Are we At War with Islam? Check Your Premises!

[Phil Coates 0]

Subject: Are we At War with Islam? Check Your Premises!

Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11 have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas.

The implementations they have advocated vary from one instance: prevent a mosque from being built near ground zero to many instances: bomb madrassas, hunt down and kill clerics overseas (or nuke a major enemy city, killing the ringleaders along with millions of civilians).

Their argument would not be possible without a single crucial proposition, whether explicitly stated or implied: "We are at war with Islam."

This is a misleading statement. There are two words in this proposition which should be examined. And they are not "at" and "with".

First, "Islam". If one has read a book on the Middle East and Islam, one quickly learns that there is a difference between the religion and a tiny minority of its most extreme adherents, the Islamists or Islamofascists. The Islamofascists want to impose theocracy, to declare jihad and fatwas, to murder their opponents both in their home countries and in the West. And with the terrorists among them and some of the Wahhabi sect in particular, we have clearly seen - even before 9-11 - that they mean it.

Islamofascism or "Islamism" is strongest in the Middle East from the Arab world through Iran and into Afghanistan and Pakistan. And in a number of expatriate communities. But Islamofasism is not identical to Islam, nor do more than a tiny minority of muslims subscribe to it. Never in history have one billion people been of a single mind about anything.

Nor have they been willing to follow a single intellectual path, even when clothed in the respected garb of the church.

Even in Iran, the overwhelming majority of its population hates and resents theocracy, especially now that they live under one and have direct experience of what it does to their lives. After 9-11, the country in which there was the greatest number of citizens who expressed sympathy for the United States, who left massive flowers on the steps of the U.S. Embassy was: Iran.

And Al Qaeda and Bin Laden and their allies have been steadily losing support as they have murdered innocent people in their own countries, as thugs and murderers have terrorized those who violate religious strictures and as it has become clear what 'sharia' means. MOreover, elsewhere in the Middle East (with the possible exceptions of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) from Morocco in the West to Turkey in the East plus Iraq and Indonesia - the largest muslim country in the world, the forces of secularism and modernization are very much at war with, and disgusted by, the bands of would-be religious totalitarians.

So those who seek to use force against us, to use terror or weapons of mass destruction are not represented by the word 'Islam', but by Islamic terrorists, by Al Qaeda and like groups, by Islamic fascists.

So the doctrine 'we are at war with Islam' is false if you mean a war involving physical attacks.

Second, this brings us to the concept of "war". To say that we are at war with Islam and thus, as in any war, we must use force against their supporting institutions is to equivocate on two meanings of the word "war". Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses and either implicitly or explicitly switching between them in some unacknowledged way within one argument. Say to someone with a Christian or anti-Islamic or secular view that we are "at war" with Islam and they will often nod their heads, yes, it's an implacable religion which wants its doctrines and theology to expand and conquer. But that is *a war of ideas* as it is against socialism or other ideas advocating expanding the power of governments at the expense of individual rights.

The use of the word war is to equivocate, to blur and eradicate the vital philosophical distinction between two very different kinds: between a war of ideas, persuasion, and role models on the one hand --- and a war of bullets and bombs and coercion on the other.

A war of ideas is not (except for the extreme group mentioned in the previous paragraph) a war in which the enemy religion and its billions of adherents is trying to use force, to develop and employ weapons of mass destruction - as opposed to ideas against the unbelievers. Persuasion is its dominant mode of advance. Whether or not there are suras and passages in the Koran which advocate such force, here is the key principle: The billions of muslims are not enlisted and are not participating in any way in jihad. They are not (except for a handful) trying to fund or hide those who have declared jihad. Most of their jihads and conflicts and strongest resentments are local and internal: Sunnis and Shiites. Pashtuns against other groups. The oppressiveness of their own government. Groups such as the powerful and corrupt vs. the poor or downtrodden.

And it is surprising and dismaying to observe some of those who claim to be against the initiation of force and who believe it is the single greatest political evil and who believe that, only in the absence of force can new ideas, the best ideas advance, and can man advance out of barbarism and into civilization. It is surprising and dismaying to see such people arguing that coercion and force, not persuasion and ideas and reasons and positive values and the hope for the future, should be used against a religion or its advocates and leadership as such.

To kill someone or blow up their church convinces no one and permanently intimidates no observer or neighbor or relative.

Rather the opposite.

Added to this there is a lesson from history which further undercuts the idea that one billion muslims today are an implacably hostile military enemy (or filled to the rooftops with nascent terrorists itching to be unleashed).

There are indeed statements in the Koran which advocate holy war and advocate the fusion of church and state. And in many ways the religion as currently practiced is more hostile to civil society, and peace, and rights than is the Christian or Buddhist or Confucian world. But those muslim scriptures existed and were studied and learned across the Islamic world during the Middle Ages. And yet, the muslim world was the peaceful world, the civilized world, the world which had great respect for the Greeks and reason and science and which revered, respected, and preserved the works of Aristotle and of science and enlightenment for those very reasons. If the muslim religion as such were the implacable problem, what about it made it more so than the Christian world of the time: The Christian world was the world of barbarism and force and an intellectual, moral, economic, epistemological dark ages. The Islamic world was the world of order, rule of law, trade, science, reason.

So, it's possible to accept the religion of Islam and not be trying to exterminate the West or progress or reason or civilization. It's possible to be a practicing muslim and not be an enemy of modernity. Just like as it is possible for those who adhere to -- in full or in part, in terms of deep understanding and commitment or in terms of 'lip service' -- any other religion.

[RayK 0]

Phil, the items in your essay have been discussed in another thread. If you choose to read that other thread you will find that I disagree with your premise and the reasons why. At this point I do not intend to go through the same process that was carried on for more than a dozen pages, but I will offer a few thoughts. I do not know the level of your knowledge on war, So I will offer that you might want to get a proper undestanding of what war is from some great minds such as Carl von Clausewitz. Wars are fought over moral ideas which the killing of one's enemy is just part of the strategy and tactics that cause one's enemy to surrender their moral code. Do Americans have to take up arms to be at war with someone? No, and as long as diplomacy is accepted on both sides and intellectual war may be all that goes on between the opposing grous. But when some group decides to discard diplomacy and take actions against another group then the intellectual war ends and the physical war begins. So, yes we are at war with Islam/Muslims as it is their accepted moral code that guides them in their choices.

[Paul's Here 0]

I would like to see where anyone has stated "we are at war with Islam" in any literal sense or meaning. Can you please cite a source for that, Phil? Also, when saying that Objectivists have said something, I must insist on quotes and citations. All too often our enemies say things that are not true or out of context. We should not be doing this to ourselves. I am willing to argue about what I say or what you say, but it is not practical to start arguing about what others have supposedly said.

As Ray has pointed out, this subject has been discussed at length on an other thread, so I'm not going to present the same issues here. You may go to that thread to discuss issues.

[Phil Coates 0]

> Phil, the items in your essay have been discussed in another thread. [RayK]

Ray, in my view this topic required a whole essay to deal with a lot of issues, not a post on a thread about the mosque. The title of that other thread indicates it's about Peikoff and his view about the mosque. It's not possible to discuss a whole range of issues relating to the war on terror and proper principles in a thread only about that one concrete.

The reason for my writing an entire essay is that I want to broaden the discussion in at least three ways: i) to be about the wider issue of whether we are in a military war with Islam or a war of ideas, ii) about other examples than the mosque which I view as transitory and relatively small compared to the wider issue of how to deal with civilians, iii) to not limit it to Peikoff's views but to those of conservatives, libertarians, and other Objectivists across many years. Within Objectivism, if memory serves, Craig Biddle, Amy Peikoff, Ed Cline and others have taken positions indicating the idea that we are at war with Islam or some formulation very close to that.

It's not just about the mosque that I am writing. That's why I said this: "The implementations vary from one concrete: prevent a mosque from being built near ground zero to very broad: bomb madrassas, kill clerics overseas or nuke a major enemy city."

> Do Americans have to take up arms to be at war with someone?

That's why I discussed in some depth the two meanings of being at war - a war of ideas and a war using force. And where each is appropriate or both. And how that applies in the current situation with regard to Islam.

> I would like to see where anyone has stated "we are at war with Islam" in any literal sense or meaning. Can you please cite a source for that, Phil? [Paul's Here]

Paul, I'm surprised you haven't read of this. I said "Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas." And then I discussed the specific phrase 'at war with Islam'. If you google that phrase in quotes you will get thousands of results.

Examples:

1. " So, yes we are at war with Islam/Muslims" -- RayK in the post just before yours.

2. "As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — Islam — that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them." -- Amy Peikoff -- http://dontletitgo.com/2010/06/30/mosque/

3. " Islam has been at war with the West, with Christianity, with Judaism – indeed, with the entire non-Muslim world – ever since the days of Muhammad..." -- Joseph Farah -- http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28074

4. http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/...with-islam.html -- "America is at war with the religion of Islam. The key word here is religion."

,,,,,,,

By the way, I am -very far- from being a dove in the war on terrorism. (In fact, I originated a principle decades ago in response to Murray Rothbard called the 'hostage principle' to explain how and when we can and must take actions which result in collateral damage which includes innocent civilians.) But how and where we should use force would be the subject of another whole essay. Again, not a short post.

[RayK 0]

Phil, if you take a more indepth look into the thread that Paul linked to you might notice that the discussion goes much further than what you mention. As a matter of fact, I have not read Ed Cline's editorial nor listened to Leonard Peikoff's podcast, my statements are backed by my right to life and the right to defend that life. But, I have already written about most of what you have mentioned, if not all of it, and re-recommend that you read the thread.

Wars are started over opposing moral codes and through an act of violence where one group attempts to compel the opposition to fulfil their will. From my perspective our enemies do intend to implement their moral code or kill us. And what our enemies did at the WTC on 9/11 was not from just a few fanatics, but a large majority of those that have chosen to follow the moral code of Islam.

And, please fill me in on what military branch you were in and what writings on war you have studied as I look forward to hearing about them.

[Paul's Here 0]

--------------

> I would like to see where anyone has stated "we are at war with Islam" in any literal sense or meaning. Can you please cite a source for that, Phil? [Paul's Here]

Paul, I'm surprised you haven't read of this. I said "Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas." And then I discussed the specific phrase 'at war with Islam'. If you google that phrase in quotes you will get thousands of results.

Examples:

1. " So, yes we are at war with Islam/Muslims" -- RayK in the post just before yours.

2. "As I understand it, we are at war with those who are animated by an ideology — Islam — that declares war on us (the nonbelievers) and our way of life. Because they have declared war on us, we are at war with them." -- Amy Peikoff -- http://dontletitgo.com/2010/06/30/mosque/

3. " Islam has been at war with the West, with Christianity, with Judaism – indeed, with the entire non-Muslim world – ever since the days of Muhammad..." -- Joseph Farah -- http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28074

4. http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/...with-islam.html -- "America is at war with the religion of Islam. The key word here is religion."

------------

Not being familiar with the statements of anyone other than Ray's, I appreciate the citation. But it is not clear in what sense "war" is being used that you disagree with. A war of ideas is not the same thing as a war between men or nations. But it is not equivocation to use the word in either sense, as long as the two meanings are not switched. There can be little doubt that those terrorists who use Islam to support their views are at war with us, both ideologically and phyiscally. And there is little doubt that there is a war of ideas among all the religions as well as between reason and faith. So what is it that you are claiming? That there is no war going on? Do you doubt that Islamists are killing people in the name of their religion?

That there are many in Iran who oppose theocracy has little affect on their lives as they, in fact, live under a theocracy. What the majority wants or desires is irrelevant to the point under discussion. As history has shown, the silent majority is irrelevant to ideas or the truth of ideas. I have never argued that all Muslims should be restricted in any way, which is why you'd be wise to read the thread I linked to. It expanded into things much wider than the title suggests. The sole issue is the restriction on those who initiate force. And it is readily apparent from the many citations given in the mentioned thread that the supporters of the Muslim building in NYC have the support of those types of people. If there are so many peace-loving Muslims around the world, where is their voice in opposing this alleged small minority of terrorists? Well, you might say, most Islamic countries are dictatorships. OK, so where is their voice in this country? One cannot blame fear or political suppression for their silence. Only moral acquiescence explains it.

What exactly does "a tiny minority of its most extreme adherents" mean? 0.1%? Well, out of 1 billion Muslims that comes to 1,000,000 Islamists who are "at war" with us and seeking to destroy us. How many Nazis and Shintoists did it take to create WWII? A lot less, I think.

[Paul's Here 0]

----------------

There are indeed statements in the Koran which advocate holy war and advocate the fusion of church and state. And in many ways the religion as currently practiced is more hostile to civil society, and peace, and rights than is the Christian or Buddhist or Confucian world. But those muslim scriptures existed and were studied and learned across the Islamic world during the Middle Ages. And yet, the muslim world was the peaceful world, the civilized world, the world which had great respect for the Greeks and reason and science and which revered, respected, and preserved the works of Aristotle and of science and enlightenment for those very reasons. If the muslim religion as such were the implacable problem, what about it made it more so than the Christian world of the time: The Christian world was the world of barbarism and force and an intellectual, moral, economic, epistemological dark ages. The Islamic world was the world of order, rule of law, trade, science, reason.

