I guess that much additional stress has been added this election cycle because I do not see the leadership of this country as responding to the will of the people. Very few issues actually make it to the public's general notice. Republicans have wanted to place Social Security on a sounder financial basis since the 1980's. Twice it was proposed (Ronald Regan and George W. Bush) and both times the United States population said 'NO!'. I consider President Clinton to have been a moderate for just this reason. The U.S. public said 'NO!' in the 1994 Health Care debate, and he backed off. The fact that the American public said 'NO!' this past February on Health Care (Again) and the U.S. Congress said "yes" and did it anyway is dangerous. This is where we can lose the Republic. This is why I am concerned about the loss of the Republic within my lifetime.
Next time the Republicans get a vast majority, they can just carve up Social Security? Or better yet, why not just repeal Social Security altogether? If that can't be done, then something major is wrong with our legal system. Or else we lose the Republic because it would take dictatorial power to make the necessary changes. Both are losing scenarios. Not to mention that we have a major external war brewing that in a few years is going to get out of control. Wars NEVER stay stable. They may be stable for periods of time, but they NEVER stay that way forever. It is one of the few times the word is true. In any case, the next few years will be decisive if we are going to prevent the change of the Republic that can’t be reversed. If that change has not already occured.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 7
Separation of Church and state
Islam was designed and built as a system of governance. (In addition to being a ‘religion’.) Islam was around long before the modern national government evolved and became common. In most of the Middle East, Islam has been the ‘law of the land’ since the 8th century, yet many of the modern governments in the Middle East were only established in the 20th century. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for centuries, was based upon Islamic law. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. (Bin Lauden is a good example. He is loyal to Islamic government, and no other) This is slowly changing, but the loyalty to the ‘Nation of Islam’ is still widespread. We still hear major Islamic leadership refer to the "Nation of Islam" and the "Sovereignty of the Islamic Nation". We hear of Imams ‘declaring war’ upon the ‘occupiers of Muslim ‘Land’. The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war. The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field it’s own armies to protect it’s own ‘land’ or ‘waters’ from ‘occupation’. Historically, national sovereignty issues of this type have required open warfare to resolve. These are not issues that people change their minds over easily, nor quickly. (If at all.) This is why war is required to settle the issue.
Islam has no separation of church and state. The very idea of separating the two has been, is and will be fought violently both spontaneously and in an organized manner. The Islamic ‘army’ (Islamic terrorist groups) is fighting for the implementation of Islamic governance and ideology. Just look at how the terrorist groups get along with the ‘parent’ government of the area where they operate. Even they don’t get along very well because of the conflict over the national sovereignty issues that separation of church and state resolves. Wars were fought to rid the Pope of the ability to form and lead armies. People will wage war to protect the power they have. Imams wield REAL power. Giving this up will not come without a fight. Historically, this is another very common reason for wars being fought.
In Iraq recently, an election was held. One person who was interviewed had said that his imam had told them to go vote, so he went. If the Imam had said to not vote, he would not have gone. In a sense, this Imam has greater power than the government. An example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Church as NO power to overrule the law of the United States. As along as Catholics obey the law of the U.S., they can obtain abortions. All the church can do is attempt to persuade Catholics (And all others) to NOT obtain an abortion. We need to respect religious leaders, but Islamic leaders have far more power than the modern world can accept. Imams can enforce Islamic ‘law’. One way Imams obtain this power is by fielding their own armies. This must end, TODAY. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Once again, historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number seven in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of religion and governance. Concerning Islam, they are the same.
