The Fog of Peace – America’s Destiny with Islamic Jihad

“What is madness?  To have erroneous perceptions and to reason correctly from them.” 

-Voltaire

Recently, formally unknown descriptors of Islam have been creeping into our lexicon.  Its features are incipient to the Western idiom that struggles to focus on distinctions of what separates or unifies these two worlds.  Islam’s cruel fringe and what is often called its moderate majority have largely been interpreted for us; as acceptable within a hopeful Western viewpoint.

Words like Jihad, Quran, Hadith, Ramadan and Imam enter into the discussion.   Western leaders make no attempt to make these words part of their description of Islam, holding us in thrall to their generalizations.  However, to help deepen our understanding, these words are put into context by Islamic historians and authors who are publishing a variety of views that suggest Islam’s more historical and bellicose nature.

The question is: will the West understand Islam well enough to make the right choices about it?  Do we fight it, reform it or merely tolerate their piecemeal attacks as a passing criminal phase.  If you are not Muslim, you likely lack understanding of its innate concepts and deeper meaning.  If you are not its long-time student you likely lack an informed opinion.  If you are a moderate or non-believer in religion, you likely lack an understanding of how radical belief captivates the mind and motivates behavior. 

Theocratic cultures like Islam are deeply rooted in beliefs; beliefs all practicing members of Islam would implicitly understand, but are largely lost on the outside world.  Our view is only explicit and is complete only to the extent we see its objectivity through the lens of our own values.  We simply don’t know it implicitly.  We just do not know how the subtle interconnectedness of Islamic thought works.  But our explicit judgments make distinctions between our culture and theirs through its current behavior and historical perspective.

But, this has often failed us given that our record has been to misinterpret worldviews of cultures different than our own.  Our bureaucratic culture seems impotent in putting on the decision table any constraining elements of cultures we deal with as to possible outcomes.  In our recent past we can look back and see where this flaw was evident, the Vietnam War. 

One reporter came back from that war with a completely different perspective than was reported by our political and news sources at the time.  He was in Vietnam for an eight year period before and during the conflict.  He took the time to study Vietnamese history, culture, religion, attitudes about death, collective ideals of sacrifice, the real nature of the north and south boundary, its ethnic make-up and past wars, a viewpoint that was, in hindsight, eventually shared by Robert S. McNamara, the Defense Secretary during the war in the documentary Fog of War.  In it McNamara tells us our biggest mistake was in not knowing what, apparently this reporter had learned: a mistake so large it became a national disgrace and left the genocide of two million people in its wake. 

He reported, for example, that the true nature of the unreported and uninvestigated incident in the Tonkin Gulf came to light too late and, more alarming, that in the 435 years prior to the Vietnam conflict Vietnam had only nine years of peace.  All attempts at occupation by invading countries were met with long protracted wars that wore the enemy down until the losses were large enough that in the homeland of the enemy and the domestic reaction so great that the enemy pulled their forces.  This was true with the first, second and third Chinese dominations, the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty, the Japanese and French, and it worked on us too.  We were wrong.  Our republic with its two politically divisive horns caved in. 

Relying on press and political interpretations of Islam may lead us in the same direction.  Then, as now, neither the press nor the government has ever given us good information which means that putting our time and energy into the buzz of the current news and the political jostle on the hill may keep our political quivers filled for our next mock battle, but may be time entirely misspent.  There may be better choices for our attention. 

The alternative may be to deepen our understanding of such issues on our own and history might be a likely place to begin.  If history teaches anything it is that there are always pan-human political, religious and social patterns at work.  They last two, five hundred or a thousand years and a lifetime, most likely is not long enough for one to sense their presence.  They are what historians see in hindsight, themes that thread themselves over great spans of human history. 

The most lethal of these themes in terms of human genocide are the ideological hegemonies.  One is secular; the nationalistic jingoism of the Pox Romana of Rome, Greece, German Aryanism, Totalitarian Fascism and Communism, for example.  The other is religious; beliefs that frame religious idealism beginning in the West with Catholicism in the Fourth Century then with Islam in the Fifth as their faiths spread throughout the Levant and Europe, for example. 

