I don't. I have an issue with the concept of theocracy as supported by all major religions. All of the issues you are referring to are part and parcel of the same intolerance that was found whenever a state is based on a religion throughout history.If you have an issue it is with the traditional and historical understanding of Islam, by the scholars and the practitioners, so take it up with them.
That's quite a jump in logic. We were referring to theocratic states. You can't compare a theocracy to a secular state on the grounds of religious tolerance. Secular states are based on economic systems. It's not a crime against the state in a secular state to espouse a different religion, but it is a matter of state security if someone derails the economic system.The point is that as much as you constant bring up the Midianites, there is no significant body of work in Rabbinic Judaism, the Mishnah, Gemara, etc. that expounds that Christians are Midianites and thus must be killed, or that Muslims are Midianintes and thus must be killed.
They espoused theocratic rule during a period when there wasn't anything else. Relative to their contemporary Christian counterparts, they were better than average.No, I just think that people like Ibn Kathir, and the Hadith of al-Muslim know more about Islam than you do.
I'll give you that many people in those places who would not support terrorist acts against anyone else would still support them against Israel. That is however slowly changing. The drop in support for terrorism noted by the Pew survey applies to these people too.This again? Go to the UK and deal with the 40% of college students who are Muslim who support Sharia. And stop with the lie of 1%. Studies show that support for terrorism ranges from the high teens to the mid 50's in such 'moderate' countries as Morocco that you like to point to.
That's at least what they were told.Well we don't know now do we. The airlifts and escapes probably saved them from the horrors of their neighbors, a la Hebron in 1929.
You could not rightly understand the situation without both understanding the level of persecution and the ones who facilitated a demographic shift, particularly when the latter exherted great means to affect that shift.And who would have been the ethnic cleanser?
Who, Muslims or Turks?Since I didn't bring up the Holocaust in this reference you of course are jsut trying to change the subject. But since you have, the Aremenians come to mind since the person who coined the term genocide had them in mind.
There was enough Roman religion including emporor worship forced upon them that they rebelled. I'm sure you are familiar with this. Moreover the Catholic church also kidnapped children from their parents to be raised Christian, though not in those numbers.Conscripted meaning kindnapped from their parents as young as 8, forced to convert, and then sent to war against their former Christian co-religionists. Futher, Jews weren't conscripted into the Roman army, although they did serve as auxillaries. Jews were not kidnapped en mass and Romanized.
Heck no. Using your means of calculation I can include every Japanese killed, every North Korean, every Vietnamese and every non-European killed in any military conflict funded or supported by European Christians. After all, that's how you've butchered 14 centuries of the history of Muslims. You've taken out every human motivation except religion from everything they did. It's a characterature!This of course is another flat out lie. The Communists and Nazis (those responsible for most of the 100M you quote) were anti-Christian, atheists, and in some cases pagans. They didn't kill people in Jesus' name.
And what name did the Crusaders put on their wars? The Spanish? The first British colonists?The Muslim conquerors of the Indian subcontinent however, waged jihad, explicitly, and did so in the name of Islam.
Good, then if you will be so kind, point out what changes should be made in our system for the improvement of security against terrorism. You seem to believe the Constitution doesn't provide enough protection against Muslims. What would you do?As for my big secret plans for Muslims, who says I have any? I don't.
I think you'd best get over it. I never had any control over whether you stayed or went and I don't now. BTW, compared to some of the looney's here, you're a relatively straight up kind of guy. Although we have our flame wars, at least I occasionally see a functioning brain there.Of course, this is in direct opposition to what you have requested be done to me.
In that case, we are 100% in agreement on that issue. Well, except that accomodation is permitted to other religions in certain circumstances. Now, I'd be willing to accept no accomodations for Muslims if those other accomodations were taken away. For example, if Muslims aren't allowed to practice family law in UK, then neither should Jews or Catholics.As to the general case of Muslims in the country at large, I would say no special treatment, anywhere. No accommodation.
Taken a step further, I'd be willing to accept more accomodations for other religions where the demographics make that feasible. For example, if the Orthodox community in Williamsburg, Brooklyn wants to lobby for special community regulations, let them. Or don't and make that the rule for everyone else.