Islam was designed and built as a system of governance. (In addition to being a ‘religion’.) Islam was around long before the modern national government evolved and became common. In most of the Middle East, Islam has been the ‘law of the land’ since the 8th century, yet many of the modern governments in the Middle East were only established in the 20th century. The Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area for centuries, was based upon Islamic law. As a result, loyalty to Islamic laws and culture is far more established than any government that has been put in place since. (Bin Lauden is a good example. He is loyal to Islamic government, and no other) This is slowly changing, but the loyalty to the ‘Nation of Islam’ is still widespread. We still hear major Islamic leadership refer to the "Nation of Islam" and the "Sovereignty of the Islamic Nation". We hear of Imams ‘declaring war’ upon the ‘occupiers of Muslim ‘Land’. The modern world has no place for a ‘religion’ that can declare war. The modern world cannot accept ANY ‘religion’ that can field it’s own armies to protect it’s own ‘land’ or ‘waters’ from ‘occupation’. Historically, national sovereignty issues of this type have required open warfare to resolve. These are not issues that people change their minds over easily, nor quickly. (If at all.) This is why war is required to settle the issue.
Islam has no separation of church and state. The very idea of separating the two has been, is and will be fought violently both spontaneously and in an organized manner. The Islamic ‘army’ (Islamic terrorist groups) is fighting for the implementation of Islamic governance and ideology. Just look at how the terrorist groups get along with the ‘parent’ government of the area where they operate. Even they don’t get along very well because of the conflict over the national sovereignty issues that separation of church and state resolves. Wars were fought to rid the Pope of the ability to form and lead armies. People will wage war to protect the power they have. Imams wield REAL power. Giving this up will not come without a fight. Historically, this is another very common reason for wars being fought.
In Iraq recently, an election was held. One person who was interviewed had said that his imam had told them to go vote, so he went. If the Imam had said to not vote, he would not have gone. In a sense, this Imam has greater power than the government. An example: The Catholic Church is against abortion. However, the Church as NO power to overrule the law of the United States. As along as Catholics obey the law of the U.S., they can obtain abortions. All the church can do is attempt to persuade Catholics (And all others) to NOT obtain an abortion. We need to respect religious leaders, but Islamic leaders have far more power than the modern world can accept. Imams can enforce Islamic ‘law’. One way Imams obtain this power is by fielding their own armies. This must end, TODAY. People do not give up that kind of power by choice. Once again, historically it has been shown that it will take warfare to resolve. Reason number seven in my list of why Islam causes wars is the lack of separation of religion and governance. Concerning Islam, they are the same.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Are we more united than two years ago?
The topic of this blog is modern warfare. I generally try to avoid politics, particularly internal politics. This is quite impossible in that armed conflict concerning the United States will have a large political element. Even then, I do attempt to minimize political influence in my views. This is in itself a distortion, but one that I want to live with, in that I believe that politics and warfare do not mix very well.
The war is apparently becoming quieter. I say this because of a declining amount of overt combat involving U.S. troops has been taking place over the past 3 or 4 years. In the past 2 years, the disengagement of U.S. forces in Iraq and the complete withdrawal of combat units from Iraq. Even though forces are up in Afghanistan, overall combat is down. The rules of engagement limit offensive action to a fraction of what is required. The knowledge that the eventual draw down of forces in Afghanistan will take place next year will lead many people to the illusion that the war is either over, or that it is fading away and will disappear. What is scary is that the war is going to explode again, maybe even more significantly than 9/11. But what also concerns me is that the United States is politically more divided today than we were 2 years ago, before the administration of President Obama.
I believe that the Republican Party is much stronger and more united than 2 years ago. All the things that have occurred have actually united many Americans against President Obama’s agenda. The overruling of the American Public’s view against Health Care and passing it anyway is a signature event. However, at the same time, I believe that the United States is actually much more divided than we were two years ago. This is just my take on things, but I have noticed a much higher level of intensity concerning the news. I watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and FOX news. I read the Chicago Tribune, and other publications along with getting news from the Internet. More people seem to be yelling at each other. Listening to the other side seems to have become more of a problem. Political views appear to have hardened. Not so much that people are changing their position as much as they are not even interested in hearing what the other has to say. Maybe the election has something to do with this. In any case, it does seem like this election is continuing a pattern of increasingly hostile ads and hostile discourse. It can only reach a certain level before all communication is accusations and no listening to the other side other than how to turn it against the other. A point is reachable where the opposite party becomes more of an enemy threat than outside influences or organizations. Civil War becomes a distinct possibility. Or if the external threat is overt, military reverses can actually help one side and not the other.
