How recent a time?

I keep thinking of this statement. I don’t wish to be argumentative (especially with some much more educated than I:D); however I must make this observation.

We all know of the peaceful and loving teachings of Jesus in the Scriptures.
We all know of the violent and murderous treatment proscribed for infidels in the Koran.

It seems obvious to me that a Christian who is peaceful, loving, and tolerant of others is being obedient to his faith. A hate filled murderous Christian has departed from the teachings of Christ.

It also seems obvious to me to me that a Muslim that is zealous in the slaughter of infidels, who will not convert, is being obedient to his faith. A moderate Muslim who is tolerant of others has departed from his faith. (And often is punished by the “true believers”)

That being said, I think of this concept of equal treatment under the law and I applied it to my own family. I have four children. Each is a member with equal rights. They are treated differently however, based upon their actions. Each must earn the privileges of the good life. If not, the deviants are not treated as the model members.

Would not the same be true for groups such as Christians and Muslims? If one group consistently demonstrates good qualities while the other is well known for acts of violence, murder, and much evil; why treat each group the same? So my answer to the original post is YES we are at war with adherents of true Islam! Why allow this virulent disease to infect our culture? If we do, it will spread. I may be just a hick from Georgia but I say we shouldn’t give it a foothold here!

EXACTLY!
It kills me that there are people (it seems like most people these days) figure that if we just go and play nice, the jihadists, etc. will just play nice back.

Ummm ok. Let me know how that works for you.

They HATE you. They want to see you dead in the worst way possible - no matter how much you love them.

No. All Nazis are bad...but not all Germans were Nazis.

Nazis : Germans :: Wahabbists : Muslims

The point is that every group has a subset of scumbags.

By recent, I'll just take a whack at the 20th Century...

There's plenty of history of certain groups in America cheering lynchings.
There were of course Nazis who cheered the Holocaust.
The Japanese were pretty happy about the Rape of Nanking.
The Italians thought gassing the Somalis and Ethiopians was a real victory for the good guys.
The apartheid South Africans were quite happy to do terrible things to their black population.

There's more than enough nastiness to go around in human history. None of which is the point.

I'm not saying there aren't horrible enemies out there that need whacking and plenty of them wave the banner of Islam. My point is that there are even more self-proclaimed Muslims who don't celebrate that stuff. I know one serving in the FBI. A couple own this really great kabob place down the street. Another is a brilliant physicist, diehard Raiders fan, and a friend of mine. My wife taught one very sweet and devout young Afghan immigrant to write.

You're taking about 3000 whackos in Gaza (one of the most radicalized areas in the Muslim world) to represent over one billion Muslims in the world. Thats like taking a Klan meeting as representative of American public opinion.

Do you really think the war on terror would be going as well as it is if we were fighting the entire Muslim population of the world were jihadist?

I appreciate that. Thank you.

There are other schools of Islamic thought that interpret the Koran more peacefully and they believe the jihadists have departed from the teachings of the Prophet.

For example, the "sword verse" about "kill infidels wherever you find them." There are schools of Muslim thought that interpret that not as a general command, but as specific to that historical period when the Muslims where locked in a life-or-death struggle with the pagans of Arabia. Its viewed the same way Christians and Jews think of some of the wars in the Old Testament: it was an unforgiving time in history, where no quarter was asked or given, and "God's people" did what they had to do.

Islam is a very legalistic religion. Its all about what verse overrides what other verse. Jihadists have something called "nasikh" where they believe the later verses in the Koran override the earlier verses. This is a problem for us because the later versus come from a time when Muhammed was fighting a war of survival against the Arab pagans. Naturally, these verses are a lot more militant.

Most Muslims believe in applying verses contextually. Meaning this: they look at their situation, they look at the Koran. They study the circumstances in their life, they study the circumstances of the figures in the Koran. And then they try to draw comparisons and wisdom. This is how most of us read the Bible. We don't just say "Well Revelations came last, thats the book to follow! War, Pestilence, Famine, Death!"

(Incidentally, this is why alot of learned Islamic scholars regard the jihadists as simpletons.)

No.

In America we judge people as individuals according to their individual actions. This is the cornerstone of our legal system and our entire political identity. What you're suggesting borders on fascism.

Like I said, I'm all for punishing Wahhabists. By prosecution, by deportation, or by two in the head...whatever is appropriate. But there is such thing as a law-abiding Muslim and that Muslim deserves his rights just like you or me.

Is it? I take a little more simplistic view of all of this being just a simple soldier. The jihadists are the overt arm of this movement, those not visible fit nicely into the covert status of auxillary and underground. Even those "uncommitted to the cause" have a boot on their necks for witting or unwitting support. Those that are truly uncommitted are not happy about their brethern getting whacked and when it gets too personal will cross over in a heart beat. I am absolutely sure that their is not a Muslim anywhere that might have some value to the cause that is not in some data base to be tweked at the right time in the name of the cause.

Ive been reading Xfactors comments and subsequent rebuttals, and have come to one conclusion. X you should have the shiniest clock in the neighborhood. Now admittedly, I AM NOT the brightest light in the sign, just an ole guy that lives back here in the hollers next to the crick. But Ill have to agree with shar:

What the Islamists would like to do to us is much like Goldfinger to James Bond, as the latter lay spreadeagled and laser beam was making its way to his nether regions. His comments were: "Do you expect me to talk" GF reply: "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die".

The sooner we all realize this and stop the PC BS the better off we all will be.

While I don't doubt this is true for the majority of the WESTERN Islamic scholars and people/friends you know here in the US, I really don't think this applies globally to the religion. I really believe that those of whom you speak could be considered the "radical" arm or the unorthodox part of the religion. They are the splinter group who have gone off the mark trying to make nice with us infidels.

There may be those who aren't actively trying to hunt us down and kill us right now, but like the good Colonel said, if push came to shove I'm not sure it's even debatable where their allegiances would lay. You said it yourself, it's all contextual and circumstantial and I really can't see many circumstances where they'd stand with the infidel over the good Muslim.

So we agree all nazis are bad, now lets clear up a few things for our readers:

Again your analogy is not only misleading it lacks substance. I never said all Iraqis are all bad as I've little doubt not all are not muslims, just as all Germans were NOT all nazies. I clearly stated that problem is with the muslim/islamic ideology and unlike the nazi situation the islamic concern is global.

Have you ever thought for one second why most of the population residing in predominately islamic countries do not openly profess other religious beliefs?

Have you ever contemplated that if these same individuals were actually allowed to worship the god/religion/ ideology of their choice more might leave islam instead of living in mortal fear of islamic retribution?

Have you ever wondered why the Wahabbists are so intent on not allowing any Western Influence sway the thoughts of their people/followers ?

Let me tell you, honor killings, stoning, beheading, public whippings, religious Police and little-no rights for women send a pretty clear message to those living in these areas. Here in America we can still call islam an oppressive, stupid and sham religion and not leave in fear of islamic retribution, well some don’t.

They’re not all Wahabbists you say? OK, here’s a little islamic tolerance test, YOU go into ten countries I choose and write a news/internet column denouncing islam as a sham religion, now I’m sure the governments of those countries are not Wahabbists and they will protect you, just as those same governments will NOT allow thousands marching in the streets cheering the slaughter of peaceful and innocent civilians.


Don’t patronize me as I am also a student of history. islam and history is very much the point especially as humans
evolve, most become more intelligent and not stagnant and more violent.

Let me narrow your focus, lets try the last 25 years.
Make your case based on recent history or shut up.

Spare me your academic understanding of islam.

Team Sergeant

Great. Then Let the individual live by and assimilate into our system here in America. Don’t bring your jacked up system with its WONDERFUL traditions here to us! The county was founded by and upon Christian principles and ways. Why forfeit what our forefathers gave to us?

You know, I thought about this while I was in the shower before I read your post. You're right it is an incongruous analogy. It should have been:

Nazis : Socialists :: Wahabbists : Muslims

I've got no interest in being a socialist of any kind, much less a Nazi. I don't think socialism is particularly wise, but not all breeds of socialism are malignant. Some are just dumb. Thats my point about Islam. Some followers of Islam you just don't agree with and you go on with your life, some you have to kill.

Thats fine if you're describing Saudi Arabia, or parts of Pakistan and Somalia, etc, but its just not a fair description for large parts of the Islamic world...much less Muslim-American communities.

There are plenty of Muslims that don't live under the yoke of a Wahhabist government, including right here in America, that do choose Islam of their own free will and lead happy, productive, and peaceful lives.

The NY Times had a great article tangentially supporting your position:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/wo...=1&oref=slogin

Nevertheless...

First, as you say, the moderates have plenty of reason to be afraid of the Wahabbists and for that reason to cater to their agendas.

Second, I'm not arguing that Islam is a perfect religion. If I thought it was I'd be a Muslim, but I'm decidedly not. There is an insular and xenophobic streak in Islam, but it doesn't necessarily translate to aggressive, violent, and expansionism.

You asked for examples, I gave them.

Not the last 25 minutes? Suit yourself. Do we need to talk about the Serbs or Rwanda? Lots of happy slaughter in both places. Both by nominally Christian populations.

Spare me your characiture of Islam.

When those traditions of their's break American law, we'll deal with it accordingly.

When they don't, the system our forefathers gave us quite rightly protects them.

What now?

I'm afraid this saying never made it down to Florida.

Fair enough.

I'll clarify my thesis:
I propose that protecting individual liberties (corruption of the government) and protecting the culture at large from internal corruption are necessary for this nation to stand.

Admittedly, this is a difficult tightrope to walk and I do not claim to have the wisdom to know exactly how to do it.
I will argue that it is necessary to consider future unintended consequences when discerning the limits of individual liberty (the right-to-contract being among those liberties).


You have argued that reining in certain aspects of right-to-contract with respect to Sharia law is starting down a slippery slope.

I am arguing that the institution of Sharia law under the guise of right-to-contract is merely an attempt to gain a beachhead.
Once they have concentrated enough power, they will attempt to corrupt the culture from within, destroying the very freedoms they once exploited.


This is not so much an issue of legal technicalities as it is an issue of political will.
Our country has the political will to fight the enemy on all fronts, or it does not.

IRA/PIRA/Sinn Fein anyone?