Stop Blaming American Foreign Policy And Know The Real Reason Why America Is Hated

[savvy]

David Cook is a Professor of Islamic Theology at the University of Chicago.

Islam and Apocalyptic

There is power in apocalypse. Fundamentally, the belief in the imminent end of the world changes people, and gives them the strength of absolute conviction that God is on the side of the believer, a very definite goal, and the impetus to excel above and beyond one's ordinary abilities. All three of these components are present in a truly apocalyptic group, and serve to mold it together into a possibly (though not necessarily) destructive organism, to which the outside world is an enemy to be conquered and dominated. While all of the above is well known and obvious after studying any apocalyptic groups, the question before us is: Is Islam an apocalyptic faith, and if it is, then what are the ramifications for the outside world?
A grasp of history is crucial to the understanding of the modern apocalyptic Muslim, because of the living nature of this past for him. Therefore, our discussion must start at the dawn of Muslim history. Many theories have been proposed in order to explain the phenomenal Muslim conquest of the entire ancient world, from Tours in France to the borders of China in Central Asia, during the period of a century. Some scholars dismiss the idea that religious belief was a primary or even a secondary contributing factor in these conquests. Yet this prejudice is very damaging to our present-day understanding, if only because contemporary Muslims themselves believe that their absolute faith in Allah and the unifying nature of Islam were the most important reasons for their successes. Here, one must read between the lines and understand, that absolute faith and unity were not enough to embark on the jihad. There had to be a third component to this equation: the imperative to conquer the world before the expected Hour of Judgment. This is the component which will interest us here.

It is not so important for us to know what historically impelled this conquest as to understand how the modem Muslim feels about his history. This conquest, called the jihad, is closely connected in the sources to apocalyptic beliefs. In this regard a tradition should be quoted: "Behold! God sent me [the Prophet Muhammad] with a sword, just before the Hour [of Judgment], and placed my daily sustenance beneath the shadow of my spear, and humiliation and contempt upon those who oppose me." Muslims, according to this understanding, did not try to conquer the world for the sake of domination, but because God commanded them to, before the imminent end of the world. In Islam we have the first example of what an apocalyptic group can achieve when given a limited time limit to accomplish an impossible task: world conquest. They almost made it. Since the most revolutionary idea present in fundamentalist Islam is that modem Muslims are reenacting the situation of the Prophet Muhammad, during the seventh century, and that all of the rest of the world, including the so called Muslim countries, are infidel. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the feeling that an apocalyptic-jihad is necessary to correct things is very strong.

For the contemporary Muslim the present world is a world turned up-side down. Everywhere his faith has lost ground as a result of colonial conquests and Christian missionaries, as well as representatives of cultural imperialism, such as the media (they are frequently all grouped together). God has promised to Muslims that they are not only the recipients of the final abrogating revelation to the Prophet Muhammad, but that they will be crowned with worldly success and dominion as well. For over a thousand years (from the perspective of the Muslim) this was true. It was the Arabs and the Turks who dominated the world scene, in accordance with God's promise, from 630 to 1688. However, not even the most hardened traditionalist can deny the second or even third-class status of the Muslim today. Obviously God cannot be at fault for this situation- the Muslims themselves must be. The perception is that God is testing the chosen few just before the end of the world. They must prove their faith to God through worldly domination and the reestablishment of the God-ordained Muslim superiority.

It is irrelevant to say, as some do, that the apocalyptic nature of Islam has been dormant for hundreds of years. This position is only useful as a defense mechanism. If apocalyptic tendencies are latent in a group or faith, and the tendencies begin to appear, then they are gradually going to influence everyone, whether consciously or not. Already much of the apocalyptic discourse has passed to other groups, even to those religious establishments for whom the apocalyptic groups have only contempt.

[savvy]

MODERN MUSLIM APOCALYPTIC

A brief survey of the apocalyptic beliefs available to the modern Muslim, therefore, is in order. Most scenarios start with the Arab-Israel conflict, as the basis for the end-time events, though some start with the Gulf War (1990-91). At some time in the near future a demonic being, called the Dajal (the Muslim Antichrist), will gain control over most of the world, with the exception of certain Muslim countries (the lists of these vary, but are usually the most anti-western ones). This being will be a Jew and will control by means of a world-embracing conspiracy, after the fashion of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. In general, apocalyptic believers state that this being, if not physically present in the world today, malevolently influences the course of events preparatory to his eventual revelation. An apocalyptic war is postulated between the Dajal, who will lead the west and Israel, against the Muslims.

1) anti-western attitudes

For the modem Muslim, the words "the west" and Christianity are identical (though that is not the perception of most in the west). Therefore, the opposition to "the west" is a religious imperative, because to accept western influence would to be accept the superiority of Christianity. Even for those who are perceptive enough to see the difference between a cultural and economic system (the west) and a religious system (Christianity), to acknowledge any system other than Islam as the superior one would be unthinkable. Anti-western attitudes are generally expressed in the part of the apocalypse dealing with the moral symptoms of the end-times. These include a broad range of distasteful activities (violence, immorality, etc.), all of which are (and have been) present in all societies at all times, but which, for the apocalyptic believer, is convenient to ascribe to western influence. Economic influence is also decried, since the western economy is based on the taking of interest in loans, which is strictly prohibited by Islam. Therefore, a wide range of traditions are cited in order to "prove" that these are symptomatic of the finale, and to be attacked and resisted as much as possible.

2) anti-U. S. attitudes

It goes without saying that the U.S. figures prominently in most apocalyptic scenarios, never in a positive way. In general, the U.S. is portrayed as the Great Babylon (cf Rev. 17:3-4) or the Antichrist himself. Most recent American Presidents (notably Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton) are said in one place or another to be agents of the Antichrist, and frequently threatened with punishment for their activities. The Antichrist is said to manipulate all of the countries in the west, but his headquarters is invariably in the U.S. American economic and cultural activities are said to reflect the agenda of this demonic being, for which God will punish the country by various methods (earthquakes, nuclear attacks, etc.). In a number of scenarios, the Muslims, after their conquest of Israel, go on to conquer Western Europe and the U.S. It goes without saying that American foreign policy is seen as the principal method of the Antichrist's control of the world. Especially incomprehensible to Muslims is the continual American support of Israel; generally this can only be explained by a Jewish conspiracy theory (I have heard Egyptians and Palestinians who have insisted that all of the recent Presidents and members of Congress were Jewish, despite the evidence to the contrary). In the foreign policy realm the U, S. is accused of forcing Iraq to attack Kuwait (though not all apocalypticists are pro-Iraq- especially the ones in Egypt tend to see Saddam as an antichrist himself, frequently under the control of Israel). In the past there were frequently attempts to identify the U. S. and the U.S.S.R. together, since they were both perceived as under Jewish rule. For example, Sa'id Ayyub's influential book, The False Messiah, shows a demonic being wearing a U.S. flag and the hammer and sickle, along with a Star of David around his neck.

