Some of the root causes for war in Iraq

Studying warfare for a long time has helped me to realize that some things are worth fighting and dying for. Many times the excuses used to start wars hide the real reasons and not all the time for the worse. FDR definitely antagonized Japan into getting the United States directly involved in WW II. The manipulation for U.S. entry into WW I was less obvious, but we also needed to be directly involved on the allied side. The U.S. Civil War was worth fighting. Getting rid of slavery was worth it. Today we can find a number of issues that are on this level.

The political solution for issues like ending slavery is open warfare. Many times, this is the ONLY solution. People will kill and fight to the death for and against issues like slavery. The injustice in slavery alone is worth the risk of losing your life in fighting it. Many of these types of issues are present within Islam. Like slavery within the South prior to the U.S. civil war, these issues have been embedded into the very culture.

For the past 1400 years, married women who were convicted of adultery have been stoned to death. Riots occurred in Nigeria in the summer of 2006 because this was not enforced. (Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 50% non-Muslim – the non-Muslim side refusing to enforce.)

Leaving Islam being punished by death has been strictly enforced over the centuries. This is one of the original reasons the Shiite and Sunni are at odds with each other. They differed around the year 690AD over who was the true leader of Islam. Naturally, as time went on, they differed in whom were the leaders who followed him. This disagreement makes the other side Apostates. They must have left Islam to believe this. The hate comes after generations of disagreement, prejudice and discrimination. This is part of the civil war that we are participating in with our presence in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The civil war is between those who want to follow true Islam and those who do not. The rules listed here are for the most part, considered to be ‘authentic’ by Muslim scholars. They must be followed to be an observant Muslim. Modern thinking makes the choice to ignore them really obvious, but the cultural change of thinking requires too much change at once. People will fight this type of change, particularly on this scale, with violence every time. Organized violence.

We keep hearing about the crusades. (1100 AD to 1300 AD – Nine ‘official’ in all. The last four were not with the support of the church in Rome.) What is not discussed is that the crusades were a brief, ineffective response to Jihad in the first place. Islam began in the Saudi peninsula. The Muslim presence in the Holy Land began with the initial Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century. Once land becomes Muslim controlled; it can rarely if ever, revert back to being non-Muslim. (Attempting to do so triggers a worldwide obligation to kill ‘occupiers’.)

The concept of Jihad has got to change, significantly. "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight is the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis)

Islam can wage war against Infidels, Apostates, Rebels and bandits. This means to kill. The first two qualify for Jihad. In the case of Jihad, you may seize property. (Until the rise of the nation-state in the past few hundred years, it had been common practice to pay your army by allowing them to seize booty.) Muslims are not supposed to do this for personal gain. Muslims will tell us that this is upheld. (Being strict, they probably obtain better results than what we would) However, they are no more able to stop human nature than we are. History is overflowing with examples of seizing property for personal gain. You can’t tell me Muslims are any less human that the rest of us. Jihad can be seen as a contributing factor in the constant Arab-Israeli wars. Along with war with the rest of the world for the past 1400 years. (The house of war)

" In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. )
Another view that must change.

Islamic electoral policy of ‘One man (Men only) one vote, once’. One Islam is selected; there is no going back. No more voting. Islam is a one-way street. The penalty for leaving is death. This is an ‘authentic’ law and has been strictly enforced for more than 1400 years. This must also change.

I read a supporter of Islam saying that women have the choice of becoming married, or becoming public property. He says the limits are in place to ‘protect the modesty of women’. I have avoided talking about the gender inequalities within Islam, because my focus is warfare. However, the slavery issue can be compared somewhat to the gender inequalities present within Islam.

Two women testimony equals one man. The next step is no amount of women testimony equals a single man’s. It is insulting for many men in this culture to be treated as or thought of as an equal with any woman. Much in the same way that ex-slaves were thought of in the United States during the 2nd half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries. (Unfortunately, many people still do)

Beat your wife. OK, this is being debated because the phrase can be read multiple ways. The fact that this argument is so widespread indicates that millions of men do believe that this is the correct way to interpret this law. If this is a person who you care about, what about all those who you do not? I would expect improper treatment, as a general rule. It is your right, your destiny. Sounds like the Romans.

Honor killings. Makes sense that if you can kill infidels, Apostates, Rebels, and Bandits that you can kill family members who are ‘disloyal’. Women are treated much like property. It is necessary to sell or kill one of them from time to time. This is why I compare it to slavery so often. In the culture of Japan, honor is VERY important. In Japan, you had to kill yourself if you were dishonored. In Honor killings, they kill you when they consider you to have brought them dishonor. Very convenient.

These ‘authentic’ laws must not be enforced from this date forward. To do otherwise is just putting the issue off until it comes after you. It is generally better to face the music earlier rather than later. Besides, we have a vested interest in who wins the civil war. The issue for us as outsiders is, will these ‘authentic’ Islamic laws continue to be enforced? It is worth risking your life to resolve these issues in a way that the rest of the world can accept. When I say ‘the rest of the world’, I am referring to the house of war.
" In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war". (Page 31. Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Copyright 2003. ) Another view that must change.

We also have 1400 years of Islamic law that states that occupation of Muslim land by infidels triggers a worldwide obligation to kill the occupiers. What triggered the ‘occupation’ in the first place is immaterial. This must change.

It sill surprises me that the war itself is this small. No wonder a Civil war is going on in Iraq and throughout the Islamic world. It is worth the loss of life we are experiencing in Iraq to see that the side that agrees with us on most of these issues wins the war.

Part of Islam is peaceful. Much of Islam is the most hostile religion that I have ever studied. Islam must be stripped of 75% of its ‘authentic’ law in order to be acceptable with anyone who shares the values that we hold in the ‘West’. This places anyone who agrees with our extreme liberal version of Islam in the category of apostate. (Punishable by death.) Fighting this qualifies as Jihad. As Bernard Lewis points out, "For most of the fourteen centuries of recorded Muslim history, jihad was most commonly interpreted to mean armed struggle for the defense or advancement of Muslim power. " (P. 31)

1804, the Barbary pirates seized at least one United States ship, demanding Tribute. What was the issue? The question from our point of view was freedom of the seas. The cry went out, "Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!". The pirates issue was infidel ships passing through Muslim waters. We owed them payment. The poll tax, or Tribute. We fought a war to resolve only this one issue. The Civil War in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world is all about these issues. At least in our own American civil war, the culture of the North and South did not differ as much as the culture of Islam and the rest of the world. This is one of the reasons that help to make this war so large.