I'm not a historian, but I challenge this interpretation. But that's for others to debate, not I.

So, it's possible to accept the religion of Islam and not be trying to exterminate the West or progress or reason or civilization. It's possible to be a practicing muslim and not be an enemy of modernity. Just like as it is possible for those who adhere to -- in full or in part, in terms of deep understanding and commitment or in terms of 'lip service' -- any other religion.

Of course it's possible, but so what? It's possible to accept Nazism or communism but one does not go around killing professors who advocate such ideas. But so what? Does any of that mean that Nazism was not at war with us?

[Paul's Here 0]

Take a look at these pictures, and tell me who is at war with whom. And a small minority could effect this change, so we shouldn't be afraid for our lives?!

[Phil Coates 0]

> There can be little doubt that those terrorists who use Islam to support their views are at war with us, both ideologically and phyiscally. And there is little doubt that there is a war of ideas among all the religions as well as between reason and faith.

Paul I agree with almost all of what you said in your recent posts. And with the deadly danger posed by the terrorists. And that our current policy is weak and appeasing and that we need to crush them. And that we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

But you seem to be arguing against someone who disagrees with that or with one (or both) of your above sentences. Or who does not want to pursue the war on terrorism vigorously, even if there is collateral damage.

That's not me.

What I'm opposing is not the idea that there may be "collateral damage": that civilians can legitimately be killed in war What I'm opposing is the idea that:

(1) we should be dropping nuclear weapons on an entire city (like Tehran). Or:

(2) bombing mosques and madrassas and Islamic religious institutions -as such- in this war. (Obviously if one of them is aiding and abetting the terrorists - physically, as opposed to simply preaching their religion - that would be different. And we should arrest or kill those who directly aid and abet the initiation of force, just as police should in a criminal situation.)

,,,,,,,,

(Aside: I'm surprised I have to repeat this and as a general rule, I don't continue in debates where my positions are confused or misinterpreted. As I reiterated once already toward the end of post #4, my original post was quite clear on what I was opposing:

"Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11 have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas. The implementations they have advocated vary from one instance: prevent a mosque from being built near ground zero to many instances: bomb madrassas, hunt down and kill clerics overseas (or nuke a major enemy city, killing the ringleaders along with millions of civilians)."

[Paul's Here 0]

> There can be little doubt that those terrorists who use Islam to support their views are at war with us, both ideologically and phyiscally. And there is little doubt that there is a war of ideas among all the religions as well as between reason and faith.

Paul I agree with almost all of what you said in your recent posts. And with the deadly danger posed by the terrorists. And that our current policy is weak and appeasing and that we need to crush them. And that we need to do whatever is necessary to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

But you seem to be arguing against someone who disagrees with that or with one (or both) of your above sentences. Or who does not want to pursue the war on terrorism vigorously, even if there is collateral damage.

That's not me.

Then there no disagreement on that point, but I'm not sure what you are applying your principles to. Weren't we addressing the issue of those who are inside this country and are taking actions to get an Islamic foothold in this country? Your first question was "are we at war with Islam?" Islam is certainly at war with us. If we are not at war with them, why not?

What I'm opposing is not the idea that there may be "collateral damage": that civilians can legitimately be killed in war What I'm opposing is the idea that:

(1) we should be dropping nuclear weapons on an entire city (like Tehran). Or:

(2) bombing mosques and madrassas and Islamic religious institutions -as such- in this war. (Obviously if one of them is aiding and abetting the terrorists - physically, as opposed to simply preaching their religion - that would be different. And we should arrest or kill those who directly aid and abet the initiation of force, just as police should in a criminal situation.)

I was not arguing those points. Nor would I. Such tactical decisions are militarily determined based upon an actual physical war going on. My only point would be that the military should do whatever it takes to save American lives and bring an end to the war as quickly as possible. If a military decision was made that those actions were necessary to achieve those goals, I would certainly support it. What I do oppose, on philosophic grounds, it the removal of these options from the military table, as Obama has done.

,,,,,,,,

(Aside: I'm surprised I have to repeat this and as a general rule, I don't continue in debates where my positions are confused or misinterpreted. As I reiterated once already toward the end of post #4, my original post was quite clear on what I was opposing:

"Some conservatives, Objectivists, and 'right-wing' libertarians in the years since 9-11 have taken the position that we should use force against muslim institutions and civilians such as clerics and mosques and madrassas. The implementations they have advocated vary from one instance: prevent a mosque from being built near ground zero to many instances: bomb madrassas, hunt down and kill clerics overseas (or nuke a major enemy city, killing the ringleaders along with millions of civilians)."

