More on Separationism

Rod, here is the way out of your impasse:

1. Islam is a mortal threat to our civilization.

2. But we cannot destroy Islam.

3. Nor can we democratize Islam.

4. Nor can we assimilate Islam.

CONCLUSION: Evangelize.

When the Holy Father visited Turkey, he did not confront. Rather, he laid the groundwork for something more powerful, and this is how he did it. He stated:

1. Islam is a religion worthy of respect

2. Religions that are worthy of respect should promote human freedom, particularly the right to freedom of religion.

How could the Muslims disagree? The kicker is that, as this theme of freedom is repeated, it will lead the Islamic nations eventually to practice it or be forced to admit to the kind of intolerance that you perceive, at which time even their own followers may begin to lose faith.

I submit that, if Christianity and Islam are both put on the table, people will choose Christianity.>

Rod,

I don't share your alarm about Islam, but after learning that your local mosque is teaching Sayyid Qutb, I understand it better. Don't let 'em off the hook.

I don't get that, they called Qutb an "obscure" writer -- but they're working to make him less obscure?>

Again, I reiterate-3 mosques in NYC have been directly linked to terror aimed at their supposed hometown. Frankly there have been 3 other attacks in NY-the bombing of Atlantic Avenue terminal(thwarted quite luckily when one of the plotters got cold feet and flagged down a rookie cop, picked out due to the number of Jews who use it every day); and the murders of Ari Hamberstam on the Brooklyn Bridge and Meri Kahane in a hotel ballroom(for which the criminal was acquitted). I know if we were talking about any other religious group, people would be up in arms and asking what kind of people are these. Instead, we get PC pablum. It's not about theology; it's survival. WAKE UP.>

IBreakCellPhones,

Yes, so far the Islamic answer has been to suppress any attempt by Christians to evangelize. That's why the pope's initiative is potentially so powerful, and it's along the lines of what Zero=infinity wrote.

That is, either the Islamic states open themselves to real freedom of religion, or else their words and actions will be plain for all to see they theirs is not a great religion that is worthy of respect.

With this trip to Turkey, they've now been called to to higher standard.>

johnboy0:

"CONCLUSION: Evangelize."

Koran prescribes death for evangelizing and conversion out of Islam.
There are executions for these offences in countries under Sharia law. It explains shortagse of Christian missionaries in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afganistan, etc.

Kindly describe how would you go about evangelizing of Islam?

Do you have plans to return from alternative reality?>

Maybe they deny radicalism because they don't think it is radical.>

Major Wootton:

"I'm less likely to believe a rumor ..., if I trust my local/regional media to report accurately and persistently about what the mosques are doing."

Unfortunately our elites and MSM have made their choice. They will cover up for, protect and excuse Muslems till next 9/11-like event (probably with number of victims several times larger).

Thank god for Internet, LGF, Drudge, JihadWatch, ViewFromTheRight, CrunchyCon, ParaPundit, Brussell Journal, Serge Trifkovic, Diana West, Fjordman, and Hugh Fitzgerald.>

That is, either the Islamic states open themselves to real freedom of religion, or else their words and actions will be plain for all to see they theirs is not a great religion that is worthy of respect.

So? It is unlikely that a lack of freedom of religion will convince a large number of Muslims that their belief systems are incorrect and that Islam is not a great religion worthy of respect.

Perhaps non-Muslims will come to decide this, but then they will still be left with the question of what to do about Islam? That non-Muslims do not repect Islam will not alter the choices we need to make about how to deal with it.>

Every single journalist I've ever read who has the guts to report the honest to God, don't-let-'em-off-the-hook truth about Islam has said the exact same thing about leaders from the "Muslim community." They are defensive, evasive, and don't give straight answers to simple questions.

Why is that?

As I've said before, there may be moderate Muslims, but there is no moderate Islam. And the moderate Muslims know it.

Keep speaking the truth Rod.>

Excellent article!

Mohammedanism is a mental disorder. They more you know about it, the more absurd it becomes: The realization that this totalitarian belief-system, an ideology of hatred and world-conquest including genocide is far more dangerous than communism or the Nazi's ever were....

'Terror made me victorious'- sayd Mohammed, and his worshippers 'strike terror in the hearts of unbelievers' until they submit...

This horrific scenario is incomprehensible to our politically correct Liberals, who see 'BUSH' and their own Judeo-Christian roots as the source of all evil. Real evil has yet to be understood, a deep look into Islam is just as good as a look into the abbyss....>

The 1965 immigration law -- the gift that just keeps on giving.

Prior to that law the number of Muslims in our country was miniscule. Now we are paying, continue to pay, the price for not keeping the entho-religious balance in the American population the way it has been historically.>

It's reassuring to me to read posts from realists such as mik-infidel, Matt, and Warren Raymond, among others, as well as Dreyer himself. We should isolate Muslims in their historic lands so they can continue to marry their first cousins and congratulate themselves with how superior Islam is to the West until they figure it out on their own (if ever). Nothing digusts me more than to see, ever more frequently, Muslim women in America dressed like the Wicked Witch of the West while walking ten paces behind some male...except, perhaps, American liberal apologists for these and other 7th century Islamic customs. We know better, so why oh why must we dumb ourselves down just so these 7th century cultists can continue to have healthy self-esteem? And why do we allow the media to keep telling us that this butt-naked Emperor is wearing beautiful clothes? It's the apologists for Islam that will precipitate war by their refusal to allow honest criticism and debate regarding objective truths about the incompatibility of Islam and the West.>

Christianity used to be like this. Read some of the official papal documents from the middle ages. Or for a chaser, try some of the stuff Martin Luther and John Calvin wrote on the same sorts of topics. It will chill your blood in much the same way.

Were medieval Christians unfit for 21st Century American life? Without a doubt. The problem here seems to be that Islam is still stuck in that mindset.

So, while we're wondering what to do about this, we might ask ourselves what happened to Christianity to move it away from that position.>

"I submit that, if Christianity and Islam are both put on the table, people will choose Christianity.
"

A) This is a fallacious assumption of modernism. That man is basically good and that if man is presented with the truth and a lie, the truth will win the debate.
This is simply in conflict with the darkness of the intellect produced by original sin.

B)Muslim societies have been notoriously hard to convert. There have been Christian missionaries in Muslim nations since Mohammad and Islam has only spread, not one single nation has been converted from Islam to Christianity since the 8th Century AD though a dozen or more have gone the other way (all of the Middle East and Northern Africa)>

A long overdue discussion. I don't think we should expect much help or good sense from our establishments: They like to squirt around a milky tolerance of everything so they can enjoy the good life in peace. We the Peeps may have to clean out the stye.>

I'd like to join in thanking Rod for not only meeting with these representatives of the Moslem community in Dallas but telling us the truth about that meeting. We as a nation, as a civilization, need more of this open discussion and not less. Because the sooner that we face up to the reality of Islam, both Sunni and Shia, the sooner we can have a real dialog about what the relationship between Islam and the rest of the world should be.

Yes, I wrote "and the rest of the world". It is not just Europe and the West that is under attack by Islam. It is Bhuddist Thailand. It is Africa south of the Sahara. It is China, in the far western part of that country. It is Hindu India. The phrase "Islam has bloody borders" understates the issue, but even that is too radical for the elites of the Western world. Yet there it is.

If separation happens, it will be separation not only from the West, but from everyone else. Is that stark? The choice is stark for teachers in southern Thailand: teach and risk murder & beheading, or abandon your students. That is just one example, there is a whole world of them.

Some years ago I read a signature on an email that struck me as incredibly extreme and bigoted, but now I am coming to fear there is truth in it. Here it is:

"Know Islam, no peace; no Islam, know peace".>

I agree that seperation is probably the best solution to ploblem that is Islam, however I am ever so doubtful that our gov. would ever propose such an action thanks to great orginations like the ACLU and others. Even if our gov. forbid the influx of Muslims into the US, we have to face reality, we need oil.>

Let me add to Chris L.'s statements and amplify them. While there are plenty of "Friday only" Moslems who can live in peace with secular neighbors, the Koran itself teaches something very different. This is summed up in the phrase "There are moderate Moslems, but Islam is not moderate". The problem lies in the fact that our good, good friends in Saudi Arabia financially control over half the mosques in the US, often via various "foundations" or other cutouts. They control what books are available, they control what is taught in the mosque schools, and they control who preaches. Everyone who reads this weblog should seek out the writings of Sayd Qutb and become familiar with them. Qutb was scandalized by the decadance of farming-college-town Colorado back in the late 1940's -- a time many of us regard as a culturally conservative one -- and upon returning to Egypt proceeded to write his manifesto with a Koranic foundation. That there are Moslems who state Qutb was unsound in his theology I do not deny, but Qutb's thinking as noted up the thread is the foundation for many Moslem radicals, notably Osama bin Laden.

For Qutb to be found in a US mosque library ought to be an outrage, on a par with finding a copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Which, I suspect, one can also find, since dramatizations of that Tzarist forgery are popular entertainment in Egypt, Jordan and other Arab Moslem countries during Ramadan.