Once again, this is my take. I believe that the leadership of the United States has not been listening to our people about important issues. The fact that Congress and the President ignored the U.S. public outcry about Health Care and passed it over their objections is one of the most visible. It certainly pissed me off. I have been angry about politics before, but I have never seen our government so unresponsive to the public’s views. It makes sense that this ignoring of others is now being seen within our population’s view of politics. America has freedom of speech. If this trend of ignoring the public continues, this freedom along with many others may very well be in jeopardy. After all, if no one is listening, why bother? Not to mention that it is only the next step to openly discourage or penalize opposing views.
I had thought that President Obama was elected because he will be able to unite the United States. He will bring others together including our foreign enemies and allies. However, President Obama is not a moderate. His actions point to an extreme view on many issues. I find it interesting that he defines the enemy as ‘extreme fundamentalist’. To me, this is exactly what he appears to be. This leads me to believe that he divides much more effectively than he unites. In fact, it looks more like he is better at uniting his enemies rather than his allies. This concerns me even more when I look at the international situation and the war.
The war is apparently becoming quieter. I say this because of a declining amount of overt combat involving U.S. troops has been taking place over the past 3 or 4 years. In the past 2 years, the disengagement of U.S. forces in Iraq and the complete withdrawal of combat units from Iraq. Even though forces are up in Afghanistan, overall combat is down. The rules of engagement limit offensive action to a fraction of what is required. The knowledge that the eventual draw down of forces in Afghanistan will take place next year will lead many people to the illusion that the war is either over, or that it is fading away and will disappear. What is scary is that the war is going to explode again, maybe even more significantly than 9/11. But what also concerns me is that the United States is politically more divided today than we were 2 years ago, before the administration of President Obama.
I believe that the Republican Party is much stronger and more united than 2 years ago. All the things that have occurred have actually united many Americans against President Obama’s agenda. The overruling of the American Public’s view against Health Care and passing it anyway is a signature event. However, at the same time, I believe that the United States is actually much more divided than we were two years ago. This is just my take on things, but I have noticed a much higher level of intensity concerning the news. I watch CNN, CNBC, MSNBC and FOX news. I read the Chicago Tribune, and other publications along with getting news from the Internet. More people seem to be yelling at each other. Listening to the other side seems to have become more of a problem. Political views appear to have hardened. Not so much that people are changing their position as much as they are not even interested in hearing what the other has to say. Maybe the election has something to do with this. In any case, it does seem like this election is continuing a pattern of increasingly hostile ads and hostile discourse. It can only reach a certain level before all communication is accusations and no listening to the other side other than how to turn it against the other. A point is reachable where the opposite party becomes more of an enemy threat than outside influences or organizations. Civil War becomes a distinct possibility. Or if the external threat is overt, military reverses can actually help one side and not the other.
Once again, this is my take. I believe that the leadership of the United States has not been listening to our people about important issues. The fact that Congress and the President ignored the U.S. public outcry about Health Care and passed it over their objections is one of the most visible. It certainly pissed me off. I have been angry about politics before, but I have never seen our government so unresponsive to the public’s views. It makes sense that this ignoring of others is now being seen within our population’s view of politics. America has freedom of speech. If this trend of ignoring the public continues, this freedom along with many others may very well be in jeopardy. After all, if no one is listening, why bother? Not to mention that it is only the next step to openly discourage or penalize opposing views.
I had thought that President Obama was elected because he will be able to unite the United States. He will bring others together including our foreign enemies and allies. However, President Obama is not a moderate. His actions point to an extreme view on many issues. I find it interesting that he defines the enemy as ‘extreme fundamentalist’. To me, this is exactly what he appears to be. This leads me to believe that he divides much more effectively than he unites. In fact, it looks more like he is better at uniting his enemies rather than his allies. This concerns me even more when I look at the international situation and the war.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 6
The house of war:
"In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war." (B.Lewis)
Not a great deal to comment on here. If tradition sees the non-Islamic world as being in ‘the house of war’, then few if any excuses are required to start a war against infidels. I would like to point out how this ‘tradition’ demonstrates Islamic attitudes about government and influences foreign policy.