3) anti-Israel

Israel receives the strongest attacks in modem Muslim apocalyptic- it is rare to find a book or tract in which the Jewish state does not figure prominently. This is in contradistinction to classical Muslim apocalyptic, in which Jews are mentioned rarely. However, one classical tradition mentions Jews and is widely quoted: "The Hour [of Judgment] will not arrive until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims will kill them until the Jew will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rock and the tree will say: 0 Muslim, 0 servant of God, there is a Jew behind me- come and kill him!" This tradition is useful in the creation of scenarios in which the Muslims fight and defeat Israel. Generally, it is assumed that the Dajjal rules the Jewish state directly and that it accomplishes his goals in this world. This scenario is useful in explaining a wide range of uncomfortable events, since through it the Muslims find themselves arrayed not against a tiny, despised, semideveloped country, but against a demonic figure who commands the allegiance of millions of people throughout the world, and is the master of unknown Satanic powers.

4) anti-Arab and anti-Muslim religious establishment

Since most fundamentalists believe that the modem world is a recreation of the situation during the time of the Prophet, when the Muslims were a tiny believing band pitted against the whole infidel world, it is a given that other Muslims not part of "the group" are corrupt. In fact, they are generally declared to be infidels and collaborators with the west (or Israel), and must be fought just like everyone else. For this reason so many Muslim terrorist groups target their own government, even governments not perceived as friendly to western eyes, and most especially the religious establishment. This latter is generally connected to the government economically, and are seen as traitors. They frequently receive the scorn and the bullets of the fundamentalists. These attitudes, unlike the material on the U.S. and Israel, have some history in Muslim apocalyptic, and the modem apocalyptist has no need to adjust the classical material to meet the needs of the modem world.

USES OF APOCALYPTIC MATERIAL

One would obviously wish to know what exactly is the relationship between apocalyptic literature and apocalyptic-messianic groups. In other words, when there is a plethora of literature in the market on the end times or on the Antichrist or the Mahdi, can we expect for a figure or group to appear and put the material to use? Does a Hamas terrorist really read an apocalyptic pamphlet before picking up a bomb to commit suicide? Is he thinking that the end of the world is so close that there is no point in living, or that perhaps he is bringing the apocalypse closer to reality as he pulls the trigger? Unfortunately, there has been no real research in this area, and we really do not know what the answer to this question is. In my judgment, the closest analogy of the relationship of apocalyptic material to terrorist activities is that of pornographic material to sexual assault. While one cannot say that all obscene material leads directly to violent sexual practices, one can say that the vast majority of those who commit these actions have more than a passing acquaintance with pornography. Likewise, people of good will can come to opposite conclusions as far as the significance of the inciting material to the action.

Suffice it to say that the apocalyptic causes of important events in the Muslim world cannot be denied. The Islamic Revolution occurred during the last year of the 14th century (hijri), as did the apocalyptic revolt in the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca in Nov. 1979. Both movements used apocalyptic material to communicate the urgency of their reforming message. Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza is clearly an apocalyptic group, as is easily ascertained by the pamphlets and other literature it puts out, and its ideologists regularly use apocalyptic motifs in the propaganda war against the PLO and Israel. The beginning of the Intifada in 1987 coincides with a prediction of the end of the world (dating from 80 years ago). Both the Egyptian and Algerian fundamentalist movements use apocalyptic material regularly. The paucity of the research in this field impedes mentioning other movements, but one can say confidently that apocalyptic elements will be found in most, if not all, fundamentalist groups operative today.

CONCLUSIONS

The study of Muslim apocalyptic is absolutely essential to the understanding of modern Islam. Anyone who wishes to understand the huge influence which these groups have on the direction of Muslims will not be able to ignore them. Although the groups are frequently anonymous and unknown until they burst onto the world stage with some action, they cannot be accused of being secretive about their motives orbeliefs. Leaflets, pamphlets, and books are available at every bookstand, and are frequently handed out in mosques. Much research remains to be done to ascertain what is the exact connection between the literature and the action, especially suicide attacks which require a strong ideological imperative

[CLL1709]

So, Islam is NOT the religon of peace? Heavens, who would have guessed?

[wellofvow]

So, Islam is NOT the religon of peace? Heavens, who would have guessed?

After skimming through that boring and completely unsurprising explanation, this is EXACTLY the same thought that popped into my mind too!

Waytogo.

[RichardP]

After skimming through that boring and completely unsurprising explanation, this is EXACTLY the same thought that popped into my mind too!

Waytogo.

Exactly, and I was hoping to learn something new today. I'll look at some other threads!

[CLL1709]

Sadly, this kind of piece should be shouted from the roof tops so that the leftist liberals hear a studied point of view different from their own blame America first . Just as in a press conference yesterday in London, it was the PM Howard of Austrailia who had to remind the idiot reporter blaming Blair's policies that Muslims attacked Austrailians in Bali before Iraq, Muslims attacked Americans on 9/11 before Iraq, etc. Now a Muslims leader in London has stated that those attacks are, of course, because of Blair's foreign policy that is the cause.

These people seem to have a disconnect with reality. Terrorist Muslims are reeking havoc killing anything standing in Iraq, mostly Muslims, but gee that is OK I guess because they are obviously not the "right" kind of Muslims. No word of condemnation even for the slaughter of their own. Islam is a evil, bloody, hateful religion, and they have no honor. If there is such a thing as a moderate Islamic leaders they had better begin condemning these acts in a very loud voice and back it up with turning in their terrorists brothers and sisters.

What will it take before everyone recognizes we truly are in a war against Islamic terror?

[savvy]

What will it take before everyone recognizes we truly are in a war against Islamic terror?

The reason I posted this is because "We" who know the truth about this religion have to take a stand, have to speak up. Being politically correct and polite isn't working. Yes, people will think we're are nuts, but give them information that will force them to think and take action.

Start leading them to websites such as www.faithfreedom.com, (http://), www.truthforum.com, (http://), www.dajjalsystem.com (http://), www.religionofpeace.com (http://).

Give them books to read, write letters about Islam to your MP's, place articles about Islam in mailboxes, try and educate people about the atrocities being committed and sanctioned by this religion world over.
We have to start to take steps to defeat this cult, because it poses a threat, that is far greater than World War 1 & 2. Nazism cannot be reformed and neither can Islam.

Let's work together to make Islam history, or we may suffer the loss of all that we hold dear to us, our freedom, values and civilizations are at stake. So March against this force of darkness. Nothing is impossible and where there's a will there's a way. It takes effort and cooperation from each one of us. They're are ex- muslims who should be given a chance to speak out at CNN, BBC and other media networks and we can help them do so.

[RichardP]

I don't think our MP's give a toss, but it's worth a try. Damn good post though, merci!

[Quicken]

My gawd I can't believe the hate on this thread. Destroy the Muslim faith? May your god forgive you.