Islam is a system of controlling people. It teaches that Moslems are to dominate, not to be dominated, and that all others are to submit to Moslem rule. It comes with a complete explanation for everything that happens in the world, and mandates a degree of inequality between men and women, between Moslems and all others that simply should be unacceptable to Americans. The Koran is deemed to be literally the word of Allah as dictated. Thus to change one word is literally heresy. It must be accepted in toto, every jot and tittle. Furthermore, under Sunni theology, if two passages conflict, the one revealed later takes precedence over the older one; this is the principle of "abrogation" or "naskh". Thus, the Verse of the Sword, which commands Moslems to make war on everyone else, to convert, or kill, or subdue into dhimmitude the entire world, abrogates all the earlier verses of tolerance, specifically the one that teaches "there is no compulsion in religion".

Most Moslems know this. Many will not admit it. But the facts are still there, no matter how much dissembling some Moslem leaders may engage in.

Nothing I have written here is made up, it all can be found in any of several open sources. I think that many people reject these facts because they are unpleasant to consider. Americans, steeped in certain beliefs from the earliest age, do not wish to consider the possibility that there are people who are not just like them. Americans like to believe that underneath, all humans are pretty much the same and want the same things, and it bothers them a lot to run across philosophies, ideologies or religions that have teachings vastly different from American "live and let live" tolerance and optimism. Therefore, rather than face up to unpleasant facts, whether the plans of Communist regimes in the 1970's, or Islamist regimes in the 21st century, they choose to attack those who lay out the facts, and/or ignore the facts that are not pleasant to read.

I urge everyone on this weblog: read what Sayid Qutb wrote about America, read a translation of the Koran, read a translation of some of the crucial Hadith, look at the many websites run by Imams such as "ask the Imam" where day-to-day instruction is given to Moslems. Ask yourself just how you would react to, for example, the taxi drivers in your town refusing to pick up any passengers with dogs, or carrying alcohol, because of their religion. Ask yourself if you want people in your town taught that Jews are so evil, on Judgement day even the rocks and trees will call out "There is a Jew behind me! Come and kill him!" as the Saudi-funded materials found from coast to coast teach teenagers to believe. (Here is an article discussing some of what Moslem teachings about Jews are, and why denial of the Holocaust is so common in the Moslem world:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ali16dec16,0,2351518.story


Inform yourself about what Islam really is. Not what CAIR says it is, not what the main stream media says it is, not whas al Jazeera says, but what it really is. Learn what Sharia law is, and what it demands of those who live under it. Then ask yourself if such a belief system really has a place in America.>

Susan:
"Were medieval Christians unfit for 21st Century American life? Without a doubt. The problem here seems to be that Islam is still stuck in that mindset.

So, while we're wondering what to do about this, we might ask ourselves what happened to Christianity to move it away from that position."

I suggest you refresh your knowledge of Christianity and get some knowledge of Islam. Rober Spencer at jihadwatch.com wrote a few excellent books on the subject for a layman.

The major difference is Christian documents are interpretations that could be re-interpreted by humans. Koran is the world of Allah, true, perfect, final, and unchangeble.

If Koran says kill the Jews, thats it, to be a good Muslem you must kill Jews or support those who are in position to do so.>

"KUH-tub">

I guess we have to blame it on the thumb. Maybe if we didn't have the thumb we wouldn't want to put a handle on everything so we could grasp it.

Rod believes his version of Christianity is the only viable one because, well, it's his. What he ignores is his isn't the only version out there. There's another group of Christians that believe the Bible is inerrant.

They believe every word in the Bible was put there by God using men. This is exactly the same thing that some Muslims believe about the Koran. The Bible is just as full of hate and ignorance as the Koran for the very same reasons.

What the Christians like Rod don't seem to grasp, two thumbs and all, is that the biggest difference between Islam and Christianity is Islam is still in the middle ages in dogma. Societal and scientific pressures haven't forced the modernization that created the more palatable versions of Christianity.

The same forces that created the kinder gentler Christianity will create a kinder gentler Islam.

What's keeping fundamentalist Islam strong today is they are under attack. When an institution is under attack factional splits are ignored and personality differences are put aside.

If men like Rod wanted to de-fang Islam they'd embrace Muslims and ignore Islam. Muslims are first and foremost human beings. Human beings by their very nature return embraces and are obligated to honor respect with respect.

The one thing today that is separating Islam from the corrosive agents that will create the gentler kinder is the call to arms to defend it from attacks from the west.>

It would help the case made by men and women like those of the delegation if instead of engaging in denial and trying to make journalists feel like heels for even raising questions, they would deal with them straight on. But to do that, I suspect, would amount to conceding that Islam, as they understand it, is incommensurate with basic American values.

I don't understand you Rod. I really don't. And you're not making it any easier on an old man who wants to understand you either.

Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world. It's second only in size to Christianity. What should make you want to embrace Islam and hold it tight is the fact that unlike Christianity, there's no commandment to proselytize, sorry, evangelize Islam.

It offers something to the converts and it's in your best interest to figure out what that is and why it's so attractive to people today.

I suggest embracing it not as in converting, but as in keeping it close so you can feel it's pulse and understand and appreciate Muslims as human beings first and foremost.

BTW, if you think you've got a rough row to hoe, consider mine. I'm fighting the three headed dragon, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. I'm embracing, grasping, and swinging wildly, all at the same time.>

This is a serious question -- meant to see if others had a similar reaction. How many of you had read Qutb -- not excerpts? I read Terror and Liberalism by Paul Berman where he says how awful Sayyid Qutb was -- how radical his writing is. But then I read chunks of "In the Shadow of the Koran" and "Milestones." And it was not nearly as extreme as I had expected. Maybe this was because I had it in the back that he had been severely tortured by the Egyptian authorities. Yes, he was an anti-Semite so I don't think he's a nice liberal (in the political science sense) writer. But on the other hand, I had trouble imagining him as wishing the destruction of the Twin Towers. He was involved in assassination attempts against a ruthless dictator (a la Bonhoeffer), so he certainly wasn't a pacifist. If anything he reminded me of Francis Schaeffer railing against Western culture. Of course, Schaeffer's name has been associated with James Kopp (abortion clinic attacks). My question is whether this was just because I had been reading so many outright calls for violence against the west, or were others surprised by Qutb's relative reasonableness?>

harvey lacey wrote the following things:
There's another group of Christians that believe the Bible is inerrant.

This is a true statement.

They believe every word in the Bible was put there by God using men. This is exactly the same thing that some Muslims believe about the Koran.

This is also true, but irrelevent; the fact that some Moslems believe the Koran to have been written by men does not change the official position of Islamic commentators for over 1,000 years. That postion is a major cornerstone in foundation of Islam, and it states that the Koran is literally the word of Allah, as dictated essentially into Mohammed's ear. Not inspired by God, as the most fundamental of Christians profess. The difference is profound, because Christians can disagree over the interpretation of words; thus there is room in most variants of Christianity for both the literal 6-days-of-24-hours creation, and the figurative 6-days-of-God's-time creation. Or for another example, there's room within the Protestant subset for those denominations that prohibit alcohol to adherants vs. those that do not, based on interpretation of certain text. Islam doesn't allow that. When the Koran says that an adulteress is to be stoned to death, there's no other interpretation possible. There's no real space for disagreement on Koranic injunctions, although there is some when it comes to the sayings of Mohammed (the hadith, or a-hadith).

The Bible is just as full of hate and ignorance as the Koran for the very same reasons.

I'm sure it appears that way to mr. lacey. But nowhere in the O.T. or N.T. will you find wholesale injunctions to convert, kill or essentially enslave everyone in the world who doesn't accept Jesus. Yet the Sura that Islamic tradition claims is the very last one revealed to Mohammed commands exactly that. This is the "tu quoque" fallacy, and it is not useful in informed discussion.

Then lacey wrote this:

Islam is the fastest growing faith in the world.

How do you know that? One of the tactics of Moslems going all the way back to Mohammed is to overstate their numbers. It makes their victory seem inevitable, therefore resistance is futile. But among themselves, Moslems worry quite a bit about apostasy in places like Africa and parts of India. I believe that's one reason the Saudis are pushing to build so many mosques across the lower Sahara, for example, and madrassas across India & into Bangladesh.

It's second only in size to Christianity. What should make you want to embrace Islam and hold it tight is the fact that unlike Christianity, there's no commandment to proselytize, sorry, evangelize Islam.

This last statement is so blatantly wrong I don't know where to begin. The Koran is chock full of calls to bring all of mankind into Islam. First, by the "call", or Da'wa. Proselytizing merchants took Islam to what is now Indonesia, which may explain why that variant isn't quite the same as in Saudi Arabia. But if Da'wa is rejected, then the Koran is clear: fight those who do not believe in Allah until they convert, or are subdued into dhimmi status, or die. It's right there in the book, all one has to do is read it.

With no malice intended, it seems to me that mr. lacey doesn't know a great deal about Islam, about the biography of Mohammed (whom all Moslems are enjoined to emulate), nor about the nearly 1,400 years of history involved. I urge him to learn as fast as he can.>

Harvey,

You say the root problem is that we're not nice enough to Muslims. Yet Muslims in the West have more freedoms, more rights, more comfort than Muslims in their native lands. They are allowed to worship freely, the president releases statements of goodwill to them on their holy days. What more can we reasonably be expected to do--completly ingnore the link between Islam & terrorism? That would be dealy foolishness.

You also seem to be making a distinction between how Muslims live their faith and what their faith commands. That's a legitimate distinction. But you are also implying that the individuals Rod spoke with deep down don't want Shiara instituted here. If that were true, however, why would they be selling books by Qutb and hosting events in honor of Khomeini. Though they're not in a position to change the tennants of their faith, they can pick and choose what and what not to emphasize. The fact that they are actively promoting radical thinkers and radical actors clearly indicates that they themselves support radicalism.>

Richard Bottoms:

Mau-Mau?

