. And this racist policy was maintained until the facts on the ground had been established. This point is one counter-arguments to the 'Great Replacement Theory' that has been espoused in some far-right circles in the West.
 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/08/a-deadly-ideology-how-the-great-replacement-theory-went-mainstream
 
So we have two migration stories. And the funny thing is that the first story is covered in the press, and you'll also find the second story given a lot of attention.
 
But the two are never mentioned together.
 
It's when you put, what are otherwise very positive stories together, that something far nastier emerges. Something which is within plain sight but unacknowledged.
 
https://contemporaniablog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/poms-and-windrush/

I gave ChatGPT the following prompt:
 
The text below is provided by ChatGPT.
 

The proposition that Islamic societies have been particularly successful in maintaining their cultural heritage since the 16th-century expansion of European power is complex and nuanced. While many Islamic societies have indeed preserved significant aspects of their cultural, religious, and linguistic traditions, the extent of this preservation varies across regions and historical contexts. To explore this proposition, consider the following key factors:
1. Cultural Resilience in the Face of European Expansion
Islamic societies, particularly those in the Ottoman Empire, Safavid Persia, and Mughal India, exhibited remarkable cultural resilience during and after the period of European imperial expansion. Unlike many indigenous cultures in the Americas, Africa, and parts of Asia, Islamic societies often retained their religious, legal, and linguistic frameworks despite external pressures.
Key Examples:
Ottoman Empire: The Ottomans maintained their Islamic legal and educational systems alongside modernizing reforms (e.g., the Tanzimat reforms) while resisting cultural assimilation. Safavid Persia (Iran): The Safavid dynasty entrenched Twelver Shi’ism, reinforcing a distinct cultural and religious identity that endures today. Mughal India: Mughal rulers preserved and promoted Islamic art and architecture, influencing the Indian subcontinent despite British colonial rule. Theoretical Support:
Marshall Hodgson in The Venture of Islam (1974) argues that Islamic societies developed robust institutional and intellectual traditions that enabled them to integrate external influences while maintaining core cultural elements.
2. The Role of Religion as a Cultural Anchor
Islamic societies have often placed significant emphasis on religious education and practice, which provided a unifying cultural framework that resisted external cultural influences. The centrality of Islam in daily life—through Quranic education, mosques, and religious practices—contributed to this cultural persistence.
Key Insight:
Clifford Geertz’s study of Morocco and Indonesia in Islam Observed (1968) demonstrates how Islamic societies adapted to modernity while retaining religious and cultural traditions.
3. Linguistic and Educational Continuity
Unlike many indigenous languages that declined under European rule, Arabic, Persian, and Ottoman Turkish remained central to intellectual and cultural life in their respective regions. Islamic scholars preserved classical texts and continued producing scholarly works even during colonial rule.
Contrast with Other Societies:
In Latin America, many indigenous languages and cultural practices were systematically suppressed by European colonizers. In Africa, missionary-led education often replaced local languages with European ones. 4. Selective Adaptation and Cultural Synthesis
Islamic societies did not resist external influences entirely; instead, they often selectively adopted technological, administrative, and intellectual practices from European powers while preserving core cultural and religious principles.
Example:
The Ottoman Empire modernized its military and bureaucracy but retained its Islamic legal structure (Sharia) alongside secular reforms. 5. Regional Variations and Exceptions
The degree of cultural preservation varies significantly across the Islamic world. For instance:
North Africa and the Middle East: Maintained strong Islamic and linguistic traditions despite French and British colonization. Central Asia: Soviet policies suppressed religious practices, weakening Islamic cultural heritage for much of the 20th century. Southeast Asia: Indonesian and Malaysian societies retained Islamic practices while integrating elements of European education systems. 6. Comparative Perspective
When comparing Islamic societies with other non-European societies, such as Native American, Aboriginal Australian, or sub-Saharan African communities, the relative success in preserving cultural heritage becomes more apparent. Many of these societies experienced significant cultural loss due to direct European intervention, religious conversion, and the imposition of foreign educational systems.
Scholarly Insight:
Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) highlights how Islamic societies were often misrepresented in Western discourse, yet this external pressure also galvanized internal cultural reaffirmation.
Conclusion
While Islamic societies have indeed shown notable success in preserving their cultural heritage, this success is not uniform across all regions. The resilience largely stems from the centrality of religion, the adaptability of cultural practices, and the selective adoption of external influences. However, regions like Central Asia illustrate how external forces can disrupt this continuity. Ultimately, the proposition holds considerable validity when compared to many other societies that experienced cultural erosion under European expansion.