At least part of the reason why Islam is so hostile is because so many of the ‘laws’ that dictate foreign policy follows this attitude. One example is when the Koran specifies when truces are to be made and when war can commence. Please note how truces are to be implemented, not peace. And truces are to be broken when the situation changes to where Islam will gain an advantage by opening hostilities. In other words, the non-Islamic world can be attacked for any reason whatsoever, because it is infidel. The non-Islamic world truly is the ‘house of war’ simply because war can be waged against it any time Islam has an advantage. This is foreign policy by a ‘religion’, for a ‘religion’ and because of ‘religion’.
Once again, execution of people, waging war and making treaties is the responsibility of governments. This is anther area where Imams obtain authority from the ‘Nation of Islam’. As mentioned in a prior post, the very fact that Imams have this authority is in direct conflict with the modern nation-state.
In general terms, wars are to be fought when Islam can win. And when Islam is at a disadvantage or losing, truces can and should be implemented. Please note how peace can only be accomplished when Islam is dominant and the area in question is within the ‘house of peace’ or under Islamic control. In other words, continuous warfare until no other places exist outside of the ‘house of ‘peace’. If this does not supply a full amount of excuses to start wars, I do not know what else will.
"In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war." (B.Lewis)
Not a great deal to comment on here. If tradition sees the non-Islamic world as being in ‘the house of war’, then few if any excuses are required to start a war against infidels. I would like to point out how this ‘tradition’ demonstrates Islamic attitudes about government and influences foreign policy.
At least part of the reason why Islam is so hostile is because so many of the ‘laws’ that dictate foreign policy follows this attitude. One example is when the Koran specifies when truces are to be made and when war can commence. Please note how truces are to be implemented, not peace. And truces are to be broken when the situation changes to where Islam will gain an advantage by opening hostilities. In other words, the non-Islamic world can be attacked for any reason whatsoever, because it is infidel. The non-Islamic world truly is the ‘house of war’ simply because war can be waged against it any time Islam has an advantage. This is foreign policy by a ‘religion’, for a ‘religion’ and because of ‘religion’.
Once again, execution of people, waging war and making treaties is the responsibility of governments. This is anther area where Imams obtain authority from the ‘Nation of Islam’. As mentioned in a prior post, the very fact that Imams have this authority is in direct conflict with the modern nation-state.
In general terms, wars are to be fought when Islam can win. And when Islam is at a disadvantage or losing, truces can and should be implemented. Please note how peace can only be accomplished when Islam is dominant and the area in question is within the ‘house of peace’ or under Islamic control. In other words, continuous warfare until no other places exist outside of the ‘house of ‘peace’. If this does not supply a full amount of excuses to start wars, I do not know what else will.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 5
Stoning people to death
I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this ‘law’. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to have a woman who was convicted of adultery stoned to death. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. (10% ‘other’) This ‘law’ is an important one because similar problems have been seen in other parts of the world where attempts to ignore this same punishment have triggered responses similar to what Nigeria witnessed. I guess if you can’t throw rocks at someone, then it is OK to throw rocks at something else. After all, that aggressive urge has to be fulfilled somehow.
The Koran specifies that the rocks must be small enough not to kill with one blow and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. This medieval concept must end. It is bad enough to still have laws that allow for people to be flogged, but this ‘law’ is about as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment as you can get. (Flogging should be dropped as well) Yet a great risk is run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. This is another demonstration of how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and dignity. The elimination of stoning and flogging is being fought with violence. This is a moral issue that is similar to that of getting rid of slavery. It is almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to organized violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This is another case of Islamic law being a cause of war.
I mention this as a cause of war because of the violent resistance that is being seen when attempting to get rid of this ‘law’. Riots occurred in Nigeria in 2006 because the court refused to have a woman who was convicted of adultery stoned to death. Nigeria is about 50% Muslim and 40% Christian. (10% ‘other’) This ‘law’ is an important one because similar problems have been seen in other parts of the world where attempts to ignore this same punishment have triggered responses similar to what Nigeria witnessed. I guess if you can’t throw rocks at someone, then it is OK to throw rocks at something else. After all, that aggressive urge has to be fulfilled somehow.
The Koran specifies that the rocks must be small enough not to kill with one blow and large enough to not qualify as pebbles. This medieval concept must end. It is bad enough to still have laws that allow for people to be flogged, but this ‘law’ is about as ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment as you can get. (Flogging should be dropped as well) Yet a great risk is run when attempting to get rid of it, or ignoring it. This is another demonstration of how Islam has yet to evolve with modern ideas of human thought and dignity. The elimination of stoning and flogging is being fought with violence. This is a moral issue that is similar to that of getting rid of slavery. It is almost impossible to stop violence without resorting to organized violence, particularly concerning issues like this. This is another case of Islamic law being a cause of war.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Islam causes wars: Reason number 4
Jihad
Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. "For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." (B. Lewis)
This is enough time for a basic concept to actually become culturally based. Cultural change is the most difficult and turbulent of all change. Thus it would be very, very difficult to reverse.
The Koran mentions Jihad in the context of ‘internal’ struggle in about 5% to 10% of the references concerning Jihad. The other 90% concern armed Jihad and warfare. No wonder Jihad was (And is by many) most commonly interpreted as armed struggle. In addition, the reward for Jihad is booty in this world and paradise in the next. Booty was generally how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. This did not occur until Islam had been established for more than 700 years. The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but the reward system in this world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars.
Imams wield the power of a modern government. Jihad is one tool that gives Islamic leaders the powers of a nation-state. Jihad helps provide many Imams the ability to field their own personal militias. Another way of looking at it: If priests were able to form and lead armed combat units, many governments would have to go to war against the Catholic Church. As they should.
The waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Naturally, wars are fought over issues like this one. The Islamist ‘terrorist’ organizations of today are in fact the Islamic ‘army’ in action. These very same organizations speak of jihad in the context of armed struggle. Many have declared war against the U.S. and Israel already. (Declaring war as if they are the leadership of a government) In fact, the ‘Nation of Islam’ is at war against ALL modern governments. Jihad is not the type of issue that negotiation can resolve. People will wage war to resist or resolve. Negotiation could not convince the South to give up slavery. It took open warfare to rid the United States of slavery. Nor will negotiation change the interpretation of jihad. Better healthcare and better economic opportunities are not going to change anyone’s mind on this issue. Economic opportunity will not revoke the authority that Imams have that enables them to field these ‘jihadist armies’, nor will it win the war against these organizations.
Many Muslims believe that Jihad is an internal struggle. This is supposedly the ‘greater Jihad’. However, historically this has not been the case. "For most of the fourteen hundred years of Muslim history, Jihad has been most commonly interpreted as ARMED struggle for the advancement or defense of Muslim power." (B. Lewis)
This is enough time for a basic concept to actually become culturally based. Cultural change is the most difficult and turbulent of all change. Thus it would be very, very difficult to reverse.
The Koran mentions Jihad in the context of ‘internal’ struggle in about 5% to 10% of the references concerning Jihad. The other 90% concern armed Jihad and warfare. No wonder Jihad was (And is by many) most commonly interpreted as armed struggle. In addition, the reward for Jihad is booty in this world and paradise in the next. Booty was generally how armies were paid until the rise of the nation-state and professional armies. This did not occur until Islam had been established for more than 700 years. The concept of booty as it was generally known is inappropriate with the concept of Jihad as an internal struggle. Jihad may have been intended to be an internal struggle, but the reward system in this world makes it a foreign policy. This can and has caused wars.
Imams wield the power of a modern government. Jihad is one tool that gives Islamic leaders the powers of a nation-state. Jihad helps provide many Imams the ability to field their own personal militias. Another way of looking at it: If priests were able to form and lead armed combat units, many governments would have to go to war against the Catholic Church. As they should.