F--k that.

Fuuny how in the midst of making legitimate points you have to insult black folks to do it.

Charming. Not only potty-mouthed, but illiterate too.>

Thanks Chris L. -- I don't think Qutb was reasonable, I was just surprised about how *relatively* reasonable he was after reading portrayals of him as evil incarnate.
For example, dividing up the world into the world of the ignorant and those who know truth is fairly standard -- Christianity: those living in darkness have seen a great light; Science: dark ages vs. enlightenment; Greeks: Greeks vs. barbarians; etc. As far as living under shariah, my understanding was that Qutb pushed more for ijtihad (interpretation) rather than the rote learning practiced in many of the establishment madrassas. So, for example, he argued against the "fundamentalist" reading of the Koranic sanction of slavery, because his interpretation of the whole of Islam let him get around specific teachings of the hadiths or the Koran that seemed to allow for slavery. In addition, my understanding that, while he certainly saw a threat from western materialism, he did not call for an attack on the West per se. Instead, his priority was a reform within Islam -- one allowing for freedom.
I was taught by a moderate Muslim judge that the doors of ijtihad were closed in the 900's. Qutb seemed to be trying to push those doors open.
Again, I don't think he's a good guy. He had many scary ideas. One thing I'm wondering is if in our demonizing of Qutb because some members of al Qaeda read him or were taught by his brother, we're actually suppressing reform within Islam. Is linking him directly with 9/11 or thinking that mosques that sell his works are supporting terrorists is a gross simplification and maybe even counterproductive?
By the way, I bought my copy of Milestones at the mosque President Bush visited right after 9/11 (no real point in mentioning this, just found it interesting).>

Rod,

I'm a Muslim and, although I think I can see some mistakes in the way you are approaching this, you also appear to be genuinely open and genuinely trying to give Muslims a fair chance. I appreciate that. You asked this group to answer some simple, fair questions, they gave you evasive answers, and you feel dissatisfied. That is understandable.

But I'll tell you one big thing that I think you are wrong about.

This: You appear to accept that the views of the Dallas Central Mosque leaders will be representative, more or less, of the (presumably) larger group of Muslims from whom you think it may be necessary to separate yourself. This is not so. I do not care what the DCM leaders have to say about anything.

But more importantly than what I personally think (since I assume you already recognize that there may be the odd Muslim here and there who could be assimilated) is that it is in fact universally accepted Muslim doctrine that the DCM leaders' opinions are not worth caring about unless one chooses to care about them. I understand that when you are learning about something new, it is natural to look for analogies to things that you already know. But there is NO ANALOGY BETWEEN AN IMAM OR SHEIKH AND A PRIEST, MINISTER OR PASTOR. The imam has NO AUTHORITY. He is JUST SOME GUY spouting his opinion. He is NOT ANOINTED. He is NOT CALLED OF GOD (or Allah, if you prefer Arabic). He can be (and invariably is) TOTALLY IGNORED BY ANY CONGREGANT WHO DISAGREES WITH HIM ABOUT ANYTHING. Islam does not have a priesthood. Say it again, Islam does not have a priesthood. All together now, Islam does not have a priesthood.

It is a chaotic, disorganized religion whose only coherence comes from tradition, but not from any religious authority in the Christian sense. Trying to get a billion people to think alike is like herding cats. It doesn't happen. Today, there are as many Islams as there are Muslims. Go back into history, and this is even more true.

The problem with going to the DCM leaders is that they are unlikely to explain this to you, since they like the idea that they are somehow qualified to speak for Islam. They aren't. No one cares. Unless you are Shia, the imam/sheikh is seen merely as an advisor. There are only five requirements to be a Muslim, and none of them are that you should accept the opinions of the imam.

Here's why I think this is important:

You misunderstand the nature of the challenge if you think that you need to assimilate Muslim leaders, and get them to embrace principles of democracy, before average Muslims will accept it too. You don't. You only need to demonstrate to average Muslims that secular government works better than sharia government. If they accept it, they will be perfectly willing to support western-style democracy with absolutely no regard to whether or not their "leaders" are like-minded.

I have lived in the United States and in the Middle East and I know many, many practicing Muslims who readily accept that secular democracy is preferable to living under sharia law. I accept this. In fact, I enthusiastically embrace it. I would in fact say that this is by far the norm among Muslim Americans that I know -- I don't know any Muslim Americans (expect maybe some dingbat imams that everyone ignores) who would argue that sharia is preferable to secular democracy. To be fair, I do know quite a few non-American Muslims who would argue that sharia is better, but I believe they can be convinced.

To wrap up, here's my point:

What you need to do is to appeal to Muslims directly. You need to demonstrate (and Iraq and Afghanistan would be GREAT venues in which to do this, so let's SUCCEED and not give up on those countries yet) that DEMOCRACY WORKS BETTER. It's that simple. You have many advantages in trying to prove this to Muslims. The biggest advantage is that it is a fact that democracy does work better.

They will see this over time (most already know it in their hearts). Go directly to the people and just ignore the imams (that's what we do). Look at the millions of Muslim Americans who have already assimilated.

Thanks,
Mohamed>

Mohamed, that is really helpful. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.>

jefecito,

I think I see what you are driving at. However, what we call the Islamic radicals have notoriously been the ones calling for ijtihad. And I believe the theory for this has to do with education. In general, the radicals are wealthier and have a better education than the non-radicals. Meanwhile, a large number of Muslims (we're talking worldwide) are barely educated or illiterate. If you only memorized quotes from the Koran, you can find some peaceful calls in that text. The problem arises when you become literate and have the ability to start putting the pieces together, like Qutb. Once you have the Koran and the Hadith and Sunna to tie it together, a different picture starts to appear. Ijtihad suddenly is the means of putting together a coherent picture for Islam and that picture is pretty ugly. You have rapes, pillaging, raids, murders, and assassinations. You end up with abrogation where the earlier peaceful verses are superseded by later violent calls. You have a world divided between Muslims, People of the Book, and unbelievers. Muslims are in charge and the rest either submit, convert, or die.

Instead, his priority was a reform within Islam -- one allowing for freedom.

This is where I think you (and many others) are confused. What does Qutb mean by freedom? He doesn't mean freedom in the sense that you and I mean freedom. He means freedom from man-made rules and rulers. He means the freedom of Sharia and Islam. There is no freedom of religion or conscience under Islam. In other words, his definition of freedom is far different than what we in the West would define as freedom.

Mohamed,
The imam has NO AUTHORITY

Sorry, but as a non-denominational Christian, I think your statement is incorrect. If our preacher and elders met with Rod's board and started spouting anti-semitic remarks, we as a congregation would be tarnished by their behavior. Why? Because we allowed them to act for us as representatives. If the people who met with the editorial board did not represent the members of the DCM, why were they there? Why don't the members of the DCM send members who represent their views? Just because Islam is decentralized to some extent does not give a pass for the DCM to send people who don't represent them.

What you need to do is to appeal to Muslims directly.

Mohamed, please don't take this as personal but why? Why is it incumbent upon us to convince Muslims of anything? I've noticed this to be a constant thread in discussions with Muslims. Somehow it is always someone else's job to fix a problem with Muslims or Islam. If we were just nicer. If we respected Islam more. If we provided more economic aid. If we give them freedom, etc. Something cheaply earned isn't treasured. The West has achieved it's society based on centuries of thought, conflict, and effort. It is based on a mixture of Christian and classical thinking. And it can't just be given out like candy. People are different and want different things. The concept that everyone wants that same thing is a liberal falsehood for which we are paying the price today.>

I would be willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to the majority of muslims that they do not, in fact, want to live under Sharia (although I think that about 40% of muslims polled in Great Britain have admitted that they actually would), but it in end, it never seems to be the moderate muslims who prevail, at least not over the long term. I don't know where this inability/unwillingness to confront extremism comes from, whether it derives from fear or some subliminal loyalty to the Islamic meme, but when it comes right down to it, you only need a few morality police demanding adherence to the "code," two or three women doused with acid, maybe just one or two beheadings, and lo and behold, the whole population seems to fall in line! Do any of us honestly believe that a majority of Iranians would have chosen what they have now? Probably not, because it was imposed on them through violence -the same for many of the Somalians undergoing forced Islamification today. Once a muslim majority is in place there are no guarantees, and the only real guide is a careful examination of how non-muslims are currently treated in Islamic countries. And as far as I can tell, the trajectory for non-muslims is generally about the same. It may happen over generations, but it ALWAYS happens . . their numbers fall because of threats and persecution, non-muslims women are married out or kidnapped (but non-muslim men are not allowed the same access to muslim women), their holy places fall into disrepair because of state restrictions or are destroyed during those inevitable periods of Islamic unrest and anger, they are not allowed to proselytize to practice their faiths in an open manner, and freedom of speech is restricted, especially when it comes to criticising Islam or its prophet. It occurs according to a well defined pattern that can be seen at work throughout history and is happening right now in places like Lebanon, Egypt, Bangladesh, Southern Thailand, Southern Phillipines, Southern Indonesia, the Moluku's - but nobody seems to notice or care, because it's so incremental. I don't care how disorganized Islam is as a faith, all true Muslims understand that it is their duty to extend Islamic hegemony and that pattern is ALWAYS reflected and repeated in heavily Islamic countries. . . Dhimmitude, taking its toll in accordance with the Quran.>

I understand the difference between the "freedom" of Qutb versus a secular definition of freedom -- but not sure it's so different from a Christian "freedom in Christ" or the Hebrew Bible's freedom through Torah. But one way or another, it's a freedom that grants the believer the ability to question an ossified ideology. Because such a freedom may be misused doesn't necessarily mean the person who called for the freedom was evil, does it? (Martin Luther didn't think so when he denounced the peasant uprising). And I can't think of even the most radical Muslims who are calling for raping and pillaging. Qutb certainly didn't call for raping and pillaging. Yes, he did split the world up into believers and unbelievers, but, again, I don't see this as that radical. And yep, the "radicals" are the ones calling for ijtihad. But there are others who may see in Qutb a different kind of option through ijtihad -- and by demonizing Qutb, we may be cutting off that different form of ijtihad, one that leads to a more traditional form of jihad (not one that involves blowing up infidels). Sometimes it may be better to engage in a dialogue with intellectuals (the more cynical would say co-opt), rather than censor them.>

Mohamed:

Yes, I understand that Islam has neither an ordained priesthood or the notion of a binding interpretive tradition (but we both also know that both those statements are more true of Sunni than Shi'ite).

Nevertheless ... that doesn't mean that imams have no authority. Not divine authority like a Catholic priest, sure. But "leadership" does nevertheless exist ... people go to their mosques, form social networks and thus legitimize their "leadership" claims. I know that, in principle and if I were a Muslim, I can appoint myself Imam Victor. But that wouldn't make people attend my mosque or mean they wouldn't ask questions about my qualifications and act accordingly ("you studied at Harvard, good" ... "you studied at Bob Jones, bad" ... "you're a Straussian, doubled-bad" ... "you did your work on Qutb, double-good" ... as examples).

These people from Dallas Central Mosque are thus relevant and indicative, even if they do not have a divine mandate that Ahmed Q. Muslim must heed.>

I recently had the misfortune to get dragged into controversy regarding ecumenical dialogue between the local Jewish and Muslim communities. I spoke with every Jewish leader involved in that dialogue and to a person they agreed that genuine dialogue was impossible because of the extremism and dishonesty of the Muslim religous leadership. Note that these are people who had a lifelong commitment to ecumenical efforts. They all favored continuing the dialogue, because they believed that maintaining a charade was necessary to alienating moderate and left wing Christians, but they recognized that it was a charade. So long as the mainstream Christian community believes that dialogue is a virtuous process regardless of its content, and that accountability should be sacrificed in the name of dialogue, this dishonest charade will continue.>

Has Mr. Dreher ever asked Pat Robertson et. al about their view of, say, Hinduism?

If Mr. Dreher is logically consistent, the answer should make him equally hostile to Robertson's brand of Christianity.>

theAmericanist...

Tariq is not a moderate. He is described in this article which I copied to my site because of rampant Islamic attempts to censor unflattering items about Islam.

Take, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government has appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a community leader . Ramadan sounds, in public, very moderate. But in reality, he has some very extreme views. He attacks liberal Muslims as Muslims without Islam . He is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood.

He calls the education in the state schools of the West aggression against the Islamic personality of the child . He has said that the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle . He has added that compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness .

Anonymous,

Really? Please do tell us where Pat Robertson has advocated stoning adulterors and homosexuals. And where, pray tell, is Robertson defending (or at least refusing to condemn) Christian suicide bombers?

I breathlessly await your amazing insights.>

Hey Cruiser! Why are you so passive about YOUR leaders who are causing so much death and destruction in Iraq? You actually voted for them. Twice.

I am not a Muslim, but this idea that a person is responsible for the actions/statements of the leaders of his religion is a ridiculous, shamefull and disgusting attempt to justify hatred against muslims.>

Hostility would equal intolerance.

Very rich, especially coming from a person who brands an ancient religion of a billion people as false.>

Anon.
I am not a Muslim, but this idea that a person is responsible for the actions/statements of the leaders of his religion is a ridiculous, shamefull and disgusting attempt to justify hatred against muslims.

We aren't talking about a Muslim in America condemning what some imam says in a mosque in Egypt. We talking about Muslims condemning the actions of the leaders at their local mosque. As Mohamed pointed out, these leaders are not appointed by some distant Islamic body. Therefore, they have to have their authority from the local Muslim body. Thus, if the local Muslims allow these leaders to speak for them, it is right to assume that, at a minimum, the majority of the Muslims in that mosque believe the same way. So yes, they are responsible.>

Anon, what does the level of democracy have to do with the threat? Several despotic leaders have been elected in free and fair elections. Does that make it any better? How are the leaders and imam(s) selected for a mosque? I doubt if people just self-appoint themselves. Democracy depends on a host of factors that determine whether it is a good or bad thing.>

Recommending separation from Islamists is all very well, but since their agenda is to take over, separation may be difficult to achieve.
A little like trying to leave the Mafia, no?>

According to the Dallas Central Appraisal District, the property on which the Dallas Central Mosque is located (840 Abrams Road, Dallas, Texas 75081-5034) is owned by the Islamic Association of North Texas, which LexisNexis shows was incorporated as a Texas non-profit corporation on February 5, 1971 and whose officers and directors are the following:

Jamal Gharbieh, Secretary, Director
10140 Cimmaron Trail
Dallas, Tx 75243

Mohammad Hanif, Treasurer, Director
1313 Jennifer Drive
Garland, Tx 75042

Arshad A Syed, President, Director
307 Centennial Blvd.
Richardson, Tx 75081>

Lacey said It's second only in size to Christianity. What should make you want to embrace Islam and hold it tight is the fact that unlike Christianity, there's no commandment to proselytize, sorry, evangelize Islam.

This last statement is so blatantly wrong I don't know where to begin. The Koran is chock full of calls to bring all of mankind into Islam.

Proselytizing: Muslims are not required to actively recruit others to Islam. In the Qur'an, Allah told Muhammad that "You certainly cannot guide whomever you please; It is Allah who guides whom He will. He best knows those who accept guidance." (28:56). Muslims are expected to explain Islam to followers of other faiths, but it is up to Allah to guide those whom he wishes to.

It is polite when offering a counterpoint to link to something supporting the position here>

truepeers


The point is that the Imams are less democratically elected, if they are elected at all, than the leaders of a democratic country. So it makes as much sense to hold the Muslims at large responsible for the actions/statements of their leaders as it does to hold the Americans as a people responsible for the fiasco in the middle east.

Clearly, the attempt here is to justify the hatred of Mulims on the basis of what the Imams said. Mr. Dreher would be more responsible a columnist if he wrote such an article after polling the American Muslims rather than making inflammatory statements about a whole religious group on the basis of a talk with a small number of Muslim priests in Dallas.>

I wonder where the Dallas Central Mosque is getting its literature and who is paying for it. I suspect the Saudis.

I believe Islam can be assimilated into American life, but not its more puritanic forms. If they were all Sufis, we wouldn't have War Against Militant Islamism.>

No, it's Islamic lunatics flying planes into office towers. Or blowing up commuter trains. Or subways. Or churches. That's going to stir up some negative emotions.
Scott

Actually Scott it's about terrorists being labeled first and foremost by our crazies as the face of Islam.>

Lacey,

What does Christianity have to do with Islam? We're talking about Islam here, not Christianity, genius. Read the Qur'an and Hadith and get an informed opinion, tool.

There is no such thing as moderate Islam or moderate Muslims. There are Muslims that don't know enough about the Qur'an, but that's about it. We don't actually know how many of them there are in our society already.

Rod,
Thank you for being an honest reporter with balls.>

Actually Scott it's about terrorists being labeled first and foremost by our crazies as the face of Islam.

Why are the 6,000,000 or so Muslims living in our country not demonstrating against these "crazies" then? If they are living in our society, why aren't they working to preserve it then?>

harvey lacey:>

harvey lacey:
There are over a billion Muslims world wide. The vast majority of them interact with other faiths successfully and with little rancor.

The vast majority of Moslems live in countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc. where the odds of ever interacting with anyone of another faith is tiny. In the unlikely event that they do interact with someone of another faith, it likely will be with a dhimmi. Even then, as recent anti-Coptic riots in Egypt, as the murder of Christian school girls in Indonesia, as the murder of teachers in Thailand, as the ongoing genocide in Sudan, and other examples show, clearly there are Moslems who choose to interact with non-Moslems in a very violent way. The number of these incidents, and the fact that such incidents have been occurring for over 1,000 years, suggests a problem.

Mr. Lacey's comment is rather disingenuous, at best.>

What about what has happened in Iraq? Is that not ratifying and advocating bloodshed and violence on the part of the West? Reactionary or not - this misguided venture being committed in our name is at least resulting in a grand display of hypocrisy when we now decry Muslims as espousing violence.>

Anon: The point is that the Imams are less democratically elected, if they are elected at all, than the leaders of a democratic country. So it makes as much sense to hold the Muslims at large responsible for the actions/statements of their leaders as it does to hold the Americans as a people responsible for the fiasco in the middle east.

-in Dallas, one has freedom of entry and exit in one's associations, if one doesn't also have a stake in ownership of the Mosque and a vote on the leaders. That makes one's responsibility for one's leaders far greater than one's responsibility for the US President of Congress (which nonetheless exists). Freedom to leave one's nation is limited for both strongly pragmatic and legal reasons.

Or are you saying that if people leave the Dallas Mosque they have reason to fear violence? In which case you should be calling for the whole thing to be torn down.

