I agree that the tenets of Islam are a static belief system as PRB suggests (no evidence of its evolution) and that it is designed as such. Wouldn't that, therefore, be its fatal flaw? I contend that Islam was contrived by Muhammad merely as a method for controlling people for his own personal interests. That it has been expanded to what it is today is nothing more than a tool for control by oppression. Every system that has endeavored to control people by oppression has ultimately failed. Islam will also fail. We can either hasten that end or prolong it.
In my view we are at War with Islam and Islam is at War with us and every other non-Muslim, by definition. My question is, are we approaching this the right way? History would suggest not.
To continue the fight from the perspective that I am right you are wrong and justifying our position from a historical context leads to the problem Sig points out -
Quote:
|
If one is going to insist that a practitioner of a set of beliefs answer for the history of that set of beliefs, what is to stop others from holding us to the same level of accountability and suspicion?
|
There's no advancing from that position - stalemate.
I think the battlefield is the human domain. The most striking lesson I learned in SF while working with indigenous peoples (although only briefly with Muslims) is that at the core they are just like me. We aspire to the same things. That's a common ground from which we can win. (FlagDayNCO, I am honored that you picked up on that point in your signature line.)
Hacksaw, GR may not represent a microcosm of the Muslim world, I need to defer to your and PRBs experience on that one. But, he does represent a start and a point for force multiplication.
De Oppresso Liber