[RichardP]

My gawd I can't believe the hate on this thread. Destroy the Muslim faith? May your god forgive you.

I trust if you visited a Muslim forum, you would discover the hate and loathing would be a hundredfold or more than here. When one promotes the annihilation of Israel and all Jews, or other non-Muslims, I find it difficult to hold them dear. It is not solely up to us to destroy Islam, as the radicals are doing a fine job themselves. Moreover, if those whom profess they are moderates of Islam would step out of the shadows; I for one may perceive them in a different light. Unless Islam sets in motion change and tears itself from its dark-age mindset: what do they expect? Are we supposed to placate and pander of those who, in the past, present and future, seek our destruction?

[Quicken]

It is a far cry from placating terrorists to advocating dropping a nuclear bomb as someone did on another thread or advocating the destruction of their faith.

Furthermore, they hate you .... you hate them ..... when will it end? When does the eye for an eye stop? When you're both dead??? When all of your families are dead??? Or when Americans are dragged into this dog fight of hate and retribution and our families are dead??

[RichardP]

Placating doesn't work obviously. If it was come to a worse case scenario which, is not impossible, perhaps probable in the future: then, sorry, but better them (Iran, Syria) than us. Do I want this to happen? Of course not, but it is not the first time in history Jews have confronted annihilation. Are we to stand and wait in full acceptance for another Holocaust? No indeed, although there are many who desire just that!

[Quicken]

Oh I see, now the Holocaust card has been thrown on the table. So then, it is necessary to destroy an entire faith..a people to make you feel safe? Surely you're not that kind of person. After all, wouldn't that be a holocaust against Muslims? And is one holocaust to be condemned and another justified??

I live in a country where millions of muslims work and live in peace with Christians and Jews. Do you think that Americans would allow the Muslim faith to be destroyed when millions of Americans are themselves of the Islamic faith. I think not.

The article posted merely shows what a small minority (compared to the billions of practicing Muslims) believe. Those that perpetrate terrorism must be stopped, yes...but we ourselves must not become terrorists in the process.

[RichardP]

If you have a problem with the Holocaust card as you seem to, so be it! If you believe it can't happen again, you're ill-informed and naive, to say the least. No one is talking about, speaking for myself, a pre-emptive strike, nor am I an advocate of erasure all Islam… so please don’t put words where there was no intent. However, if you choose to be “self-righteous” regarding the never-ending cycle of violence plaguing Israel are by non-Muslims, good for you.
Don’t condemn me for a hatred, which is not there: Radical Islam, yes, I loath and detest. Muslims who have the courage to step out and speak out against mass-murder, I admire. Though, I do not believe there are enough doing so.
It is not solely non-Muslims who believe that Islam is due for a major overhaul: I, yes me, have met Muslims who believe the same.
If your goal is to be an apologist for the entirety of Islam, I wish you well.

[Quicken]

If you have a problem with the Holocaust card as you seem to, so be it! If you believe it can't happen again, you're ill-informed and naive, to say the least. No one is talking about, speaking for myself, a pre-emptive strike, nor am I an advocate of erasure all Islam… so please don’t put words where there was no intent. However, if you choose to be “self-righteous” regarding the never-ending cycle of violence plaguing Israel are by non-Muslims, good for you.
Don’t condemn me for a hatred, which is not there: Radical Islam, yes, I loath and detest. Muslims who have the courage to step out and speak out against mass-murder, I admire. Though, I do not believe there are enough doing so.
It is not solely non-Muslims who believe that Islam is due for a major overhaul: I, yes me, have met Muslims who believe the same.
If your goal is to be an apologist for the entirety of Islam, I wish you well.

You agreed with the poster "savvy" who advocated "Let's work together to make Islam history,".....sounds like hate to me.

And yes, I do have a problem with the holocaust card. You cannot simply wave it around and say...see this gives us free license to do whatever we feel is necessary when we feel our safety is at stake. That's bogus and will someday lead to another faith's holocaust, in this case Islam.

They don't need an overhaul of their religion anymore than you and your Torah do. They need to understand the peaceful part of their religion and embrace it. They need to have leaders who are arrested when they preach hatred and disrespect and murder and they need to be held accountable for their actions.

I'm fully aware of the level of hatred they bear towards Israel, but destroying their religion will not solve anything.

[MGB8]

Here's the bottom line. Until Muslims take account for the Jihadists in their midst, until they stop them, then Muslims are placing themeselves and all of Islam at risk. What do you think will realistically happen if the US is hit by a Nuclear bomb from a Jihadists, or if Israel is? Do you believe Mecca will be spared? Are you willing to chance it? And what do you think the destruction of Mecca would do to Islam?

Meanwhile, there are some who believe that Jihadism is so ingrained in Islam that it cannot be stopped - that Islam and Jihadism are one and the same. It is not the most unreasonable belief, sad to say, given the mass support that OBL and other Jihadists have in the Muslim world - in the way the Muslim world views this as a conflict of civilizations.

If the US had a bunch of ex-green beret's committing acts of terror in the Muslim world - blowing up buses and hotels, etc. - murdering people - what do you think the US would do? Don't you think they US would first renounce these people, turn over everything they have on them, ostracize anyone who supports them, cut off all the finances, and then join in the hunt themselves - so that the US would not be tainted with the evil of these Green Beret's.

but that is NOT how the "Ummah" has reacted - they have reacted with denial and then justifications. That leads to the suspicion that Islamdom in general approves of these attacks on the West.. that they approve of Jihadism. That instead of renouncing, Muslims embrace the Jihadists. But, Bush was right. In this war you are on one side or another. Islam needs to choose. Is it on the side of the Jihadists, or on the side of peaceful co-existance in this current world-order. If Islam, on the whole, is on the side of the Jihadists, then Islamdom must be prepared to bear the consequences of that support.

[RichardP]

There is not one culture, religion, race or creed that is above reproach: nor is it solely Jews who are being murdered by this sickly mutation of Islam. Yes, they slaughter other Muslims, too, Christian and Hindu… and so forth.
Ironically, a Hindu gentleman with whom I once spoke, said; “Look where the violence and mass-murder is happening, the majority are Muslim atrocities.” He was right; does that make him intolerant an out-and-out racist? No; in fact, it was he who hired many Muslims to work in his thriving business.
I have inkling; you have a bone to pick with Judaism – that, it is we who are the true terrorists, alongside America, the UK and the coalition. You aren’t Michael Moore, perchance, are you?
As a footnote: The Holocaust is as relevant today, if not more so, please, respect that. Or are you one of those who equate Israel to a Nazi State? Perhaps, one who sees the State of Israel as the true threat to world peace, which is an all too common malady, suffered by many. So, you see me the way you choose, and sadly, this is the way you come across to me.

[MGB8]

Richard,

I don't think Quicken is anything more than a genuince nice American liberal, who doesn't think that the world is quite as harsh and brutal as it is, and doesn't realize the necessity of the threat, and sometimes use, of force.