In any case, the American people are responsible for their government's actions in the ME, so it might help if you stopped the hysterical incantation of "fiasco" and did your part not to shoot yourself in the foot. Believe me, there are lots of crazies in the ME who are dieing to have a chance to hold people like you personally responsible, and if they ever get you cornered in some corner of the world, they won't be impressed by "i didn't vote for Bush, honest I hate the guy". We cannot, none of us, escape being held to account for our nations. Libertarian dreams are just that.

Clearly, the attempt here is to justify the hatred of Mulims on the basis of what the Imams said.

-why does criticism have to be compounded into hatred? If ordinary Moslems don't feel some negative feedback - I'm not advocating violence - when their Imams talk in ways unacceptable in a free and open society with a separation of church and state, then the situation is indeed hopeless for the modernization and democratization of the faith. Consider that you are infantalizing the American Moslems you pretend to respect.>

What a completely irrelevant and untrue thing to say:

***

"...I can see the opportunity for a serious incident initiated and carried out by the extreme segments of both sides.

When the smoke clears humanity will decide that fundamentalists of all faiths are a threat to the planet."

That is just simply dragging Christianity into the morass that is Islam. We are not having a problem with Christian fundamentalism, never have. And it is totally ignorant to say that Christianity works better in a dictatorship. What nonsense. The Puritans created the concept of self-government, they established it by the American colonies as the first of it's kind. Religion flourishes in a democracy. You are being bigoted and twisting logic to push your antichristian views. Shame on you.>

Thanks to the people who responded to what I wrote earlier. I'm sorry I didn't check this site more frequently or I could have responded sooner.

A couple of people took issue with my assertion that the imam has no authority. But I stand by it. He has no authority. He is part of the same group of people that he claims to represent, so I'm sure there is a great deal of overlap between his opinions and theirs, but there is nothing binding about his views, and he therefore has no authority.

Still, it is a valid point that the imam has influence, and that to some extent he can only go as far as those who attend his mosque let him. But I would simply assert that his influence over the mind of a young American is not as significant of that of his parents, his teachers, or his own intellect. I personally find that level of thought of most Imams not only not convincing, but downright boring. I formulate my political opinions based on the larger milieu of my personal experiences and intellectual explorations. The imam plays a very small role in shaping my views.

Someone else suggested in this forum that it should not be the responsibility of other Americans to convince Muslims. Maybe, maybe not. As a deeply committed American, and a deeply committed Muslim, I wonder. Perhaps a better way to think of it is, not SHOULD we, but CAN we influence them positively without segregating our society (I only mention that alternative because Rod does)?

I'll offer an anecdote that ties both of these issues together, if only personally. I was living in Egypt on September 11. I had heard so much anti-American nonsense for so long, and I saw the terrorist attacks as having arisen out of this incessant discourse of blaming the US that you hear over there. I resolved that I would, politely, express my dissent with the anti-American view whenever given the opportunity.

One of many chances I had to keep this resolution came when a friendly, poor Egyptian family invited me to their house on a Friday. They suggested that I could attend the mosque with them and then we would spend the day and eat dinner together. I told them that, although I would love to spend the time and eat dinner with them, I had stopped attending mosques in Egypt because I found the sermons to be filled with (mostly angry) political rants that mentioned the words Amreeka, Israel and Mujahedin more often than the word Allah.

The family insisted (as only an Egyptian family can) and I ultimately relented, figuring that I had at least registered my disapproval and that was enough without rejecting their kindness and hospitality.

Long story short, the sermon was completely devoid of any reference to America or Israel, or the mujahedin, and was instead focused on everyone's obligation to worship and obey God more truly. My friends had told the imam that I would be in the audience and that I would be offended if he were to insult my country. Arab hospitality trumped Arab politics.

So what does it mean? I don't know. It should at least mean to you that I, as an American Muslim with fairly standard views, don't need to be segregated away from you. I'm at least as committed to America and to democracy as you are (Ever been to Iraq to work on reconstruction? I have. Ever argued face-to-face with a member of Gamaa Al Islamiyah that democracy is preferable to sharia? I have).

On the other hand, it probably does demonstrate that Muslims can be more effective than non-Muslims at influencing mosques to change their tune. I wish that more Muslims were sufficiently offended by the nonsense to take a more vocal stand.

Still, I think your consideration of whether to segregate yourself from Muslim Americans ought to be informed by an understanding that guys like me are out there, and that there are many others who might be convinced if you deem it worthwhile to convince them. There are Arabs and Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan right now who have sacrificed more for democracy than you will ever understand (though maybe not your grandparents).

There's a base to build on, that's all I'm saying. You're right that you may not have any metaphysical, moral obligation to convince Muslims to choose democracy over sharia. But on the other hand, you probably do have a moral obligation to avoid, if possible, any of the unpleasant practical enforcement realities that would accompany a real-world application of the rather benign-sounding idea of "separating ourselves" from Muslims. In any case, that's up to you. I just think you should understand that you do have a choice. Muslims can be assimilated.>

Mohamed, great post, and thank you for sharing that -- straight from the horse's mouth, too. You also have shown great patience in light of some of the other posts on this thread. Thank you for that and your dialogue.

Trollita.>

Islam is NOT worthy of respect...

1) The Prophet Muhammad was a genuine killer, rapist and married a child - that makes him a bad (moral) role model. Yet Muslims continue to insist he is a "perfect" example of a moral human being. Jesus, Guru nanak, Lao Tzu and other religious leaders never killed people, never raped. And historical violence in all other religions has been truely put into the past.

2) The Qur'an is angry, but non-substantive ranting (against non-believers for the most part). However, the substantive parts condone or even advocate the immorality the Prophet Muhammad himself demonstrated during his lifetime - anti-Semitism, intolerance for all non-Muslims, women as domestic belongings for men and barbaric cruelty. Hence, the WQur'an is also a poor moral guide.

3) Muslim states are full of chaos, tension, in-fighting and are full of hatred towards other states. These states are poor moral examples.

Hence, draw your conclusion... Islam needs to be banned.

First of all, Islam is not peaceful or tolerant and should, therefore, never be considered the equal of other religions that are.

Secondly, Islam is NOT a religion - it always has (and always will) carries political, social and other baggage. Islam is an ideology, and one that rejects all other outlooks (such as liberalism and democracy). Hence, it is incompatible with western society.

Islam must be banned from all peace loving democracies. Muslims can remain, but reject their religion or relocate - this is a choice (and a far better choice than the one we would get if Islam successfully overcomes democracy - and have no doubt that it want to).>

Why are the 6,000,000 or so Muslims living in our country not demonstrating against these "crazies" then? If they are living in our society, why aren't they working to preserve it then?
Scott

They are.

They're living good lives being good citizens and not acting bad.

Can you imagine what six million of the Muslims of the "all Muslims are bad Muslims" that some are describing could do?

It wasn't Muslims who said "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations;

Read about our Christian legacy in Texas here. Please note that it was approved 166 to 8. So it wasn't a splinter group but the position of Texas elected officials.>

Islam is NOT worthy of respect...

1) The Prophet Muhammad was a genuine killer, rapist and married a child - that makes him a bad (moral) role model. Yet Muslims continue to insist he is a "perfect" example of a moral human being. Stefcho

Wow! If that isn't ignorance on a pony without shoes I've never seen it.

We need to go to the Bible and look at the one man who was a man after God's own heart. He committed adultery, he arranged the slaughter of her husband and all of his men to cover up his crime. Let's not forget that he raised a son that slept with his daughter and then disgraced her publicly.

If you want to throw stones I suggest you read your Bible and turn off the telley.

You can look at Moses and see one day proclaiming ten commandments and then shortly making them irrelevant by breaking whem wholeheartedly.

Like I said earlier, it's a three headed snake.>

To build on what Abdul-Rauf has said (and show RD the error of his ways -- 'nuff said): The largest mass conversation in American history happened in 1975, when Elijah Muhammad died and his chosen successor, his son W. Deen Muhamma, led the roughly 200,000 followers of the Nation of Islam to mainstream Islam. There is a big (and essentially pointless) argument to be had about numbers, but it is reasonable to conclude that the lion's share of current American Muslims originate with this group.

It was a Palestinian-American named Jamil Diab who inspired that conversion -- W. Deen himself told me so.

Diab came to America as a refugee in 1948, having studied Islam at the Al-Azhar Mosque. He got a job teaching Arabic at the Nation of Islam, which he rapidly realized was neither a Nation, nor Islamic.

So he spent the better part of 20 years systematically subverting Elijah Muhammad's teachings, specifically by choosing passages from the Koran that directly contradicted it.

W. Deen told me that it was Jamil Diab who taught him to love the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

So, RD, kindly explain to us why you're writing about apartheid -- 'separation' for American Muslims, instead of the late Jamil Diab or W. Deen Muhammed?

LOL -- and LeGrand: haven't we been through this before? Of course Tariq Ramadan is "connected" to the Muslim Brotherhood; his grandfather Hassan al Bana FOUNDED it.

The point is that Ramadan believes, and argues eloquently (and more, is LISTENED TO by precisely the folks we want to reach) that it is possible to be both European, and a Muslim -- unlike Rod, who despite thousands of Muslim US Marines, doesn't think it is possible to be an American AND a Muslim.

The Koranic way in which Ramadan arrives at this hopeful conclusion is the "House of Witness", which is a damned sight more helpful than the 'us vs. them' vision of Islam you guys are promoting.

