Dear Editor,

     Criticisms of the Islamic Caliphate often proceed from nearly as much ignorance as typical praises of it. Among the notable errors made in praise of it, which Dean Ahmad appears to have continued in his presentation at the ISIL world conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, is the notion that the Crusaders had much to do with the fall of the Caliphate. In fact, the excursions of Christian knights in the Holy Land were brief and inevitably defeated by the more numerous and technologically-advanced Muslims. The Caliphate was destroyed by the Mongol hordes which sacked Baghdad in AD 1258. Europeans owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Caliphate for blunting the westward advance of the Khanate Mongols.

     Although Professor Ahmad mentions incursions by colonial empires, he neglects to mention the earliest and most devastating colonial incursion – that of the Ottoman Empire, which drew much of its strength in early years from Mongol tribesmen who incidentally had converted to Islam. The Ottoman occupation of the territories of the Caliphate did as much to destroy its high culture as the much-later occupations by British, French, or Dutch empires.

     Many of Tim Starr's objections to what he refers to as traditional Islam are objections which could equally be leveled at traditional atheism, traditional Christianity, or traditional Judaism. Yes, the butcher Tamerlane executed prisoners of war in vast numbers, and was otherwise a horrid and brutal dictator. However, I don't agree with the idea of collective guilt. Other believers in Islam are no more to blame for Tamerlane's brutality than other atheists are to blame for the thirty million people butchered by Stalin or the eighty million butchered by Mao.

     The criticism leveled at Islam that a few especially savage individuals in the Taliban practice a severely brutal adherence to what they claim is Sharia is no more sensible than blaming all Christians for the egregious brutality of the Holy Inquisition of the Renaissance period.

     Even Judaism, when its leaders have been powerful, has seen abuse of power. The book of Genesis records a massacre of the entire male population of a clan which was in the process of willing conversion to Judaism. The book of Joshua records the massacre of women and children in Jericho. Shall we condemn Martin Luther King, Jr., for being a Christian because Tomas de Torquemada was a particularly brutal Catholic inquisitor? Let each individual stand on his own merits.

     The Minaret of Freedom and the Murabitun represent current Islamic movements which are interested in promoting free enterprise, individual liberty, and an understanding of the whole of Islamic culture, including many passages in the Koran which are ignored by fundamentalist militants.

     In contrast, it is a noteworthy criticism of the Wahhabi and some other fundamentalist movements that understanding the text of the Koran is rarely taught, while rote memorization of the phonemes associated with particular verses is encouraged among people for whom Arabic isn't even a widely-spoken second language. Yes, a great deal of brutality seems to arrive hand in hand with great ignorance. Is anyone among us surprised?

     Tim's criticism of the Arab countries appears to ignore the history of European colonial empires, which did not promote freedom of religion, freedom of expression, or separation of powers in the colonies. In fact, Prof. Ahmad's criticisms of European colonialism – that it was generally brutal to local people and encouraged very socialistic governments on its departure, is valid. For example, in South Africa, from the time of Cecil Rhodes, socialism was colonial policy. When Southern Rhodesia was made independent, British colonials left in place a socialist regime under Mugabe which has turned out to be among the most brutal in Africa.

     The notion that the European colonial powers favored freedom in their colonies is dismissed by the history of Tim's own country, the USA, which had to fight a war of independence from 1775 to 1781 – and another war from 1812 to 1815 in order to secure its freedom from British colonialism. Are we to forget the thousands who fled religious persecution in Europe to make homes in the New World? Or the depredations of Spanish conquistadores against the religions of the Maya, Inca, and Aztecs destroying not only monuments but entire libraries?

     It is noteworthy that among the more free countries in the Arab world, Tim lists Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which are two countries with very strong commitments to free enterprise. Apparently, it is possible for people of the Islamic faith to organize their affairs to promote liberty and free enterprise, and do a better job of it than the Israelis do (not to mention the French, or those Czechs, Latvians, and Armenians now free of their Ottoman and Soviet overlords, per Tim's own list). It is interesting that the only country where free-market anarchy now prevails was, under British and Italian colonial empires, trained up to become a socialist democracy, and subsequently became a Marxist dictatorship upon independence. I refer of course to the Islamic country of Somalia. (Perhaps Tim can explain why USA troops occupied Somalia and massacred civilians in 1993).

     Neither the government of the USA nor the government of Israel has shown a persistent record of favoring individual liberty, nor one of encouraging free enterprise. Both countries are governed largely by their respective military-industrial complexes, with the USA being strongly influenced by a powerful domestic banking cartel.

     The notion that one should support these governments, or any other manifestations of the state, because CIA-organized groups like al Qaeda or FBI-provided explosives have figured prominently in attacks on USA territory in 1993 and 2001 is a bit odd.

     The USA was not notably favorable toward freedom of religion in its 1858 war against Mormons in Utah, nor more recently in its 1993 extermination of Branch Davidians near Waco. The USA has not ever allowed polygamy or polyandry as forms of religious expression, and currently makes war on the distribution and use of drugs which have been prominent in some religious ceremonies.

     It is a mystery to me how anyone who calls his philosophy libertarian can consider warfare, which is the health of the state, a thing to support. The state uses every opportunity to justify enslaving its people, taxing them, and sending them off to die in war. It is certainly wrong to blame the victims of terrorism for its ill effects, but it is equally wrong to support the state.

     Speaking specifically of victims, I knew a gentleman who became a casualty of the 11 September 2001 attacks. He was in one of the World Trade Center towers rescuing people when it collapsed. John Perry was a lawyer and police officer, who once told me he joined the police force to be able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms. His family set up a memorial fund in John's memory, which sent a representative to the ISIL conference in Mexico in 2002.

     That fund continues to fight against the war on drugs, one of John's particular concerns about the impending police state. I think John would have been appalled at efforts to use his death to justify lengthy military occupations of other countries, to justify the police-state approach to airport and bus depot security now in effect, and to otherwise promote an authoritarian regime.