Forget Defense of Islam—America Must Be Wise in War, or Court Ruin

Kelly OConnell * Canada Free Press 

Americans are always on the verge of leaping to the defense of less fortunate souls—much to our credit. But how do we decide when pondering violent defense of others that it is genuinely in our best interest?

In fact, perhaps since the Vietnam War, the US has entered into the frays of other countries and paid the largest price, while enduring pillorying in the international press. There is a cost to trying to combine being the only superpower and the good guy. We do well to recall Solomon’s sage advice—

“Do not be excessively righteous, and do not be overly wise. Why should you ruin yourself?”—Ecclesiastes 7:16

In fact, America’s only real duty in the world is to make the wisest decisions to benefit ourselves. Why? Because, what good can we do for the rest of the world if we destroy ourselves in a cycle of superficially good but stupid decisions? After Iraq, it is simply no longer acceptable to pay the ultimate price on missions which are not clear, or where we have no obvious duty to the residents. Specifically—why involve ourselves in Middle Eastern intrigues when both sides are at fault and no outcome clearly benefits the US?

As to the gassing of Syrian residents, as unfortunate as this might be—who are the moral superiors who need to be saved? Contra, if the States are just going to strategically bomb other people halfway around the globe, to teach them a lesson—is that really the role of America? If the law of unintended consequences has shown us anything, especially via the recent civil wars of Libya and Egypt—we ought to be extremely wary of joining into the military efforts of any Muslim nation for any reason.

In brief, let us examine the beliefs of the Muslim rebels whom we are coming to the aid of. Do we really need to aid those who fundamentally oppose us as if we have no other option?

1. Muslim View of State

Islam has no modern view of the state. Instead, it separates the world out in an impossibly black and white, Manichean vision of Muslim, versus non-Muslim. This is Dar al-Islam (House of Peace) versus Dar al-Harb (House of War). Non Muslims are either Harbis—People of the Book—being Jews or Christians, who must sign a treaty of non-aggression and pay a tax. Or they are “pagans” who should be immediately liquidated.

But the Islamic state itself is a monolith which cannot be resisted. One of the most important Muslim modern legal minds authored a highly influential book on the state and law. Sayyid Abul A’la Maududi, wrote in The Islamic Law and Constitution,

In other words, the order of the State, be it palatable or unpalatable, easy or arduous, shall have to be obeyed under all circumstances. [save when this means disobedience to God]…A person should, truly and faithfully and with all his heart, wish and work for the good, prosperity, and the betterment of the State, and should not tolerate anything likely to harm its interests…It is also obligatory on the citizens of the Islamic State to cooperate wholeheartedly with the government and to make sacrifices of life and property for it, so much so that if any danger threatens the State, he who willfully refrains from making a sacrifice of his life and property to ward off that danger has been called a hypocrite in the Quran.

continue article at Canada Free Press:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/57600