Who Wants to "Rule All the World"?

Who Wants to "Rule All the World"? - Response to an Angry Marine

By Gary Leupp

Created Oct 16 2007 - 9:58am

My attack on the "Islamofascism" concept and the right-wing extremists' call

for an "Islamofascism Awareness Week [1]" has provoked varying responses,

from a lovely invitation to attend an Eid feast to such reactions as the

following:

Dear Professor Leupp,

While the issue of exactly what to call those who base their faith in

Islam, and at the same time, call for a "world Caliphate" and with the

outspoken intent of bringing "all the world" under this Caliphate, ruling

via "Sharia Law", there can be no rational debate over the issue of intent,

one merely has to record the words of the Islamic leaders around the world.

As to the idea that Iran has not attacked anyone in centuries, you seem to

have lost sight of the act of war Iran committed when it invaded our Embassy

in 1979. In case you've lost sight of it, embassies are considered

"sovereign territory" of the Nation whose embassy it is, and any such attack

is considered "an act of war" in accordance with Geneva Convention.

You also give Iran a free ride in ignoring the fact that Iranian

Revolutionary Guards put in place Iranian saboteurs who used half a dozen

satchel charges to disable airliners sitting on the runway and taxi-way of

Beirut International Airport, the same year, and assassinated various

Lebanese Government officials fomenting an Islamic war against the

Constitutional government of Lebanon.

It is a fact that Hezbollah is an Iranian terrorist organization, and that

it has been used to keep Lebanon from having a civil government by agitation

and the usurpation of authority among the Islamic sector of Lebanon, and

bringing about the "Lebanese civil war" which still rages today.

I spent the winter of 82-83 as part of the "Multi-National Peace-keeping

Force" which halted the Islamic aggression, removed arafat and his minions,

established arafat as a "bargaining partner", and prevented the Israeli

Defense Force from pursuing the minions of arafat some 2500 terrorists, and

destroying them. We kept the IDF and the Syrian Army from battling out the

control of Beirut, and provided security for all the non-Islamic people of

Lebanon, who have been deliberately targeted by Hezbollah and the many

Islamic militias fomented by Iran.

You apparently don't know much about what has gone on in the middle east

in the past three decades, or you would have a column that could be based on

facts, explicated, rather than on feelings and opinions without the backing

of facts.

If you really want to know what it is like in the middle east, you have to

go there and experience it. I have, and it doesn't "experience" anything

like it is played out by the media. Even the so called "moderate Muslims"

openly proclaim that Islam is not in America to be equal to any other

religion, but is here to rule over all. That is the official position of the

"Council on American Islamic Relations", which is merely a new name for the

"Palestinian Liberation Organization" which had to change its name to remain

in the United States.

[Concluding disparaging remarks deleted]

Sincerely,

John McClain

GySgt, USMC, ret.

Vanceboro, NC

I usually smile at this sort of material, particularly if I find it

personally insulting, and delete it. I don't have time to even answer all

the polite emails I receive. But in this case on a whim I replied, asking

permission to replicate the letter with my comments so we might both reach a

wide audience. The sergeant's response follows.

Sir,

You are welcome to post it, I make no excuses for what I write, it is what

I have found through experience. My only hope for this world, is for those

who are indeed "moderate" to find ways to actually communicate, and find a

way and means to compromise and find peace. I am reminded of the story of

the first weeks of our post revolutionary war post articles of confederation

time, when our forefathers sat down with the intent to "fix the articles so

they would work more aptly to further the life of the colonies". They spent

weeks with no real hope, every representative seeing his own desires for his

own State as being opposed by the desires of the others with the same goal.

Benjamin Franklin stood up, at 82, and spoke out to the convention. He

asking why "we can gather here together" with the intent of forming a new

kind of bond between Sovereign States, after fighting a war where "we sought

the answer to our questions from before the first shot was fired, from the

God of Creation, and held our judgment until we found our answer, yet we

have opened this most difficult task, and have entirely left our

supplications for wisdom behind". He then asked that the chaplain be brought

forward and they had prayer and sought guidance.

From that day on, the Constitution Convention had prayer of supplication

for wisdom to meet all the needs of the delegates, and out of it came the

single most important contract between a people, and their prospective

government that has ever been written. It is the document that spells out

our "contract" between all of us, it defines the role of the federal

government, and it does all of this with an even hand for all who pursue

liberty while restraining their own wills with personal self-responsibility.

I apologize for the last couple of personal remarks, I know I disparaged

you to some degree, and it was out of anger. I ask that you forgive me the

personal remarks, and other than that, take it, reproduce it, and reply as

you will. I would appreciate a copy of your comments as well if you will. I

am far happier for having a debate than simply taking everything at first

glance.

Sincerely,

John McClain

Vanceboro, NC

In the spirit of rational debate, here's my reply.

Dear Gunnery Sergeant John McCain:

First of all, I dispute the charge that my column was based on "feelings" as

opposed to "facts." You did not cite any instance of factual error. The main

point of the column was that "Islamofascism Awareness Week" constitutes a

general, unprincipled attack on a world religion in the context of moves

towards war with more Muslim countries. It's intended to distort and vilify.

You make it clear that your reaction to my piece is shaped by your military

experience in Lebanon in 1982-3, countering what you call "Islamic

aggression." You are of course speaking of a majority Muslim country that

had a government headed by a Christian (in accordance with a French-dictated

constitution, a legacy of a Christian colonialism). He had requested the

assistance of secular Muslim Syria in the 1970s to halt a civil war. Lebanon

had been invaded by Israel in 1982. As I understand it the Shiite population

of southern Lebanon initially welcomed the Israeli invasion due to their

hostility to the Palestinian presence that Israel drove out. But the mood

quickly changed, and Hizbollah was born.

You were involved in the multinational force sent in part to evacuate

Palestinians, targeted savagely by the Israelis led by Ariel Sharon and by

the Lebanese Christian Phalangists. Where do you find "Islamic aggression"

in this scenario? U.S. troops were targeted by Shiites acting in their own

country. Who's the aggressor here? You erroneously call Hizbollah an

"Iranian terrorist organization."

No doubt it (or the "Islamic Jihad" group that took responsibility for the

1983 Beirut barracks attack) had Iranian backing, but it consists of

Lebanese. But do you really think that in the context of Israeli, French,

U.S. and Syrian involvement (this latter, I repeat, invited by Christian

Lebanese), Islamic Iran was the "aggressor" here?

Just as an intellectual exercise I might ask you to wrack your brain and

list down instances of U.S. aggression in the last 30 years. And next to

that column list anything you can possible represent as "Iranian acts of

aggression." Note down the casualty figures and compare. Perhaps you will

reject the very notion that the U.S., the USMC in particular, would ever be

involved in any aggression against, say, Grenada, or Panama, or Yugoslavia,

or Iraq. Perhaps you think those were all noble causes. But ask yourself why

people globally, regardless of religion, understand the current U.S.

invasion of Iraq, condemned as illegal by Pope John Paul II and then-UN

Secretary-General Kofi Annan, as aggression, big-time. And ask why a Muslim

might see it as specifically "Christian aggression" against a Muslim state.

You assume I have never been in the Middle East. I have, actually, but that

is of little importance. You and I can be living in the same neighborhood of

Boston but very different assessments of what is going on. Your very

specific sort of experience in Lebanon hardly entitles you assert superior

knowledge of the Islamic world, and your references to Palestinians (and

apparent disinclination to even capitalize the name of their late leader)

suggest you have acquired a very skewed understanding of their plight and

response to it.

You make several assertions, implicitly demanding I accept or refute them:

(1) Islamic leaders around the world call for a "world Caliphate."

(2) Iran (contrary to my claim to the contrary) has in fact attacked other

countries in recent times.

(3) Even "moderate" Muslims want to "rule over all" in America.

Before responding to these, I'd like suggest that religion is as much as

anything else a matter of cultural identity. It's not genetically

determined, but is generally inherited from one's parents. Those who come to

abandon the faith in which they were raised are surely in the minority. In

other words, the billion-plus Muslims about whom you so confidently

generalize are comparable to a huge ethnic category (like Europeans) or

linguistic group (like English speakers). Among them there is enormous

variety. But when you attack the whole group, you tend to encourage them to

pull together in self-defense.

World religious statistics might suggest that one-third of human beings are

Christians, but how many of those Christians sincerely believe, study

scripture, or really care about religion? How many will go to church on

occasion, enjoy the atmosphere, church music etc. but would be utterly

unable to explain to someone else the articles of the Apostles' or Nicene

Creed? How many would just say, "Well, I don't know about that stuff. Anyway

I was raised Methodist (or whatever)?" How many indifferent, secular people

only discover the importance of the religion they've inherited when it and

they come under attack?

In the old Yugoslavia, the Muslim population was generally secular. I have

friends from Bosnia who are religiously indifferent and prefer to be called

"Bosniaks" rather than "Bosnian Muslims"

because Islam isn't really central to their lives. But when savage ethnic

violence broke out in Yugoslavia, everyone in what had been a very secular

society was suddenly a Catholic Croat, Orthodox Serbian, Muslim Bosnian,

etc. In that context an attack on a specific religion was basically an

attack on a whole ethnic group. The results were horrific.

I personally reject religious belief in general, and in writing about Islam

I've never promoted the belief system. In the right time and place, I

critique religion broadly or analyze as best I can any particular one. You

appear to be a Christian. Surely you understand that if one wanted to stress

the most shocking content of the Bible (and there is so much of it) and the

savagery of Christian history from the burnings of heretics to the forced

conversions in the New World to the general carnage occurring within 20th

century Christian-European civilization, it would be an easy project. But

then there's the other side: the beauty of the Sermon on the Mount, the

glory of Bach's music, the heroism of the African-American church in the

Civil Rights Movement. I think it's the same with Islam. It's a complex mix.

But to your specific claims:

(1) Islamic leaders around the world call for a "world Caliphate."

Which leaders are you talking about? All Islamic leaders? Your statement

that "there can be no rational debate over the issue of intent" is obviously

an effort to cut off discussion. But the rather authoritative Oxford

Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press, 1997) will inform

you in its "Khalifa" entry that "in practice, there is little sign of any

desire to return to the Caliphate" among Muslims (p. 543).

Islam is a missionary religion, like Christianity. There are Christian

evangelicals who want to convert the entire world and are indeed the

support-base of this (aggressive) Bush administration. Then there are

Christians who celebrate the diversity of belief systems. If you ask a

Muslim leader if he/she would desire that the whole world be Muslim, the

answer would perhaps be yes. People who experience satisfaction in their

faith may wish to spread it, out of love for humanity among other reasons,

however misguided I may consider their efforts. The religious proselytizing

mentality is hardly unique to Islam. As for the revival of the caliphate, I

think there are many opinions within Islam about that issue and it is the

last thing on the mind of the ordinary Muslim. The fact that President Bush,

who knows very little about history, should hold up this boogeyman of a

revived caliphate should tell you something. I'd suggest reading this

article from the Oct. 12 Newsweek [2] for some perspective.

(2) Iran has in fact attacked other countries in recent times.

You begin with "Iran"

attacking "our" embassy in 1979. In fact, in the course of the Iranian

Revolution---the most genuinely mass-based revolution in a Muslim country in

modern times, supported by nearly all segments of a complex society---Muslim

students seized the embassy. This as you know followed the U.S. refusal to

observe the extradition treaty between the two countries that would have

returned the Shah to Iran from the U.S. and allowed the Iranians to try him

for multiple crimes. (You know, the way the similarly hated and formerly

U.S.-backed Saddam Hussein in U.S.-occupied Iraq was tried?) It was not the

action of a consolidated state. In any case the fact that it was so widely

supported in Iran should alert you to the fact that the main victim here

wasn't the group of U.S. diplomats and CIA agents ultimately freed in a deal

as Reagan took office, but a large nation that had been subjected to the

rule of a man aggressively installed in power by the government of your

majority-Christian nation in 1953 after it had toppled the democratically

elected regime.

You note that "embassies are considered 'sovereign territory' of the Nation

whose embassy it is, and any such attack is considered 'an act of war' in

accordance with Geneva Convention." I wonder what your feelings are about

U.S. forces storming the Iranian consulate in Irbil, Iraq last January, and

seizing diplomatic personnel, computers and documents. That action was

denounced even by the Iraqi regime placed in power by the invasion. Should

Iran consider that an act of war?

Even if you can find instances of Iranian-sponsored terrorism here and there

(and no doubt you can), how does affect my argument? Are you saying that

because such things happen, it's ok to broadly trash Muslims? That these

instances stem from something intrinsic to Islam? The burden of proof is on

you.

(3) Even "moderate" Muslims want to "rule over all" in America.

Is that allegation the product of research, John? Have you had conversations

with moderate Muslims who state that? And if they do, are they saying that

they're working overtime to make this happen through planning jihadi

violence in our cities? Or merely that they believe as a matter of faith

that ultimately God's will will be realized as the whole world embraces the

truth of the Qur'an?