The waging of war is the responsibility of governments, not ‘religion’. Naturally, wars are fought over issues like this one. The Islamist ‘terrorist’ organizations of today are in fact the Islamic ‘army’ in action. These very same organizations speak of jihad in the context of armed struggle. Many have declared war against the U.S. and Israel already. (Declaring war as if they are the leadership of a government) In fact, the ‘Nation of Islam’ is at war against ALL modern governments. Jihad is not the type of issue that negotiation can resolve. People will wage war to resist or resolve. Negotiation could not convince the South to give up slavery. It took open warfare to rid the United States of slavery. Nor will negotiation change the interpretation of jihad. Better healthcare and better economic opportunities are not going to change anyone’s mind on this issue. Economic opportunity will not revoke the authority that Imams have that enables them to field these ‘jihadist armies’, nor will it win the war against these organizations.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 3
The penalty for leaving Islam is death.
This ‘Law’ has been enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that the authority to execute people is supposed to be used only by a national government. Two ways that governments kill people: They execute their own citizens, or the government declares war and the professional army kills the enemy. Islam as a religion must not be allowed to retain this ability to terminate people’s lives. Islam implements the killing of others through the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws, not to mention government control of the armed forces. Even when governments enact this penalty for leaving Islam within the legal system, this reinforces the idea that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back to anything else. This can be (And frequently is) applied to ‘waters’ and ‘occupation’ of land as well.
This concept goes well past national boundaries. As a result, this is an international issue that modern nations have and should go to war over. In addition, this law is a major structural problem for Islam.
The penalty for leaving Islam is death is one of the primary factors in the reasons why Sunni and Shiite have not been able to resolve their differences since 690 AD. (Islam was founded in 610 AD) Because the two sides differ in the line of succession of the leadership of Islam, (A major, fundamental difference) each side sees the other as having left Islam. In many of the cases where we hear of ‘sectarian’ violence, this is a major, basic cause. A number of other differences exist in the interpretation of the Koran. (It is human nature for people to differ) When any group interprets the law in any way significantly that is different from others, they see the other side as having left Islam. Either they must change their views, or else be executed. Naturally, the other side sees it the other way round.
Very few disagreements exists with the interpretation of ‘The penalty for leaving Islam is death.’ This cannot do anything but assist violent behavior. Historically, when ‘outsiders’ or infidels are involved, Sunni and Shiite will band together to defeat the common enemy before attempting to deal with the other, which is more of an internal problem.
Execution of people is the sole responsibility of a modern national government, not a ‘religion’. Once again, Islam is in direct conflict with modern governance. Imams wield the power of governments when they can implement this penalty, along with numerous other penalties that Islamic law requires. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues. It is about the only way to resolve them. Submission is the other. No wonder it results in violence, on both sides.
This ‘Law’ has been enforced for 1400 years. Part of the problem here is that the authority to execute people is supposed to be used only by a national government. Two ways that governments kill people: They execute their own citizens, or the government declares war and the professional army kills the enemy. Islam as a religion must not be allowed to retain this ability to terminate people’s lives. Islam implements the killing of others through the authority that Imams exercise. They can field their own militias. This is in conflict with the idea of governmental enforcement of the laws, not to mention government control of the armed forces. Even when governments enact this penalty for leaving Islam within the legal system, this reinforces the idea that once something is Muslim, it cannot revert back to anything else. This can be (And frequently is) applied to ‘waters’ and ‘occupation’ of land as well.
This concept goes well past national boundaries. As a result, this is an international issue that modern nations have and should go to war over. In addition, this law is a major structural problem for Islam.
The penalty for leaving Islam is death is one of the primary factors in the reasons why Sunni and Shiite have not been able to resolve their differences since 690 AD. (Islam was founded in 610 AD) Because the two sides differ in the line of succession of the leadership of Islam, (A major, fundamental difference) each side sees the other as having left Islam. In many of the cases where we hear of ‘sectarian’ violence, this is a major, basic cause. A number of other differences exist in the interpretation of the Koran. (It is human nature for people to differ) When any group interprets the law in any way significantly that is different from others, they see the other side as having left Islam. Either they must change their views, or else be executed. Naturally, the other side sees it the other way round.
Very few disagreements exists with the interpretation of ‘The penalty for leaving Islam is death.’ This cannot do anything but assist violent behavior. Historically, when ‘outsiders’ or infidels are involved, Sunni and Shiite will band together to defeat the common enemy before attempting to deal with the other, which is more of an internal problem.
Execution of people is the sole responsibility of a modern national government, not a ‘religion’. Once again, Islam is in direct conflict with modern governance. Imams wield the power of governments when they can implement this penalty, along with numerous other penalties that Islamic law requires. People and nations will fight violently to resolve these types of issues. It is about the only way to resolve them. Submission is the other. No wonder it results in violence, on both sides.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Islam causes war: Reason number 2
Tribute or ‘poll tax’ is the payments that non-Muslims make to Islamic authorities. Payment of this ‘tax’ exempts the payer from military service.
Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. This issue is another where Islam is in conflict with the modern nation-state. Islam was designed as a system of governance long before the modern nation-state had evolved. Even if the laws of that government allow for this, it is a fact that the origin of this ‘law’ is the Koran. This is another example of nationalism taking a back seat to the ‘Nation of Islam’.
I place this issue at #2 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars because this issue HAS triggered a war between the United States and Islam in the past. In 1804, a number of U.S. ships (Including a warship) were seized in the Mediterranean because the U.S. government refused to continue to pay ‘Tribute’. The battle cry in the US was "Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!" What was this all about?
For us, the issue was freedom of the seas. For the Muslim pirates, the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were ‘Muslim lands’. Most, if not all of the land that touched the Mediterranean were either controlled by Islamic authorities or else had been in the past. This made the Mediterranean an Inland Sea controlled by Islam, or Muslim ‘waters’. It was a stretch to charge Tribute for ships passing through these waters because the Koran speaks of land, not waters. Nor does the Koran speak of ‘passing through’. However, the nationalistic nature of Islam encourages this belief. After all, Tribute is a combination of two functions of government. This is one of the places where Islamic governance authority is in conflict with the authority of the nation-state. As a result, this issue has been a basic cause of war in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
Taxation and conscription are two functions of the modern national government. This issue is another where Islam is in conflict with the modern nation-state. Islam was designed as a system of governance long before the modern nation-state had evolved. Even if the laws of that government allow for this, it is a fact that the origin of this ‘law’ is the Koran. This is another example of nationalism taking a back seat to the ‘Nation of Islam’.
I place this issue at #2 in my list of reasons that Islam causes wars because this issue HAS triggered a war between the United States and Islam in the past. In 1804, a number of U.S. ships (Including a warship) were seized in the Mediterranean because the U.S. government refused to continue to pay ‘Tribute’. The battle cry in the US was "Millions for defense, not a penny for Tribute!" What was this all about?
For us, the issue was freedom of the seas. For the Muslim pirates, the lands surrounding the Mediterranean were ‘Muslim lands’. Most, if not all of the land that touched the Mediterranean were either controlled by Islamic authorities or else had been in the past. This made the Mediterranean an Inland Sea controlled by Islam, or Muslim ‘waters’. It was a stretch to charge Tribute for ships passing through these waters because the Koran speaks of land, not waters. Nor does the Koran speak of ‘passing through’. However, the nationalistic nature of Islam encourages this belief. After all, Tribute is a combination of two functions of government. This is one of the places where Islamic governance authority is in conflict with the authority of the nation-state. As a result, this issue has been a basic cause of war in the past and will continue to be so in the future.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Islam causes wars. Reason # 1
Kill the ‘occupiers’ of Muslim land.