[RichardP]

Yes, I am sure you are right... by the way good post, MGB8! I was thinking a 'flower-child'... each to there own. Cheers!

[Quicken]

MGB8: no bomb ever

http://www.cfr.org/pub7432/charles_d_ferguson_ii/prevention_not_retaliation.php

Richard: I'm a republican and a librarian. I was a Democrat until Bush 41. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[MGB8]

You cite one op-ed. Nu? That is one op-ed. And, in fact, it is the WRONG message to send.

If terrorists don't care if they die, don't care of thousands of their brother and sister Muslims die... then what is the deterrent?

I think you misunderstand terrorism. Listen to what terrorists say. Terror is not an act of desparation - it is an act of hope. Hope that this ability to kill so many will lead "their side" to victory in what they percieve as a conflict of civilizations - because Jihadism requires an expanding Islamic Caliphate, and the US and the West stand in the way of this. The only way to defeat Jihadism is to destroy the hope of victory. That hope can only be destroyed if the Jihadis have something that they care about, something that would doom their cause, realistically threatened. The only thing that fits there is not people, but places. In many ways, this is better - fewer people would have to die, only buildings would have to be destroyed.

Only when the Jihadists realize that terrorism will not forward their goals of an Islamic world, because it threatens the very existence of Islam (due to the likely, and it is likely, despite your hopes) retaliation... only at that point will terrorism as a tactic of Jihadism truly be defeated.

[Mediocrates]

MGB8: no bomb ever

http://www.cfr.org/pub7432/charles_d_ferguson_ii/prevention_not_retaliation.php

Richard: I'm a republican and a librarian. I was a Democrat until Bush 41. Sorry to burst your bubble.

If you actually read the source article you'll find that the author's main objection is that current nuclear doctrine and policy are tactically insufficient to address the nature, type, location and strategies of potential nuclear enemies. In other words, the broadsword approach simply won't work as either a strategic deterrent nor as a military weapon.

[MGB8]

I don't know if I agree with that, at least not completely.

The threat certainly is not sufficient to deal with terrorism. A whole array of actions and policies are needed. However, I do believe that the threat is a Necessary component of that array - without it, you still have no real deterrent on the Jihadis that will dampen the motivation of hope.

[Quicken]

It's an op-ed piece from the Council of Foreign Affairs....very prestigious and very old. You should read it more carefully. It fully reflects our government's policy.

Regardless your view on fighting terrorism does not jibe with 9/11 commission:

Recommendation: The U.S. government must define what the message is, what it stands for. We should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. America and Muslim friends can agree on respect for human dignity and opportunity. To Muslim parents, terrorists like Bin Ladin have nothing to offer their children but visions of violence and death. America and its friends have a crucial advantage-we can offer these parents a vision that might give their children a better future. If we heed the views of thoughtful leaders in the Arab and Muslim world, a moderate consensus can be found.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch12.htm

[MGB8]

Quicken.

That is the carrot. It is necessary. It is not sufficient.

You need a stick. It is also not sufficient. It is also necessary.

Your opinion that it "fully reflects our government's policy" is unsubstantiated. It is an opinion piece by one man. It talked about what candidates should say, in his opinion. The question is... so what?

YOU might agree with him. Doubtless many others do, too. I would wager, however, that if a nuke hit the US, many more would agree with the need to retaliate in a more severe way. I also would wager that many in the US government disagree with that policy... or, more accurately, that US policy has more layers and is more nuanced than what is contained in a little op-ed column.

ps. - I truly hope you have taken the time to read mideastweb.org's history, as well as the one at wilkepedia or answers.com. They are basic, and incomplete, but they will dispell some of the myths that you put forward in some of your recent posts, while also giving you a better background of knowledge upon which to form your opinions.

[Quicken]

If you actually read the source article you'll find that the author's main objection is that current nuclear doctrine and policy are tactically insufficient to address the nature, type, location and strategies of potential nuclear enemies. In other words, the broadsword approach simply won't work as either a strategic deterrent nor as a military weapon.

No the main idea is this:


And if America ever faces the stark choice between capitulation to nuclear terrorist demands and escalation to a nuclear war, I will target the terrorists themselves and not lead the United States into self-defeating wars."

[MGB8]

What is a self-defeating war? Certainly, that is a question of opinion, no?

Under your preferred policies, and that of this author, there is no effective deterrrent for an Islamist to Nuke a US city. You do realize that, don't you? In essence, with this policy, you have already surrendered to the Jihadis.

[Mediocrates]

The point is that strategy works against an enemy who knows you can identify them. Terrorism is rather squishy in that way. The Pakistanis weaponize a bomb, send it to Iran who gives it to their own SAVAK intelligence forces who control Hezbollah....and so on. It's very hard to figure out 'who' gives the order to use it. In fact that very opacity is really what lies at the heart of any nuclear doctrine for the Islamic bomb. Pakistan is very careful to aim its missiles only at India and only mention India in its doctrine. Iran would also have to be extremely careful once it's nuclear, who they included in their doctrine and what their targeting decisions and locations were. Because like it or not, and all their overinflated chestpounding aside, they can't take on the US, France, UK, Russia, China, Pakistan and India. So the point is, that without an identifiable doctrine and a locatable enemy, we would be very hard pressed to strike back here or there or anywhere else. On the other hand 'We will Bomb Mecca' sounds a lot like the mullahtards that run Iran and all sorts of histrionic statements they make that are a mix of paranoia, tactics and rage. Maybe it will rattle their cages but I'm unconvinced.

[MGB8]

I don't believe so. The Jihadists believe that they are fighting a war for Islam. They only thing that they value are the pillars of Islam. Everything else is more or less irrelevant.

You seem to be focusing on the national state - on preventing nations from arming these groups and using them as proxies. I don't think that is effective.

Jihadist exist outside of nations. They don't even need a nations backing - look at the Jihadists who exist in Europe and even the US. Nor do they necessarily need a nation to get a nuke. They need money and connections... but that might not require a nation to help them.

We are not just talking about deterring a nation's actions, here, although that is part of the equation. The problem with a movement like Jihadism is that it exists beyond national boundaries - those are in many ways irrelevant. They take aid and comfort when they can - but those are not essential. Additionally, in many of these nations, the idea that the state can have so much control over what happens in the countryside is a bit silly. A state itself can be very motivated to prevent such a terror attack, and never realize that it is being planned, trained, financed from within its borders.

[savvy]

Quicken, if you really read my post, you would realize that I was not calling for the eradication of Muslims in any shape or form. Infact, what people believe does not matter as much as their actions. You can believe in the jellyfish for all I care, as long as you do not use your beliefs to torture and kill everyone else and that's exactly what Islam has set out to to. Islam as an ideology must be fought, just as nazi Germany had to be fought. Muslims will only be targets if they continue to apologize for the crimes committed in the name of this religion and not do anything about it. Like if Islam nukes a country tommorrow and Muslims say, but that was only a small majority, isn't going to cut it. Don't talk, if you believe Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims must prove it through their actions and do so by not supporting their terrorists brothers in any shape or form, which they clearly continue to do all around the world. I was saying that ppl need to be educated about this ideology, but ppl can obviously distinguish a drug addict from a drug or an alcoholic from alcohol. If moderate Muslims do not act to liberate their fellow Muslims from things that keep them in bondage, then their as guilty of supporting them in all they do. And if you still think I am advocating violence against Muslims you have comprehension problems and cannot distinguish the sinner from the sin.

[savvy]

Quicken, if you really read my post, you would realize that I was not calling for the eradication of Muslims in any shape or form. Infact, what people believe does not matter as much as their actions. You can believe in the jellyfish for all I care, as long as you do not use your beliefs to torture and kill everyone else and that's exactly what Islam has set out to to. Islam as an ideology must be fought, just as nazi Germany had to be fought. Muslims will only be targets if they continue to apologize for the crimes committed in the name of this religion and not do anything about it. Like if Islam nukes a country tommorrow and Muslims say, but that was only a small minority, isn't going to cut it.

Don't talk, if you believe Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims must prove it through their actions and do so by not supporting their terrorists brothers in any shape or form, which they clearly continue to do all around the world. I was saying that ppl need to be educated about this ideology, but ppl can obviously distinguish a drug addict from a drug or an alcoholic from alcohol. If moderate Muslims do not act to liberate their fellow Muslims from things that keep them in bondage, then their as guilty of supporting them in all they do.

Infact it's easier to respect Muslims who call a spade a spade than Muslims , who behave like cowards and lie and cover up, for the not -so -peaceful members among them, even at the cost of people's lives. Infact, you should be ashamed of yourself, because you are encouraging them to act the way they do. I will speak out against what I believe is wrong and I will speak out aganist this cult that's holding millions of ppl hostage and I will continue to reach out to help those afflicted by this so-called religion. I have no hate towards them, but only sympathy. And if you still think I am advocating violence against Muslims you have comprehension problems .

[Quicken]

savvy, I read your post. You said:


Let's work together to make Islam history

Don't lie about it now. Actually, I'm far too tired to care, so feel free to cary on.

MGB8, No I have not had the time to read your website, in fact, I've only skimmed your latest responses. It's late here and hot. Tomorrow if I have time and I can find this board again, I may respond. You people seem to value long winded posts. I do hope you understand that truths do not need to be hidden in a forest of small words.

[MGB8]

My posts weren't very long. You had quite a long post yourself earlier. Pots and kettles?

Meanwhile, when you are trying to explain complicated things, and to use examples, it sometimes takes many words. Especially when you are trying to encompass important details.

Next time I'll try a one sentence slogan or 30 second sound-byte for you.

[RichardP]

savvy, I read your post. You said:



Don't lie about it now. Actually, I'm far too tired to care, so feel free to cary on.

MGB8, No I have not had the time to read your website, in fact, I've only skimmed your latest responses. It's late here and hot. Tomorrow if I have time and I can find this board again, I may respond. You people seem to value long winded posts. I do hope you understand that truths do not need to be hidden in a forest of small words.

Condescendingly smug!

[savvy]

savvy, I read your post. You said:


Quote:
Let's work together to make Islam history



Don't lie about it now. Actually, I'm far too tired to care, so feel free to cary on.

I said let's make Islam history, but not Let's make Muslims history. Like I said you can't distinguish a drug addict from the substance drug, that's responsible for making a person a drug addict. Why do muslims and Islamic apologists have problems with rational thinking and comprehension.?

[RichardP]

Often they deal with abstraction, which, in itself, is not a bad thing, except when it's twisted to justify and fit their perception of reality. Simply said, BS baffles brains, usually their own.

[Quicken]

I said let's make Islam history, but not Let's make Muslims history. Like I said you can't distinguish a drug addict from the substance drug, that's responsible for making a person a drug addict. Why do muslims and Islamic apologists have problems with rational thinking and comprehension.?

Nice try. I'm somewhat impressed with your amusing way of backpeddling from your statements and then trying to present your arguement in a different light or are you just a bit slow on definitions.

Here let me help you:

Definitions of Muslim on the Web:

"one who submits" to God. A follower of Islam.
faculty.juniata.edu/tuten/islamic/glossary.html

A follower of the religion of Islam; also spelled Moslem. (Lynch, Joseph H. The Medieval Church: A Brief History, 363) Related terms: Islam
www.netserf.org/Glossary/m.cfm

(or Moslem) A member of the Islamic faith.
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

A Muslim is a follower of the religion of Islam. There are over 1.4 billion Muslims worldwide, divided among three major groups: Sunni, Shici and Khariji. Islam teaches that there is only one God, and that the God of Judaism and Christianity is the same as the God of Islam. The majority of the world's Muslims, including many of those living in the United States, are not Arab.
www.gsanetwork.org/justiceforall/definitions.htm

is a person who practices the Islamic faith.
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/alqaeda/glossary.html

any number of persons adhering to the Islamic faith; West, East, Languages & Religion
www.africanculturalcenter.org/10_0glossary.html

[Mediocrates]

It's kind of amusing that the idiots who make these silly childish rhetorical sweeping gestures like

Let's all love each other
Let's make peace throughout the world
Let's give everyone a pony and an icecream cone


Go utterly apoplectic when they hear similar type messages from people they don't agree with.

[savvy]

by Megan Fox


Uncomfortable with the incessant reminders from our leaders that Islam is "a religion of peace", (despite the constant bombings by Islamics), I decided to stop listening to politically correct opinions and went to a knowledgeable source. Dr. Ali Sina is the founder of Faith Freedom International, a meeting place for all ex-Muslims who need support and an outreach for Muslims who are struggling within a religion that demands they do unspeakable things. Dr. Sina has written his own testimony linked here, and I highly suggest you read it.

Graciously, Dr. Sina agreed to give me an interview to answer the burning questions I've had since September 11. For the first time I don't feel the need for much commentary because the content of this interview is the most revealing and controversial I have ever heard. Just remember while you're reading, (before you get your PC panties in a twist), Dr. Sina is an expert on Islam, the Koran and the terror we are currently facing. A native of Iran, raised in the Muslim faith, Dr. Sina must be taken seriously and respected for his courage in speaking out against a very unpopular subject. It is foolish for those of us who have no other experiences than American Christianity to refute his views. We are ignorant to the true nature of Islam, regardless of how many Humanities classes or Multiculturism 101 courses we've taken, no other can claim expertise on Islam but an ex-Muslim. Without further ado, let's welcome Dr. Ali Sina to The Absurd Report.

MF: Ali, welcome! I have spent so many hours reading your site and have made you my Hero of the Week at least twice now on Clash Radio. I have to tell you, as an American-born Christian, even I had no idea how wrong and false Islam is. I always knew I hated the “extremism” but even I fell for the “moderate” lie that there is a peaceful side of Islam. In the political climate in which we live, it is very difficult to express the idea that Islam is a false religion (or not a religion at all but a political ideology) without being branded as a racist Islamophobe. ESPECIALLY if the one expressing it is a non-Arab Christian. How do you advise non-Muslim, people to spread this message (because so many people are so fooled)?

AS:Thank you Megan, for inviting me and for your kind words.
First of all let us make this clear. This is not about Arabs. Some Arabs are Christians and some are apostates. They are the salt of the Earth. Arabs had a rich secular and tolerant culture before they succumbed to Islam. They are very hospitable and friendly people. It is all about Islam. I assure you that if America falls prey to Islam, the Americans will do what Muslims do with the same savagery. American Muslim converts are no better than Saudi terrorists. This is about Islam and Islam alone. We are talking about an ideology of hate. Islam can dehumanize anyone. The majority of Muslims are non-Arabs and they are not by any standard more peaceful.

Now you ask how to spread this message. Boldly! Yes you would still be accused of Islomophobia and racism. But the public opinion is changing rapidly. Now it is becoming clear that the problem is not with Islamic extremism but with Islam itself. Now you can actually fire back at those who call you Islamophobe and call them appeasers and ignorant. Ignorance is not always bliss. People who do not know the danger of Islam and are unwilling to listen are playing into the hands of the enemy. Seventy years ago it was this misguided policy of appeasement epitomized in Neville Chamberlain that allowed Nazism to get out of hand, which brought the death of sixty million people. Extremism is always wrong. Then, there were two extremist positions. On one hand there was a very evil racist doctrine rising in the heart of Europe and on the other hand there were those who wanted to compromise with this evil and not be confrontational. This was the recipe for disaster. Any time you confront an evil force you must stand against it strongly. History repeats itself. Today we are again facing a fascistic movement which is much more dangerous than Nazism and we also have leftists and liberals who advocate compromise, want to give more concessions and want to appease the enemy. Churchill said something very profound. He said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile - hoping it will eat him last.”

Go ahead and speak out. Don’t fear being called Islamophobe. Your fears of Islam are real. Any sensible person who watches the news and can think must fear Islam. Phobia is an irrational and baseless fear. The fear of Islam is not irrational or baseless. Only a fool can see what is going on and not be afraid.

MF: How are you received among Muslims? Do you fear for your life? I am reminded of the Coptic family in NJ who were slaughtered because the man had been online in a Muslim chat room trying to argue against Islam and somehow, murderous thugs found him and murdered his whole family. Does this concern you?

AS: I have received hundreds of death threats, some of them graphically describing what they will do to me if they catch me. I am also insulted in the vilest ways. However, I am not going to a mosque announcing Islam is false. I try to take care of myself as much as I can.

Only a fool would dare ferocious beasts. The man who mingles among crocodiles, poisonous snakes, or walks into the den of hungry lions is not courageous. He is stupid. Yes, I take Islamic terrorism very seriously. At the same time I am a soldier. Soldiers go to war trying to drudge the bullets and not get killed, but they know the danger they are putting themselves in. This is my war and I know the risk that I am putting myself in. I am doing my best to keep away from danger, but there is no guarantee in life. If I have to die, my blood is no more precious than the blood of thousands of other innocent people who on daily basis are being killed by the Islamic terrorists. If I do nothing I could become another victim myself anyway. While I am alive I will do my best to carry out my duty as a human being and that is to be an instrument of peace. Peace cannot be achieved by compromising and trying to please everyone. It can be achieved by destroying evil which is the cause of war.

MF: What is your view of Muslims and what kind of response do you get to your site warning of the dangers of Islam?

AS: Muslims are victims. When it comes to religion, they are truly incapable of rational thought. I have studied several other cults such as the cult of Jim Jones, Branch Davidian, Aum Shinrikyo, etc. The followers of cults are not technically stupid people. In fact, some of them can be very smart. But they surrender their intelligence to the cult leader and in matters of faith their thinking becomes skewed. Islam is a cult, not a religion. I do not want to get into this here but there is a difference between cults and religions. I have spoken about that in detail in my book The Islam Threat: If You Are Not Scared You Should Be. Cults brainwash their victims. Muslims’ response is the typical response of a cultist. They say I never understood Islam, my heart is sealed and I can’t see the truth that to them is so obvious, that after reading my site their faith in Islam was strengthened, (this is of course to deny to themselves the shock that they received) and that I will go to hell. Of course I already talked about insults and threats. All these are logical fallacies. But to Muslims they make perfect sense. They genuinely can’t see the absurdity of it all.

MF: Major news outlets should be interested in the tales of horror on your testimony site. For example, the confessions of the ex-Muslim who drugged, tricked, & blackmailed young Christian women into converting into Islam only to betray, beat and humiliate them…and all of it was done with the sanction of the religion. How is it we don’t hear these stories on the news?

[savvy]

AS: We live in a world besieged by Political Correctness “P.C.”. This term was coined by the Bolsheviks and it meant to lie expediently, when telling the truth is not in accordance to the Marxist Leninist Party Line. Today P.C. means the same as it did then. It means concealing the truth if it does not suit the Leftists ideology and their situational ethics. Take for example the feminists. Great idea! I am all for the equality of genders and against the violence and abuse of women. That is the feminist slogan. However if this abuse happens in Islamic countries these very hardened feminists become tongue-tied. Why? It is because it is not politically correct to criticize Islam. Then these abuses are no more human right abuses but just cultural nuances. Muslim women can be beaten by their husbands, their human rights trampled, they can live like slaves, their genitals mutilated and they can be stoned to death and yet you hear not a squeak of protest from feminists. They say it is all cultural and even rebuke you for being intolerant and insensitive of other cultures if you speak out. But they never criticize Islam, because the criticism of Islam is not politically correct. However, it is politically correct to criticize Judeo–Christianity. In fact the more you malign Judeo-Christianity the more intellectual you appear, but woe to you racist bigot if you dare raise an eyebrow over people of other cultures. These people are considered to be in the “minority”, even though they are actually the majority. You should treat them with the same reverence that you would treat an endangered species. You must respect their culture no matter how obnoxious it may be. Why? Because a few hundred years ago your colonialist ancestors committed lots of cruelty against their ancestors. Now this is your penitence. This is why you don’t hear criticism of Islam in the Media. Political Correctness means self deception.