It took Christianity 900 years to gain control throughout Europe.   It took Islam less time to spread throughout the Middle East, the Mediterranean and Southern Europe.  Each dominated territories that were in close proximity to the other, aiding the impetus of the other.  Each gained territorial footholds that, today, still remain as geographical seats to their faith and power. 

Our time is no exception.  We may think our age has matured and without precedent, uniquely beyond the problems of the past.  But while it may be unequalled in technological development, for example, waves of past religious, social and political dynamics are still with us can make their presence acutely felt; their sharp sting occurring when the generation feels most secure and self-absorbed, as have occurred countless times in the past when those generations too were basking in their own misperceptions.  To look back to discover them may offer the greatest insight to the dynamics about to be played out in our own time where such waves could dislodge to twist human institutions and lives.

Least we think our recent time is more civilized, it is estimated 188 million died in the wars and political genocide of the 20^th Century, the greatest slaughter in one century in human history.  That is the equivalent of 5,150 deaths each and every day for one century with religions and quasi-religious governmental structures heavily involved.  We are legacy to that century where the great undercurrent themes of the past are still at work and again bubbling to the surface.

For ideological hegemonies to occur great numbers of people must be motivated by belief in something where they will freely give their time, resources and lives if necessary in support of it.  Where people hold their belief more dear than life itself.

With religious hegemonies, their action is directed outward to people on the other side of their belief boundary.  Without a moderating counter force, such religions often lose their humanity, for example, requiring the heads of the infidel, the heretic—at the expense of human decency itself.  When movements as these reach a certain threshold the idealistic zealotry often resorts to force to expand and purify its idealism.  Both Christianity and Islam have been guilty of this.

Islamic religious militarism began with Islam’s First Jihad in the Eighth Century capturing the Holy Land, Sicily, the northern coast of Africa, Spain, Portugal, Southern France and ended when they failed to take Paris.  It took over 400 years for them to do that, mind you, but the Crusades were in large part a reaction to the First Jihad’s taking Christian lands that lasted another 450 years. 

The Second Jihad was launched by the Ottoman Empire of the 15^th Century which took the Balkans, Persian Gulf, Turkey, Constantinople, Eastern Prussia and parts of Germany, regained strength in North Africa and southeastern Europe but was stopped at Vienna in 1684.  According to Islam, they are now in their Third Jihad.  In the United States alone, 1,209 new Islamic Mosques have been built in the past 30 years.  In them, it is unlikely they thank Allah for their God given US constitutional rights.

If Islam becomes more Jihadist now, which it seems it is becoming, is there a hegemony in the West today with enough dedication to repel Islamic aggression?  Although Christianity once had power to direct and inspire political and defensive policy against Islam it has largely been lost through its divisions and reformations, its separation of church from state and lastly its loss of authority to scientific epistemology.  Because of this, Christianity as an organization lacks central organization to rally the needed strength.   

Except for the American military, the West lacks a secular hegemony as well.  China and Russia could be elicited, but they are likely to let the U.S. front line this issue to see what spoils might arise, either as ally with Islam or to pick up the pieces of an American demise.  Islam has the will to fight without the firepower.  America may have the firepower, but does it have the will?  Will it remain hegemonic?  Is there a characteristic equivalent of willing sacrifice in the West?  

America is divided after the attacks so far.  If history is an indicator of our protectionist proclivities, we entered our two world-wide conflicts quite late in 1918 and 1943 only when the threat was great enough to overcome the political resistance.  It may take more severe attacks on us before a great enough threat consensus is formed to politically unite our stopping it. 

France, Spain and Germany will likely be Isamisized in 15 years if current trends persist.  Alike American vulnerabilities are not covered either.  We are not taking enough action to stop the kind of attack that could devastate our way of life overnight, such as nuclear attacks on our cities with financial or other centers that could cripple our economy and put Western civilization into a freefall. 

Currently, Muslims are involved in conflicts around the world in Kashmir, Cyprus, East Timor, Algeria, India, Darfur, Kurdistan, Macedonia, Nigeria, Sudan, the Philippines, Chechnya, Kosovo, Ethiopia, Palestine, Indonesia in the Ambon and Halmahen provinces, Egypt and Algeria where hundreds of thousands have been slain. 

This does not include their participation in the wars in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the bombings in London, Spain and Paris, the recent war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the nearly 3,000 who died on September 11, 2001 and the other attacks on the United States.  Without Islam the world would be a rather peaceful place.

The franchise Western elites give Islam is to link their hatred to Western Imperialism.  They include in this the belief that it is our presence in the Middle East and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are the reasons for Islam’s bellicose reaction to the West.  The fog in this reasoning is palpable.  If imperialism exists today in the West, it has but a shadow of its former meaning.  Viewing the historical model of imperialism it can be argued that American foreign policy has been quite the opposite. 

This elitist argument is very naive and dwarfs when viewed in light of Islam’s Jihadist tradition, current conflicts around the world and belief in the inerrancy of the Quran as interpreted by the Hadith by thousands of their Imams.  It is clear their motivation is not compelled by Western Imperialism, but is motivated solely from within, by their theocratic ipse dixit that Allah wills world domination.  This is a belief issue that anyone raised in a fundamentalist environment in the West should well understand.

They also point to what they believe to be a large moderate element within Islam, so not to worry.  The assumption is that these moderates will keep Islam in check if it gets too violent.

However, the word “moderate” is a Western descriptor that is largely lost on the Muslim world.  Mr. Macksood Aftab, managing editor of The Islamic Herald writes that “. . . in the case of Islam, all Muslims believe in absolute inerrancy of the Quran, since it is a basic Islamic tenet. Therefore the media would have to use the word fundamentalist for all Muslims which it does not do. It only uses the word Fundamentalist for both the extremist and terrorist groups, and the true moderate Islamic revivalist movements. Both these definitions are incompatible with each other.” 

Through lack of insight Americans may dismiss Aftab’s exposé too easily.  The word “moderate” is a Western word which connotes something similar to our notion of what a moderate Christian is.  However, if to be Muslim one must believe in the inerrancy of the Quran, then it is, by definition fundamental as believers must treat what is said in the Quran as the ultimate reality. 

Westerner’s are conditioned by distinctions that can be made between Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Episcopalians, but you find none of them, as their scripture teaches, practicing blood sacrifice of animals or making war through Christ’s words “I come not to bring peace, but a sword.”  But Islamic faith is Quranic literalism in all aspect of life including a correlative to animal sacrifice in the Muhammad tradition: of beheading infidels as carried out by Muhammad himself on 600 to 900 Jewish men in the village of Banu Qurayza near Medina.

What this suggests is a pan human theme of 1.3 billion Muslims, the majority of which are practicing Muslims acting out their theocratic beliefs.  If one-forth the population of Muslims is considered radical, that number would equal the entire population of the United States.

Islam did not go through the pluralism of the reformation and enlightenment as Christianity did in the West.  And there is no indication it is now.  Our biggest mistake it to hope that it will behave like a moderated Western country with its values.  Islamic hegemony has little changed since its founding in the Fifth Century advancing as a theocratic fusion of church and state under religious Shria Law.  It now controls 22 countries and is part of government in 47 countries and indications are it wants more. 

In 2004 Muslims launched 3,200 attacks worldwide.  In 2005 it increased to 4,000.  Their attacks kill mostly innocents.  They see their victims as sub specie aeternitatis, non-people—infidels worthy of death.  They also feel they do the Infidel a favor by forcing Islam upon him.  The question is: are we dealing with just a radical element of Islam or all of Islam?  On the most fundamental of levels, it is both.  It is a war declared by its militant minority, condoned by its majority to achieve its objectives.

Many of the world’s great religions base their belief in eschatological determinism: a blueprint that forecasts the passing of all secular world governments into one universal theocracy as foreordained by God. 

Christianity assumes this implicitly with the second coming of Christ, an event that will bring to an end to all world governments and set up a Christian theocracy under Christ.  Christian fringe groups, like the Mormons, believe that they carry special “keys” and “authority” to form this new world order.  They look for signs in world events they believe God has given them signaling their governance in a theocratic world rule with the Jews.

Christian participation in such conflagration is passive, the end-time prophesy posits its Armageddon on the self destruction of nations, a massive bloodletting of mostly non-believers to rid the world of their impurity, thus opening the way for a new kingdom, a new Jerusalem. 

Islam also embraces an eschatological determinism of a slightly different nature.  By doctrinal prescription all Muslims believe God has told them the world must also pass from the current world order to one that will be governed by theocratic Islam.  However, theirs is not passive.  Islam is to come to world power by force if necessary. 

To be a Muslim, one is required to hold that view.  “It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been ‘hijacked’ by extremists” reports Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith, “We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran, and further elaborated in the literature in the Hadith which recounts the sayings and actions of the Prophet.” 

The Koran teaches Muslims must take an active role in bringing about Islamic world domination.  Their mandate is to overthrow all Christians, Jews and Infidels either by converting them, subjugating them or by killing them.  Their killing of unfaithful infidels of any age or sex is implicitly ordered by the God they worship.  As we fanaticize that Islam is fractured by the fact that there is a more passive element within Islam, the common thread all Muslims believe is that they assist each other in moving toward their theocracy.  For Islam, it is implicit belief that buttresses their complicit silence.

These are the kinds of implicit beliefs in Islam that are at work here.  One growing up in a legalistic fundamentalism knows how their vitality supports a vast reticulate of one’s world view.  There are other examples of implicitly in belief that is closer to home, one that is fundamentally religious and fits many of the belief profiles of Islam. 

Polygamy, for example, in the Mormon Church was barred by the Supreme Court in Reynolds vs. U.S. in 1889.  From the outside it appears that Mormonism abandoned the practice.  Yet today, to be an active Mormon you must believe that no male member can enter God’s presence unless he enters there with more than one wife.  The doctrine is still very much alive.

As evidence for this, today male members are still married “sealed” to more than one wife secretly in their temples; his polygamous vows to be effective after his life is over.  He must do it to enter heaven and Mormon women must do it for the same reason.  If he does not do it in their temples in this life, he must do it in the afterlife.  As in most legalistic religious systems, women wear bhurkas, visible or not. 

Polygamy was practiced by Muhammad and Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism.  Both were called by their followers prophets who claimed to speak with former Old Testament prophets and Devine figures.  Both were killed.  Both created new scripture; the Quran in Islam, the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price in Mormonism.  Both believe that a theocracy, not a democracy, is the best form of government, each tried to practice that form of government and each will have their parts to play when their government is established.  Both require strict obedience to their religion.  Both have killed their gentile/infidel non-believers.  Both have geographical centers identified with their faiths.  Both have forms of patriarchal supremacy.  Both believe in sex after death. 

The similarities do not stop there, but although they are responsible for killing 120 people at Mountain Meadows, today Mormons are not blowing themselves up and killing innocents.  Although history suggests that when religion gains political power they are often radical and harm people on the other side of their belief boundary, it also shows that religious radicalism can be neutralized.

This discussion does not say what to do about the threat.  That is left for the Defense Department.  However, the more we learn of the implicit beliefs that motivate these warring tribes, the better way we can craft a defense that includes dealing not only with a war strategy but with their theocratic idealism as well.  If we can neutralize some of the Islamic symbols, such as capturing Bin Ladin, that energize its militancy, maybe the State and Defense Departments may educate themselves to some of these implicit belief issues and learn the lessons of Vietnam.  With few exceptions, Americans are blind to this side of the world.  Until then, we are stumbling through the fog of peace.