Forget Defense of Islam--America Must Be Wise in War, or Court Ruin

Americans are always on the verge of leaping to the defense of less fortunate souls--much to our credit. But how do we decide when pondering violent defense of others that it is genuinely in our best interest?

In fact, perhaps since the Vietnam War, the US has entered into the frays of other countries and paid the largest price, while enduring pillorying in the international press. There is a cost to trying to combine being the only superpower and the good guy. We do well to recall Solomon's sage advice--

"Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?"--Ecclesiastes 7:16

In fact, America's only real duty in the world is to make the wisest decisions to benefit ourselves. Why? Because, what good can we do for the rest of the world if we destroy ourselves in a cycle of superficially good but stupid decisions? After Iraq, it is simply no longer acceptable to pay the ultimate price on missions which are not clear, or where we have no obvious duty to the residents. Specifically--why involve ourselves in Middle Eastern intrigues when both sides are at fault and no outcome clearly benefits the US?

---

As to the gassing of Syrian residents, as unfortunate as this might be--who are the moral superiors who need to be saved? Contra, if the States are just going to strategically bomb other people halfway around the globe, to teach them a lesson--is that really the role of America? If the law of unintended consequences has shown us anything, especially via the recent civil wars of Libya and Egypt--we ought to be extremely wary of joining into the military efforts of any Muslim nation for any reason. In brief, let us examine the beliefs of the Muslim rebels whom we are coming to the aid of. Do we really need to aid those who fundamentally oppose us as if we have no other option?

1. Muslim View of State

Islam has no modern view of the state. Instead, it separates the world out in an impossibly black and white, Manichean vision of Muslim, versus non-Muslim. This is Dar al-Islam (House of Peace) versus Dar al-Harb (House of War). Non Muslims are either Dhimmis--People of the Book--being Jews or Christians, who must sign a treaty of non-aggression and pay a tax. Or they are "pagans" who should be immediately liquidated. But the Islamic state itself is a monolith which cannot be resisted. One of the most important Muslim modern legal minds authored a highly influential book on the state and law. Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi, wrote in The Islamic Law and Constitution,

In other words, the order of the State, be it palatable or unpalatable, easy or arduous, shall have to be obeyed under all circumstances. [save when this means disobedience to God]...A person should, truly and faithfully and with all his heart, wish and work for the good, prosperity, and the betterment of the State, and should not tolerate anything likely to harm its interests...It is also obligatory on the citizens of the Islamic State to cooperate wholeheartedly with the government and to make sacrifices of life and property for it, so much so that if any danger threatens the State, he who willfully refrains from making a sacrifice of his life and property to ward off that danger has been called a hypocrite in the Quran.

According to the most influential Islamic Islamic scholar of the last century, Sayyid Qutb, only Allah could form the outline of society. His writings helped give the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda an intellectual foundation, and he argued a secular society was not really possible. His solution to the world's problems was Jihad. In fact, most modern Muslim radicals use Qutb as a guide and idol for their anti-Western violence. He taught that both Jew and Christians were the devil's children Qutb inspired Bin Laden. He wrote,

In the world there is only one party of God; all others are parties of Satan and rebellion....There is only one way to reach God; all other ways do not lead to Him....For human life, there is only one true system, and that is Islam; all other systems are Jahiliyyah....There is only one law which ought to be followed, and that is the Shari'ah from God; anything else is mere emotionalism and impulsiveness.... The truth is one and indivisible; anything different from it is error...Our whole environment, people's beliefs and ideas, habits and art, rules and laws - is Jahiliyyah, even to the extent that what we consider to be Islamic culture, Islamic sources, Islamic philosophy and Islamic thought are also constructs of Jahiliyyah!

While propping up another culture, it is contingent upon us to ask what that culture stands for, correct? So in the area of human rights, where does Islam stand? For the Muslim view of human rights, this is a non entity. In fact, there is no Muslim concept of human rights, according to Ann Elizabeth Mayer in Islam and Human Rights: Tradition and Politics. So how does propping up these ideas help America?

2. Islamic Mission--World Subjugation

It is the studied opinion of many Muslim critics that the teachings of Muhammad lead directly to the conclusion that the entirety of the non-Muslim world must be subjugated. Several authors have commented upon the orientation of Islam towards the rest of the globe. John O'Neill, in Holy Warriors: Islam and the Demise of Classical Civilization, argues that the Muslim worldview is set in stone, and essentially cannot adapt because the theological presuppositions of Islamic Shariah law are not adaptable to modernization. For instance, judicial floggings cannot be abrogated since Allah himself dictated such punishments. Likewise, Islam's overall view of the world cannot be changed, either. Another author claims that the entire purposes of Islam are political--to a create a world religious state by force. M. A. Kahn, in Islamic Jihad: A Legacy of Forced Conversion, Imperialism, and Slavery. This books argues...

Islam--more specifically, its doctrine of Jihad or holy war--unequivocally calls for forced conversion and enslavement of non-Muslims and for the establishment of an imperial Islamic rule globally. Thereafter, based on extensive study of the original biographies and traditions of the Prophet, he demonstrates how these commands of the Islamic God, of eternal relevance, were scrupulously applied by Prophet Muhammad: he engaged in forced conversion and enslavement, and established the first imperial Islamic state in Arabia. Through rich historical documentation, this book further demonstrates how Muslims have expanded and perpetuated these paradigmatic models of Jihad over vast parts of the world throughout history to this day. The author predicts that Islamic Jihad, in all likelihood, will intensify over coming decades with serious consequences for humankind, for the infidel and Western world in particular.

If the above is true, how could America possibly gain by assisting one side of a Muslim civil war, especially when the persons the US aids are radical, religious fundamentalists, likely to agree with the need for world enslavement of non-believers

3. Who Will Be Aided?

It is not clear whether the government, or rebels, used nerve gas against Syrians. It may not matter to many Americans, who might just want a vigorous response against unacceptable warfare methods. But don't forget the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya, or holy lying, which is often used during war to gain an advantage. Writes Middle Eastern commentator and warfare expert Ralph Peters, about the Syrian situation:

And they have their own agendas. The Saudis back the Salafists. The Turks and Qataris back the Muslim Brotherhood. This is complex and byzantine. It's a local fight, a civil war, a family feud, and, you know, cops don't like getting in the middle of family feuds. To just back it up just a little bit, again what is our vital security interest? WMD? I abhor the use of chemical weapons. It's correct that they're forbidden. They should be, they must be. But Assad's enemies are al-Qaeda and its franchises who've killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of Muslims at this point. And what's the choice? Is it better to be tortured to death by al-Qaeda, be burned alive in your Christian church by al-Qaeda or to be gassed? By the way, I'm still not completely sure the Assad regime was behind the gas attack.

Conclusion

Many untoward outcomes could result from America involving itself in Syria's internal war. It could even create a regional war which could draw Iran into attacking Israel, setting off a nuclear conflagration. With little if anything to gain--save giving the world a lecture on appropriate warfare methods--and with a world to lose, America would do well to let Muslim Syria fight itself until it burns itself out, and then arise again from the ashes.