What the White House hasn't yet acknowledged is there are equally powerful moral arguments against regime change: Saddam Hussein is deranged and dangerous, a man who had his own son-in-law executed. Rice is probably right that he would have no qualms at seeing his populace massacred to stay in power. But can the United States, for its part, justify regime change if the cost is thousands of American and Iraqi lives?
Opponents to war in Iraq also raise questions of precedent, and pragmatism. A number of countries (some of them our allies) are ruled by unjust, even brutal dictators. Will ridding Iraq of Public Enemy Number One be followed by regime change elsewhere? And will our reputation in the Islamic world will be further damaged if we take it upon ourselves to enforce democracy in Iraq?
This last point begs the question: how does Islam say we should deal with an unjust ruler?
This question has been debated by Islamic scholars for centuries, most vigorously in the 1400s. The debate has been reignited in the modern age. It is often assumed that violent overthrow of an unjust ruler is not allowed. But this is not entirely correct, according to Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, professor of Islamic Law at UCLA and author of "Rebellion and Violence in Islamic Law" (Cambridge University Press, 2001). "Islamic jurists are first and foremost lawyers," said Dr. Abou El Fadl in an interview. "Typical of all legal cultures, Muslim jurists were biased toward stability and admired law and order." Thus, violent overthrow of a ruler, even if he were unjust, is not something Muslim jurists would wholeheartedly support.
But clearly, this will not work with Saddam Hussein. According to Dr. Abou El Fadl, Sunni Muslim jurists adopted, in his words, a more "functional and pragmatic approach" to the problem. Violent rebellion against a tyrant whose rule is unbearable is allowed under two conditions: (1) the good that would come out of rebellion should outweigh the necessary evil of armed conflict, and (2) if such a rebellion has a real chance at success.
In the case of Iraq, it is the first condition that is questionable. No one doubts that a fight with Saddam would be vicious, but the United States would likely prevail. The Sunni jurists, however, would be deeply concerned about the turmoil and bloodshed that would necessarily accompany an overthrow. The human and moral cost, leaving aside the economic harm, of a U.S. "pre-emptive" military invasion of Iraq would be much too great.
What should be done then? Work against Saddam peacefully, and perhaps God will preempt all of us. Saddam may realize the error of his ways and change himself for the better. Was not St. Paul, formerly known as Saul of Tarsus, one of Christ's most vehement opponents? Umar ibn Al-Khattab, one of the Prophet Muhammad's closest companions, was on his way to kill the Prophet the day he converted to Islam. Maybe Saddam will have a similarly dramatic change of heart. Or maybe he'll just have a heart attack.