« Pretending at Courage | Main | "I Think You Guys Have Blown It" »

February 11, 2006

What if the Enemy Really Is Islam?

I think that it is fair to say that, however one defines the enemy in the long war, it is not "all Muslims". Certainly, I've known many good and decent Muslims. And the cases of liberal Muslims (of which there are quite few, though they often end up leaving Islam, as Ayaan Hirsi Ali has done) certainly would tend to argue against identifying those people as enemies. For that matter, most truly moderate Muslims (including many that I've worked with or for or who have worked for me) — and by that I don't mean Islamists who haven't quite gone from incitement to violence into actual violence, or from rioting over cartoons to terrorism — can't be called enemies in any meaningful sense. Even if all Muslims were the enemy, for that matter, can anyone with any moral center advocate the necessary consequence, the killing or subjugation of 1.2 billion people?

But what if the enemy is Islam, the religion, in addition to its more deranged followers? Certainly, it is true that Islam has not produced the kind of prosperity we see in the West, and has not produced much even in the way of art (its supposed strong point) in centuries. What advances in science have come from the Arab world since the Middle Ages? What has Islam produced other than misery in the past decades? Even the oil the Arabs provide is largely from installations built, and often run, by foreigners and with foreign investment. So what if the enemy is Islam? How do you beat a religion?

(Note: I'm not really trying to discuss whether Islam is the enemy. You can take it up with Fran Porretto, who is an eloquent advocate of the point. What I am trying to discuss is what it would take to destroy Islam itself as a hostile ideology.)

There are, it turns out, examples of how to kill a religion. Ask the Pagans of pre-Christian Europe how it works. Essentially, what it takes is convincing the adherents of the religion that its doctrines are bankrupt (and possibly immoral) and that the religions promises cannot be delivered to its adherents. In the case of the pre-Christian European Pagans, their many religions basically offered protection from their enemies and prosperity. When faced with a prosperous Christianized Roman Empire, conversion was frequently both swift and relatively non-violent. But there were significant holdouts, particularly beyond the Empire's boundaries; yet they converted too. Why? Well, there is significant evidence of desecrated temples and violently killed priests to indicate that, in at least some cases, the Christians ended up proving that their religions did not offer protection. But more often than not, it seems to be the case that Christianity just offered a more compelling message to its new adherents than did their old tribal religions.

Applying something similar to Islam, it would take some or all of the following:

  • A new faith could arise that promises to supersede Islam the way that Islam superseded Christianity: by offering a more compelling prophet of Abraham's god.
  • UPDATE: As Dave points out in the comments, internal reinterpretation, where a new understanding of the existing texts and forms changes the religion's behavior, also works.
  • Older faiths, particularly Christianity, could send forth missionaries to convert the Muslims. This would generate a large number of Christian martyrs, and in practical terms could only be done in combination with the next technique:
  • proscription. Essentially, this means that we would have to compel Muslims to not practice their religion openly, the way that many Muslim nations currently punish or forbid the practice of Christianity. Or we could go all the way and simply kill Muslims who would not convert, which is a time-honored practice among Muslims, Christians and many other religions, though only in broad use now by the Muslims. Of course, this would require a conquest of the areas where the religion was proscribed, because there is no way that a Muslim nation would tolerate such activities. For areas already under non-Muslim control, such as Europe or the United States, this would be far more practical, not involving actual invasions.
  • Destroying the ideological underpinnings of the religion is also an option. For example, Islam promises that any land once Muslim is always Muslim "until Judgement Day", that Muslims who believe sufficiently fervently and act in a certain way will have victory over their enemies, and that Islam will eventually conquer the world.
  • While conquering Muslim nations would certainly daunt any such beliefs, there is another way that doesn't require actual conquest, though it does involve acts of war: destroy Islam's holy sites. Not just Mecca and Medina and the al Aqsa mosque, though of course those would have to be utterly levelled; but every single mosque of any branch of Islam. And while we're at it, it would probably be a good idea to kill every imam and ayatollah and mullah and any other spiritual leaders of Islam we can get to, whether that means judicial killings, or assassination, or simply dropping smart bombs on their houses. Any new places of worship, including houses where people gather, would also need to be destroyed. The idea here is to show that their god either doesn't exist or has no ability to protect them.

That's a pretty brutal list of options, and none of them are particularly appealing to me, personally. So how far would we go, as a society rather than as individuals, if Islam is truly the enemy, towards our own destruction before we undertook such measures? Would we be willing to give up free speech? That question is being tested now in Europe. What about free assembly? What about freedom of religion itself? Where is the line that says we can go no further without submission, and we are unwilling to submit? Is there such a line?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but Islamists and jihadis keep pushing at every boundary, weak point and doubt in the West, which makes me fear I might well know the answer before I die.

UPDATE: Speaking of Francis Porretto making the case of all Muslims as the enemy...

Posted by jeff at February 11, 2006 9:45 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/842

Comments

The destruction of Islam is already well under way, Jeff, much in the sense that Christendom was destroyed by a combination of nationalism, economics, and the rise of competing sects.

One form that the destruction is taking place is scientific. The discovery of very early versions of the Qu'ran that are as old or older than the previously oldest extant manuscripts and that differ from the canonical Qu'ran will continue and render the philosophical underpinnings of Islam, i.e. that the book is literally the word of God, untenable.

Another form that the destruction is taking place is through the soft power of the West. That's what Qutub was warning about and Islam has only three recourses: 1) convert the rest of the world either peaceably or forcibly; 2) destroy the rest of the world; 3) self-quarantine. All seem pretty unlikely so the destruction of Islam seems the most likely outcome.

This “destruction of Islam” won't mean that there aren't any Muslims or mosques. What it will mean is that Muslims overwhelming will look at their religion differently than they do now.

Posted by: Dave Schuler [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 12, 2006 9:54 AM

Hmmm...I phrased my first option (replacement of the religion) too narrowly. Clearly, the kind of replacement that happened to Christianity, where a reinterpretation of preexisting doctrine while keeping the preexisting texts and forms, is also workable.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 12, 2006 11:44 AM

There is a long tradition of govermental attempts to quash religious movement by eliminating (or at least marginalizing) the leadership and membership.


David Koresh (US), Joseph Smith (US, but they failed), Falun Dafa (China) are but three examples. Obviously, these cases were different, in that Koresh attacked the US and Smith did not.


Because Islam has no centralized doctrinal authority, there is a schism between the militant Islamists and the peaceful Islamists. I think that in the near future, you'll see a stronger vocal separation by the peaceful faction.


The key for the "West" (however we define it) is to NOT make this a religious issue. They key is to continue to make this a case of security. If the West makes this about a Religion being the enemy, they will fail miserably.

Posted by: queuno at February 12, 2006 12:15 PM

I strongly concur: this should not be about religion. There are a lot of Muslims, though, who appear to think that it should. My whole point was that if we decide it's the religion, we would have to give up a huge amount of what we consider a non-negotiable moral base in order to actually destroy Islam, and even just defeating it would be terribly difficult. On the other hand, how far are we willing to give up our freedom and prosperity to avoid acting monstrously?

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 12, 2006 1:53 PM

If it comes to something that drastic, destroying the Kaaba (Mecca) could be done without proscribing Islam as a whole. That could shatter their confidence enough to make them less agressive, without any need for forced conversions.

Posted by: Karl Gallagher [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 12, 2006 5:25 PM

I think Karl's got the right idea. Destroying Mecca is along the lines of what you'd have to do -- or do something where the State Department bans travel to Mecca from the US. Another (theoretical) option would be to ban public prayer -- that would force everyone back indoors.

The traditional model in the US is to ban objectionable aspects of a movement, in order to pacify or destroy the movement.

Look at the peyote bans - that's not so much a drug issue as it is an attempt to control a particular religion. To control the spread of homosexuality, they legislated against sodomy (until SCOTUS eventually shot that down). They did the same with polygamy in the 19th century to try to bring down another religion (to little effect). There are too many protections for religious orders built into the constitution, so you'd have to eliminate a core aspect of the religion in order to pacify it.

Of course, one risk is that it ends up being too much of a strawman. Another risk is that you end up not really killing the important doctrine and the religion moves on.

The Branch Davidian face-off centered on getting rid of the leadership, and it ended badly. There was no core doctrine to proscribe.

The US has never been able to successfully pull this type of thing off, since we get too emotionally involved in the issues.

Posted by: queuno at February 12, 2006 6:07 PM

Proving that Mecca is not under divine protection?
For that, we don't even need to destroy the
Ka'aba, we just need to take a look at history.

Ever heard of the Qarmatians?
They were a heretical islamic/zoroastrian sect
that managed to raid Mecca during the height
of the annual Hajj in I believe 930 AD.

They thouroughly defiled Mecca and even
took the sacred black cornerstone from the
Ka'aba, and took it to their stronghold
on Bahrein.

It was only because of a treaty about 10 or
20 years afterwards that the cornerstone
was returned to Mecca.

Oh, well, look it up if you want to know
more about the Qarmatians.

Posted by: Dae Rolf [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 30, 2006 4:29 PM