|
Follow the Middle East Forum
|
|
Is
the "Islamic State" a Good Thing?
Be the first of
your friends to like this.
The following is an envisioning of what might eventually unfold if
the Islamic State is left to flourish. Although it is only one of several
scenarios, due to its ostensibly implausible nature, it deserves some
delineation.
The Islamic State (IS) continues
expanding its territory and influence through jihad. Religious minorities
that fall under its sway—at least the fortunate ones—continue to flee in
droves, helping make the Islamic State what it strives to be: purely
Islamic.
Left unfettered, with only cosmetic airstrikes by an indecisive Obama
administration to deal with, IS continues growing in strength and
confidence, as Western powers again stand idly by.
More and more Muslims around the world, impressed and inspired by what
they see, become convinced that the Islamic State is in fact the new
caliphate deserving of their allegiance. Such Muslims—the most
"radical" kind, who delight in the slaughter and subjugation of
"infidels"—continue leaving Western nations and migrating to
the Islamic State to wage jihad and live under Sharia.
In other words, a sizable chunk of the world's most radicalized/pious
Muslims all become localized in one region. There they openly and proudly
display their anti-infidel supremacism.
Throughout, Western media have no choice but to report objectively—so
thoroughly exposed for its barbarity has IS become that it is an
insurmountable task to whitewash its atrocities. The world has seen enough
about IS to know that this is a savage, hostile, and supremacist state
without excuse. Even Obama, after originally
citing "grievances" as propelling the Islamic State's
successes, recently made an about face, saying "No
grievance justifies these actions."
Put differently, the "Palestinian card" will not work here.
Western media, apologists, and talking heads cannot portray IS
terror—including crucifying, beheading, and raping humans simply because
they are "infidels"—as a product of "grievances" or
"land disputes."
Indeed, the Islamic State itself, which is largely composed of
foreigners, is the one invading other territories (Iraq, Syria), massacring
and driving out their most indigenous inhabitants, from Christians to
Yazidis.
In time, the Islamic State's borders are fully consolidated and the
"caliphate" is a fact of reality. Its war on fellow Muslim
"apostates"—its
current excuse for not engaging the greatest of all
"infidels" in the region, Israel—eventually comes to a close or
stalemate.
Then the inevitable happens: another conflict erupts between Israel
and Hamas; Muslims around the word, including those under IS authority,
drunk with power and feelings of superiority, demand that the time to
wipe out the Jewish infidel has finally come; that the second phase of the
caliphate is now or never—conquest
of "original infidels."
As Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu recently
declared during his U.N. speech, "ISIS and Hamas are branches of
the same poisonous tree. ISIS and Hamas share a fanatical creed, which
they both seek to impose well beyond the territory under their
control."
The Islamic
State will eventually be compelled to start saber rattling and worse
against Israel.
|
Thus the Islamic State will eventually be compelled to start saber
rattling and worse against Israel. After all, its entire legitimacy is
founded on its namesake—that it is the "Islamic state,"
the state that magnifies and protects Islam and Muslims. It must
eventually confront Israel or else be proven the greatest of all
hypocrites or munafiqun—a term of great rebuke in the Koran, which
some
Muslim authorities are already applying to IS for not confronting Israel
now.
Conflicts inevitably ensue between Israel and its neighboring Islamic
State. But unlike the Jewish state's war on Hamas—which the mainstream
media can manipulate and portray as a war on innocent Palestinian women
and children—world governments and media will find it exceedingly
difficult to criticize Israel should any conflict between it and IS
arise.
Unlike sympathy for the Palestinians, non-Muslims around the world
vacillate between hate for and fear of the Islamic State; even Karen
Armstrong, John Esposito and their ilk cannot apologize for this
particular group of Islamic savages—other than to insist that theirs is
not true Islam (an irrelevant point for the purposes of this scenario).
Moreover, the argument habitually used against Israel—that its war on
Hamas creates innocent Palestinian casualties—loses all legitimacy in any
war on the Islamic State.
After all, IS, the state itself—not some terrorist organization
ensconced within the state—is beheading, massacring, and enslaving humans
solely on the basis of their religious identity. Its citizens—who
went there of their own accord, unlike "displaced" and
"trapped" Palestinians—are fanatical, extremist Muslims, whose greatest
aspiration is to decapitate an infidel.
No one can apologize for this. The best that can be said is that this
is not "true" Islam, which is neither here nor there.
This is why, even now, the pro-Islamic Obama administration is forced
to condemn IS and even (if perfunctorily) militarily engage it.
In short, conventional war becomes very justifiable against
IS—especially because there is no longer any worry of accidentally
killing this or that moderate or non-Muslim, as they have all been driven
away, replaced by Islamic terrorists from around the world.
And conventional war has traditionally been the bane of Islamists, who
prefer terrorism, hiding among civilians, using them as shields, and
playing the victim.
Safe from international censure and pushed to the edge, Israel
eventually obliterates the Islamic State, while even Islam's greatest
apologists in the West must hold their tongue or else be seen as
defenders of the state responsible for the greatest
atrocities—crucifixions, beheadings, rapes, slavery, and wholesale
massacres—so far committed in the 21st century.
Three positive consequences emerge from all this:
- Not only is the
Islamic State destroyed, but with it, some of the world's most
supremacist and hate-filled Muslims—those who quit their home
countries, including from the West, to persecute and kill the
"infidels."
- The rest of the
world's Muslims get a major and much needed wake up call. Some may
start to rethink the notion of "jihad" and eternal enmity
for the rest of the world. Some may start to rethink Islam
altogether.
- The non-Muslim world
also gets a much needed wake up call, another lesson to add to the
major wars and conflicts of the 20th century, this time
about Islamic fascism, which, finally, becomes catalogued as the
danger it is.
Note: I am not advocating for this scenario—admittedly, one of
many different kinds of scenarios that can develop if the Islamic State
is left to flourish—and would prefer to see IS made extinct now. For even
if this scenario comes to pass, matters must first get significantly
worse before they can begin to get better.
Raymond
Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom
Center, a Judith Friedman Rosen Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum
and a CBN News contributor. He is the author of Crucified
Again: Exposing Islam's New War on Christians (2013) and The
Al Qaeda Reader (2007).
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment