When the Prophet Muhammad died in 632, he left no instructions for his followers about choosing his successor or how they should govern themselves[1]. As a result, his death started a debate about who should rule them, how they should choose their rulers, and what sort of powers to confer upon them that continues even today.

I have argued on many occasions that contemporary Muslims must create democratic forms of government on the basis that they are the most effective at allowing societies to govern themselves, prosper, and protect themselves from invasion. Though there is certainly a moral component to these arguments, they are somewhat Machiavellian too since they are focused on results and increasing the power of Muslim societies. I shall now endeavor to show that democracy is also consistent with Islamic values based on an examination of the historical record and a bit of common sense, or as some have called it, reason.

Many within the Muslim world have already made these points; however, the degree to which Muslim rulers continue to disregard them means we must continue to re-hash them in the vain hopes they will eventually listen.

Who should rule:

After his passing, the Prophet was succeeded by the elderly Abu Bakr who was then followed by the renowned Umar. As Numani explains, there are competing narratives surrounding the events that led to their successions[2]. Ansary[3], Kennedy[4], and Numani[5] all relate that Umar chose Abu Bakr by swearing loyalty to him to diffuse brewing tensions between the Quraysh and the Ansar of Medina though the particulars of their descriptions vary somewhat. According to Hourani, Abu Bakr was “chosen” while “at a meeting of close associates and leaders[6].” Lapidus states that “an all-night debate” led to Abu Bakr being “elected” Caliph and that since he was “selected by a minority with no special competence, Abu Bakr had his nomination ratified the following day by the community as a whole[7].” Given the turmoil surrounding the Prophet’s death and the growing fears that the young Muslim community might fracture, his selection seems to have been a relatively speedy affair designed to prevent conflict among his followers.

With respect to Umar, Kennedy simply states that Abu Bakr “nominated[8]” him. Numani adds that he “consulted with senior figures before making his choice known” and that he “asked the assembly if they accepted his nomination[9].” While Ansary says that Abu Bakr “called in a few of the community’s top notables and told them he wanted to nominate Umar as his successor[10].” This caused a debate among the community since many doubted Umar’s temperament was suited to the office of caliph; however, “Ali stepped forward to endorse Omar, and his word tipped the scales[11].”

After Umar was fatally wounded, the community’s notables asked about nominating his son, but he emphatically rejected this idea. Instead, he appointed a consultative council of six men to choose his successor to “seek the consensus of the Umma on their choice[12],” which came down to Ali or Uthman. “The chairman of the shura interviewed both men in front of an assembly of the people[13],” and, based on their differing answers, they chose Uthman.

Uthman’s murder then led to the selection of Ali and civil war.  Hourani states that Ali’s foes “disputed the validity of his election,[14]” but does not provide any details about it.

Ibn Khaldun’s description of Ali’s conflict with Mu’awiya is worth discussing in detail. In a section entitled, “the transformation of the caliphate into royal authority[15],” he explains how this conflict led to the end of the caliphate.

When discussing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali, he says “these caliphs renounced royal authority and kept apart from its ways. They were strengthened in this attitude by the low standard of living in Islam and the desert outlook of the Arabs. The world and its luxuries were more alien to them than to any other nation, on account of their religion, which inspired asceticism where the good things of life were concerned[16].” 

According to Khaldun, these men established the caliphate because they were guided by a devotion to Islam. Instead of embracing luxury and the trappings of power, they spurned the wealth that their new conquests could have brought them, maintaining humble leadership styles.

But “soon, the desert attitude of the Arabs and their low standard of living approached its end. The nature of royal authority – which is the necessary consequence of group feeling as we have stated – showed itself[17].” This led Mu’awiya to challenge Ali because the “group feeling[18]” he developed as head of the Umayyad clan and governor of Syria gave him the power and incentive to do so.

Though his discussion is uncharacteristically convoluted, Khaldun explains how Mu’awiya’s seizure of power led to the establishment of a political system he calls “royal authority” based on hereditary succession. He adds that “the restraining influence that had been Islam now came to be group feeling and the sword[19],” meaning the form of government established by the first four caliphs based on consensus and dialogue had been replaced by one based on force. According to Khaldun these events show “how the caliphate was transformed into royal authority[20],” meaning a monarchy. The clear turning point that brought about the end of the caliphate is therefore the point at which Mu’awiya seizes power and passes it to his son.

The very basis for Khaldun’s generational decay model is rooted in the unstable and violent nature of hereditary dictatorships and the “group feeling” used to establish them, which became the norm after Mu’awiya’s actions. But Khaldun insists that those who question Mu’awiya are “heretics[21]” and that his conflict with Ali was merely the result of each man using “their independent judgment as to where the truth lay[22].”

He is curiously kind to Mu’awiya throughout his work, even though he is explaining how Mu’awiya ended the caliphate. He often criticizes and defends him in the same breath, stating that “even though Ali was in the right, Mu’awiyah’s intentions were not evil. He wanted the truth but missed it[23].” Even when he says, “the first to use a throne in Islam was Mu’awiya,”[24] he immediately adds that he sought permission from the people first.

Though not directly relevant to the topics at hand, this is important to highlight for a few reasons. One, even the best among us gets it wrong sometimes. As will be seen later, this is not the only example of faulty analysis by Khaldun. In this instance, the most likely explanation is political and doctrinal. Speaking truth to power is hard. By the time he wrote his book he had already spent nearly two years locked in a dungeon for unrelated reasons and he knew that insulting Mu’awiya would lead to charges of heresy and execution. To question Mu’awiya would be to question all the Muslim monarchs that came after him, including those who ruled over Khaldun. All while adopting a position sympathetic to the Shia.

As Khaldun himself explains, facts must be digested with a critical mind and evaluated in the proper context to provide useful insight[25].  Here, we must consider that the intellectual and political environment of his time and place was not one that allowed for a completely frank discussion as part of our understanding of the material.

This is, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. Similar instances of mental acrobatics have been performed by scholars and Ulama throughout the Muslim world, all to support the dictators who followed Mu’awiya’s example. Ulama in Iran during the Qajar era went so far as to declare “only dynastic rule was permitted by Islam[26]” despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Ulama in Saudi Arabia have made similar performances in service of the Sauds. The same sort of acrobatics can be seen at work among those who argue that leadership belongs to those with the strength to seize it[27]. These are all examples of how the usurpation of power by the Muslim world’s dictators have led scholars to adopt incongruous positions, prevented reasoned debate and created the toxic intellectual climate that made the Muslim world so susceptible to conquest. 

Khaldun continues his mental gymnastics when he rationalizes Mu’awiya’s nomination of his son to succeed him even though none of his predecessors did and Umar adamantly refused to do so. “Had Mu’awiyah appointed anyone else his successor, the Umayyads would have been against him. Moreover, they had a good opinion of Yazid. Mu’awiya would not have been the man to appoint Yazid his successor, had he believed him to be really so wicked. Such an assumption must be absolutely excluded in Mu’awiyah’s case[28].”

Despite his odd attempts to deflect, Khaldun’s narrative shows that when Mu’awiya violently seized power and passed it to his son, he began the process that ended the caliphate and led to the prevalence of monarchial dictatorships.  The record indicates he convened a Shura council to discuss his succession, following Umar’s example. But Ansary[29] and Lewis[30] both relay that the meeting of the council was also attended by a man brandishing a sword to ensure there was no dissension, indicating there was no element of choice or open dialogue. Kennedy adds that Mu’awiya “seems to have known that the adoption of hereditary succession to decide the caliphate would be controversial” and that he was “careful not to claim a hereditary right for his son to succeed but simply to assert that he was the best candidate[31].”