Well, Rod?>

We are not having a problem with Christian fundamentalism, never have. And it is totally ignorant to say that Christianity works better in a dictatorship. What nonsense. The Puritans created the concept of self-government, they established it by the American colonies as the first of it's kind. Religion flourishes in a democracy. You are being bigoted and twisting logic to push your antichristian views. Shame on you.
Kay Scott

Sorry Kay, but we have fought fundamentalist Christianity as a nation ever since Jefferson and friends used "Creator" instead of "God" or "Christ". Some of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers. They approved of "Creator" because they understood the problems down the road if fundamentalist Christians had their way they'd try to make our nation of of Biblical laws, think Sharia on steroids.

All of the Abrahamic faiths are geared towards dictatorships. If you doubt me look at the O.T. and read the first four Commandments, One God. Read the N.T. and again, only through Jesus do we get salvation. The same with Islam, one god and no other.

There's no example of democracy in the Bible or Koran.

Maybe the telly versions of the good books have it, don't know.>

The rabid anti-muslims posts here demonstrate what I have been saying all along.

Mr. Dreher has made it justifiable for Muslim haters to express their hate publicly.

This is not responsible journalism.>

Harvey Lacey, do you believe that all Jews are just waiting to massacre every man and adult woman around them? Do you really believe that?>

Mohammed Abdul-Rauf:
A couple of people took issue with my assertion that the imam has no authority. But I stand by it. He has no authority. He is part of the same group of people that he claims to represent, so I'm sure there is a great deal of overlap between his opinions and theirs, but there is nothing binding about his views, and he therefore has no authority.

Oh, come on, the imam is presumed to be some sort of an authority on Koran, Hadith, Suna and Fiqh, is he not? He's the "go-to" guy for all questions about how to live the proper, Moslem, life, isn't he? There are more and more "ask the Imam" websites where people take all sorts of questions, ranging from mundane ones about the proper Moslem way to use the toilet, to deeper ones about the proper kinds of relationships a Moslem can have with kufr, and everything in between. While the imam may have no legal, binding authority, the fact is that he does have social and cultural authority to some degree, surely. So if an imam instructs people that Jews are evil, they corrupted the pure Islam, they are tools of Shaitan, then isn't that going to have some influence on the people who hear such a message, especially when it is accompanied with direct quotes from the Koran, the Hadith and examples taken from the life of Mohammed?

Still, it is a valid point that the imam has influence, and that to some extent he can only go as far as those who attend his mosque let him. But I would simply assert that his influence over the mind of a young American is not as significant of that of his parents, his teachers, or his own intellect.

I know of people in London who used to say the same thing, but after the 7/7 bombings, and the polls that show about 40% of UK Moslems supporting Sharia law instead of British law, they are reconsidering it.

I personally find that level of thought of most Imams not only not convincing, but downright boring. I formulate my political opinions based on the larger milieu of my personal experiences and intellectual explorations. The imam plays a very small role in shaping my views.

That's good to know, but arguing from one person to the universe isn't always a logical way to proceed, is it? I'd like to claim that all Americans are just like me, but that simply isn't true, for better or worse.

Thanks for posting and replying. It is helpful.>

jefecito, one of the things about Sayid Qutb you are missing is his embrace of Jihad as it was practiced by Mohammed. He categorically rejects the notion of Jihad as "internal struggle", and also explicitly rejects Jihad as a thing of the past. Here are some of his words on the topic:

God held back Muslims from fighting in Mecca and in the early period of their migration to Medina, and told them, Restrain your hands, and establish regular prayers, and pay Zakat. Next, they were permitted to fight: Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they are oppressed, and God is able to help them. These are the people who were expelled from their homes without cause. The next stage came when the Muslims were commanded to fight those who fight them: Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you. And finally, war was declared against all the polytheists: And fight against all the polytheists, as they all fight against you; Fight against those among the People of the Book who do not believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, and who do not consider the true religion as their religion, until they are subdued and pay Jizyah. Thus, according to the explanation by Imam Ibn Qayyim, the Muslims were first restrained from fighting; then they were permitted to fight; then they were commanded to fight against the aggressors; and finally they were commanded to fight against all the polytheists.

With these verses from the Qur an and with many Traditions of the Prophet peace be on him in praise of Jihaad, and with the entire history of Islam, which is full of Jihaad, the heart of every Muslim rejects that explanation of Jihaad invented by those people whose minds have accepted defeat under unfavorable conditions and under the attacks on Islamic Jihaad by the shrewd orientalists.

What kind of a man is it who, after listening to the commandment of God and the Traditions of the Prophet peace be on him and after reading about the events which occurred during the Islamic Jihaad, still thinks that it is a temporary injunction related to transient conditions and that it is concerned only with the defense of the borders? [Bostom, Legacy of Jihad p. 238]

Qutb writes in a calm, rather pedantic manner, to be sure. That should make his message all the more chilling: he's laying out a roadmap for perpetual war between Moslems and everyone else, period. Furthermore, he does it based on principles/positions found in the Koran and a-Hadith, not made up in his own head. I can only echo the poster up the thread who compared finding Qutb in a US Mosque library to finding Mein Kampf in a US Christian church school library.>

Americanist, what's your opinion of Louis Farrakhan and Khaleel Mohammed?>

Anti Dhimmi, you may or may not realize that there are many in this country who do not believe the official story of 911.>

Anti Dhimmi, you may or may not realize that there are many in this country who do not believe the official story of 911.

I'm aware there are all kinds of kooks and nuts peddling conspiracy theories in America. So what?>

Rod,

This conversation is extraordinarily useful. I particularly appreciate the postings by Mohamed Abdul-Rauf. Mohamed's position demonstrates the possibility of an Islamic spiritual stance that embraces the open society we are all working to sustain. He goes far beyond implying merely an accommodation - perhaps itself fragile and/or temporary. Instead he demonstrates what I think many of us hope for as the best possible end-point: an essentially de-politicized Islamic identity.

It is hard to know whether this end-point is realistic. Mohamed's personal exhibit is not a sociological or historical argument. And an important thing to remember is that many types of benign group identity will, under a truly existential threat, assert themselves violently. (If California undertakes a pogrom against Oregonians then my Oregonian identity will assert itself in new, unexpected and possibly violent ways.) Those of us outside Islam may find it hard to appreciate the existential threat, but it is real. And the threat arrives in the form of satellites and cell phones, the Internet and cheap transportation, Hollywood and FedEx, not the point of a gun.

What I like about this thread is that it shows how the doctrinal arcana of Islam, the Koran, the sayings of this or that imam and so on are not determinative, no matter how vitriolic they may be. Mr. Lacey makes that point unintentionally with his Moses examples. The extraordinary contribution of Jews and Israelis to the cultivation and defense of civilization is proof enough for me that the text of the Old Testament is not determinative of anything. I don't think this is the conclusion Mr. Lacey wants me to reach - but reach it I do.

One request: it would be good to hear more from Mohamed. If you can stay in touch with him I am sure that many of us would like to hear your take on his views over time.

Regards,>

Americanist: whether Louis Farrakhan is a dying man or not, he commands a following of some size. When he speaks, a lot of people show up to listen, and the things he says are, charitably, nuts. So a lot of people that claim to adhere to some form of Islam are willing to listen to a man who makes the most atounding racial claims. What do you think of his message?

I misspelled the other name: Khalid Mohammed, another significant figure in the "Nation of Islam" movement.>

anonymous cowards (anonymous) and craven dhimmis (Harvey) are not going to be allowed to stifle debate on this subject any longer! too many people are now informed about the poison that is islam and what it holds for the future of mankind. arguing for islam is suicidal unless you plan on joining, that is all there is to it.
theCalifornian

I'll ignore the label of craven from someone that proudly states their position behind an alias. I guess a skirt wasn't available.

My position is and always has been that Islam and Christianity are more alike than they are different.

I will step up and defend Islam from attacks from Christians who get their information off the A M dial or late night television shows. Only because I see Islam no better or worse than Christianity.

The only difference between the two is there's more pressure upon Islam right now so they're responding in kind.

We can see the same thing happening in the Christian community when we look at the old south sixty to seventy years ago. Those people beating women and children in public places weren't atheists or Muslims. They were Christians who felt their faith and culture was under attack.

When Christians talk Islamic hate I recall Jesus talking about coming as a sword and not in peace. I recall him mentioning that if you loved a child more than Him you'd go to Hell and burn forever and ever. When I hear people talk about Islam oppressing women I remember reading the Jews in the O.T. having the same rules to live by. I also recall Paul ranting on women and their place at the back of the line.

Yeah, I love these kinds of discussions, it's good to be able to point out the familial traits in a family fight.>

Hey I am not a Muslim. As a matter of fact I am a dyed in the wool atheist.

I am just amused by all these people, supposedly Christians, expressing so much hate against a whole religion and the people who subscribe to it on the basis of the statements of a few Imams in Dallas. The main complaint of these people who apparently want the American Muslims to listen to them or else (whatever that 'else' may be) is that these Muslims are hateful.

Good job Mr. Dreher. Nothing less could be expected from one of the honorary ubermensches of the Corner.>

Jefecito, I did indeed quote from Dr. Bostom, because I have found him to be quite careful about his attribution & referencing, and that quote was closer to hand than locating the text from Qutb. I do not see how you can read Qutb and come away with the impression that he regards Jihad as "internal struggle", could you in tern provide a cite for that claim?>

Craven:
I'll ignore the label of craven from someone that proudly states their position
behind an alias. I guess a skirt wasn't available.

