Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Islamic nationalism and warfare

This is part of the thread from the post: Islam causes wars: reason #7. This has been an excellent discussion.

Anonymous replied:

"Correct, why such bad translations even coexist is an issue but that doesn't automatically label the whole religion as falsehood or warlike. That is what some humans take it as. Like you said "the mind sees what it wants to see".

Warfare is for that matter called for when no other solution is seen fit. You say as though the US is the only nation trying to solve this issue. There are many other Islamic nations trying to rid of these extremists with armed forces. It's not like we are just sitting around and letting bloodshed happen. The elimination of such a group is compulsary in order to once again show the true face of Islam. The US has been in the middle east for years now trying to fight of terrorism. What if there is another solution? As you know many groups are against the fact that the US continues to occupy the middle east. Why is that? There seems to be no more of a threat as it used to be during 9/11 so why are countless innocent lives of both sides lost everyday? Hopefully if we are out of the middle east the issue might settle down." (End comment)

I am certain that withdrawal is the incorrect thing to do. The people and organizations that attacked the United States are not going to stop their aggression. It is generally not best to give in to aggressors. It is generally better to confront, as painful as this is. These same people believe in the idea of Islamic nationalism. That Muslim land and ‘waters’ can and should be defended as if Islam is a government, in and of itself.

I like to use the example of a Catholic Church in New York. A group of militants take it over. (Take your pick of militant groups, it does not matter) Even though the church owns the land that the church is built upon, a group of Catholics from Canada, New Jersey, Brazil and Mexico do not move in and retake Catholic ‘land’. The U.S. government or local government authorities send in the proper forces to settle the issue. In other words, the Catholic Church does not physically defend the land that it owns. The national government whose sovereignty is responsible for that land has that responsibility.

The very idea of a religion fielding an army is one that faded away with the rise of the modern national government, nationalism and the professional army. The groups who are challenging this today are challenging the concept of the sovereignty of the modern national government.

Just look at the relationship between the militant Islamic organizations and the host governments. To allow this to continue is to accept the constant warfare and violence that such an arrangement must lead to. Sovereignty cannot be shared. Many wars have been fought to determine which side is to exercise sovereignty over what land. As is occurring today. This will continue until the concept of Islamic nationalism is gone and the entire world accepts the authority and responsibilities of the modern national government. This applies to ALL militant groups. Islamic groups are ones that get the most attention because they have an international reach far beyond the national borders. This makes them the greatest international threat.

1 comment:

  1. Wait, say if we do reach a point where we say that its safe enough to leave and everything seems to be OK in the middle east. Then we leave. Do you really think this threat is that easy to stop? Staying the next 5, 10 or even 20 years, yes I agree can possibly prevent another 9/11 but will enrage the opposition and still give them purpose to hate the west. I'll use the crusades once again; After Salah ud Din ran the crusaders out of the holy land did they go to europe seeking revenge. Yes you may say that the muslims seeked to conquer europe around the time but that was then, no-one battles now to conquer anymore. The only reason there was a need for Salah ud Din or battle in the Holy land was because of crusaders that invaded and occupied land. I'm not giving any exact solution but just saying that there might another way to win peace in the middle east. Yes there is a threat if we leave but what benefit will we have of staying and how can we be sure that they'll be eliminated for good? A lot of the time the proper solution is to understand the rage of these extremist and what fuels it, then in time eliminate their reason for war rather than keep fighting with hope of safety for our nation.