But as Hourani explains, Mu’awiya’s reign marked “the end of one phase and the beginning of another” and highlights that the position of caliph became “virtually hereditary. Although some idea of choice, or at least formal recognition, by the leaders of the community remained, in fact from this time power was in the hands of a family[32].” Mu’awiya actions converted the Caliphate into a traditional monarchy and led the Muslim world down its current path. Having inherited or seized power, instead of being chosen by their communities, those who called themselves caliph afterwards were but poor imitations.

Many Muslims believe that the precedents set by the first four caliphs represent the ideal to which today’s Muslims should aspire[33], and that contemporary governments should be modeled after their example. The reign of the first four caliphs is known as the Rashidun, or “rightly guided” era.” Groups such as ISIS have even waged war to try and re-establish their own version of the caliphate, while the Taliban also claim to model their government after it. But most of them do not understand the defining characteristics of the government they idealize or the lessons they should learn from its example.

Though the exact circumstances surrounding the appointment of the Rashidun are unclear, certain facts are not in dispute. Not one of them tried to pass power onto their son. Each left the choice to the community or engaged it in the process when circumstances allowed. Not one of them used violence or the threat of violence to secure their reigns. Instead, they built a consensus through dialogue.

Though it was the source of much consternation and Islam’s great schism, Ali, as the Prophet’s closest male heir was not passed over just once, but thrice. Even poor Uthman was selected before him. This is not meant to cast aspersions on Ali, who by all accounts appears to have been a lion among men, wrongly denied his dues based on his merits and talent alone. But the fact is, that despite his talents and position as the logical candidate to replace the Prophet by virtue of being one of his most trusted and capable followers, he was not chosen to do so three times.

This makes sense when weighed against one of the Prophet’s most fundamental teachings. The historical record unequivocally shows that he never claimed to possess divine powers[34]. He insisted he was God’s messenger, nothing more. He even insisted that no one should depict his person in artistic form because he was afraid people would worship his image. Arguments that confer leadership on the Prophet’s family are illogical because they implicitly confer a divine status on his descendants when the Prophet himself explicitly and vehemently insisted he had none.

People have the right to believe whatever they want, and nothing written here should be seen as an attack on the personal beliefs of others. But objective analysis requires a logical interpretation of the facts. The facts show that Ali was passed over by the Prophet’s closest companions on multiple occasions. The partisans of Ali may argue these Companions were false and strayed from the true path immediately upon his death. But it seems unlikely those who were so devoted to him would knowingly take a course of action they felt would dishonor his memory or the values he taught them. Their humble lifestyles support this argument, indicating the more likely explanation is they believed their actions were consistent with his teachings.

Their precedents show that power should not automatically pass to a male heir but to one chosen by the community to lead based on merit and talent. Which means monarchies are the furthest from the Islamic ideal, or as Lewis puts it, that Islam is “strongly opposed to hereditary privileges of all kinds, even including, in principle, the institution of monarchy[35].” Khaldun’s analysis on the subject, though tortured, reinforces this argument because it shows that the establishment of a hereditary monarchy led to the end of the caliphate.

If hereditary succession, even within the Prophet’s family, contradicts the example of the Rashidun, then by analogy arguments that political leadership must stay within the Quraysh tribe are also misguided, though not in the cynical self-serving way of those monarchs claiming to represent Islamic values with a straight face. If the Prophet’s family cannot claim a divine right to rule by virtue of their relationship to his legacy, then those related through the even more tenuous bonds of tribal affiliation cannot claim a similar right either.

Instead of arguing that leadership belongs to the Quraysh tribe, the example of the Rashidun is best understood as supporting the principal that political leadership should come from the merchant class, not the military or religious elite. The Prophet, Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman were all merchants, and the Quraysh was known as a merchant tribe. The political and social dynamics of the time made these men the most logical choices to rule and their membership in the influential Quraysh tribe was certainly a factor in their selection, but those examining these events have always misunderstood the relevance of their tribal affiliation.

As always, sound logic is reinforced by facts. This argument is supported by the reality of the Muslim world today. There are over 1.9 billion Muslims living in over fifty independent nations. The idea that leadership over the vast lands and diverse people that comprise these nations must be descended from a particular tribe is ludicrous on its face. The only broad principal that can be gleaned from the choice of the Quraysh is that government is best left in the hands of merchants. A statement that is also supported by Europe’s rise and Islam’s fall these past five centuries since Europe’s ascent coincided with the increased political prominence of its merchants while Islam’s long decline saw Muslim merchants marginalized by their soldiers.

How to choose rulers and how they should govern:

Having established that leadership should pass to someone chosen by the community based on that individual’s talent and reputation, not their familial relationship with the prior ruler or tribe, we must discuss the methods for selecting the ruler.

Despite the ambiguities surrounding their selection, certain trends are evident. Every scholar that discusses the process uses words like consensus, election, consultation, and so on. Khaldun states the caliphate was one based on “general consensus[36]” that should be “left to the discretion of all competent Muslims[37].” Lewis adds that the caliphate’s “authority derived from the freely given and revocable consent of the Muslims[38].” The exact circumstances changed with each caliph and the facts surrounding his death, but each was peacefully chosen after dialogue between competing factions. And the losers, like Ali or the Ansar, abided by the decisions of their peers.

In addition to being chosen from among the community, Lewis explains, “the early caliphs had little force at their disposal – no praetorian guard nor indeed regular forces[39].” As a result, they “ruled less by armed force than by personal prestige and authority[40].” Ansary described their reigns as featuring “democratic participation in decision making[41]” and highlights that Umar made decisions after consulting the community “of several hundred men and women[42].”

The caliphate may not have been a democratic system compared to modern standards, but it was a far cry from the dictatorships that dominate the Muslim world today. Caliphs were chosen after getting input from the community in Medina and they ruled by engaging with this same community to get its opinion regarding policy debates. 

The only real question is how to apply these principles to modern-day realities considering the vast cultural, technological, and demographic changes that have taken place over the past fourteen centuries. The Muslim world is no longer comprised of a small elite ruling over masses of non-Muslims in distant lands. Instead, it has been separated into independent Muslim nations like Turkey and Iran populated by millions. Pakistan has over 220 million people, 97% of whom are Muslim but separated through myriad linguistic, ethnic, regional, and doctrinal differences. Engaging in dialogue or achieving consensus is a lot harder today than it was in the much smaller community of Medina.

Groups like ISIS and the Taliban believe the answer is simple: nothing changes. Not only do they believe nothing changes, but they have violently tried to stop their societies from making some necessary changes. Many even blame the changes various Muslim societies tried to make for Europe’s conquest of the Muslim world. A laughable and completely insane argument that highlights the irrational nature of their ideas. It was the Muslim world’s refusal to change that led to its conquest. And its continuing refusal to do so makes it incredibly weak today.

Despite the incoherence of these literalists, it should be obvious that it is the broad values and ideals of this era that must guide Muslims, not the minutiae of how they were implemented. The blatant hypocrisy exhibited by these groups in their attempts to recreate the past proves the point. A cursory examination of those broad values indicates both rulers and policies must be chosen after reaching a consensus with the community, including its women. The seeds for democracy were sown at this time and then cynically left to rot or ignored after Mu’awiya’s power grab. The only practical way to reach that consensus today given the much larger populations and advances in communications technology is to create democratic systems that give citizens a say in these matters and the ability to voice their opinions freely.

At the least, democracy is far closer to the precedents established by the Rashidun than those offered by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, or Afghanistan. The Taliban may claim to follow the Rashidun but its use of a shura council to govern is almost as genuine as Mu’awiya’s use of one to confirm his son into power. Instead of a sword, theirs derives its power from the AK-47 which is inexplicably not treated as a forbidden innovation while democracy is. One of many inconsistencies resulting from their illogical interpretations of Islamic law that contradicts simple notions of common sense.

