By Graham Noble
15 June 2013
Countless numbers of people have lost their lives as a result of the sectarian division – within Christianity – between Catholicism and Protestantism. Today, that divide produces far less violence, although it still causes problems in places such as Northern Ireland. Islam, as a religion, is close to 600 years younger than Christianity and, 600 years after the peak of Christianity’s sectarian slaughter, Islam appears to be approaching its own crescendo of carnage. Whichever faction emerges victorious, radical Islam will remain an existential threat to all non-Muslims. Why then, is the U.S. choosing sides in the battle for Islamist supremacy? It is worth examining the true nature of the battle for the soul of the Muslim world, in order to understand the enormity of the Pandora’s Box the U.S. is opening, by aligning with either side in the war in Syria.
The non-Muslim, Western world considers itself under attack by Islam. It is quite correct to do so. A common refrain is that not all Muslims are extremists; not all Muslims are terrorists. While this is true, the moderate Muslim world has, thus far, displayed a stunning reluctance to stand up and speak out against the extremists – with very few exceptions – which has reinforced the totally justifiable distrust that many Christians and Jews have for the entire Islamic faith. Not only has Islam come into world-wide conflict with non-Muslims, however; it is embroiled in a vicious, sectarian struggle between the two main branches of Islam; the Sunni and Shia traditions. Compounding this savagery is the insidious influence of political extremism and the barbaric and, in truth, un-Islamic practice of Sharia.
Radical Islam is driven by Marxist ideology, which seems to span the religious divide. The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni organization, was founded in the late 1920s by Marxists from the University of Cairo, in Egypt. One of its stated goals is the overthrow of Western “imperialism”. Although today’s Muslim Brotherhood claims to accept democracy, this is a pure deception, since they also have the stated goal of using Sharia law as the legal and cultural basis for their governance of society. Marxism is also the driving force behind Shia extremism; its influence in the Iranian Revolution was enormous. So, in truth, radical Islam is as much a political movement as it is a religious one.
Sharia law, which has its roots in Arabic culture, has very little to do with original Muslim teachings. A brutal and medieval system of repression and control, it is wholly incompatible with any notion of freedom or civil liberties. The hypocrisy of the American political Left, who decry the so-called “war on women”, whilst never uttering a word of protest against those who advocate for the introduction of Sharia law, is truly astounding; under Sharia, women are stripped of all human rights and brutally punished – or even killed – should they dare to display any individualism or “disobedience” . The reason for this is quite simple; The Left has no interest whatever in the rights of women; they would allow the introduction of Sharia law into the United States, if they could, since this would enable them to exercise total authoritarian control.
As the Islamist extremists continue their violent campaign against all who do not share their faith, they slaughter their fellow Muslims in even greater numbers. This internal war gives the lie to the Islamists’ claim that they are fighting purely in defence of Islam. This is the clash between Sunni and Shia and it has become a death-struggle for Islamist supremacy. It is a battle in which the US has no place and has nothing to gain by choosing sides. The Islamic schism is almost as old as Islam itself. Following the death of Muhammad, a struggle for control of Islam’s future began between those who believed that only the Prophet’s direct descendants should lead the movement, the minority Shia, and those who did not consider that a prerequisite; the majority Sunni.
Syrian dictator, Bashar-al-Assad, is an Alawite, which is a branch of the Shia tradition. He is backed by Iran; predominantly Shia. His opponents are Sunni and have the backing of other Sunni groups in the region, such as Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda. The United States faces a lose-lose situation; on the one hand – should the current administration do nothing – it seems increasingly likely that Assad will, eventually, prevail. This will restore the regional power and influence of Iran and their surrogates, Hezbollah; dangerous and unpredictable foes of both the United States and Israel. With the decision by President Obama to authorize the supply of military aid to the Syrian rebels, he is choosing to align the US with al-Qaeda; the organization responsible for the largest and deadliest terrorist attack ever committed against the United States. Nothing positive can conceivably come from either option, but to do nothing, at least, would mean that America neither wastes money, nor puts American lives at risk. In addition – should Assad emerge victorious – the status quo would be resorted and the United States, and its ally, Israel, would find themselves facing a geopolitical landscape with which they are familiar.
By choosing sides, as he has now, clearly, done, President Obama has placed the United States squarely in the thick of the war for Islamic Supremacy. This will not gain us any friends in the Muslim world and it will not endear us to either side – regardless of the eventual outcome. Whether the Syrian rebels win or lose, America will be blamed for meddling in Muslim affairs and the extremists will use it as yet another justification to continue their war upon us.