Has Islam morphed into a Political/Religious Hybrid?

For a 23 year old Jewish American, the 1977 march by the USA Nazi party in Chicago was a civics lesson that I will never forget. To refresh your memories: In 1977 the Illinois National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) attempted to demonstrate their political existence with a march on Skokie, Illinois. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) interceded in behalf of the NSPA, in the case of the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, wherein an Illinois appeals court ruled that the presence of the swastika, the Nazi emblem, would constitute deliberate provocation of the people of Skokie. However, the Court also ruled that Skokie's attorneys had failed to prove that either the Nazi uniform or their printed materials, which it was alleged that the Nazis intended to distribute, would incite violence. The March went on in Chicago and nothing happened.

Thirty four years later, we have a similar situation with Florida Preacher Jones wanting to burn a Koran to prove the political and physical threat of extremist Islam. The Florida ACLU condemned Mr. Jones's message Wednesday as un-American but defended his right to free speech."We cannot pick and choose who is protected by the Constitution," spokesman Brandon Hensler said. "We're very concerned about this wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. But the answer is not to infringe on their right to say what they want to say." I personally agree with the ACLU. Anything else would have made them hypocrites of the first degree.

Preacher Jones, as strange as he may seem, has some valid points to make in his version of a 2011 civics lesson. Preacher Jones claims that Islam is a hybrid religion/political movement similar to communism or the Nazi party, and should not be able to hide behind the cloak of American sensibilities that separate church and state. Furthermore, he claims that the overt threat of violence from the four corners of the Islamic world - if he were to burn the Koran, has not only stifled our free speech, but has intimidated our President and our military.

No one is claiming that all Muslims are terrorists or followers of an extremist version of Islam. That is the asymmetrical argument. What is being claimed is that the Islamiphobic atmosphere that has gained steam and pervades the airwaves is being fed by Islamic insensitivities to American feelings (9-11 Mosque), actual threats of physical harm for expressing our civil rights, and the feeling that our constitution is being exploited for political gain under the guise of religion.

While the nature of Islam today can be debated, it is not a stretch to see the asymmetrical nature of a political version of Islam that is able to exploit our Western values and turn them into tactical advantages in the broad grey area created by a religious/political hybrid. President Obama has demonstrated a heightened sensitivity to the perceived grievances of the global Muslim community - grievances that are no different than what this country has suffered in the name of free speech - be it the Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, flag burners, or artists that depict Jesus in works of art produced with human excrement.

The Muslim world is feigning great offense with the Koran burning, and I understand their frustration, but threatening violence and denigrating this country for defending free speech is throwing fuel on the fire.

How will history judge the US involvement in the Iraq war?

They say that history is the narrative of the victor, so even history can be interpreted through a partisan filter. I don’t believe there is any dispute that Saddam’s Iraq was waging war across the Middle East; after all he fought a 10 year war against Iran that killed up to 1 million, invaded a number of his neighbors, and gassed thousands of Kurds who resided within Iraq’s borders. History will probably say that the USA became involved for good reasons: Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, a US ally – and the potential for Saddam to wreck havoc with the free flow of oil, and more importantly – his overt threats to uses weapons of mass destruction to dominate/blackmail the region.

The partisan talking heads can claim whatever they want, but between Saddam’s claims and bad US intelligence on the matter, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted for the invasion of Iraq – after all possible alternatives had been exhausted. The fact that Saddam was bluffing about the weapons is just Monday night quarterbacking and is not relevant to the question about how history will judge the US involvement in the Iraq war. The outcome of our presence there has yet to be determined. If we can finally leave (we will have 50,000 troops there indefinitely), and the Iraqi government sustains the rule of law and becomes an enlightened Democratic beacon of hope to the region, then our presence was a tremendous success. If Iraq falls into the same religious chaos that caused the Iraq/Iran war, then it will be considered Iraq’s failure, not the USA.

The global reality is that you could take all the militaries from around the world and combine them, and they would not be as big or as well equipped as the US military. Whether we like it or not, the US military is the SWAT team for the rest of the world. That is a difficult position for the US to be in, but without this global force, many people believe that the same type of brutal chaos that is ravaging Africa and the Middle East would run rampart across the globe. Of course, the opposing view is that the US foreign policy is causing “bad feelings” and “resentment” around the world, and that our military involvement around the globe makes Jihadist do what they do. Pick your side.

At the end of the day, it was an exercise in the USA trying to protect its national interests - and no country should be faulted for making that attempt.