The Real Victims of Islam.

The news is filled with reports of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, India.  We do not yet know what the terrorists’ motives are; they could have to do with Kashmir, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, or any number of other hotspots.  One thing that is known is that the assailants are Muslim.  I believe one of the most effective aspects of Islamic terror is that it causes non-Muslims to hate and despise Muslims.  The actions of the terrrorists are reprehensible and I do not defend them at all.  The fate of their victims are horrendous and tragic and not to be belittled in any way.  However, I believe that the ultimate victims of Islam are often forgotten because it i easier to divide the world in to us and them and because we prefer to hate.

The murdered victims of Islamic terrorism are tragic but they are also dead, Islam can harm them no more.  The real victims of Islam are the people who have to live under it.  Much has been made of the plight of women in strict Islamic countries and rightly so; they are some of the most oppressed people on the planet.  I would like to point out however, that Muslim women in less strict and even western countries and even Muslim men have to live everyday of their lives believing in Islam.

Allah is a very distant god.  He would not even speak directly to the prophet Mohammed but had an angel mediate between them.  Muslim men and women spend their lives attempting to fulfill all the requirements to get into Heaven and escape Hell.  One of these is a visit to Mecca.  The Saudi governement places a strict cap on the number who can go to Mecca each year and hundreds of millions of Muslims will never even have the chance. Even completing the requirement is not gaurentee; those who escape Hell do so by the arbitrary descision of Allah. Even Mohammed said “What Allah will do with me, I know not.“   Think of the phychologcal and spiritual oppression of these teemining millions, these are Islam’s real victims.

What is the mission of coalition troops in Iraq today?  This is a legitimate question that I would like responses to.  I’m not trying to prove a point, I’m just asking.  The removal of Saddam Hussein was a noble act and a just cause for going to war, even without WMD’s, ties to terrorism, or threats to his neighbors.  Hussein was a cruel dictator and the world is better with him gone.  I also understand the rationale behind staying to ensure fair democratic elections.  It is true that the Al Maliki government is not completely stable, but it is doubtful if it will ever be stable as long as coalition troops are there.  There is still violence in Iraq, but there can be no question that much of it is because of the presence of Western troops on Muslim soil.  The Bathists have for the most part been defeated.  Is it within the scope of the mission for the United States and Britain to prevent a civil war and Iraq?  It looks more and more like that is what they are doing.

Iraq never should have been a country.  Its borders are lines drawn in the sand by colonial powers after World War I.  The various peoples have no historic ties to bind them together in neighborly love nor do they have political, religious, or ideological ties.  Saddam Hussein was able to keep the country nominally unified through extreme brutality.

It should be partitioned into at least three smaller countries.  This would allow the Sunni, Shia, and Kurds to govern themselves as they see fit.  The only reason that the country was not partitioned after the ouster of Hussein was that the United States did not want to be accused of nation making by Britain, France, Russia, China, and others.  Make no mistake, the world powers will for the most part jump at any opportunity to criticize the U.S. but that is still the course of action that should have been taken and is possibly what should still happen.

The difficulty now is that the United States claims to have given sovereignty to Baghdad.  Of course any sovereignty Baghdad has is at the pleasure of the US as the US gave it to them and props them up through blood and treasure but, it is necessary to maintain the illusion of Iraqi sovereignty for diplomatic reasons.

A lot has been made of the division of oil wealth and how that is an obstacle to partition.  Call me old fashioned, but Iraq does not share its oil revenue with its neighbors currently, does it?  Does Japan share the revenue it gets from exporting electronics with Korea?  No, of course not.  Why would it?  I see no reason why Sunni Iraq should be expected to share revenue with Shia Iraq or vice versa.  To me this is a non-issue and those that are making a big deal of it are naïve, communal hippies, or attempting to stop progress.

Certainly partitioning Iraq would be of benefit to the average Iraqi but they can hardly be expected to take kindly to a foreign power chopping up their country.  If the US and Britain (etc.) were to completely pull out of Iraq before completely beating all remnant of the various militant groups, then it is very likely that Iraq would divide along sectarian lines anyway.  It may be inevitable; Iraq does not want to be a country.  In the absence of a strong armed dictator or foreign military powers, Iraq may just dissolve.