This will cause a war EVERY time. An example: The Catholic Church owns the land that a church in Chicago has been built on. If any group of armed people took it over; Catholics from Illinois, Mississippi, Brazil or Canada do NOT go in, form combat groups, negotiate with foreign governments for arms and supplies and then move in to take them out. The U.S. government sends in the army, or National Guard or SWAT team or whatever. Islam has a long history of this type of action. As has been seen so often today, Islam still retains a sizable number of followers who believe that Islam overrides the modern national government. If the means for open warfare is not available, irregular warfare is the natural result. It is only the next step to become what we consider to be a ‘terrorist’.
A religion like Islam does not have ‘land’ or ‘waters’ to defend. The following statement was declared by Imams that met in Istanbul in March 2008 is a classic example: "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.")
Please note the use of the terms "Islamic Nation" and "Muslim waters" and "Sovereignty of the nation". Governments declare war against other governments. The concept of Islam as a national entity is common throughout the Islamic world and contribute greatly to the warfare that is common where Islam is in contact with the nation-states of the world. As can be seen, this concept is one of the basic causes of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. All of Israel is sitting on ‘occupied’ land. Two additional parts of this issue I would like to point out.
1) Once land becomes Islamic controlled, it can never revert back to anything else because it is considered to be ‘occupied’.
2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population because all of the land that the United States sits on is actually ‘occupied’.
The Islamic law "Kill the occupiers of Muslim land" is only the first of the major issues present with Islam that causes open warfare.
This will cause a war EVERY time. An example: The Catholic Church owns the land that a church in Chicago has been built on. If any group of armed people took it over; Catholics from Illinois, Mississippi, Brazil or Canada do NOT go in, form combat groups, negotiate with foreign governments for arms and supplies and then move in to take them out. The U.S. government sends in the army, or National Guard or SWAT team or whatever. Islam has a long history of this type of action. As has been seen so often today, Islam still retains a sizable number of followers who believe that Islam overrides the modern national government. If the means for open warfare is not available, irregular warfare is the natural result. It is only the next step to become what we consider to be a ‘terrorist’.
A religion like Islam does not have ‘land’ or ‘waters’ to defend. The following statement was declared by Imams that met in Istanbul in March 2008 is a classic example: "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.")
Please note the use of the terms "Islamic Nation" and "Muslim waters" and "Sovereignty of the nation". Governments declare war against other governments. The concept of Islam as a national entity is common throughout the Islamic world and contribute greatly to the warfare that is common where Islam is in contact with the nation-states of the world. As can be seen, this concept is one of the basic causes of the continuing Arab-Israeli conflict. All of Israel is sitting on ‘occupied’ land. Two additional parts of this issue I would like to point out.
1) Once land becomes Islamic controlled, it can never revert back to anything else because it is considered to be ‘occupied’.
2) This would be comparable to Native Americans launching attacks upon the rest of the population because all of the land that the United States sits on is actually ‘occupied’.
The Islamic law "Kill the occupiers of Muslim land" is only the first of the major issues present with Islam that causes open warfare.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
They will back the stronger horse
Remember what Osama said? And if a mosque is built near ground zero, I just can’t see Muslims as seeing this powerful symbol as a defeat of Islam. I see quite the contrary. This can only be a major setback for the U.S. and indeed, the entire western civilization.
Islam will be seen by many as being the much stronger horse. Many Muslims see the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as having been defeated, simply by the U.S. leaving. On top of this, building the mosque near the site of the attack that sparked the invasions can easily be interpreted as a victory for the "Nation of Islam". After all, in a nationalistic view of Islam, the mosque will be an embassy. And built upon or near the site of Islam’s greatest modern victory? A monument, celebrating Islamic supremacy. I can see how many ‘moderate’ Muslims world-wide will interpret Islam as being the ‘stronger horse’.
Islam will be seen by many as being the much stronger horse. Many Muslims see the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan as having been defeated, simply by the U.S. leaving. On top of this, building the mosque near the site of the attack that sparked the invasions can easily be interpreted as a victory for the "Nation of Islam". After all, in a nationalistic view of Islam, the mosque will be an embassy. And built upon or near the site of Islam’s greatest modern victory? A monument, celebrating Islamic supremacy. I can see how many ‘moderate’ Muslims world-wide will interpret Islam as being the ‘stronger horse’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
