Sunday, April 5, 2009

Islam and warfare

Islam was designed as a nation-state 1000 years before they became common. Islam has a foreign policy; an economic policy and legal jurisprudence complete with ‘legal’ rulings that go back 1400 years.

All are welcome to join Islam. All religions have a 'dark' side, as Muslims and others have pointed out with the ‘dark’ side of Christianity. Among many differences is the Bible does not demand execution of people for various reasons. In addition to this, a major problem that I have with Islam is that the Koran and traditional Islam contain numerous issues that trigger open warfare between people. For example: The nation-state is the ONLY entity that should have these powers.

1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. You are welcome to join, but can’t leave it alive. Only a government should have the power to execute people.
2) Stoning ANYONE to death, for ANY reason. I don’t give a damn what that reason is. ( I do not believe that even a nation-state should be able to do this.)
3) Waging war: The Obligation to kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land should only be held by nation-states. This issue is tied somewhat to the issue of Tribute. Tribute is money paid to Muslim authorities by non-Muslims. OK, this exempts them from military service. So what? They would not participate in jihad in any case. In 1804, some Muslims attempted to extract Tribute from the U.S. because our ships were passing through so called "Muslim" waters. We attacked with our fleet. Care to start another war?

A group of Islamic leaders met in Istanbul recently and issued a declaration: "The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression, and a clear violation of the sovereignty of the Nation. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways."

Islam is NOT a nation-state. Muslims do not have ‘waters’, nor do they have ‘land’. Nation-states do. The government (not the 'religion') defends the indivudal ownership of land. This idea is a very real problem for the Muslim population of the world.

Loyalty to Islam, clan or other organizations as opposed to the central government is a very real problem. Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. army because his state of Virginia left the Union. He was more loyal to his state of Virginia than the U.S. federal government. One issue the U.S. Civil war decided is that our loyalty is to the Federal government, not the state. This issue is not uncommon in parts of the world, and loyalty to Islam and clan is particularly strong within the Muslim world. Resolving the ‘states rights’ issue was THE most expensive war (In terms of lives lost) that the United States has ever fought.

The concept of Jihad as held by the masses of the Muslim population worldwide must change. "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 in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." "The most common interpretation of jihad is armed struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power". (Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, copyright 2003.)

Booty was how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state. Naturally, Muslims are not supposed to seize booty for personal gain. However, human nature is not so chaste. You are not going to convince me that Muslims are any different from the rest of humanity on this one. The other qualifier for jihad (Besides fighting Apostates) is fighting infidels. Infidels are anyone who is not Muslim. Jihad is a mechanism designed to expand Islamic control and Muslim power.
Jihad must become a personal, internal struggle. Attempting to convince the rest of the Muslim population of this has and will result in open warfare.

This is not a complete list. Sorry. However, it does give us an idea of what we are dealing with. Can it be surprising that irregular warfare is such a constant within the Islamic world? Notice how violence is common in the places Islam has contact with other cultures.

The issues that I have listed above are of the type that wars are fought over. In other words, Islam contains many issues that will cause open, violent conflict. The problems are inherent within Islam. The external world is NOT the problem.


  1. Don't you think it's all about interpretation? There was a time when the Bible was interpreted in a way that justified the crusades. Later when colonies where being established, the Bible once again came to the assistance of the western world.

  2. Yes, you are quite correct when referring to the Bible. It requires interpretation to justify killing and waging war.

    The Koran is different. "Kill the occupiers" of Muslim land is spelled out. Hard to misinterpret.
    This applies to all of the other 'authentic' laws in Islam. "Authentic" means that Islamic scholars have ruled upon the prhase in question and found it valid.

    The Koran specifies waging warfare and killing in many places. Many of the worst of these 'laws' have been ruled 'authentic'. They have been enforced for the better part of 1400 years. Hard to misinterpret this as well.