Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

**Airbornelawyer** · 03-19-2004, 21:43

Consider this. The police go into a predominantly black neighborhood looking for a gang member. A confrontation or shooting takes place, and a crowd gathers. How often have we seen peo ple the neighborhood protest the police, rather than the criminals, who are after all victimizing other blacks themselves? Does that make the fight against crime a war on blacks?

This is a very imperfect analogy, but I hope the point gets across. It is understandable, but not excusable, that too many Muslims betray that natural human instinct toward tribalism. But Muslims are hardly the only ones to fall into that us vs. them trap. Look at the widely different responses of black and white Americans to OJ Simpson. Did the majority of white Americans rationally consider all of the evidence and conclude Simpson was guilty, while the majority of black Americans rationally analyzed the same evidence and conclude he was not, or did people - white and black - simply not bother with rational analysis?

One problem with the analogy, though, is that there is something in Islam that connects it to Islamofascism, while black criminals are just as much predators on black society as white (if not more). This is the fact that for most Muslims, Islam does sanction violence in the name of the faith. So too many Muslims are forced to argue nuance - this is terrorism (bad) but that is jihad (good); this is suicide (impermissible), that is martyrdom (permissible). Furthermore, while certain commandments and cheek-turning verses notwithstanding, Christianity also has been held to sanction violence in the name of the faith (see, e.g., the Crusades), the Christian world has more effectively dealt with this by separating religion and the state. There is still religiously justified violence in Christian societies - see Northern Ireland, Croatia - but not nearly on the same level. But Islam by its nature cannot so easily separate religion and state. Islam is a law-based religion, and mosque and state are inextricably inclined. The Iraqi constitutional debate attempted to address this, but all they did was put a gloss over it. I mentioned elsewhere the need for an enlightenment or renaissance in Islam, to redefine the relationship, but I honestly don't know whether it will work. Judaism is a law-based religion too, and one which was originally very violent toward non-Jews, but somehow arrived at its own compromise. I don't know if that could work for Islam. Leaving aside the fact that I doubt many Muslims would want to take theology lessons from Jews, there are also many differences between Islam and Judaism that saying the two are law-based, while Christianity is faith-based, ignores.

But leaving aside theological disputations, consider it as a tactical matter. Do we want our war to be with a few thousand terrorists or with a billion people who live all over the globe and have nukes? If we say, "yes this is a war against Islam", we not only concede defeat to the Islamofascists in a theological and political dispute, we immeasurably increase the cost of the war and make enemies out of people for no reason but the accidence of their birth. That's not who we are and not who we want to be.

03-19-2004, 21:43	#15
Airbornelawyer Moderator Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 1,949	Consider this. The police go into a predominantly black neighborhood looking for a gang member. A confrontation or shooting takes place, and a crowd gathers. How often have we seen peo ple the neighborhood protest the police, rather than the criminals, who are after all victimizing other blacks themselves? Does that make the fight against crime a war on blacks? This is a very imperfect analogy, but I hope the point gets across. It is understandable, but not excusable, that too many Muslims betray that natural human instinct toward tribalism. But Muslims are hardly the only ones to fall into that us vs. them trap. Look at the widely different responses of black and white Americans to OJ Simpson. Did the majority of white Americans rationally consider all of the evidence and conclude Simpson was guilty, while the majority of black Americans rationally analyzed the same evidence and conclude he was not, or did people - white and black - simply not bother with rational analysis? One problem with the analogy, though, is that there is something in Islam that connects it to Islamofascism, while black criminals are just as much predators on black society as white (if not more). This is the fact that for most Muslims, Islam does sanction violence in the name of the faith. So too many Muslims are forced to argue nuance - this is terrorism (bad) but that is jihad (good); this is suicide (impermissible), that is martyrdom (permissible). Furthermore, while certain commandments and cheek-turning verses notwithstanding, Christianity also has been held to sanction violence in the name of the faith (see, e.g., the Crusades), the Christian world has more effectively dealt with this by separating religion and the state. There is still religiously justified violence in Christian societies - see Northern Ireland, Croatia - but not nearly on the same level. But Islam by its nature cannot so easily separate religion and state. Islam is a law-based religion, and mosque and state are inextricably inclined. The Iraqi constitutional debate attempted to address this, but all they did was put a gloss over it. I mentioned elsewhere the need for an enlightenment or renaissance in Islam, to redefine the relationship, but I honestly don't know whether it will work. Judaism is a law-based religion too, and one which was originally very violent toward non-Jews, but somehow arrived at its own compromise. I don't know if that could work for Islam. Leaving aside the fact that I doubt many Muslims would want to take theology lessons from Jews, there are also many differences between Islam and Judaism that saying the two are law-based, while Christianity is faith-based, ignores. But leaving aside theological disputations, consider it as a tactical matter. Do we want our war to be with a few thousand terrorists or with a billion people who live all over the globe and have nukes? If we say, "yes this is a war against Islam", we not only concede defeat to the Islamofascists in a theological and political dispute, we immeasurably increase the cost of the war and make enemies out of people for no reason but the accidence of their birth. That's not who we are and not who we want to be.
Airbornelawyer is offline