The examples of the Rashidun, when weighed against modern realities suggests that today’s Muslims can only claim to be following their example if they can vote for their leaders in free elections and provide them feedback on policy through free and open debates of the sort commonly provided by legislative bodies and a free press today. The alternative of force and repression offered by Mu’awiya and so eagerly taken up by all who followed him is clearly un-Islamic.

Scope and proper function of government:

Having discussed who can attain power and how to choose this person, we must address the purpose of government since doing so is necessary before deciding how much power to confer upon it.

The opening of this discussion indicated that democratic forms of government are ideal on the basis that they are the most effective at allowing societies to govern themselves, prosper, and protect themselves from invasion. This description also succinctly captures the purpose of government.

In the Muslim world, many have argued that governments must also compel adherence with Islamic religious law like forcing women to wear the hijab. This role no longer makes sense. To show why, we will once again rely on Ibn Khaldun while contradicting some of his thoughts. 

Khaldun believed that “to exercise the caliphate means to cause the masses to act as required by religious insight into their interests in the other world as well as in this world[43],” meaning the caliphate should enforce religious orthodoxy and practice.

He also believed that “to exercise political royal authority means to cause the masses to act as required by intellectual (rational) insight into the means of furthering their worldly interests.[44]” To Khaldun, the government’s primary job is to act as a “restraining influence[45]” to prevent people from attacking or cheating each other. But he also spends a great deal of time talking about good governance, the need for secure property rights[46], and why rulers should not engage in trade (it’s bad for long term growth and tax revenue)[47]. Overall, Khaldun’s philosophy of Islamic governance is based on the idea that governments should help their people to prosper by encouraging business and trade and governing justly.

To that end, Khaldun believed “it is necessary to have reference to ordained political norms, which are accepted by the mass and to whose laws it submits” and that if “norms are ordained by the intelligent and leading personalities and minds of the dynasty, the result will be a political (institution) with an intellectual (rational) basis[48].” Khaldun’s ideas regarding rational government that promotes healthy commerce and protects property rights have been ignored in the Muslim world for far too long. But Muslim rulers have had 600 hundred years to absorb his advice and failed to do so, so we will not spend too much time on the subject.

It is the part about enforcing religious orthodoxy that is problematic for a variety of reasons and worth more discussion. The easiest way to end this debate would be to point out that Khaldun’s statement is limited to the caliphate, which he has already explained no longer exists. But that would not be very satisfying, particularly since contemporary Muslim governments continue to enact policy under the mis-guided belief that their role is to “command the good” while “forbidding the bad[49].” A sentiment shared by Khaldun when he says one of the purposes of the caliphate is to make people “do the things that are good for them and forbid them to do those that are harmful[50].”

There are two arguments that show why this approach is so illogical. The first requires a bit of context. The legal basis for allowing Muslim governments to control the personal lives and religious expressions of their citizens finds its genesis in the Ridda Wars that Abu Bakr and Umar fought in the immediate aftermath of the Prophet’s death.

After the Prophet died, the young Muslim community began to fracture. Tribes that had sworn fealty now rebelled. Some tribal leaders even insisted that they were now the messengers of God. Things were unravelling. Abu Bakr and Umar responded by attacking and destroying these rebels in the Ridda Wars. They justified this violence by arguing that once someone accepts Islam, they are not allowed to lapse. Changing your mind was now punishable by death.[51]

Based on modern notions of free will, the idea of forcing someone to continue practicing a particular religious faith under penalty of death seems crazy. As it should. As such, the intent here is not to justify Abu Bakr’s actions but to provide some context that might make them easier to understand. The Islamic world, such as it was, in the immediate aftermath of the Prophet’s death was still small and fragile. It had not yet become a global power spread across multiple continents, instead it was still a regional phenomenon specific to the Arabian Peninsula. Given its precarious position, Abu Bakr’s harsh actions and views make sense since they prevented the new community from coming apart in its infancy. Though the apostacy laws were articulated in religious terms, they were meant to deal with a specific political situation since much of the Arabian Peninsula was now in open rebellion.  

Considering the well-known maxim within Islam that there is no compulsion in religion, the only logical way to reconcile these contradictory ideas is to understand that the death penalty instituted for apostacy was an emergency measure meant to deal with a specific political crisis. Now that there are almost 2 billion Muslims in the world, the impetus for these laws is no longer applicable or relevant. Unfortunately, most of the Ulama disagree with this interpretation. Instead, they have used these measures as a basis to justify more violence against people expressing their personal religious convictions over the years.

This faulty logic is yet one more example of the toxic role the Ulama have played in supporting the region’s dictators and the extent to which the Muslim world’s intellectual climate has decayed due to the restrictions on free speech and debate common throughout it.

It is also another point on which Khaldun errs. Thankfully, he redeems himself when he says, “blind acceptance of tradition is a shortcoming[52].” Which brings us to our second argument. When traditions or decisions, particularly those from a long time ago, no longer match our values, they can and must be discarded. Common sense and logic dictate that traditions and past precedents should only guide us if they still make sense considering the values and sensibilities of the time. A position most of the justices on America’s Supreme Court disagree with but a sound one, nonetheless.

Given the additional data that has been added to the historical record since Khaldun shared his thoughts, it is now painfully obvious that governments should have absolutely no role in enforcing religious or personal expressions of any sort. Freedom to practice or not to practice one’s faith is an inherently personal choice in which government should play no part.

Instead of finding ways to walk back from an impossible position that contradicts the fundamental truth that religious beliefs must be adopted voluntarily, the Muslim world’s rulers and their enablers have spent centuries using the actions of Abu Bakr to rationalize more repression. Modern day Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iran all prove that allowing governments to control how people pray or express their religious beliefs only leads to dictatorship and repression. Governments are political entities, and by their very nature corrupt. As a result, giving governments the power to enforce religious laws is an invitation to both political and spiritual corruption. Logic therefore dictates that governments cannot be trusted with such powers.

The state’s job is not to enforce Islamic values or laws but to create an environment where those who choose to live according to them may do so in peace, as they see fit. So long as they respect the state’s monopoly on violence and do not interfere with those who choose to live differently, the religious views of all citizens must be respected. The government’s primary concern should be enacting policies that allow its citizens to work together to prosper and protect each other from invasion, not enforcing compliance with religious edicts. Aside from being illogical, the obsession of so many Muslim governments with enforcing religious laws has directly undermined their ability to competently execute their core functions, like protecting their nations from attack. 

The best way to create Islamic governments capable of fulfilling their most important duties is to create secular, democratic political systems comparable to America’s that are given limited powers to carry out their core governmental functions. “Secular” has become a bad word in the Muslim world because it is associated with authoritarians like the Turks or hypocrites like the French who have used secularism as a cudgel to prevent people from freely practicing their faith. But secularism like that practiced in America would give all Muslims the freedom to practice their faith freely while still preserving the core Islamic values established by the Rashidun.

Not coincidentally, creating secular democracies is also the only viable path to greater unity within the Muslim world. The only way to bring the incredibly diverse people of the Muslim world together is by creating political systems that respect their differences. Violently trying to ensure orthodoxy or conformity, on the other hand, will always keep Muslims divided.

Conclusion

The historical record shows the Rashidun era featured pluralistic and inclusive political institutions that passed power and enacted laws based on the consensus of the community. This history strongly supports the argument that creating democratic political institutions is consistent with Islamic values.

The question Muslims have struggled with is how to adapt these values to modern realities. Trying to replicate exactly how things were done centuries ago or refusing to discard what no longer makes sense in light of changed circumstances are absurd propositions. The only way to reconcile religious teachings that are centuries old with common sense is to adapt them to modern circumstances and ideas. Muslims can look to the era of the Rashidun for guidance and should certainly strive to create governments inspired by their democratic and egalitarian values but trying to re-create a system of government that existed for the blink of an eye nearly 1400 years ago is impossible and irrational.

Muslims have bathed themselves in conservative ideologies and stagnant thoughts for too long. As a political philosophy, conservatism makes no sense for one simple reason: it is opposed to one of the most basic natural laws. As humans learn through the simple process of aging, change is an intrinsic part of life. Philosophies that seek to deny this truth are incapable of forming coherent or moral ideologies because they are inherently illogical and, as a result, must usually resort to authoritarian methods to maintain power. Hence, the violent oppression instigated by men using religion and tradition as an excuse to stop their societies from evolving.

But this religious repression is based on the political absurdities created by the dictators who have taken over the region and the mental acrobatics they force their scholars to perform. Enforcing religious orthodoxy goes hand in hand with suppressing political speech. The two reinforce each other and help to buttress the region’s many dictators who have spent centuries obscuring the fact that the ideal Islamic government is, and always has been, a democratic one based on consent rather than force.

---

[1] Kennedy, Hugh. Caliphate The History of an Idea. New York: Basic Book, 2016, at 2.

[2] Numani, Shibli. Umar. New York: I.B. Tauris & Co., 2004, at 20.

[3] Ansary, Tamim. Destiny Disrupted. New York: PublicAffairs, 2009, at 35-36.

[4] Kennedy at 4.

[5] Numani at 20.

[6] Hourani, Albert. A History of the Arab Peoples. New York: Warner Books, 1991, at 22.

[7] Lapidus, Ira. A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, at 38.

[8] Kennedy at 16.

[9] Numani at 21.

[10] Ansary at 40.

[11] Id. at 41.

[12] Id. at 52.

[13] Id. at 52.

[14] Hourani at 25.

[15] Khaldun, Ibn, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton: The Princeton University Press, 1967), at 160-66.

[16] Id. at 162.

[17] Id. at 163.

[18] Id. at 107-09.

[19] Id. at 166.

[20] Id. at 165.

[21] Id. at 164.

[22] Id. at 164.

[23] Id. at 164.

[24] Id. at 216.

[25] Id. at 5.

[26] Ansary at 278.

[27] Kennedy at 170 discussing Ghazali.

[28] Khaldun at 164.

[29] Ansary at 67.

[30] Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East: A Brief History of the last 2,000 years. New York: Scribner, 1995 at 65.

[31] Kennedy at 39.

[32] Hourani at 25-26.

[33] Lewis at 62.

[34] Ansary at 29, or Lewis at 54.

[35] Lewis at 212.

[36] Khaldun at 156.

[37] Id. at 157.

[38] Lewis at 72.

[39] Id. at 63.

[40] Id. at 63.

[41] Ansary at 47.

[42] Id. at 50.

[43] Khaldun at 155.

[44] Id. at 154-55.

[45] Id. at 47.

[46] Id. at 238-42.

[47] Id. at 232-34.

[48] Id. at 154.

[49] Lacey, Robert. Inside the Kingdom. New York: Viking Penguin, 2009, at 52.

[50] Khaldun at 159.

[51] Ansary at 39.

[52] Khaldun at 158.

The election of an extreme right-wing government in Israel barely elicited a yawn in the US. The Washington Post complained that a government comprised of far-right personalities “raises dilemmas” for President Biden but that was the worst of its unbelievably mild criticism. To its credit, it was one of the few publications to even address these new developments. 

Israel is a nuclear armed state that will now feature a government run by people who have openly advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and been convicted of having ties to terrorist organizations. And the best the Washington Post could do was worry about the impact on President Biden. Sadly, this muted reaction was not surprising in the least because America is severely skewed towards the right end of the spectrum itself. 

For example, the foreign policies of its supposedly left-wing administration are extremely right wing. President Biden denies Israel is an Apartheid state and has maintained America’s robust military presence and arms sales throughout the Muslim world to prop up the region’s many despots. His administration passed an $801 billion military budget. That is because substantially cutting military spending in America is a political and economic impossibility. Does that sound left wing and liberal to you? 

To be fair, defining what constitutes a right-wing foreign policy is difficult. The term is more appropriately used in reference to domestic politics to describe those who believe social stratification and hierarchy are natural, or at the extreme, desirable. Aside from its fringe isolationist tendencies, the right is generally associated with a hawkish foreign policy that favors large defense budgets and using military force to achieve foreign policy objectives. Those who subscribe to the right believe powerful nations have the right to do as they please to weaker ones and that the needs and prerogatives of their nation trumps those of other nations. In other words, they extend their belief in hierarchy to the international system while placing their nation at the top. The neo-conservatives who invaded Iraq and Afghanistan are a good example. 

What the average American considers centrists is, in fact, a right-wing position. Even its liberals are right-wing when it comes to foreign policy. They just evoke empty platitudes like Wilsonian Principles to justify their violence, but the end result is the same. Americans implicitly believe their nation should have a dominant role in world affairs even if maintaining that role involves committing horrible violence. 

These beliefs stem from their inherently hierarchical view of the world. These right-wing values have led it to invade or attack nations all over the world in pursuit of its hegemonic ambitions. Its forgotten invasion of the Philippines at the turn of the 20^th century is just one of many examples and even though an estimated 200,000 Filipino civilians died, that is not even its most genocidal display of imperial violence.  

America unleashed hell on Vietnam and Iraq under the flimsiest of circumstances. Millions died. None of the leaders responsible for these mass murders have ever been held legally accountable even though many now realize there were no valid reasons for either invasion. 

Despite these facts, arguing that George Bush is a war criminal for fabricating evidence to start a war that led to the death of anywhere from 1.5-2.4 million Iraqis would still offend many Americans. The prospect of holding him accountable at the International Criminal Court for the mayhem he unleashed would be even more controversial because of their implicitly right-wing views. Whether they want to admit it or not is their business.

Ideas of American exceptionalism and impunity are so ingrained into the fiber of the average American that meaningfully questioning the destructive role it has played in the world is nearly impossible. Doing so is far more likely to elicit charges of being unpatriotic or anti-American than introspection. Never mind that our beloved nation has been habitually invading and attacking countries all over the world for well over a century now. 

In America, men like Tucker Carlson who call Iraqis “primitive monkeys” and drone on about the virtues of British imperialism get a primetime slot on cable as they are paid millions to spew hateful garbage. Tucker Carlson may be a racist asshole¹ but, at least he’s an honest one. I appreciate that even if I find most of his views repugnant. The people I really cannot stand are the ones who pretend to be liberal but are still imperialist hypocrites at heart². 

Simply pointing out that being progressive and supporting Israeli Apartheid are mutually exclusive leads to howls and screams by those “Progressives” who refuse to see the blatant contradiction. Websites like foreignpolicy.com pass for centrist, reasoned opinion while they constantly push for war against Iran or beefed-up military spending to counter China. But much like the Washington Post, it mostly glossed over the high probability that Israel’s new government will murder thousands of Palestinians. Instead, it was also more concerned with the ramifications for President Biden as it reminded its readers of the “values” that America and Israel share. For publications like FP, questioning America’s violent policies or even highlighting how its numerous forward military bases and powerful fleet of carriers³ might be driving China’s military spending is a non-starter because that would involve questioning their right-wing, hierarchical belief in America’s right to do as it pleases and dominate other nations.

So, the fact no one cares that Israelis just elected a government that will murder thousands of Palestinian civilians is not surprising. When the inevitable happens, most Americans will talk about how “complicated” this conflict is while our government continues to supply Israel with the weapons and funding needed to continue the slaughter. That is the path being set and no one in America will do anything about it. Many will condone and support it; they’ll even blame the victims while they raise money for Ukraine. 

