ARAB SPRING VERSE ISIS OR ISIL

According to Wikipedia, the formal definition of a caliphate  is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader known as a caliph – i.e. "successor" – to Muhammad. A so-called state led by religious leaders of some kind or another, which have plagued humankind for over 7,000 years. Although the word implies that it is, a state ruled by a religious leader is not a concept unique to Islam. The formation of families, tribes, chiefdoms, etc to form some sort of system of hierarchy dominance is instinctual. By definition, to have a hierarchy, there has to be a leader and that leader has to have followers. Hierarchy dominance is not uniquely human; it is something we share with our bestial ancestors. We accept all of this and refer to it as moral order, which is a cultural thing. Use of the word ‘moral’ implies that what ever we do, it is somehow right or correct.

Down through the years, the media has not made clear to the western world, the full definition of the concept. The expression, “the media” has a special definition when we talk about 7,000 years ago; perhaps the expression the “bully pulpit” of leader would be a better phrase. The people who believe in a religious led state also believe in the righteousness of what they want to achieve. In that context, the ‘word’ moral has special meaning to them. It means they belong to a “moral group”, which is fundamentally no different from a religious sect who believes that only a faithful member of their group can go to heaven. They have the power. People who do not belong to their sect do not count any more than an animal counts. They are the chosen ones; therefore, they can mistreated or even slaughtered those who are not chosen, for example by cutting their heads cut off. However, as repugnant as this may sound or as shocking as it might be to the western world, Christian governments are only differ from Islamic governments in degree. Therefore, two different worlds exist; there is the Islamic world as well as in the Christian world. Therein lays an obvious conflict; if the two worlds do not share a common religious leader, then we have to ask who the leader is. Better yet, we have to ask who selects the leader.

In a democracy, we have the answer; the best way is for the people to select their secular leader and we do that by voting; yet, each one of us can chose, or not choose, our religious leader. Who then in the Muslim selects the caliph or the leader in a caliphate? They say Allah selects him—you can not vote against Allah; the strange thing is that the people believe this—but in truth, religious leaders select him; thus, insuring there continued domination. A strange thing happened in July of this year, a 42 year old jihadist leader named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi appeared in a Mosul mosque capture by the ISIS fighters. He gave a sermon during which he announced that from that day forward he is the Caliph Ibrahim, the leader of the Islamic state. According to my understanding of Islamic law, this is taking power by force, which is an acceptable way of choosing a caliph; however, the people have the option of not following him. Perhaps this is what has lead to the reign of terror in Syria and Iraq. If you object to him as the leader, you might lose your life, which brings us full circle to a religious dictatorship that maintains power by terror reminiscent of Saddam Hussein and many other dictators; stated another way “minority rulers”.

What has not been defined in the current media storm over the ISIL or ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), is as fundamental as it is simple. Everyone recognizes that ISIL is calling attention to itself by beheading people and is a dictatorship maintaining power based on religious faith, which they make clear by ignoring sovereign country or political boundaries, which by do by declaring themselves an Islamic State just as their leader declared himself the leader. Therefore, we can define them as a small group of people led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who want to form a religious dictatorship or a caliphate. President Obama has made it clear that the existence of an Islamic state is not in the best interest of the United States. What he has not made clear is why they are such a threat.

Our President is an intellectual and knows that the American people will associate Syria and Iraq with al-Queda, which they immediately associate with the 9/11 twin tower terror; thus they represent a terror threat. However, I believe his real concern is with the “Arab spring”, the movement of the entire Islamic world away from caliphate governments and into democracies, which is a necessary step to solve the Islamophobia problem advanced by the bomb-bomb McCain branch of the right wing as a reason to start a war against 1.2 billion Muslims world—listen to nonsense and read the rhetoric in the right wing media. They see such a war as a way to make America safe and as such call themselves patriots—you are either with them or against them; they want to destroy the entire Muslim world, both of which is why we call them extremists. What is happening in Syria and Iraq is the product of a small group of extremists who want to start a war with the entire Christian world. America is the symbol or idol of that world in the Middle East. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the John McCain equivalents in the Muslim world, they want to destroy the entire “Arab Spring” movement, destroying any chance for peace. Of course, in our country there are the Dick Chaney and the neo-con’s from the Bush era leading the neo-cons who seem to control Republican Party thinking, which more and more, especially now stimulated by Abu Bakr, see hate for Muslim as a good reason to start a massive war. These are the pragmatists; like venture capitalist, they see no reason to start a war unless they can profit from it economically and politically; more money and more Christian followers. I sincerely believe that Obama sees a “war” against ISIL as an unavoidable way to pave the road to a final peaceful solution, a way to move the world away from the concept of “church is the state” and into Arab
Spring World of the separation of “church and state” the world of democracy. I support what he is doing as something that has to be done; however, I think it is a miscalculation on his part even with his superb leadership, to think he can do that in two years opposed by both the church and Republican Party in the United States. If he fails to achieve his goal while he is still in office, it will take a long, long time, if ever.  

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated