This post is dealing not with Islamic ideology, a subject unto its own right, and not without many schools of thought, but with the essence of actions by Muslims. I will focus on Iraq, for reasons clear to most in my area of the world, as it can be generalised, even to other religions.
If we are humans and, as is the existentialist view, not a product of divine creation, existence precedes essence; our actions, therefore, cannot precede our justifications. We have no artisan, as Sartre pointed out, to guide our purpose, nor our design. Our actions are our own – freedom is inescapable, no matter the Psychological self-deception we undertake to prove otherwise. Our existence is linear and our actions are weighted.
Given that God, in at least the sense of absolute purpose and morality, of a species parallel to self-deceptions, does not exist; our actions are the sole justification of our living. They are the template for humanity; a wheel of finite choices that dispel ‘faith’ and embrace full accountability. This is the despair of humanity, in that our choices are limited by simply being human. It is also the anguish, for every subjective choice we make, the decision affects everyone, and yet our justification is always lacking. To deny this is a lie, evident unto itself that the position is erred, that there is futility in fighting it, and also anguish in that freedom.
By essence I mean the nature of man, wholly defined by our embrace of choice. Inaction is itself a choice from the finite; it has the same anguish, the same deceptions and the same despairs.
The recent fall of Mosul is not of my concern. It is an example of nothing more than rather basic geo-political and ideological co-variables at work; an instance that has been predicted many a time. It does, however, showcase the essence of a religious person – specifically a Muslim.
The finite choices available were to fight or to not. Under The above humanistic philosophy, we can say this. The decision is in both ways that of free will. This is not the problem, although there is one. Your actions both define man and, more specifically, your own demographic of men. They also have tangible effects on human beings, the most egregious and nefarious of which, in this case, relate to the women. Their anguish over this decision would not have been as a result of two indistinguishable or ambiguous outcomes being weighed, as this decision is far more simple than most. It is, however, distorted directly due to their predisposition to religious doctrine.
The biggest lie in their life is told by their religion. That if they ran away right then, they are not culpable. Women are, as is said, far less than a man. You should not, as is said, fight your ‘brothers’. Why would you die at the hands, then, of your brothers, for the welfare of women and children, and their freedoms? Freedoms which, likewise, are condemned by the religious leaders all too often, and at the core. Religion provides the ultimate, deceptive justification in hindsight. It takes what you know to be true, distorts it, allowing you to justify the ultimate selfish, narcissistic choices.
Of course, without the anguish, and without the causal relation to all others in equal respect; what good is it defending them? A decision, previously of the simplest philosophy, and with an equally simple answer, is weighted by the delusions of Islamic religion. The ultimate defence mechanism, which eliminates the inter-connectivity of our actions; instead relating them to intangible lies, is a medicine for the human condition. Fairy tales and doctrine, all for the soul purpose of alleviating people of their humanistic duties, and in doing so, making it the much easier option in life to do nothing or do the worst, often one and the same.