Thanks for the discussion, too.

I have a trip to a Muslim country coming up very soon, and I hope to finish the Quran (an English translation recommended by Spencer) while I’m on it.

Just for my own thinking, I’d like to summarize what I’ve tried to say:

(1) The terrorist understanding of Islam is, in fact, conservative and traditional. (Not subverted / radical.)

(2) Mohammad was a warrior and killer, unlike Jesus.

(3) Mohammad did talk about peace - but he meant the peace of submission to Islam. Muslims fervently hope and believe the world will one day be peaceful and without war - because it will have been converted to Islam.

(4) Muslim progressives, moderates and secularists who oppose the terrorists are wonderful, and I hope they succeed.

(5) Based on everything we know about Mohammad, if he were alive today, I don’t think he would side with them - I think he would side with the terrorists.

(6) Imams like Misbahi who talk about executing gays are indeed talking about a hypothetical, pure Islamic state - a state their Shiite brethren have established in Iran, and that they themselves have every intention of establishing elsewhere, by terrorism if necessary - as we see with Iraq.

(7) “Why they hate us” - not because of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, nor even Israel - but because we haven’t submitted to Islam.

I think the Islamic modernists / progressives are way more in line with God’s desires. But I’m speaking from a Christianized, Western “bias”.

Put it this way: From Mohammad’s words and actions while he was alive, we have every reason to believe that if he were alive today, he would side with the terrorists.)

Again, though - we should be forthright enough to admit the terrorists are using Islam in its traditional fashion, not a “subverted” one.

There isn’t a day that goes by here in Michigan –where the largest concentration of Muslims outside of the Mideast lives– we don’t have an Imam or group of Imams decry the bloodshed in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Spain, in Asia and elsewhere. They call for their “brothers” to heed the words of the Prophet and put down their arms. They call for stability and political concensus. They call for healing. And they call for the cancer of radicalism within their community to be culled out, removed.

Moderates are willing to engage. The power of the secular commerical West is a strong force for change within any culture –but it needs to happen a hell of lot quicker for my tastes.

Islam isn’t the enemy in the WOT; the enemy are those terrorists using the religion in a subverted fashion to advance their political agenda and those who assist them in that effort. Like I wrote before, we need to keep our eye on the ball — ala JimmyJunkYardDogCarville “It’s the terrorists, stupid”.

Just for the record: I’m not claiming all Muslims want to kill gays - that would be a wrong claim.

I’m claiming, rather, that the “ideological DNA” of Islam - the tendencies in its central texts and key founder’s actions - really are more violent than the other religions (violent as some may believe the others to be). And that the today’s terrorists are, in fact, well aligned with historic Islamic traditions of war and conquest.

#97 - Matt - Yes, I think GWB is wrong on this. In reality, we are at war with a certain traditional Islam - the one that set out to conquer the world again and again in the 600s, 700s, 800, 900s, 1000s, 1100s, 1200s, 1300s, 1400, 1500s and 1600s.

The terrorists themselves think so and say so. With their better remembrance of history, they understand that Mohammad ordered world conquest for Islam, and that conquering (or at least damaging / weakening us) is Islamic tradition.

If Muslim reformers can fight against that tradition: Great. More power to ‘em. My point is, they are fighting Islamic tradition.

The terrorists understand that we designed the Afghanistan and Iraq wars to slow them down and move the war into their base countries, away from ours - as Bush has basically said in speeches. (’A country that harbors terrorists is the same as the terrorists and will be targeted’, etc.)

Interestingly, the Crusades were designed to do the same thing from the point of view of medieval Europe - which had been suffering centuries of Muslim attacks.

The Crusaders didn’t try to impose Christian religion - only Christian rule in certain areas which could then stop or pre-empt Muslim attacks. In that sense, the terrorists are correct to term us Crusaders. It isn’t a religious conflict for us… but, it is a religious conflict for them (the terrorists).

I give him and Rudy a lot of credit in the moments following 9/11… they continued to argue that Islam wasn’t the enemy and it had been subverted and misused by terrorists. They were right then; they are right now.

But remember, the overwhelming majority of Brit Muslims do not envision an Islamic state in the UK (it’s like 74% and a complete disconnect with their “hired” leadership of cheap-priced, low-skilled clerics and Imams), like the Bible the Qur’an has been translated and reinterpreted repeatedly and there are moderate mainstream views of it which are more in keeping with our secular world than the 3rd World states like Iran and Pakistan.

Taking the WOT to Iraq was all about interdicting a state that supported terrorist jihadists. It wasn’t to wage war on Islam. And that is another fundamental difference between you and GWB –he understands we aren’t at war with Islam. We are at war with the terrorists who use Islam to justify their heinous actions to their followers, their allies, the world.

I think religion shouldn’t be free from criticism, there is just a difference between saying “I don’t agree with the theological teachings of X religion” but declaring religion an enemy isn’t criticism it is a judgement and a fairly large generalized one at that, after all religious movements have been behind the majority of changes for good in the world.

I think Michigan Matt and Calatro are debating the merits of Islam-they are actually having an interesting debate, and I think both have made excellent points-I do think Michigan Matt is correct that not every adherant to Islam is out to kill gay people (or other people who don’t fit morally in their worldview), but those people don’t appear to hold the bully pulpit and those committed to destruction are out to destroy the less extreme Moslem as much as the gays, Jew/Christians and others.

I think a very interesting voice on these issues is Irshad Manji http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/index.html while I think some of her political views are bit to the left of me, her take on Islam and what she thinks are the problems within he own faith is very telling. I don’t think her goal as a muslim would be to hang gays-given that she is a lesbian.

So, I would argue that Islam is facing its own reformation, and the people with the bully pulpit appear to be the guys who want a Caliphate and destruction of those that disagree with them-and that is a very scary prospect.

Thanks, it looks interesting. But let me ask you a question.

How much chance do you think Dignity USA has of persuading the Catholic Church to allow openly gay, partnered priests? Especially in today’s resurgent “gay=pedophile’ climate of thinking?

That’s about how much chance the PMU guys have of reforming Islam.

Unless, of course, the U.S. and others should progressively invade and reform Islamic countries… one after another, slowly… starting with, oh I don’t know, hmmm… Afghanistan… and Iraq…

#88 - Matt, as always I appreciate your opinions and willingness to disagree with civility. One last point I’d like to hammer in.

You said, again: “Go back and read the Imam’s comments. He was speaking about a hypothetical, pure Islamic state. He wasn’t speaking about Britain.”

Again I say: Yes, Matt. You’re right. And don’t forget: he and the terrorists have every intention of establishing that hypothetical, pure Islamic state - be it in Britain, the U.S., Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, France or elsewhere. That’s my point.

Maybe he can’t seriously or realistically propose the reign of Islamic Sharia in Britain today - but it’s what he wants, and what the terrorists want. Maybe after 10 years and a few suitcase nukes, they’ll be able to propose it seriously for Britain.

I need to correct that slightly: Right now, already, in Britain and other European countries, Imams are seriously proposing that Islamic Sharia reign at least in Muslim-dominated neighborhoods / enclaves.

Such Imams are part of the terrorist project, and thus are our enemy. You keep trying to make a distinction between the terrorists and the “religionists” who spawn them. The distinction doesn’t exist, or (if it does) is no more than the distinction between parent and child of the same family.

You said: “it is more important for the Western World to engage moderate Muslims in a ‘jihad’ against the radical, extremist terrorist factions within their community…”

I agree with that. And we are. It’s called: The Iraq war. (And the Afghanistan war.)

The purpose of the Iraq war is - and for you lefties, always has been - to take a terrorist-sponsoring country and turn it to democracy and freedom and sanity, by force if necessary. - Force being the one Western expression that the people of those countries respect in their hearts.

“We beat the communists in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union by working with reformist, moderates…”

AND, by standing up to the heart of the evil. Don’t leave out that part.

“Well, you can trust that those with a religious worldview would try to have the teacher fired, or the display removed. And rightly so.”

Exactly.

Let’s say there was a teacher at a government school who spent time telling students that there was no God, and systematically offering his critique of religion. Or, let’s say he changed the words to the Pledge of Allegiance and led his students in saying “one nation in a godless universe.” Or, as someone else suggested, let’s say a group of atheists tried to erect some display on government property that said the equivalent of “there is no god.” Well, you can trust that those with a religious worldview would try to have the teacher fired, or the display removed. And rightly so. Government, and its agents when acting in official capacity (though not when speaking for themselves personally), must remain neutral on the issue, as far as I’m concerned. I don’t claim that the First Amendment necessarily demands this much, but I certainly do.