In 2010 we did a little project that involved analysing the content of Shiachat posts over the preceding few years to capture what people were saying about Music on Shiachat.
The final report is attached.
Music in Islam v.1.pdf

[amended 19 August 2023 to include references to the Irish potato famine and two Bengal famines]
 


 
Images taken at the Egyptian Museum, Tahrir Sq, Cairo. June 2024
Surah Yusuf
Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) advised Pharoah to hoard grains during the years of plenty. I think this episode is a noteworthy one because it shows how a State can intervene in the marketplace in order to improve the welfare of the wider population.
But as we shall see below, the government intervention that Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) instigated favoured some sections of the population over others - it was not neutral in terms of how it spread gains and losses across the population.
https://www.al-islam.org/sites/default/files/singles/633-yusuf.pdf
While there is other material in the Qur'an that deals with transactions within the marketplace between individual participants - this story stands out in terms of its focus on state intervention. 
I'll be coming back to this issue later - but I think it informs the discussions we have about Islam and contemporary socio-economic theories. In particular, I think it illustrates that Islam does see the State as an active market participant and that in an Islamic state, the role of government is not one that is hands-off or laissez-faire.
 
What policy options did Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) have?
We should not take the story as presented 'for granted'. In reality, the Prophet (عليه السلام). had a range of choices open to him, and thinking those through helps us better understand the reasons for the policy he undertook and the reason why. 
No government interference
Let's start with the simplest and easiest option that Pharoah's government could have pursued once they knew that there would be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine (as predicted by the Pharoah's dream which was interpreted by Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام).) .
Pharoah could have left the entire issue to the 'market'. During the years of plenty, the price of food would have fallen and people would have enjoyed a higher standard of living. For example, the lower grain prices could have led to people rearing more cattle and their diets would have improved with more meat.
However, during the years of famine, grain prices would have risen and those people who had accumulated assets in the years of plenty would be able to pay the higher prices in the famine years. Those who had not had such assets would have starved.
This assumes a fairly high level of self-discipline on the part of the population, but as Milton Friedman would say, the people would have been 'free to choose'. This is not a hypothetical option. The British lack of action to the Irish potato famine has been attributed to the British government's ideological adherence to a laissez-faire approach to macro-economics:
https://kenanfellows.org/kfp-cp-sites/cp01/cp01/sites/kfp-cp-sites.localhost.com.cp01/files/LP3_BBC Irish Famine Article for Lab.pdf
 
The Bengal famine is another one where government policy was different to the one Prophet Yusuf ((عليه السلام).) prescribed to Pharoah. In this instance, it was lack of government restriction over the action of privateers:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study
 
Going back still further, the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 has been directly attributed to British government laissez-faire economic policy.
https://worldfinancialreview.com/the-political-economy-of-famines-during-the-british-rule-in-india-a-critical-analysis/
 
Light interference - provision of information
A common policy option nowadays, where people do not want direct government intervention is to recommend improving the provision of information to the population who will then be better able to make the correct decisions for themselves. The government could have mounted an information campaign during the years of plenty and told people to hoard food themselves, hoarding when there is no shortage is allowed in Islam.
However such attempts to influence awareness about the famine to come and changing peoples' attitudes so that they saved more than they were used to, would likely have run against increased social pressures on people to do the opposite. For example typically in societies as wealth increases there is social pressure to spend more, in this case, for example, have more lavish weddings.
Also providing information would have been a practical benefit for the better off e.g. those with storage capacity, but not so good for the poor (who would not have room to store grain, for example).
The government (using a bit more intervention) could have given tax breaks to people who owned granaries, to help the poor who needed such facilities. Again this solution would be to focus on market-based interventions and simply alter the working of the market using incentives. Current economic theory holds that people discount future risks very heavily i.e. they don't perceive them as much of a threat as they should. So, for example, just telling people they should save for a pension does not work. 
So we can likely predict that the solutions described above would not have worked had they tried them.
Heavy interference
This is what they actually did.
In times of plenty, Pharoah's government did not let prices fall as would have happened under free market conditions. They kept prices higher than they otherwise would have been because the government intervened and took excess stocks of grain out of circulation.
All people (rich and poor alike) had no option but to pay the usual higher prices - effectively, the government was taxing everyone, but this was not seen as a loss by anyone because the prices were no higher than usual.
The government stored the grain centrally and then they decided to release the grain according to their own policies.
Assumptions made by Prophet Yusuf's government
If you leave people to their own devices they may not make the best decisions (whether they are rich or poor), this could be due to: People do not have the resources to cater for future shocks (mainly the poor) People do not have the discipline to address future shocks (applies to both the rich and the poor) The government can make better decisions than individuals acting in their own self-interest because: The government can have access to more and better information than individuals do The government may not be as susceptible to a lack of self-discipline  
Conclusion
Of all the policy options open to Prophet Yusuf (عليه السلام) he advised Pharoah to pursue the most interventionist one. Some people may be tempted to call this socialist or communist, but I think those terms carry a lot of excess baggage, so I won't bring them into the discussion.
What I think can be safely inferred from his choice of policy is a fundamental principle that could inform economic policy in any Islamic state.
Facing an external shock to the Egyptian economy, he went for the option that would cause the least pain to the worst off in society. Other policy options would have caused more pain for the poorest but somewhat less for the better off.
 