Me:
Good quip. Of course you have no idea whether I am male or female so there is
not much too it, kinda like your fallacious
arguments. The way you ignore facts and new information (new to you that
is) about islam is the
truest definition of "head in the sand". But I will give you
credit for commenting back... It also shows your natural reaction to a
perceived slight is to fight back... which leads me to one of two conclusions:
1.maybe there is hope for you yet in resisting jihad oppression or 2.you
are a member of the 'religion of perpetual outrage'.



Craven: My position is and always has been
that Islam and Christianity are more alike than they are different.

Me:
You know nothing about Christianity or Islam if you believe this. Islam
is diametrically opposed to Judeism/Christianity/Buddism/et
al, set up to checkmate every other faith as it perscribes
open ended warfare on any who do not believe. This is the point made by Qutb and other commenters here on
this board... you
didnt get the memo, TPS Reports need a cover sheet.
:-)



Craven: I will step up and defend
Islam from attacks from Christians who get their information off the A M dial
or late night television shows. Only because I see Islam no
better or worse than Christianity.

Me:
I would really love to know where you get your information about Islam... John Espisito? Karen Armstrong? Edward Said? Please answer this
one.



Craven:
When Christians talk Islamic hate I recall Jesus talking about coming as a
sword and not in peace. I recall him mentioning that if you loved a child more
than Him you'd go to Hell and burn forever and ever. When I hear people talk
about Islam oppressing women I remember reading the Jews in the O.T. having the
same rules to live by. I also recall Paul ranting on women and their place at
the back of the line.

Me: Blah, blah, blah... You have
marginalized yourself with your endless droning on of Anti-Christian drivel...
if you truly believe Christianity and Islam are alike then go ahead and condem them both and move on... you are promoting one over
the other.



Hey
Harvey, I'm going to add another label to you, Useful Idiot... 'cept I don't think you are very useful either... for
anything beyond your BS turnspeak tactics...

>

Anti -- you missed what I said, with a certain amount of actual, ya know, research behind it: Farrakhan is a mile wide and an inch deep.

That is, despite appearances, he does NOT have much of a following, and never has. Note that Malcom X, he ain't, and that Elijah Muhammad did NOT name Farrakhan as his successor.

That leaves him sorta like Al Sharpton -- a manipulator of, and thus to a considerable extent a creation of the media.

Put it this way -- if Farrakhan had not gotten much press for the Million Man March, how many people would his volunteers have turned out? Damned few. He simply doesn't have the horses to pull the wagon.

Remember, there are LOTS of demonstrations and similar sorts of work that turn out thousands, even hundreds of thousands of people, without any free media.

Moreover, when you look at the history of the Nation of Islam -- well, you find out that what I wrote above, is true.

It's a bit oversimplified (and clearly misplaced here), but Islam in America has four or five distinct phases or groupings: there are the ancient traces of Muslims who were enslaved in the Middle Passage; a relatively small, older group of Muslim immigrants from the Ellis Island era, e.g., Detroit; the Nation of Islam aberration; and finally more recent immigration -- which, to be sure, is layered into second and even third generation Pakistanis and Iraqis, with more recent arrivals, many on temporary visas.

But if you parse the nasty spat over how many Muslims there are in America, you find that the largest chunk of mosque-attending, charity-contributing (as good a set of qualifiers as any) American-born Muslims are the folks who were led to mainstream Islam out of Elijah Muhammad's Black Muslim movement. (NB -- if I had to guess, there are more immigrant and foreign stock Muslims, but they're not a bloc the way the NoI stock is, viz., the Pakistani-dominated North American group vs. CAIR, etc.)

So it is just plain odd that RD would be so impressed with folks who showed up to impress him, as opposed to, yanno, getting the story.>

My position is and always has been that Islam and Christianity are more alike than they are different.

-which is a typically pompous statement from a man who clearly has no way to measure sameness and difference in such matters. Because if he did, if he had a grasp of the anthropology that can explain why humans are religious beings, and provide us means for seriously differentiating religions, he would be more accomodating of religion in general and more discriminating in the particular case.

We can see the same thing happening in the Christian community when we look at the old south sixty to seventy years ago. Those people beating women and children in public places weren't atheists or Muslims. They were Christians who felt their faith and culture was under attack.

-Mr. Lacy have you ever asked yourself the historical question of why Westerners had to invent the ideology of modern racism? Racialism, a sense of us and them, is inherent to all worldly human communities. Most people have no need for a "scientific" theory of racism though they are very race conscious and prejudiced. It is precisely Christians or post-Christians who have turned to such a "scientific" theory in order to reconcile Christian universalism with worldly realities in which pragmatic lines between us and them are inevitably drawn. But I'm sure you have missed this rather basic point because you are obviously thinking within a secularized form of Christian culture in a way that doesn't allow you to acknowledge your obvious debt to Christianity.

As for Judaism - until you grasp the paradox of a people who both declare themselves God's chosen and the followers of the one God who is also the God of everyone else, perhaps you could think a little more before you emote Judeophobically. Jews often do think racially, like most peoples, but they only claim for themselves a small nation.

Unlike the white supremacists, Islam has no need of "olive supremacists" because, notwithstanding its Arab bias, it is not particularly a racial religion; its supremacism is in alledged matters of revelation. And unlike the Jews or church-state separating Christians, this encourages many to claim the whole worldly world - the political and not just the spiritual - for Islam. Which is why there is a problem today...>

Just to dispel the myth of poverty causing Muslim radicalism:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3637&page=0

The survey is mentioned by Esposito who isn't an Islam hater by any definition. Notice that the radicals are generally better educated and wealthier. Both the radicals' and non-radicals' main complaint was that the West doesn't respect Islam enough. The second most common complaint for radicals was that the West interferes with Islam/Muslims too much. Meanwhile the non-radicals want more Western economic help.>

-Mr. Lacy have you ever asked yourself the historical question of why Westerners had to invent the ideology of modern racism? Racialism, a sense of us and them, is inherent to all worldly human communities. Most people have no need for a "scientific" theory of racism though they are very race conscious and prejudiced. It is precisely Christians or post-Christians who have turned to such a "scientific" theory in order to reconcile Christian universalism with worldly realities in which pragmatic lines between us and them are inevitably drawn. But I'm sure you have missed this rather basic point because you are obviously thinking within a secularized form of Christian culture in a way that doesn't allow you to acknowledge your obvious debt to Christianity. truepeers

Hmmmmmm, I guess to get to acknowledging a debt to Christianity for highlighting racism I'd have to include the Protestant-Catholic Wars in Ireland, the Inquisition, and let's not forget our own Civil War. Some of the most hatefull racist language you can find on the internet involves quotes from historical figures, religious figures. John Brown was a righteous man. And let's not forget that the Southern Baptist embraced their racial history until late the last century. Brown was on one side and the Baptists were on the other. Which Christianity are we to use for defining your position?>

Harvey Lacey, I'm just asking questions. When you evade simple questions, such as "what is it about Judaism that scares you", I have to wonder why. Now you've changed your position from being afraid of Jews to disliking them apparently because of some policies by the secular state of Israel. But you still haven't answered the question I asked a while back, in response to your "three headed dragon" comment.

So I'll try again, since the question seems to be one you are working hard to avoid answering. Again I ask you, what is it about Judaism that you fear? Don't quote Exodus or Numbers, or Joshua for that matter, since Moses isn't going to rise up and attack you. Please don't give me conspiracy theories, either, just tell me how Judaism is a threat to you.

Also please note that I have not called you anything. I'm just asking a simple question or two, and wondering why you can't seem to give a simple answer, that's all. Yes, I have speculated on why you are afraid of Jews, because in my experience there is a certain kind of baggage that goes with fearing "The Jews" but refusing to explain why. If you don't like that kind of speculation, there's an easy solution: just tell us all how Judaism is a threat to you.>

Anti: What do I think of Farrakhan's message?

It ain't Islam.>

theAmericanist wrote:
Anti: What do I think of Farrakhan's message?

It ain't Islam.

Now, that's a clear and concise answer. Thanks.>

Mr. Lacey, you haven't addressed the first question "is it possible or impossible that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are more different than alike?".

Your response consists of identifying eight similarities:
(1) stories about Adam, Eve, and the Snake
(2) stories about Noah and the flood
(3) same father, Abraham
(4) same original diet laws
(5) same moral laws
(6) crime and punishment "basics"
(7) concept of Heaven and Hell
(8.) the promise of benefits in Heaven

You also identify some dissimilarities:
(1) Original sin (Christianity) pure birth (Muslim)
(2) Eternal Hell (Christianity) limited Hell (Muslim)

And you iterate some personal misgivings about the morality of Christian redemption and the undue emphasis by television preachers on Mohammed's sex life.

But none of this answers the question: "is it possible or impossible that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are more different than alike"?

Look, I got it: you don't like most religious thinking or moralizing and you are particularly offended by Christian moralizing that does not take into account the commonalities between Islam and Christianity. But that's about you, and you're the only one who cares! The reason we all participate in these public colloquies is to get closer to the true nature of the world we live in.

Once again: "Is it possible or impossible that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are more different than alike?". A one word answer would be perfectly fine, though certainly not necessary. The point is to establish a basis for thinking objectively, a goal I am sure you share.>

Not that you asked me, but I don't get the question. For one thing, what's possible is generally less important than what's likely, and "what's useful" is not infrequently vastly more important.

