Allen West: Unfit to Serve

ياايها الناس انا خلقناكم من ذكر وانثى وجعلناكم شعوبا وقبائل لتعارفوا ان اكرمكم عند الله اتقاكم ان الله عليم خبير

“O mankind, We have created you male and female, and appointed you races and tribes, that you may know one another. Surely the noblest among you in the sight of God is the most god-fearing of you.”

Quran 49:13

The communication of ideas and an adjacent dialogue that serves to deepen our understanding, are both essential to knowledge. This is obvious: dialogue is the means by which humanity grows. Lacking dialogue, there will emerge in its place ignorance and confrontation – both are fatal to nurturing a constructive individual or a meaningful society. This is a basic premise, but it is one that is worth calling attention to in a world filled with small people, where “the best lack all conviction, while the worst // Are full of passionate intensity.”

The year 2010 is unlikely to be remembered as a golden age of national dialogue, at least at present conditions. The optimism that surrounding the ushering of the current administration has long since subsided. Things are still hard for many people. And many have sought solace in looking for new scapegoats for their woes and hardships. But anger rarely serves the interests of good and lasting governance. Indeed good government requires that passion give way to reason, despite the passionate nature of politics. Good decisions are rarely made in haste, particularly involving complex issues. Where there is a failure to control single-minded reflexes, there is a failure to be objective. And individual failures rarely produce national triumphs.

This is why Allen West cannot be allowed to be elected into the US House of Representatives. Military men often enjoy the regularity of the soldier’s life, the comfort of uniformity, the clear separation between allies and belligerents. Conservatives of certain persuasions also cherish straight-forward answers and emphasising definite observations of “the problem” and “the solution”. So it hardly surprising that a figure such as Allen West would stand for office on a conservative platform. It is surprising that he is being taken seriously because his platform is hardly conservative, but rather destructive.

Mr. West came to prominence because he lost his temper, allowed his soldiers to beat an Iraqi policeman under interrogation, and himself threaten to kill the man, firing his pistol for added emphasis. Mr. West admitted his actions were wrong and resigned, thus escaping the possibility of spending 11 years in jail. Since he has admitted that he is unfit to serve as a military officer, he has chosen to determinedly pursue a career as a congressman, where his rashness might be seen as less egregious.

Now if Mr. West’s controversial actions were unacceptable, there were also understandable. Soldiers after-all have a long tradition of viewing the lives of their fellow troops as being more valuable than those of the enemy combatants: that is, after-all, what enables soldiers to kill them. But I am not writing to debate Mr. West’s war record or his morality. What has irked me is that Mr. West has deemed himself a speaker on topics of Islam and theology, specifically the hermeneutics of the Quran and Islamic legal methodology.

[Issue 1: Paedophilia]

“Islam as a religion elevates and follows a man who was nothing more than a psychopath, murderous warlord, and by modern-day standards a sexual deviant and paedophile Islam as a political entity is based upon complete submission and seeks only to subjugate and suppress every freedom we cherish in western civilization.”

Allen West, On Geert Wilders

While so many of Mr. West’s claims are too hyperbolic to warrant serious consideration (although he should still be asked to support his claim and if he cannot bring a veritable source than he is a fabricator and a liar), his allegation that by “modern-day standards”, the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be blessings and peace) was a sexual deviant and paedophile, demands some clarification. “Modern-day standards” define paedophilia as an obsession or psychological illness that treats prepubescents as sexual objects. In brief, it was suggested to the Prophet Muhammad after the death his first wife (a woman 15 years his senior) that he should marry ʿA’isha the daughter of his friend Abu Bakr. She was at the time six or seven. While many readers will likely already be appalled at such an idea there are a few nuances to bear in mind. ʿA’isha was proposed as a suitable for marriage, suggesting that the practice was not controversial in that society. Similarly in Judaism, religious law allows for a women to be married at the age of three. Are you outraged, reader? Well, in traditional marriages, arrangements are often made at a young age, that does not mean that the marriage would be immediately consummated. Indeed, the Prophet Muhammad only took ʿA’isha into his household as his wife several years later when she had reached physical maturity and began to lose an interest in dolls. Swing and a miss, Mr. West.

[Issue 2: Abrogation]

“I will gladly peacefully coexist with Islam. Can the same be said in reverse? And do not tell me about the Koranic verse stating, “there is no compulsion in religion,” because I understand the theory of naskh or abrogation. That means that the later verses of the Koran supercede previous verses. As a result, most violent verses in the Koran abrogate previous “peaceful” writings.”

Allen West, On Geert Wilders

Mr. West claims he understands the concept of naskh, that is to say, the abrogation of certain Quranic injunctions by later ones. Perhaps the most famous example is the different prohibitions against drinking intoxicants which graduate from barring the intoxicated from praying at the mosques towards an outright prohibition of alcohol altogether. Mr. West wants to claim that the Quranic verse 2:256 has been abrogated by the sanctioning of fighting non-Muslim belligerents after being given the option to they accept conversion, subordination as a vassal or tributary, or war. Truces can also be established, and if any Muslim grants his protection it is binding on every other Muslim to respect it. There is also by custom certain months where fighting is prohibited. Treachery and mutilation is prohibited. The lives of women, children, the elderly, monks, clergy, and non-combatants in general are sacred. These conditions were established in relation to the initiation of hostilities between the nascent Muslim polity of Medina against the pagan tribes of Quraysh and their confederate allies. Simply put, the Quraysh were bent on usurping the property of the Muslims and of exterminating them altogether. And oppression, as the Quran declares, is worse than killing, or as phrased on Gen. Sherman’s memorial: WAR’S LEGITIMATE OBJECT IS A MORE PERFECT PEACE. The Meccan economy relied on the commerce brought by pilgrims to Mecca, where heathen idols had been placed to attract devotees (and business). Islam’s monotheism threatened their commercial interest in keeping Mecca attractive to pagan patronage, and the pagan Quraysh had clear financial reasons to stamp out Islam. This was clearly a war for the survival of Islam.

Now the purpose here is to not to present an apology for Islam and its military expansion, nor to trace the reasons and occurrence of events that lead to warfare between Muslim Caliphate and the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires, although the concept of just warfare and defence is certainly not unique to Islam. And Muslim scholarship is divided as to whether can initiated except in defence, with a strong plurality opining that warfare is only sanctioned in defence. The purpose here is refute the claim that the Quranic injunctions permitting warfare and the opening of hostilities against the Quraysh has abrogated the Quranic injunctions enjoining peaceful and respectful co-existence between Muslims and non-Muslims outside of war. And for that we have to look at the scholarly tradition that organizes and rectifies the Muslim’s interaction with his Scripture and guides his understanding of the religion as a comprehension and organic whole.

Mr. West raised the issue of the verse “There is no compulsion in religion”. This is an interesting verse because it has been debated whether it is a command or a statement, whether forced conversion is unlawful or whether it is impossible. The actual context of the verse is given in the exegesis, Tafsir Jalalayn, as being to prevent the Medinan Arabs from forcing their children to convert with them from paganism to Islam. Within that context, can it be said that the later injunction calling on the Muslims to fight against their enemies in Mecca abrogated the injunction against forced conversion amongst the allied citizens of Medina? Unlikely.

[Issue 3: Clash of Ignorance]

Mr. West also claims that Islam is equivalent to tyranny and is incompatible with the “cherished freedoms” of “western civilization”. His other epitaphs for Islam are totalitarian, imperialistic, radical, and other remarks that, generally speaking, are not very peaceable. Neither is his equating He does not make any distinction between ideologies purportedly justified by Islam and Islam itself. To Mr. West, terrorists fighting for the sake of a perverted understanding that has no justification in Islam are simply doing what their religion tells them. How it warms my heart to know men such Mr. West serve overseas to demonstrate American virtues and handle lethal weapons!

Choosing not to focus on the centuries-old communities of diverse peoples and religions that prospered under the auspice of the Muslim world, or make a detailed comparison between that relative peace and the 2,000 year blood bath of continuous genocide and persecution to be found in any series study of Western history, I would like to instead chose a different rhetorical route. Let us see what these “cherished freedoms” are and ponder if Islam is at odds with them. The Declaration of Independence triumphs life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as inalienable human rights (although John Locke had listed property, or “estate”, instead of happiness). The Bill of Rights further enshrines freedom of religion, press, and expression; defence; fair trial; and the prohibition of cruelty and torture. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen also adds sanctifies freedom and equality, safety, resistance to tyranny; defines liberty as the license to perform what does not harm others or maligns the common good; the presumption of guilt before innocence; clarifies the abuses of expression should be limited; fair taxes; compensation for any property appropriated by the State.

In seeing how relevant these liberties are to Islam, it is useful to compare them with the society founded in Medina by the Prophet Muhammad, since citing individual texts and historical relations would be exhaustive: although the historical inspirations in Common Law and the jury system from Islamic jurisprudence and Shariah are interesting, the reader interested to know more about such things can see peruse the books recommended in appendix. Medina was the first true Muslim polity, the testing ground for how future societies would interact with Islam, and the site where much of the foundational ethos of Islamic law became established. The importance of Medina is such that the Muslim calendar begins not with the advent of Muhammad’s revelation and proclamation of the Quran and his prophethood, but with the migration of the Muslims from Mecca to Medina, which had invited Muhammad to serve as it’s chief arbitrator and effective governor and offered sanctuary to the Muslims. This extraordinary event created what might be called history’s first truly pluralistic society, guaranteeing the rights of its citizens and transforming a fractious society into a union based on mutual cooperation and defence. Rights of security, political rights, cultural rights, autonomy, religious freedom, mutual defence, and the costs of that defence were shared equally between Muslim and non-Muslim; this is enshrined in the Constitution of Medina, was is as close as anything to the principles of the United States. Conscription could even be avoid based on conscientious objection: non-Muslims were not obliged to participate in whatever warfare concerned only the Muslims and their religion, and not the defence of the city and the property of its citizens. No other community has the status as this original Muslim-Medinan polity, and no other community could rightfully claim to be closer to the justice and ideals that the founders of Western democracy sought.

What about the freedom of speech? Do not Muslims oppose the freedom of thought? If Muslims allowed the Medinans their religious and political freedom, it only follows that they were allowed the right to dissent with Islam and disagree with its doctrines so long as this did not amount to treachery. This is quite exactly how freedom of speech is understood in the West, and how it is worded in the Declaration of the Rights of Man: you can say and do what you want so long as it does not harm. Yet in Medina non-Muslims could say what they wanted to, whether it was blasphemous or not, and they did. The tragedy of the Danish cartoon scandal was that Denmark (and the Netherlands) have laws against blasphemy, but didn’t think that insulting the founder of the world’s largest religion qualified as such. It was never about freedom of expression, but about the provocation and belittlement of religious and ethnic minorities who are already marginalised – and do not so in as ugly, as racist, and as bigoted a manner as possible. Yet if Europe and the US cherish these freedoms they do so unevenly: you can call for the annihilation of an entire nation during a political campaign in the US, but you cannot question the narrative of the Holocaust in Europe. To raise issue with Israel over agreed points of international law is called anti-Semitism by people who hate Semites (Arabs); to raise issue with Islam is called patriotism by people who have no patriotism.

[Conclusion]

Mr. West has a claim to knowledge. That claim extends to his fields of specialisation, namely Political Science and Military Science. That claim does make his opinions in either field necessarily correct, and the same is exponentially truer for those areas in which Mr. West is not qualified to speak. Mr. West is not a scholar of Islam. Although he enjoins upon others to delve into Muslim Scripture and collected narrations, Mr. West has only a pale, one-sided superficial understanding of the topics he discusses. This is obvious when he mispronounces the terms he wants to talk about (Mr. West, the Arabic for a narrated saying is a ḥadeeth not a ḥaadith). His ignorance and bigotry is obvious when he calls Ishmael a “wild men” and uses the Bible, his “Word of God” and “immutable truth”, to justify perpetuating an endless conflict with Arabs (and by extension, Muslims, who as he says are obsessed with their own claims to supremacy). He claims, incorrectly, that the Muslims expelled the Jews from the Levant. He describes the Arabian Peninsula as the “Saudi Peninsula”,which both is incorrect and anachronistic pre-1932. Consistently refuses to properly capitalise the name “Muhammad” or “Muslim” or “Islam”. He describes “Islamic totalitarianism” as the “original enemy of the Jewish people”, as if they had no enemies before Islam under which they flourished; ask Maimonides. He claims lying is encouraged to promote Islam. He claims Israel has ceded land as if Israel has no obligation to respect the pre-1967 boundaries that the international community and the International Court define as proper. Misterms Arabs as the “Arabic people” (Arabic is a language, Arabs are an ethnic group). He says Muslims only claim to Jerusalem is from concocted stories and Saladin, not by a deeply held religious tradition and respect, nor by their being in Jerusalem as its guardians and patrons since 638. Instead Mr. West equates creating a Palestinian State with creating a terrorist (as if the allegation of crimes against humanity was never levelled against Israel). He does not want a Palestinian State. He does not want a meaningful solution. He does not want a peaceful solution. Mr West wants Palestine and its people swept away into Jordan, after-all, one Arab is as good as another. And this is all just from one essay, his manifesto titled “Israel” under the “Issues” section of his campaign section. Simply on the basis of literacy, I would not vote for him.

Mr. West has had a long career serving national interests among Muslims, that hardly means he knows a thing about what Muslims believe and practice, but he has exposure enough to have a few misguided and erroneous assumptions. As a scholar, Mr. West knows the standards expected of series scholarship. He therefore either knows he is unqualified to speak with any authority about Islam or its history; imagines that he is so qualified and is therefore delusional, ignorant, or stupid; does know actually something about Islam but chooses instead to lie and give false depictions and gross distortions to advance his platform or win support (and considering his change of tone between his resignation and his political career this is worth considering). Whether he knows nothing or is simply a Know Nothing, Mr. West’s charades prove him unfit to be a member of this country’s legislature just as he deemed himself unfit to serve in its armed forces.

Up until his unnerving in the battlefield, Mr. West had an honourable career serving this nation. He has now unravelled any pretence to an honourable career and has undermined the interests of his country. At a time when it is utterly crucial for this (and every) country to build a serious, respectful, and constructive dialogue, Mr. West has chosen instead to become a spokesman for lies. Hopefully his ignoble distinction will sabotage his campaign for public office before it sabotages the nation Mr. West claims to defend.

Related Reading:

The Case for Islamo-Christian Civilization, Richard W. Bulliet

Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, Chris Hedges

The Faith and Practice of al-Ghazali, Montgomery Watt

Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Norman G. Finklestein

The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, Abdulaziz Sachedina

Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources, Martin Lings

Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Times, Karen Armstrong

Tafsir Al-Jalalayn, trans. Aisha Bewley

The Vision of Islam, Sachiko Murata and William C. Chittick

Advertisement

Explore posts in the same categories: Essays