America’ unwavering support for Israel is based on their shared right-wing, hierarchical view of the world and their civilizational commonalities, as best explained by Samuel Huntington. Combined, these factors diminish the value of those lives they deem inferior and allow both Americans and Israelis to rationalize their abhorrent behavior towards the Muslim world. Simply put, Americans view Israelis as being higher on the hierarchy than Palestinians. As a result, they do not care that Israel’s new government is crazy and will very likely end up being genocidal. 

America’s right-wing induced quest to remain the world’s sole hegemonic power has fueled conflicts throughout the globe. Palestine is just one part of the Muslim world that has been subject to violence and conquest. 

AMERICA’S CONFLICT WITH THE MUSLIM WORLD

America’s war with the Muslim world began in earnest when it evicted Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Its policies in the region have always been shaped by the desire to protect Israel and secure its energy deposits. It established permanent military bases there in pursuit of these goals after the fall of the Soviet Union and has maintained its presence since.

These hostilities are just the latest iteration of a conflict that started when the Arabs first conquered large parts of the Byzantine Empire. Historians often talk about the ancient enmity between Islam and Christendom as a thing of the past, a remnant of the Ottoman Empire and bygone days. But it never really ended. 

The West has established such overwhelming military dominance over the Muslim world that it sounds silly to talk of this conflict as ongoing. However, it will continue to fester so long as America and its allies insist on maintaining their control over the region.

The conflicts with Iraq and Iran, Europe’s tortured relationship with Turkey, the refusal of so many Westerners to acknowledge Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians as well as their support for Arab despots who routinely murder and torture their own people all find their origins in the long running conflict between the West and the Muslim world. Today’s conflicts revolve, yet again, around the Holy Land. 

Even America’s tensions with Iran stem from its efforts to ensure no Muslim state can challenge Israel’s ability to slaughter the Palestinians under its control. In many ways, this conflict is following the same trajectory as its conflict with Iraq for many of the same reasons. It even features the use of brutal sanctions like the ones that killed 576,000 Iraqi children. Aside from killing children, their only other tangible effect was to strengthen Saddam’s grip on power. 

When asked about this, Madeleine Albright, considered left by many, thought the cost was “worth it.” America is using the same playbook against Iran because it did not learn anything from what it did to Iraq. The reason it learned nothing from these crimes is its right-wing mindset and value system that de-values Muslim lives.  

Many support military action against Iran for the same reason they supported the invasion of Iraq; to prevent it from acquiring the same weapons America and its allies possess. For the average American, Iran’s attempts to develop the means to protect itself are a crime that justifies military action. That America overthrew its democratically elected Prime Minister, supported the brutal Shah, conquered two of its neighbors, has a powerful fleet parked off its shores, clandestinely attacks it on a consistent basis, and occasionally threatens to bomb it to oblivion are irrelevant.

Americans justify their actions towards Iran by arguing its government cannot be trusted with such weapons. As discussed at length here, this argument fails miserably and was conclusively invalidated the minute Israelis elected their insane new government into power.

Given the history of violent Western attacks on Muslim nations and Israel’s strike first philosophy, Muslims would be foolish not to take the precautions necessary to defend themselves from further attacks. This is particularly true when Israelis choose men like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich to run their government.

Unfortunately, the average Westerner is incapable of understanding these arguments since most are reflexively dismissive of ideas that challenge their hierarchical views. These biases are reinforced by Iran’s human rights abuses and repressive laws as well as its own right-wing values.

And that really is the crux of the issue. When it comes to the feud between Muslims and Christians, there are a lot of “bad guys” on both sides. The West and the Muslim world are in many ways, mirror images of each other. That is part of what drives conflict between them. Neither tribe has truly embraced the concept of live and let live. Their inability to do so is rooted in the right-wing values that dominate both. 

The West is not as overtly racist and violently fearful of outsiders or those with differing beliefs as it was during the days of the Inquisition or even the Jim Crow era. But as the right-wing skew that prompted this essay indicates, its culture and politics still leave a wide space for such ideas, and they are still an important part of its value system. 

Some Muslims, on the other hand, have become so stringent in their beliefs that they are willing to kill anyone who challenges them. Many have forgotten how to think for themselves and seem mired in self-destructive policies. Governments like Iran’s slaughter innocent women and children who want nothing more than the personal freedoms that are the natural right of every single human being.

Both possess an inherently hierarchal right-wing view of the world in which they reside at the top. As such, neither has ever been able to abide the other. But that is just one of many similarities. 

Since it would take a book to adequately explain all the parallels, I will provide a few thoughts to briefly illuminate in the interim:

People living in San Diego centuries from now (assuming it is still inhabited) will probably wonder how their city could ever have been part of a unified political entity that included cities as far flung as their own, Boston, Anchorage, and Honolulu.

They will marvel at the military and technological might America achieved over nearly the entire world during its golden age, the Pax Americana. They will shake their heads at how its rulers foolishly wasted trillions on needless wars and military confrontations as they allowed themselves to be dominated by their military elite and the commercial interests that supplied them. They will laugh at recordings of the orange reality TV star who many will say pulled the first thread. But others will understand that the Orange One was just a symptom of the rot that had already set in. Those with a more nuanced understanding of history will say it started when America militarized to defeat the Nazis and ended up nuking an island full of women and children. In either case, it will be a purely academic discussion. 

The similarity to the Muslim world may seem unclear at first. But people in Morocco and Iran will understand the import as they often have similar discussions today about how they were once part of the Umayyad Empire. Just as the Arabs struggled with the universality of their message as they tried to keep Islam for themselves, white people are faced with a similar dilemma as they try to keep democracy for themselves. The overthrow of the Umayyads by the Abbasids forced the Arabs to embrace a universal Islamic message that extended to non-Arabs. 

The great question of our time is whether Westerners will ever truly embrace their own ideas regarding the universal right to self-governance and whether these ideas can work in multi-ethnic societies. Many white people have been loath to extend their democratic values and the equality they imply to non-whites. It is unclear how the West will settle this debate, but the early results are not promising. 

America seems eager to walk a similar path to ruin as the Muslim world for many of the same reasons. Its jurists are even concocting the same sort of ludicrous theories of judicial interpretation Muslim jurists once used to rationalize their refusal to evolve or adapt their sacred founding texts to changing circumstances. Clarence Thomas is a modern-day Al-Ghazali and will be remembered for having a similarly negative impact.

But these are just ramblings that will only be relevant long from now. For our purposes, it would be better to suggest ideas that offer more immediate benefits. If Israel is the root of the issue, then the solution must begin there and that has been obvious for some time. The Palestinians have lost the fight for their own state. Their best path forward is to use non-violence and mass civil disobedience to peacefully work towards a one state solution in which they are treated as equal citizens.  

The reason most Israelis and Americans consider this a non-option despite its obvious merits is, you guessed it, their right-wing hierarchical value system cannot allow them to contemplate a world in which they fairly share power and live together with Arabs⁴. And yet, they have made it impossible for the two communities to live apart. As a result, Israeli’s have chosen Apartheid over equality.  

As the Washington Post noted, Israel’s power is without rival in the region. It has turned itself into a new goliath but, as Kennedy reminds us, power fluctuates over time. As Israelis embrace their choice to move to their ancestral homeland, they are becoming more like their neighbors every day. They are even building their own madrasas. They should beware. Their domination of the Arabs has always been predicated upon their ability to wage war like a Western nation. As it becomes more like its neighbors it will gradually lose the advantages that have allowed it to dominate them and formed the basis for America’s support. 