 

Final part of my book, narrated by my dear friend, Mrs. Solmaz Rezayi
Music: Below the Horizon by Guy Sweens
Images created by ai bing image generator

Gains and losses
It's tempting to think of human experiences, in terms of gains or losses, especially those which involve dealing with other people and groups. Some exchanges lend themselves to this calculus e.g. trade or war. However, a focus on the material element of the equation can often ignore the intangible aspects of the encounter or the trade. The latter can often have longer-term and more profound consequences.
For believers faced with what can seem to be a loss in the material world, it's worth reflecting on what has been gained in the spiritual world. At the moment, in the Middle East there is a dynamic movement of politics and people being played out. Certain groups are gaining power, others are losing. Some people are dying and others are killing them. It's easy to construct the balance sheet in terms of human casualties, square kilometres of land and who holds power.
But this ignores the bigger picture.
Spiritual vs. material
What is also happening is the surfacing of opinions, standpoints and, most importantly, behaviours. In a world at equilibrium, peoples' discourse can often hide their true beliefs and they can avoid engaging in behaviours which make explicit where they stand. 
However, standing as we are in a world where there is disequilibrium, where the stakes are high for a reconfiguration of the Middle East as the tectonic plates shift, so people become more willing to disclose who they really are. 
This is a win for the believers. Tempted by the greed for gain, this is where Satan's mask drops, and reality becomes evident. People motivated primarily by gains in this world no longer hide where they really stand - they believe they can achieve far more by grabbing as much as they can possibly have.
The speed with which events take place makes it impossible for aggressors to hide their tracks. More importantly they believe that they no longer need to do so because the victory is so overwhelming that they will never be brought to account.
Understanding reality
Knowing the objective reality of this world can often be quite difficult; it's usually shrouded by our limitations and weaknesses. Often, believers are tempted to ask God for 'signs' to substantiate their belief. We think how easy it must have been for the ancients who lived in a world of miracles to have belief.
But the miracles are all around us.
As Satan's mask drops, we can see the people who would typically protest about human rights as part of their overall 'belief system' but are utterly silent about genocide. We can see that people who were horrified by the death of a single Iranian woman are now completely silent about the deaths of thousands.
And indeed, it's not just silence - there's active subterfuge on their part to protect the aggressor. We see evidence of social media algorithms being changed. We see evidence of the identify of the aggressor being hidden where typically it would not be. Journalists who held themselves to be paragons of integrity have been seen to be weak and supine. Newspapers that used to criticise other countries for censorship have been found to be self-censoring with abandon.
It's now been left to ordinary people often those with no interest in that part of the world taking note of journalists who have been summarily removed simply for asking Israeli representatives the wrong questions. And just as technology has enabled aggressors to have superior weapons so we are able to better measure and compare the published narrative and have no doubt about what is happening.
And that's just the media.
As for political leaders, we can see the people who claim leadership of Muslims but who show none when world events demand it. We can see the leaders who not only fail to protect the oppressed but who take an active part in the oppression. Their followers are left having to make excuses or alternatively make up new ideologies to replace those found to be wanting.
Crumbling in front of us is the whole edifice of human rights, feminism, democracy, freedom of the press, international system of crime and justice and all those other things that have been used to beat up Muslims for decades. Of course, there is nothing wrong with them per se - but it's now obvious that there was never any principle underpinning their use. They were only a weaponised tool whose promoters were kept on a tight leash and allowed to attack some countries while we now see them willingly held back from applying the same rules to others.
Claims of a 'superior civilisation' (whose superiority above Islam we were told we should accept) are now an embarrassment except to those with no reason or shame. Its promoters have traded them for gains in this world and have given up whatever echoes they wished to leave for eternity. And even those gains will prove to be short lived. The moral high ground needs legitimacy which has now disappeared.
Implications for us
It's at times like this that we might be saddened by the loss of people and places. But at the same time, our faith should be reinvigorated by the knowledge that what others believe is false, whose hypocrisy is made manifest and most importantly, whose ethical and moral position is so weak that it requires extreme violence to uphold.
Shias more than anyone know that gains and losses on the battlefield are not the end of the story.