I'm not sure how one can bring an issue argued in on forum into another forum where those arguing the point are not present. Without the specific Objectivists present, I don't see how we can argue for or against someone else's point.

All that Ray and I have said is to go to the thread where we have been arguing about specific ideas brought up by others who are there to answer our ideas. There were over 13 pages of posts which I think address the points you bring up here. So, I'll leave it to others to address you here if they want.

[rtg24 0]

The British Intelligence services estimate there are currently 11,000 Islamic terrorists dormant on British territory - i.e., 11,000 people who are not only ready to take orders, but at a sufficient level of indoctrination to act on them.

They are not incompetent, either - they stopped the next 9/11, as you may recall, so their guess is probably fairly accurate, or at least its order of magnitude.

That is for your "minority".

As for the philosophy, I've made my views clear elsewhere. Islam is no "religion" in the way Buddhism, Lutheran Christianism or Judaism are, in that its business model relies almost solely on obtaining from others by force instead of producing, and that it is a total life system.

Bombing Tehran would probably be quite useless. But without nuclear weapons, I do not think we currently own ordnance sufficiently powerful to destroy Iranian nuclear installations (hidden under large pans of rock). I do, however, think that the US' main weakness in an upcoming Iranian conflict is the terrible state of its intelligence services in the Middle-East. We are far from the Soviets who "grew" people straight into the core of our best institutions (MI6, the CIA, etc.) and had links in the most fascinating of places. Many US staff placed in the Middle-East don't even speak Arabic!

[Phil Coates 0]

> I do, however, think that the US' main weakness in an upcoming Iranian conflict is the terrible state of its intelligence services in the Middle-East. We are far from the Soviets who "grew" people straight into the core of our best institutions (MI6, the CIA, etc.) and had links in the most fascinating of places. Many US staff placed in the Middle-East don't even speak Arabic!

Or Farsi. Excellent points. As far as what weapons we use on their buried nuclear facilities, I have no opinion. Use what is necessary. Or land troops there and go down into the tunnels. Or stand back and let the Israelis help.

But time is wasting. We can't be sure when they will be a nuclear state and we MUST prevent that. That is even more vital to American and allied security than whether we win or lose the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

You have to prioritize and that should be the number one aim of American foreign policy. Otherwise those nukes will be used if not a year then ten years from now. Or they will use them to control the oil flows.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

You have to prioritize and that should be the number one aim of American foreign policy. Otherwise those nukes will be used if not a year then ten years from now. Or they will use them to control the oil flows.

Don't tell us. Tell Obama and the State Department. They think we can live with a nuclear Iran.

[Jim A. 0]

All I can say is what others have probably said on this forum: that the United States will lose this "War on Terrorism" unless the West checks and changes its axioms and other basic ideas. It must re-train itself to understand that existence is "out there", not in the mind, that reason is the only means to knowledge, that a human being is an end in him- or herself and not the means to the ends of others, that the proper social system is the one that is based solely on the rights of the individual, etc. In other words, the West must become fundamentally reality, reason and rational-self-interest oriented. Period. The alternative leaves us grovelling and vulnerable, if not dead.

(Incidentally, regarding Iran, when I was stationed at the submarine base in Groton, Connecticut, in 1979, there were Iranians being trained at the base. When the Shah was overthrown, all those Iranians were immediately sent back to Iran. I wonder how many, if any, nuclear and technological secrets that might still be part of our Navy materiell today they might have taken with them.)

[Jim A. 0]

I forgot to emphasize that if we share the same axioms as the enemy, we are guaranteed to lose this so-called "War on Terrorism" (I put that in quotes because that phrase is not clearly defined), or any true war. The real "War on Terrorism", as I see it, is not between Christianity and Islam, or even the West and Islam, but between those who uphold the primacy of existence and those who uphold the primacy of consciousness. And as far as this war is concerned, I believe we are approaching, in the next few years or at most, the next few decades, the "tipping point" in human history.

(Charlton Heston once said that we are in a war of the "principled versus the un-principled". In a fundamental sense, I think he's right.)

[rtg24 0]

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pimp-your-mos...singlepage=true

Our sisters who are virgins will receive a bonus of 100,000 Tomans ($100 US) for the removal of their hymen.

Barbarians.