While some folks are promoting paranoid Islamophobia, Muslim clerics in the

U.S. have stated their commitment to ecumenism and tolerance [3]. (These

include the CAIR folks you conflate mistakenly with the PLO.) Do you think

them insincere? And if the two million Muslims in the U.S. indeed harbor the

secret desire to "rule over all," what do you think "we"

non-Muslims should do? Follow the example of Christian sixteenth century

Spain and expel the Muslims or force them to convert? Or the example of

twentieth century Germany in dealing with the Jews---with concentration

camps and genocide? (Recall by the way how the Nazis accused the Jews of

trying to control the world and Germany. Do you see no resemblance between

such charges and your statements about Muslims trying to "rule all the

world" and "rule over all" America?)

As you know current U.S. "defense" doctrine specifies that the U.S. will not

permit any rival power to emerge on this planet, will maintain "full

spectrum dominance"

and engage in preemptive strikes in violation of the UN Charter. The U.S.

military budget exceeds that of the entire world combined, and there are

U.S. forces stationed in over half the world's countries. There are 190 US

bases in Europe alone. Dick Cheney and his neocons want to "defeat evil" in

Muslim Iran and Syria, producing an empire from the Hindu Kush to the

Mediterranean. Sounds to me like an effort to "rule all the world"---a sort

of American caliphate emerging to the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers."

By the way, what do you suppose "Muslim rule" meant historically? Surely you

are aware that during centuries when Christian monarchs were driving out

Jews, they were made welcome in Muslim societies as a "People of the Book."

And that while Muslims were being driven out of Spain or forced to convert

by the sword, the Muslim world generally extended tolerance to Christians.

The religious intolerance of a minority of contemporary Muslim states has

not been the historical norm since Islam emerged, 1200 years before the

birth of the American republic.

Notice how the Christians who had enjoyed equal rights in Saddam's Iraq are

now fleeing in droves from that country to Syria with its Baathist

secularist policies as they strive to regain the religious freedom they've

lost. Note too that Syria is in the U.S. administration's crosshairs,

vilified constantly and conflated with Iran---a very different country

politically, ethnically, culturally, and religiously but also Muslim.

Finally, you mention Benjamin Franklin, the Constitution, and the role of

collective prayer in producing agreement at the Constitutional Convention in

1787. I'm not sure exactly how this connects with your earlier email, and

not sure if your facts are accurate [4]. But this is what I get out of it.

Religion can bind people together. Maybe a common belief in a Supreme Being

helped focus the delegates' discussion in Philadelphia. But the delegates at

that convention differed widely in their religious beliefs. You may know

that Franklin, a man of the Enlightenment, was skeptical about the divinity

of Christ although the Christians today want to include him (and the equally

skeptical Thomas Jefferson) as co-believers [5]. I think this is clearly

erroneous from a historical point of view but it again relates to the

question if identity. Maybe they would have defined themselves in some

contexts as Christians but they would never have embraced many doctrines in

the Bible espoused by other delegates. Similarly, many Muslims today will

only selectively embrace aspects of historical Islam. The U.S. press with

some justice distinguishes "secular" Muslims in the Iraqi government from

"fundamentalists." Muslim identity like Christian identity is complicated.

Religions and their practices evolve over time. Contemporary Christianity is

not that of St. Paul's or Luther's time, and Islam today is not that of the

Prophet's day or of the time of the Caliphate. A hostile critic wanting to

provoke can always throw an ancient text into a contemporary believer's face

and demand, "Justify that!" or "Explain that!" or "Apologize for that!" I

could confront a self-defined Christian with lots of biblical passages in an

attempt to embarrass or put on the spot. But what would be the point? I

don't assume the average Christian takes the Bible literally, feels obliged

to defend every passage, or wants society to be governed by the Laws of

Moses or the instructions found in the epistles of St. Paul. Nor does the

average Muslim want to live by the Sharia law you apparently find so

threatening.

These days those who stereotype Muslims and essentialize Islam not only

don't know what they're talking about but are vilifying and dehumanizing

others in order to justify more war. I'm not saying that's your intention,

Sergeant, but it's encouraged by your rhetoric about "the Caliphate."

A final comment on Franklin. He once expressed fears about the German

immigrant population in the American colonies, doubts about the possibility

of assimilating German-speakers. He was concerned that there would

eventually be so many Germans in what would become the United States that

"all the advantages we [English colonists] have will, in my opinion, be not

able to persevere our language, and even our government will become

precarious."

Of part-German ancestry myself, I have to shake my head at such unfounded

fear. This country---if it's the country of that Constitution you so

revere---should be able to assimilate people from anywhere, regardless of

ethnicity or religion, including Muslims.

With best wishes this Eid.

Gary Leupp

_______

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson