While still on the topic of apocalyptic dualisms within Islam, the dualistic logic which pervades Islamic theology deserves mention. Throughout the formation of Islam, two different Koran’s were written—the Meccan and the Medinan, which “differ in tone and subject matter”. (Political Islam, 6) Aside from this dualistic aspect of the Islamic creed, there is also a further source of dualism within the scripture: the Koran has many verses that contradict each other. (ibid) For example, Koran 2:219 says that “Muslims should be tolerant and forgiving to people of the book”, whereas Koran 9:29 says “to attack the People of the Book until they pay the jizyah, the dhimmi tax, submit to Sharia law and be humbled”. (ibid) Which verse truly represents Islamic Doctrine? Fortunately Islamic scholars recognize the Koran’s contradictions and provide for resolution of them through the concept of abrogation, which postulates that: “the later verse abrogates the earlier verse”. (ibid) However, this does not negate the truth of the earlier verse, seeing as both are written through Allah and cannot contain error. Having two conflicting, yet equally true (even though one supersedes the other) statements within the Holy Book results in what’s called “dualistic logic”—logic which results from both elements in a contradictory statement being true. (ibid) Unitary logic, or western logic, follows the Randian concept which postulates that “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever [you] think [you] are facing a contradiction, check [your] premises. [You] will find that one of them is wrong”. Koranic dualisms are present throughout Islam: Dualistic ethics prescribe one set of rules to the Umma and another to the Kafir (leading to the conclusion that there can be no Golden Rule in Islam, as no one would wish to be treated as a Kafir), dualistic logic provides two completely different ways to perceive the Jews—as admirable fellow People of the Book, or as mortal enemies, to be hated and spurned just like the Kafir. (Political Islam, 7) Whichever contradictory topic it may be, the existence of dualistic logic within Islam allows the politician who claims Islam is a non-violent religion of peace with a “proud tradition of tolerance” and the Islamist who straps bombs to nearly any appendage of his body in order to kill innocent civilian Jews in Israel to BOTH be correct by virtue of Islamic teaching. (McCarthy, 245) Thus, as we can see, these Koranic dualisms allow for Islam to present a two-faced view to the world: one which is essentially peaceful and another which justifies acts of terrorism. As we will see later, it is this infinite malleability of Islamic creed which allows it to operate under the radar in an attempt to subvert the U.S. constitutional democracy.
The enormous amount of energy devoted to the Kafir mentioned earlier also brings to light another key feature of Islamic Doctrine: that it is primarily a political, and not a religious system. If 60% of the Koran deals with non-Muslims, then certainly that same 60% is not advancing the cause of religious Islam, but rather eschewing a political form of the very same doctrine. According to “Political Islam”, religious Islam is “concerned with going to paradise and avoiding hell by following the Koran and the Sunna”. Mentions of how to govern, subdue, and conquer non-believers does not fall into this category, but nonetheless represents a majority of the trilogy of texts which together comprehensively constitute Islamic doctrine. If this is the case, and Islam is indeed a primarily political ideology, many facets of its violent relationship with outsiders, can be explained. The notions of ‘Dar al-Islam’ and ‘Dar al-Harb’, Islamic constructs referring to the realm of the Muslims, and of war respectively are key players in Islamic political doctrine. (McCarthy, 245) Dar al harb refers to the parts of the world which remain unconquered by Islam, and its designation as a realm of war, leaves little room for questioning: Lands that are not Islam’s are lands for which wars are waged so that they may eventually become Islam’s. (McCarthy, 246) While argument can be made for the tolerance and peaceful nature of religious Islam, that argument cannot be extended to the whole of Islam, as its political aspects—comprising nearly 60% of the entire doctrine—can easily be shown to be intolerant and bellicose towards all outsiders, relying on conquest and violence, rather than appeasement and coexistence to govern relationships between dar al-harb and dar al-islam.
Furthermore the doctrine described in the last few sentences is not a radical perversion of Islam as many would have us believe, but rather a fundamental form—i.e. the pure unadulterated form of Islam derived from Allah’s direct commandments for how to live life on earth as found in the Koran, or sharia law taken and obeyed literally. This would seem to suggest, that at its very fundamentals, Islam is antithetical to the notions of religious tolerance, secularism, and individual liberty. Summarized, “its central imperative is the communal obligation to establish and spread Sharia, Allah’s law, throughout the world, to build Islamic societies…and to dictate every facet of the individual’s life”. (McCarthy, 161) If this is the ideology which purports to conquer and replace the egalitarianism of the West, then surely these terrorist acts are more than just a sacred war of Islam against its enemies and our resistance movements more than simply a ‘War on Terror’. The threat which fundamentalist Islam and its political edicts in the form of sharia, pose on our constitutional democracy and American way of life is nothing less than a kulturkampf between east and west, secular and theocentric, democratic and monarchic, between egalitarian and totalitarian—a civilizational warfare aimed at dismantling centuries of Western thought, enlightenment, and reason in favor of returning to a period of darkness reminiscent of the middle ages in which reason has no place in a society where God’s will is law.