We can change this if a few of us dare this sick culture and tell the truth even if the truth may hurt someone’s sensitivity. That is his problem not ours. We must not, of course, tolerate racism. Apart from the fact that we have no choice in our race and it would be injustice to discriminate against someone because of his race, there is not a shred of scientific evidence to show one race is superior to another. So racism is not just morally wrong, it is also scientifically wrong. But Islam is not a race. It is a doctrine. It is a belief system and like all belief systems it is independent of those who follow it. When you criticize Nazism you are not criticizing the Germans. We must make this distinction and criticize Islam without being racist. Don’t be afraid! Speak the truth. If you read the Quran that says non-believers are impure, say that as an unbeliever you are offended by this verse and ask Muslims what they are going to do about it. They must either reject this verse and hundreds of other verses that are bigoted, violent and racist or leave your country. If they think you are filthy because of your disbelief, what the hell are they doing here? (A very good question Ali! Readers, do you not LOVE this man? MF)

Another reason the leftists can't bring themselves to denounce Islam is because they want to lobby the votes of Muslims. Because of that they would do anything to appease the Muslims, including maligning their own country and taking the blame.

Seven years ago, when I started my fight, criticizing Islam was taboo. Now things are changing. Many westerners wrote to advise me to tone down; but after reading a few of the articles posted in www.faithfreedom.org they all changed their minds and now they are fully supporting me. Truth is very powerful. It has the power to change your mind.

[Quicken]

I am not an apologetic sympathizer for the Muslim terrorists. But I am someone who is able to understand the Israeli/Palestine conflict in a different light than those with narrow blinkers on.

When you advocate the desecration of a faith that billions of people world-wide adhear to, I can only think of one thing.....arrogant hubris. Most Muslims in the US live peacefully with each other even though we are from different faiths although certainly in their Koran they never slandered Christ that way your Torah did.

From the Talmud, article 2 and 3 that talks about Jesus christ

Article II.THE LIFE OF CHRIST

The Talmud teaches that Jesus Christ was illegitimate and was conceived during menstruation; that he had the soul of Esau;
that he was a fool, a conjurer, a seducer; that he was crucified, buried in hell and set up as an idol ever since by his followers.

1. ILLEGITIMATE AND CONCEIVED DURING MENSTRUATION
The following is narrated in the Tract Kallah, 1b:
"Once when the Elders were seated at the Gate, two young men passed by, one of whom had his covered, the other with his
head bare.Rabbi Eliezer remarked that the one in his bare head was illegitimate, a mamzer. Rabbi Jehoschua said that he was
conceived during menstruation, ben niddah. Rabbi Akibah, however, said that he was both. Whereupon the others asked
Rabbi Akibah why he dared to contradict his colleagues. He answered that he could prove what he said. He went therefore to the boy's mother whom he saw sitting in the market place selling vegetables and said to her: "My daughter, if you will answer truthfully what I am going to ask you, I promise that you will be saved in the next life." She demanded that he would swear to keep his promise, and Rabbi Akibah did so -but with his lips only, for in his heart he invalidated his oath. Then he said:
"Tell me, what kind of son is this of yours"? To which she replied: "The day I was married I was having menstruation, and because of this my husband left me. But an evil spirit came and sleptwith me and from this intercourse my son was born to me." Thus it was proved that this young man was not only illegitimate but alsoconceived during the menstruation of his mother.

[minusthejihad]

I am not an apologetic sympathizer for the Muslim terrorists. But I am someone who is able to understand the Israeli/Palestine conflict in a different light than those with narrow blinkers on.

LOL! Talk about arrogant hubris! Yeah? Because you say so or is this based on someone's standards?


Most Muslims in the US live peacefully with each other even though we are from different faiths although certainly in their Koran they never slandered Christ that way your Torah did.


Who is "your"? Most of the people in here you have been engaged in debate with are not even Jewish. I don't know about savvvy, but Richard is not and nor is SteveMetch. So please keep your assumptions to yourself as you lose some street cred. Also, what is this religious blame game you are trying to ignite here?

[MGB8]

There is a difference between the Torah and the Talmud (oral law.)

Here you have a story, commonly interpreted to refer to Jesus. It was written centuries after the old-testament by Jews that were a bit bitter regarding Christianity, especially considering what had befallen them, including "Christian" actions towards them.

For a long time Jews felt that they had to justify their existence by belittling Jesus.

But the question is "so what?" Did Jews make Christians Dhimmi's? Did they command violence towards those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, as Islam can be readily interpreted to do?

This just seems to be a case of Jew hating, frankly.

Certainly, the fact that a religion was founded on the life of what they considered a Jewish "dissident," (and at that point in time many Jews did not believe that Jesus even existed) that this religion spread and dominated and then its followers discriminated against Jews, including large amount of violence and murder.. it caused resentment, and that resentment is reflected historically.

Again - how is this relevant to anything.

The bottom line, really, is that there is only a small part of the teachings of Jesus and mainstream Jewish teachings that are inconsistent - important differences - although, for example, it is likely that Jesus kept Kosher, - but, in the larger scheme of things, minor. In fact, as Judaism has "liberalized" and as Christianity has done the same, the religions have converged more than diverged. The real big disagreements are the need to follow the strictures of the law and the divinity of Jesus, and other specifics. The moral and ethical imperatives are more or less the same.

[Quicken]

There is a difference between the Torah and the Talmud (oral law.)

Here you have a story, commonly interpreted to refer to Jesus. It was written centuries after the old-testament by Jews that were a bit bitter regarding Christianity, especially considering what had befallen them, including "Christian" actions towards them.

For a long time Jews felt that they had to justify their existence by belittling Jesus.

But the question is "so what?" Did Jews make Christians Dhimmi's? Did they command violence towards those who believe in the divinity of Jesus, as Islam can be readily interpreted to do?

This just seems to be a case of Jew hating, frankly.

Certainly, the fact that a religion was founded on the life of what they considered a Jewish "dissident," (and at that point in time many Jews did not believe that Jesus even existed) that this religion spread and dominated and then its followers discriminated against Jews, including large amount of violence and murder.. it caused resentment, and that resentment is reflected historically.

Again - how is this relevant to anything.

The bottom line, really, is that there is only a small part of the teachings of Jesus and mainstream Jewish teachings that are inconsistent - important differences - although, for example, it is likely that Jesus kept Kosher, - but, in the larger scheme of things, minor. In fact, as Judaism has "liberalized" and as Christianity has done the same, the religions have converged more than diverged. The real big disagreements are the need to follow the strictures of the law and the divinity of Jesus, and other specifics. The moral and ethical imperatives are more or less the same.

My purpose in posting the above was to show that the Koran, which the Muslims believe as their holy book, is no where near as defamatory toward Christians as other religions have been. And for the posters who advocate destroying the Islamic faith, and of course, consequently destroyed the lives of billions of people along with it, please take a look in your own glass house before throwing rocks at others.

The real problem with Islamic terrorism is the fundamentalists who are immersing themselves and those that follow them in a narrow, corrupt and completely distorted view of their religion. That doesn't mean their religion itself is corrupt...anymore than any of our religions are. ... Judaism or Christianity. In each of our religions there are various elements or passages that can be construed in a negative light. (Although Jesus was a true pacifist and would have been appalled at the wars carried out in his name.) It is completely wrong and almost evil to wish the destruction of another faith, regardless of any supposed justification.

