Who is the Enemy of the Muslim?

We in the US know full well that the United States is not the enemy of the Muslim, though many Muslims might believe it is.

The US has no beef with Islam per se.  Nor do we wish to own or control or even establish a lasting presence in the Middle East.  While the flow of oil from the region may be vital to our national interests, we make no claim to it, the land it comes from, or the people who control the land.  All we want is a trading partner whom we can enrich by buying what God has seen fit to bless them with, and the security of knowing that the wealth isn't being used to train people to fly planes into our skyscrapers.  I would say that makes us a partner, not an enemy.

And we also know that Israel is not the enemy of the Muslim, although Islamist propaganda would have us believe it is.  Perhaps there is a legitimate complaint to be made on behalf of the former residents of the current state of Israel who are now marginalized, but this is less than 1% of the world's Muslim population.  We all know that Israel, whatever its ambitions, has no desire to enlarge its borders or subjugate Muslims generally.  There may be a local territorial dispute, but Israel is not the enemy of the Muslim (or even of the Palestenian, really).

And so it is with the Hindus and the Buddhists and the Kurds.  None of these groups are de facto anti-Muslim.  We all know that.

So who is the enemy of the Muslim?

I posit that it is the Muslim who is the enemy of the Muslim.  Specifically, the Islamists are the enemy of the rest of the Muslim population.  These people have hijacked a religion and turned it into a political ideology.

This is not a new view - but it is one which is often forgotten.  It is the fundamental cause of the overwhelming number of conflicts in the world today.  Until it is addressed, the conflicts will continue even if the US "wins" in or pulls out of Iraq, even if we capture Osama bin Laden, even if the Israelis pack up and move to Miami, and even if India retreats all the way to Bhopal.  Those are symptoms.  Islamism is the cause.

The question shouldn't be "how best to treat the symptoms."  It should be "how best to address the cause."

Christianity once had its own brand of Christian political radicalism, and it, like Islamism, was defective.  And I further posit that, like Christian political radicalism, Islamism will have to be contained from outside (primarily through military confrontation), but can only be defeated from the inside (through civil war).  There can be no other solution.  Like those of us of Euro-Christian descent, the Muslims must internalize this on their own.

If you can agree with my reasoning, then I think we must also agree with the comment by Rob Mandel to the thought-provoking post David linked to below (if you follow the link, it's comment #5).  While I would prefer to see the region wake up from its deep soul-sleep, I fundamentally believe that Islam (the religion) must somehow reclaim itself from Islamism (the political movement).  Until this happens, there will be no lasting peace in the Islamic world or anywhere it touches.

Mark Humphreys has an insightful analysis in which he reaches an opposite conclusion: that Islamism can only be fought by an overwhelming total war.  I admire his analysis (and his well-researched site in general, read it if you haven't already).  But I disagree with his conclusion.  Islamism is fundamentally ideological.  Destroying a state, capturing a territory, or killing people won't kill the idea.  People just have to decide it's a defective idea.

And so, we shouldn't fear a Muslim civil war.  In fact, we should welcome it.  For until it happens, the world just gets more and more dangerous.