America may not care about the shifts Israel is experiencing today, but that will change over time. As Israel turns itself into a typical Middle Eastern state, the bonds that have tied it to America will eventually rupture. As such, the time to strike a fair deal with the Palestinians will never be better and that is the only way it will ever truly be accepted by all its neighbors, not just the dictators trying to curry America’s favor. 

The odds Israel’s new government opts for such measures are non-existent. Instead, it will continue its aggressive military policies, confident in its might and America’s support. I have already provided the best advice I can to the Palestinians and Iranians regarding how best to deal with Israel’s imperial belligerence. As such, I will not bore the reader again. 

America’s withdrawal from the region is inevitable; however, it will continue to play a de-stabilizing role as it continues to provide arms and political support to its Israeli and Arab allies. So long as Muslims are forced to obey the tyrants and thieves that rule over so many of them, they will remain weak and vulnerable to its neo-imperial policies even though it will be preoccupied with other, more pressing conflicts.

AMERICA’S CONFLICT WITH RUSSIA

America’s conflicts with the Muslim world and China are both largely motivated by its right-wing, imperial perspectives. Its fight with Russia is not. The connections to its right-wing, hierarchical values are tenuous, at best, but these have still shaped the debate over its support in surprising ways.   

Russia began its invasion of Ukraine in 2014 but initiated a new, more aggressive phase in February of 2022. America, outraged that Russia would invade another nation in pursuit of an imperial agenda, has been supplying the Ukrainian military with weapons, logistics, and intelligence support. 

Since emerging victoriously from the rubble of WW2, America and Russia have turned themselves into the world’s most aggressive military powers. The list of invasions, proxy wars, and coups initiated by each would take up too much space to list here. Both are guilty of unleashing horrific imperial violence fueled by their hierarchical views of the world. 

The only meaningful difference is that America is exponentially more powerful than Russia. As such, its hegemonic ambitions encompass the entire world whereas Russia’s imperial ambitions are now mostly limited to its periphery. After suffering unimaginable horrors and carnage at the hands of French and German invaders, Russia reserved the right to use the nations of its “near abroad” as a buffer against invasion. America agreed to respect this when the Cold War ended. But due to its own right wing, imperialist tendencies, Russia wanted more than a buffer. Its leaders decided they had the right to control their neighbors. The war in Ukraine is the result.  

America’s leaders came to Ukraine’s defense because protecting Europe is in their best interest. It has built strong relationships with nearly all of Europe’s nations in the post-Cold War period which has led to alliances that support America’s economic and military strength. Protecting Ukraine is therefore important to maintain both its political and economic power throughout Europe. 

Despite these important geo-political interests, America’s Right has opposed providing aid to Ukraine. I was initially confused by the reaction of Fox News personalities like Tucker Carlson who, I assumed, would always support America’s aggressive military actions despite his late epiphany regarding Iraq. Once again, this controversy shows that despite his many flaws, Tucker Carlson is at least consistent. His support for Russia comes from his belief that powerful nations, particularly white ones⁵, have the right to do as they please to weaker ones. In his hierarchical view of the world, he sees little difference between America and Russia. 

Despite the aforementioned interests, arming Ukraine is still a risky and aggressive decision. Ukraine has historically been a part of the Slavic world and Russia’s orbit. The supply of weapons to it has resulted in pushing America’s sphere of influence right up to Russia’s doorstop, crossing its historical red line. 

As such, there is an argument to be made that America’s actions are consistent with the right-wing skew that has driven this discussion since they suggest that only America and Israel have the right to control and attack their neighbors. Its willingness to engage in a proxy war with a nuclear armed power is evidence of a belief in a hierarchy in which America, or those it empowers, resides alone at the top. A tenuous connection, but one worth considering particularly since it is yet one more example of the right-wing leanings of its “left-wing” administration which managed to outflank even Mr. Carlson by going further to his right. The confusing reaction of America’s left and right wings is not the only inconsistency brought to the forefront by this war. 

Many have complained about the double standards highlighted by this conflict. The West has embraced the cause of the Ukrainians and their right to freedom while it refuses to meaningfully address abuses committed by its allies in the Middle East. Hopefully this is obvious by now, but these differences stem from its inherently right-wing, hierarchal view of the world⁶. Arabs do not deserve freedom or democracy, but Ukrainians do because of their respective positions on the hierarchy.

Although the war is ongoing, Russia’s failure to capture Kyiv, its heavy casualties and overall lackluster performance wrote the ending within the first week of its invasion. I suggested Mr. Putin withdraw completely shortly after his failure to take Kyiv and will not re-hash those ideas here. Just as I predicted, he has overplayed his hand by not retreating immediately and may now lose Crimea too. 

There will always be tensions between Western Europe and Russia, even after the war ends. However, the West will always have the advantage since Russia will remain a weak, second-tier power while it is ruled by dictators. Despite these tensions, America cannot protect Europe in perpetuity. 

Europe must learn to protect itself by weaning itself off Russian energy and building a unified military command apart from NATO that can deter Russia without direct American involvement. Given Russia’s performance in Ukraine, the burden will not be terrible, but it is still Europe’s to carry. Thankfully, Europe has more than enough resources to build the necessary capabilities. 

Part of the reason America cannot afford to stay in Europe is its insistence on challenging China.

AMERICA’S CONFLICT WITH CHINA

No conflict highlights America’s right-wing views like the one with China. The Islamic world and Russia both have expansionist and violent histories that explain why America may feel the need to confront them militarily. China does not. 

Tensions with China are almost solely fueled by its right-wing infused hierarchical view of the world which can tolerate no challengers, particularly one from Asia. America likes to pretend this conflict is about values and freedom. That is absolute poppycock. You cannot be the number one arms dealer to repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel and claim to care about freedom or democracy with a straight face. 

Its claims regarding human rights are also undermined by the fact that it began investing in China while the blood in Tiananmen Square was still wet. Sure, its leaders made a few arguments about how engagement would bring change. One can only hope they were not dumb or naïve enough to believe them since making someone richer typically does not make them more compliant or willing to change. America’s interest in China has always been based on using its surplus labor to make the cheap consumers goods that American factories can no longer competitively produce. 

China’s crime is not that it oppresses its own people but that it has acquired enough power to challenge American hegemony thereby upsetting the hierarchy. America only started caring about its human rights abuses once China forgot its place in said hierarchy. There would be no conflict with China today if it had stuck to making cheap consumer goods instead of adding aircraft carriers, fighter jets, etc. to the growing list of things made in China. 

This is not meant to excuse or gloss over China’s behavior, particularly its treatment of the Uyghurs, which is disgusting, immoral, and dumb considering its need for allies in the Muslim world but simply to point out that America’s opposition to China has nothing to do with morals. It has taken up the cause of the Uyghurs while ignoring the fact that American companies helped build the repressive monitoring system that allowed the CCP to watch and imprison them. So, let’s not pretend America genuinely cares about their rights.

America’s tensions with China are based purely on its desire to remain the world’s most powerful nation which is, in turn, fueled by its right-wing values. China has no interest in restricting world trade. That, after all, is its bread and butter. It makes hundreds of billions a month selling the world its wares. America is not picking a fight with China to protect trade or shipping routes. Its only goal is to remain the alpha – in China’s backyard. 

By inference, this discussion also shows that America’s claims to champion Taiwanese independence as a matter of principle do not pass the smell test. Leaving aside the obvious comparison between Palestine and Taiwan, it should be clear by now that America only cares about human rights or freedom when it is politically convenient. 

China’s aggressive military posture certainly poses challenges, but it is unlikely to present a meaningful threat to America over the long run. Though its political economy is far more resilient and vibrant than Russia’s, it still suffers from the defects of absolutism and authoritarianism. As such, China’s long-term prognosis is not very good either. So long as America remains a healthy democracy and nation of well-conceived and fairly administered laws, it will always be more powerful than China. 

Committing massive resources to stop China’s rise over the short to medium term would therefore be a mistake. America’s obsession with challenging China militarily in the Western Pacific will prove costly. Even with its forward bases, doing so would strain its resources on multiple levels, not the least of which relate to supply lines and logistics. And that does not even account for the intertwined nature of their economies.

Instead of picking a fight it will have a very hard time winning, America is going to need to stand down.  Its involvement in Asia should be limited to providing sufficient naval and space assets to ensure trade routes flow freely. But building a coalition designed to contain China will ultimately prove counterproductive and a waste of resources that will only accelerate America’s decline. Just as it must in Europe, it will need to take a step back and let Asia sort itself out. 

To that end, if China wants to be known as a great power, it will need to start acting like one. It’s aggressive policies, like its authoritarian absorption of Hong Kong, have been a mistake. These mistakes explain much of Taiwan’s determination to maintain its independence and the ease with which America has rallied coalition partners. Oppression is always the dumbest policy. Though the results will often be delayed, it always leads to rebellion and instability. 

It will ultimately be up to China’s neighbors and regional competitors to develop a peaceful way to co-exist. Thankfully, much like their counterparts in Europe, Asia’s powerful nations also have the resources to protect themselves. 

FITTING ALL THE PIECES TOGETHER

Due to the right-wing views and tribal dynamics discussed above, America is simultaneously picking a fight with China and Iran while it refuses to back down from Russia. As it takes on these three foes, it is forcing them into an alliance that will lead to economic integration and military cooperation between a large portion of the Eurasian land mass and people.

America, for reasons that will make no sense to those studying it in the future, is determined to stop China’s rise while preventing Iran from assuming its natural place as a major player in the Middle East. And it is fighting Russia after breaking its promises regarding the expansion of NATO. 

America’s obsession with limiting China could easily lead to another bi-polar global competition in which nations must pick a camp. Due to its growing influence in Africa, its alliance with Pakistan, and Turkey’s frayed relations with Europe, it is not difficult to imagine most of the non-Arab Muslim world, Africa, Russia, and China aligned against America, Western Europe, Japan, S. Korea, Australia, India, Israel, and the Arab world. 

Even with China’s growing power, the American led bloc is still significantly more powerful. But as Kennedy explained, the balances are gradually tipping against it. Even if America maintains its edge, the harsh reality is that the next world war will feature multiple belligerents armed with nuclear weapons. The consequences will be devastating. 

As it engages in these confrontations, its political factions are hopelessly divided, and its debt sits at $31 trillion. Which means America is too broke and divided to pick three fights at once. Especially, since it is the imperial aggressor in two of them. It is morally and financially bankrupt and needs to focus on itself since it is now just another asshole in a world full of them. It needs to stop pretending like it is the good guy or that it is being forced to play the policeman because no one believes that anymore. The most logical way to relieve America of its policing duties is for the rest of the world to take responsibility for their own neighborhoods.

Even with its massive debt and unrealistic geopolitical goals, the idea that America should withdraw its military from the world and stand down is considered a fringe, extreme opinion, which proves the point I have been trying to make and shows that America’s leaders will not listen to this advice. Instead, they’ll do what they did in Afghanistan. Stick their head in the sand and pretend like everything is fine until it all goes horribly wrong, horribly fast. The window for America to make a soft landing from its looming fall is fast closing but its leaders are too arrogant and sure of their exceptional qualities to listen. 

AMERICA’S RIGHT-WING VALUES WILL EVENTUALLY DESTROY IT

America’s extreme rightward lurch is the result of being in a nearly perpetual state of war since WW2 with only slight pauses between its many conflicts, invasions, police actions, etc. Conflict always causes societies to shift to the right. Aside from WW2, Korea, the Balkans, and Afghanistan⁷ none of this violence has been justified or lawful under any sane standard of international law or common sense. The fact that it is powerful enough to shield itself from being held accountable does not absolve it of its sins.

As a brilliant man pointed out decades ago, the chickens are coming home to roost. Mass murder has become a routine part of American life. In its quest to control the world, America has unleashed demons at home that will continue to haunt it until it changes course by dismantling the massive armaments industry it has created to supply the world and its own people with the means to murder en masse. 

Right-wing ideologies, though based on an accurate observation of the human condition, are typically grounded in faulty logic. Hierarchy and stratification are indeed a natural condition of human societies, particularly those Ibn Khaldun would call “sedentary.” Where most right-wing ideologies err is in thinking hierarchy or strata should be based on a particular group identity like being white or Muslim or Brahmin or whatever false construct we create to help us relate to our neighbors and provide some sense of identity beyond our individual selves. 

Social strata must always be fluid and ascending to the top must always be possible for those at the bottom based on their merit and talents, not their identity or membership in a particular group.

They also err in believing that violence done to other nations is permissible under some sort of natural law grounded in social Darwinism. Violence always begets more violence and though Americans are right to voice concern over human rights abuses committed by China, Iran, or Russia, they are wrong to believe their nation is any better or that violence should be a casual and commonly used tool of statecraft.

Instead of reflexively resorting to violence, America must learn to voice its disapproval in more peaceful ways, like avoiding close relations or business dealings with countries that abuse and oppress their own people. 

The international system is comprised of nations that represent the ultimate source of authority over the territories they govern. Though many of these nations are artificial and weak constructs, violating their sovereignty or initiating violence against one must always be a last resort. It’s not that humans do not have an obligation to help each other, it’s that often times help in the guise of a military intervention does more harm than good. As such, these must only be launched in the most desperate of circumstances. Since it is still incumbent upon us to act in accord with our conscious and values, we must limit ourselves to peaceful forms of protest designed to incentivize peaceful behavior. 

For example, instead of confronting China militarily, America should be actively dismantling the factories it has built there over the years. But it must also realize that it does not have the right to stop other nations from trading with it. Its constant use of sanctions will eventually force nations to conduct their business using different currencies than the US dollar and that will hurt America’s prosperity and power more than anything Iran, Russia, or China could do on the battlefield.  

Although violence must always be avoided, it is still something that must be prepared for. Such is the nature of man. The question is how many resources to devote since doing so takes so much away from socio-economic development. Designing, building, and maintaining tanks and warplanes may generate jobs and economic activity in short bursts but it is nothing compared to the ROI when money is spent on scientific R&D, education, or infrastructure designed to enhance economic activity. As such, funds set aside for the military must only be the minimal amount necessary to ensure a government can protect the territorial integrity of the land under its control. The specific amounts will vary based on each country’s geopolitical situation. 

America has been blessed with geography that requires very little to keep it safe. Its natural geographic barriers and vast lands make conquering it nearly impossible. The logistics and forces required are beyond the capacity of any other nation on Earth. Its resources are therefore best used towards maintaining its qualitative and technological edge in waging war and supplying enough divisions and assets to secure its borders.

Its current military outlays and the strategies they are meant to support are far beyond the scope of what a nation with its natural defenses could possibly need to protect itself. That is because they are not designed for self-defense but to project power. In that sense, America’s military posture is both an exorbitant waste of resources and immoral and this largely explains why it has been so ineffective in achieving its foreign policy goals. Or do we need to revisit Vietnam and Iraq again? Strategy and good morals must align to be effective. Many of America’s policies have failed because they do not appreciate this connection or sever them completely under the guise of realism.

The only time it is permissible to use violence is in self-defense or the immediate defense of others. Pre-emptively attacking a nation for pursuing the right to defend itself or control its own resources, even if it is ruled by a bunch of zealots, does not fall within those parameters. 

Similarly, permanently stationing troops in other countries will only keep America involved in conflicts that are not its own. But not even its “centrists” can accept that America has been an imperial aggressor at times. Despite its record of carnage, most Americans simply cannot understand why the benign and ubiquitous presence of their armed forces throughout the world might be cause for alarm. Those who fear America must be bad guys, right? 

I am often tempted to ask people how they would respond if Iran or China or even Japan were to station a large armed force on Cuba, but since we already know the answer, I do not waste my time. The fact that this point is not obvious or gets conveniently ignored by most Americans when debating their policies in the world shows that America has a fundamentally imperialist view of the world. It is its great blind spot, one that happens to be comparable in dimensions to Jupiter’s Great Red Spot. 

America’s obsession with maintaining its place at the top of the hierarchy through military means will eventually doom it the same way these obsessions eventually doomed the Roman and Ottoman Empires. Its finances are getting weaker by the day. It is even debasing its currency the same way the Ottomans often did. Whether it likes it or not, the days of fielding a massive and all-powerful military will soon be over. The only path forward is to swerve back to the center but since most Americans do not know what that looks like, the odds of that happening are extremely low. Instead, America is determined to kick an own goal as it buries itself in debt to pay for its massive military. 

BRINGING IT BACK TO THE MUSLIM WORLD, AS ALWAYS

When confronted with a world dominated by people who can barely tell their right from their left, Muslims must consider the implications of the world’s refusal to abandon the imperial ideologies that have guided its powerful nations for so long.

Luckily, the implications are straight forward. Those societies that do not wish to be subjugated must strengthen themselves by building democratic and inclusive political and social systems based on the rule of law. Doing so is the surest way to develop the technological and military capabilities required to protect themselves.

Whatever its other shortcomings, there can be no doubt as to the Western world’s primary contribution to the world: liberal democracy. The West may have forgotten the secret to its rise, but those who wish to remain free must embrace these lessons. Democracy and tolerance, those so called “left” virtues, are not just the moral choice, they are the practical choice. It is only by embracing them that a nation has any chance of saving itself from the madness and regressive ideas gripping so much of the world. 

Humans are a violent species.  All the world’s tribes have a history of violence towards each other which means they all have blood on their hands. The Western world is no different than any of the world’s other tribes in its willingness to slaughter and conquer those it deems inferior. Its only distinction is that it ascended to the top by creating political, economic, and social systems that optimized its ability to wage war. As a result, the West has been the world’s most powerful civilization for the past 500 years and counting. 

But power is relative and part of the reason the Muslim world has been subject to so much violence is that it is incredibly weak. This weakness has seen it fall prey to Russian, Chinese, and Indian aggression too. The instability of the Muslim world’s periphery is a function of the rot at its core.

As a result of this rot and weakness, the Muslim world has experienced one slaughter after another. It will continue to do so until it implements some desperately needed changes. Today, it is Ben-Gvir with his finger on the nuclear trigger, tomorrow it will be Marjorie Taylor Green or Yogi Adityanath. Anyone living in the Muslim world who is not scared, is not paying attention. 

The right to self-defense is one of the most basic and natural to human beings. But it is hollow unless nations take the steps to ensure they can competently exercise it. Rights are nothing without the means to secure them. As the eminent physicist Pervaiz Hoodbhoy has pointed out on many occasions, the best place to start is by focusing on education. But to be effective, educational reforms must be accompanied by political and legal reforms directed towards guaranteeing freedom of expression since it is impossible to develop the intellect without first giving it the freedom to question. Until Muslims commit to freeing themselves from the shackles imposed by their rulers and religious men, they will continue to find themselves subject to mass murder, conquest, displacement, and poverty. 

1. Apologies to those offended by my crass language. I typically censor myself when I write but you know the saying, once a dirty cussing sailor, always a dirty cussing sailor. My choice of language is more than just a reflection of my days swabbing the deck. It is an intentional choice meant to further highlight the hypocrisy of some of the authors, personalities, and publications referenced throughout this discussion. I find it hilarious that in the interest of civility, these publications frown upon coarse language while they advocate for policies that could easily lead to the slaughter of countless innocents. Their sense of morality and ethics is just as skewed as their sense of right and left.
2. Both imperialism and neo-imperialism are, at their core, right-wing pursuits.
3. Between its Ford, Nimitz, America, and Wasp classes, the US has 20 carriers of various sizes compared to the three operated by China.
4. The Palestinians, on the other hand, appear to be more accepting of this idea: Palestinians favour a one-state over a two-state solution, poll finds – Middle East Monitor.
5. An inference based on his opposition to China’s aggressive policies.
6. I’m bored of saying it too, but it does bear repeating.
7. The reasons for invading Afghanistan may have been sound but the twenty-year occupation that followed and the incompetence with which it was implemented were not.

Spanish history is depressing. It is a tale of greed, bigotry, and violence. The Reconquista, though a cute term, is a shorthand way of describing the violent destruction of an open-minded and tolerant Islamic society that thrived for centuries on the Iberian Peninsula. It represents the victory of bigotry over tolerance. The ethnic cleansing and forced conversions of Spain’s Muslims and Jews was just the beginning.

The hate unleashed during the Reconquista and the inquisition that followed also found expression in the brutal treatment meted out to those misfortunate enough to cross paths with Spain’s gold thirsty conquistadors. Their methods were so brutal that you can trace much of Central and South America’s wealth inequality and resulting underdevelopment and instability to their legacy. The seeds sown during the Reconquista not only shaped Spain’s conquest of the New World but culminated in the destruction of the Spanish Civil War and reverberate through the neo-colonial power structures prevalent throughout the world today. It is hard not to get depressed when one thinks about all the lives needlessly ruined and destroyed because Spaniards spent so many centuries obsessing over the religious beliefs of their neighbors. Rather than write a long, boring essay about it, per my usual custom, I thought I would try my hand at poetry. I apologize ahead of time:

Lament the Spaniard

Tis a point of great shame

But he and the Arab are one and the same

Once brothers, now sundered

His sword slashed and thundered

Neighbors were forced to flee

Those that remained had to bend the knee

Ameen turned to Amen

The past buried and forgotten

Greed and hate poisoned his soul

He murdered his brothers for love of gold

Slaughtering and enslaving countless innocents to get it

Lament the Spaniard, and all he has met.

I have visited Spain and Portugal several times over the years. Looking at the Iberian Peninsula’s Muslim architecture, especially the mini minarets the Portuguese build into their homes, made me sad. It reminded me of how greed and intolerance have a habit of destroying beautiful things. It also made me angry. When I was standing in the Alhambra, I could not help but think the men who built that beautiful palace were fools. Building a wonder while the world around them burned. All they could do in response was sigh[1]. All I can do is lament. Showing how little has changed for Muslims over the past five centuries.

Al-Andulus was no paradise, but it did feature an enlightened attitude that stood in stark contrast to the reconquering Christians and their inquisitors. These men exhibited a level of cruelty and hate towards their fellow humans that is difficult to understand. One wonders how different the trajectory of the new world may have been if it had been discovered by Spain when it was still Muslim. Diseases would have spread regardless, but given the patterns of their previous conquests, it is reasonable to assume Muslims discovering the Americas would not have engaged in the same sort of genocidal insanity as the conquistadors. Their incredibly intolerant and hateful worldview led to indescribable pain and suffering for countless innocents. The sorts of which Muslim conquerors have rarely, if ever, been accused of inflicting. Of course, such conjecture is a waste of time. But so is poetry.

On the off chance you have enjoyed this foray into Spain’s sad Muslim history, you can find more of my thoughts at www.mirrorsfortheprince.com.

---

[1] See “The Last Sigh of the Moor,” by Theophile Gautier. The Last Sigh of the Moor by Theophile Gautier – Poetry Atlas