[MGB8]

You miss the point.

The posters who believe that Islamism cannot be eradicated from Islam, and so the religion itself should be eliminated (not the people, just the religion - probably they want mass-conversion out) believe this way not because of defamation. You have created a false parallel. They believe this way because text in the Qu'ran, Sunnah and Ha'adith, when interpreted literally, appear to promote violence and/or discimination against non-muslims, as well as imperialism. It is different to defame as opposed to promoting violence.

For example, Christianity has had blood libel against Jews... Jews (as opposed to Romans) killed Jesus, and therefor all Jews must be punished. This is not a commandment to violence, but it is more than defamation, as it is a basis upon which violence is deserved. Now, on the other hand, saying that Maimonedes was a smelly goat licker, while not nice, doesn't have much practical effects.

I also believe that you are still conflating the point about Mecca. The point is not that the US should nuke Mecca in response to a nuclear attack on a US city by muslim terrorists. It is that this must be a credible threat. And it is, indeed, as it is a very possible response to such an attack, given American psychology.

Furthermore, a very possible consequence of the destruction of Mecca and the Kabaa would be end of Islam - one of the pillars would be gone.

As such, you can deter those who fear for Islam, and also encourage Muslims away from Jihadist interpretations of their faith, and also encourage them to act against those who would endanger their faith.

[Quicken]

You know, I keep looking at your name and location and shaking my head. How can you live here ... in the US .... among millions of peaceful Muslims ... and still feel that Islam itself is the problem? These Muslims live peacefully with us, all the while following their religion's precepts. No... the problem is not with Islam; it is with fundamentalism and fundamentalism can be be a dirty game regardless of what faith you adhere to.

Your philosophy though is the same hard line that many have tried time and time again. By advocating the destruction of Mecca as a tool, an option in our bag of tricks against terrorism, we simply give the nuts more ammunition. And before you put more words into my mouth, I'm not in any way, encouraging a group hug with the terrorists. The should be dealt with, killed even. I don't care. But the problem is they keep making more! The mullahs use our actions to justify their fundamentalism. And now they can say....look at the infidels they want to nuke Mecca.

[MGB8]

I don't buy that Islam is the problem. I do buy that Islam is more prone to violent interpretation due to the fact that it has relatively more specific commandments and examples of violence, and its "end of days" involves a world caliphate. I also buy that propensity issue due to so many Muslims endorsing the Jihadist principles - the widespread support for OBL, etc.

As for Mecca, I am a Hobbesian. I want to deter the Jihadists. Death doesn't deter them. Death of their families doesn't deter them. Economic embargos and moral outrage doesn't deter them. So how do you deter? How do you destroy the hope that inspires the Jihadi Terrorism. Only by making them fear, legitimately, that by being a Jihadi terrorist they threaten what they hold most dear. How do you get the Muslim world to really turn against terrorism (not just lip service)...? Same answer.

Fear is a much greater motivator than love. G-d forbid it ever comes to that. But, in order to help g-d, it must be on the table.

[Quicken]

Fine your a Hobbesian, but I'm a realist. Wars are never simply black or white. Terrorists wouldn't see the threat of Mecca's destruction as anything more than further proof of the great Satan's evil. It would do us more harm than good and become a better recruiting tool than Iraq has proven to be.

The Christian Bible also as a bloody end of times book called "Revelations". I'm sure you've heard of it. In this book's end of times interpretation, the Jews must have control of Israel or be there or something to that effect, before the end can come and then they're all destroyed. Obviously I don't believe this, but come on.... a lot of Christians do. Does that make their religion worth destroying? After all, according to this book, Israel must be destroyed in order for Christians to inherit the earth. Somehow I don't think this would sit well Israel.

Again I submit its fundamentalism and not the faith itself that's the problem.

[savvy]

Fine your a Hobbesian, but I'm a realist. Wars are never simply black or white. Terrorists wouldn't see the threat of Mecca's destruction as anything more than further proof of the great Satan's evil. It would do us more harm than good and become a better recruiting tool than Iraq has proven to be.

The Christian Bible also as a bloody end of times book called "Revelations". I'm sure you've heard of it. In this book's end of times interpretation, the Jews must have control of Israel or be there or something to that effect, before the end can come and then they're all destroyed. Obviously I don't believe this, but come on.... a lot of Christians do. Does that make their religion worth destroying? After all, according to this book, Israel must be destroyed in order for Christians to inherit the earth. Somehow I don't think this would sit well Israel.

Again I submit its fundamentalism and not the faith itself that's the problem

Quicken, I am not Jewish. And if as a Christian, if you want to know what my views on the Talmud about Jesus are is this. The Talmud as written by men honest in their condemnation of Jesus, whereas the Quran follows even a deceptive honesty when it comes to the prophets and to Jesus. The jews may have rejected Jesus and have clearly stated the reason for doing so. Whereas the Muslims have betrayed Jesus with a kiss. They did a Judas on him. The devil will never slap you in the face cause he's a coward, but will slither like a snake in the grass. The Quran claims to respect Jesus, yet says that Jews and Christians distorted their scriptures of all things.

And also says that the biggest sin is belief in the trinity. Muhammad tried to take on the mantle of the Holy Spirit for himself, something which no one, not even Jesus did. That is blasphemu of the worst kind.

As for the book of Revelations. Everyone can speculate. It's mostly based on God's judgement and the anti-christ system of beheading people, which only a certain ppl still practice, anyway, It's not a literal book, it follows from daniel and ezekiel. It is metaphorical in nature, filled with riddles and hard to crack. it takes a lot of wisdom to understand it. Besides there's a difference between God doing something and commanding human beings to do things like kill ppl. In the OT there were timelines and reasons why God asked for these things, but even they had expiry dates and were not meant for all times like in Islam. As for fundamentalism, the word that PC's love to use, came out of Christianity, Christians coined the word. It implies to a literal understanding of the Bible. The Bible is a book written by men who were inspired by God, whereas the Quran was written by God himself( or something close to that), therefore is not open to wide translations, interpretations etc and is believed to be the direct word of God. From this perspective the whole of Islam is fundamentalist. You told me I had problems with definitions. I think you need to look into definitions first, before you start to use them.
While the word Muslim does not even show up once in the Bible. The Bible is very pro-jewish, whereas the Quran does have clear commands to kill christians and jews.

I would suggest that you take on the task of studying Islam first, before you set out to defend it, it would help you, cause you sound like just another PC guy, who goes like, "Honour killings, not Islam ,it's the culture. Polygamy, why do you care? Wife beatings, not Islam, christians do it too." You have a lot more to learn, Quicken so hit those books :)

I used to be like you, until I started to study religion for myself. It didn't take me long to feel the shear force of evil overcome me, while reading the Quran.
This faith may be shared by millions, but you'r committing the fallacy of appealing to the masses here. Cults always have a large fan-following than actual sprituality and religion does. The best things do come in small packages. The masses are not always right.