The most useful similarities between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are that they are all monotheisms originating in the same revelations, though of course Christianity and then Islam separated from their elder brothers in the faith. But they all share the covenant with Noah and the Ten Commandments, for example.

The most useful distinctions (as a matter of theology) would seem to be that only Judaism continues to adhere to the original deal after the Flood, that ALL the righteous please God, regardless of their religious faith. (Granted, this didn't do the Midianites or Canaanites much good, but whaddayagonnado.) Most Christian denominations believe the Text that "no one comes to the Father but through Me", even if they have formally abandoned the doctrine that outside of the Church (big or small c), there is no salvation.

Muslims are more conflicted on this than first appears. As a matter of THEOLOGY (this is why RD oughta acquire facts before he sells opinions), Muslims accept the Covenant with Noah, that all the righteous please God: this is where you get the People of the Book stuff.

But as a matter of HISTORY, Islam has regarded itself as threatened by a life and death struggle from the beginning. That this happens to be true doesn't make it any less difficult to deal with, theologically: it is sorta Islam 101 to recognize that the Prophet is unlike Jesus not only in that he is not God for Muslims, the way Christ is God for Christians, but also that the Prophet was a warrior in his lifetime.

You have to go back to the Old Testament prophets to get something similiar in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Remember, for Muslims the Koran is not only divine in a way that both Christian and Hebrew scriptures are not, it is also a work of history in a way that they're not, also: it records events (including massacres and battles) that are considered to be part of the Recitation, the Divine Word Incarnate.

Finally, neither the sharia nor the hadith have the divine status that the Recitation does for Muslims, which is -- theologically, if not historically -- a parallel with Judaism and Christianity. In the histories of THOSE faiths, what the Pope condemned a century ago as 'the Americanist heresy' became accepted as virtue.

The essence of the Americanist heresy is that civics itself has a moral value.

That is happening now within Islam in America -- but you'd never know it from either CAIR or Rod Dreher.

What the hell is "separation" supposd to mean, and is there anyway on God's green earth it could be reconciled with American values?

More to the point: how is such a proposal useful, in any way?>

Thank you Americanist for a nicer way of expressing hope than I have.

All religions adapt to modernity or they disappear. Islam is no different. I can guarantee you Muslims have found a way to extort interest out of loans that accomodate the need for interest and the decrees against it in the Koran.

I wonder if Rod ever watches the telly and sees Muslim women in western dress? That's what we're talking about. Change is a coming. If we would only get out of the way.>

LOL -- I disassociate myself from Lacey, who has evidently not realized that they just awarded the Nobel prize to a form of financing that is compatible with Islam, not to mention the odd fact that, if we had done precisely the same thing (as was advocated during the Depression) with our high finance, we'd have been spared the S&L bailout.>

The simple answer, Chris, is that you're wrong about almost literally everything you say.

The first thing to understand is that, in Arabic, neither "Islam" nor "Muslim" are proper nouns, unlike "Judaism" or "Christinianity", "Christian" or "Jew".

The words actually mean (and literally say) "obedience to God", and "those who obey God".

Read the Koran in English the way it reads in Arabic, substituting the actual meaning for the proper nouns, and shazzam! you learn something, e.g., that Moses was a man who obeyed God. This is what Muslims believe.

Yeah, let's drive THOSE people out of our country.

I responded to your first point above -- evidently you didn't read it, or you find reading comprehension challenging. As a matter of theology, Islam teaches (as does Judaism, but not Christianity) that ALL the righteous please God, based on the Covenant with Noah. (It's a bit oversimplified, but most Christian denominations still teach a form of the Roman doctrine that 'outside of the small-c church there is no salvation', following the Text that "No one comes to the Father but through Me.")

If you believe it is utterly impossible to "assimilate" Muslims (I prefer the term Americanize), methinks you should call up the local Marine barracks and ask to meet some of the Muslims for whom Semper Fidelis includes the Koran, and tell THEM they're insufficiently American for you.

That said, Islam has some significant issues to say the least. So if we're NOT at war with the religion of 1.5 billion people, which is the fastest growing faith on earth (and we're not), then we have to be able to say what IS the Islam with which we are not at war.

RD can't do it, primarily because HE DOESN'T WANT TO. It's not like it's that hard to find a different pattern in Islam -- W. Deen Muhammad, Khalil abou-al Fadl, the late Jamil Diab, Tariq Ramadan.

Bear in mind, I'm not dissing the threat from whackos.

I'm pointing to a vastly more effective way to defeat it than confirming what THEY believe about us.

Face it, you guys are advocating a definitely unAmerican concept, a religious test for immigration and citizenship. It is a cowardly vision you have of US -- and unworthy.>

LOL -- Chris, no offense intended, but as a factual matter, you're a bigot.

It is simply not true, as a matter of MUSLIM doctrine, that Allah is not the God of Judaism and Christianity (or more precisely, "God the Father" in the Trinity). It is legit for you, or anybody else, to say that you don't believe Muslim doctrine, but it is the mark of a bigot to deny that what people of other faiths actually believe about THEIR faith, is a misrepresentation.

You're not them. So don't speak for them. They get to speak for themselves. When you characterize what they say, be accurate. If you can't do that, you're a bigot: that's how it works.

As noted, because "Islam", and "Muslim" are not proper nouns in Arabic, your assertion that "Islam does not say that all of the righteous please Allah" is false.

(This is where literacy can trump bigotry: strive.)

"There is nothing cowardly about standing up for one's country and culture...." Sure, but that depends on how you do it.

Instead of your malarkeyodious 'what if a religion meant eating babies', how about a real example (I know, this isn't fair): the sharia prescribes that a thief shall have his right hand severed. Under American law, that is a 'cruel and unusual punishment', banned by the Constitution.

That is why I cited the example of the late Jamil Diab (kindly spell his name correctly), who taught W. Deen Mummahad his hard-earned love for the Constitution, as a MUSLIM.

There is a long list of such stuff: in this country, no matter what your religion teaches, you cannot legally practice polygamy (Utah was formed by a sort of divine amendment, according to the Latter Day saints), nor amputate clitorises (clitorae?); you cannot sever the hand of a thief nor arrange the marriages of children.

As it happened, there are LOTS of legal controversies in which established religions have fought hard -- and been on the wrong side: the Catholic Church fought for decades against legalized divorce and contraception, f'r example. (I have noted to RD before that you get precisely the same wishy washy doctrine that he got from his Muslim delegation, when you ask Catholics about the continuum from the demand that abortion be illegal, to the identical doctrine's opposition to legal contraception, and so on to legal divorce -- which, btw, has an explicit Text.)

It's worth noting in this context that lots of other religions have had similar difficulties, most notably Roman Catholicism, still the largest nominal faith in the US (65 million, more or less, compared to 16 million Southern Baptists).

In 1854, Pius IX stated that as a matter of Roman doctrine free speech, a free press, and the separation of church and state, not to mention labor unions, were all incompatible with being a good Catholic. In 1870, the Pope went further and stated that when he chose to do so, the authority of the Papacy was infallible.

It would have been not unreasonable for an American politician at the time to observe, as many did (particularly when the Catholic Church fought for two generations to ban the Bible from public schools) that it was not possible to be BOTH a good Catholic, and a good American -- citing the authority of the Pope, no less.

Trouble is, like RD (and you) now, such folks were WRONG.

Take the lesson -- and RD, d'ya realize that if you had to take the citizenship test, you'd flunk?>

Americanist, I'm afraid that you are beginning to dodge more than answer. For example, while a-hadith and suna are not as binding upon Muslims as the Koran is, they are still part of the overall system of belief, and must be taken into account when discussing Islam. Let's take a concrete example: clitordectomy. The position taken by some at al-Ansar University in Egypt is that such a practice is not mandatory, yet we see in the US a man arrested for taking a pair of scissors and mutilating the genitals of his 2 year old daughter.

In response to this arrest, a large protest of Muslims was seen. Were they protesting the mutilation of little girls, or the arrest of the father for such a cruel act? You tell me.

Already in parts of Europe, Sharia is the de facto law. Here is my question to you: suppose that 20 years down the line, Sharia law was de facto in parts of the US. What would you say, then?>

Anonymous, I find it interesting that you seem to find any criticism of Islam, no matter how well reasoned, to be "hate". It's almost as though you are not trying to engage in a discussion, but are rather intent on silencing those with whom you disagree.>

You can criticize Islam all you want.

What is objectionable is the attempt to insinuate that the loyalty of American Muslims is somehow suspect. I would be as critical if someone said similar things about Christians or Hindus or Buddhists, and justfied his critique just on the basis of conversation with a handful of so called leaders.>

Dear Crunchy Con,

Interesting article, but the conclusion is that Islam must be banned. It is the only religion of hatred left in the world and it refuses to separate itself from the politics of interference with the ultimate goal of furthering Islam.

Interested in knowing more about "moderate" Islam? Go to: stefcho.blog-city.com and read "An Islam to Die For". Let me know what you think.

-Stefcho>

the answer to the question about homosexuals in islam is that if one does feel that he or she is gay then for the betterment of society and the family structure that individual should try to suppress their homosexual feelings and live a heterosexual lifestyle. As long as one does not engage in homosexual acts then it is fine. The reward for practicing a heterosexual lifestyle even though one may be gay is unexplainable. Turning down sex whether one is homosexual or not that individual is considered to be the best among people for giving up the toughest of desires for the love of God.