Per Mr Lewis:

"Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[42] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

But that is not how the Muslim religion was practiced in the past, and it IS how Christianity was practiced in the past. It is not the religion per se, it is a particular era's interpretation of that religion. The Inquisition and the Terrorists are both extremists of the same ilk. There is more similarity between them than there is between the Inquisition and modern Christianity.

Jan

Jan

Is out. (Checked ears, even.)

Jan

I've read books by Bernard Lewis (among others) before I began writing commentary relating to Islam.

You're statement is a tad insulting and it implies that I am bigoted.

Islam, how its constructed, leaves no room for self-determination, self-governance, Constitutional governance, or anything but allah.

Take a look at who Mr. Lewis is,

http://www.amazon.com/Bernard-Lewis/e...

I wish I could feel as you do. But there are too many specific terms in the qu'an related to non-believers and how they should be governed for me to think that any muslim who follows it can think anything else. islam, unlike other religions, is social law , government law, and the road map to their afterlife - it doesn't tolerate secular people (or those who leave their faith) very well (they kill them).

read more ... and not just from anti Islam sites.

Islam belongs in a Constitutional enviroment as much as Judaism and Christianity do.

How many Muslims have you had personal contact with? I've had numerous conversations with Muslim believers and a few scholars, and I have to tell you that some do express support for the idea of a common thread among the Abrahamic faiths, but many do not. Most I've had contact with adhere to the belief that jihad is a spiritual outreach, not a call to violence. However, even among those, many do believe that violence in protection of the faith is sometimes justified, which is why they sometimes have ambivalent feelings about extremists. Fighting non-believers is an extremist action with broad support, but cruelty such as beheading or other non-combat violence has few supporters outside of those organizations.

The picture is not as clear as you paint it, nor as those who are absolutely anti-Islam contend. Given the unclear nature of the situation, I favor taking an approach that protects myself, my family, and my countrymen. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees indicates that 72% of the current refugee population is young, unattached males of military age, 13% women, and 12% children. That sounds more like a rush of "draft dodgers" who don't want to die for anybody, extremists, rebels, or state military. Unfortunately, it's also a ripe field in which to plant some truly dangerous people.

Has all of this tainted my opinion of Islam in general? Truthfully, my distrust of the faith goes back 50 years, when I was exploring my spiritual options. When I left the Christian faith, I examined many religions, speaking to adherents and leaders, and the only one that left me with very uncomfortable feelings was Islam.

maybe you should take your head out of the sand.

yes mo- was intially for monotheistic religions, even placing islam in the lineage of Judaism and Christianity. However, mo- did turn violently against those who refused his "enlightened" advances. He also justified murder and thievery. Mecca was a worship place of another sect/cult/religion (hubal, if memory serves) before mo- decided he wanted it for islam.

While no scholar, I've read enough to know, with very few exceptions, that it doesn't belong in a Constitutional environment.

The trouble with the Tea Party is its not a traditional organization with a traditional hierarchy. To date, I have many Tea Party friends but I've never been able to find a local Tea Party meeting. I've even tried their websites...perplexing.

I'm also afraid we are headed to the crash. Not sure it will be pretty and unless the right people are in the right place at the right time, I don't believe we will get a clean slate to start from. It very well may be the end of this great experiment. The best we can hope for is for people to wake up, elect representatives that will take us back to limited government, quickly. :)

The polls also show the vast majority of all followers of Islam condemn the actions of the Islamists (terrorists).
The saying you quote is BS and inflammatory and comes from people who have zero understanding of the Islamic religion. It lends to the creation of more radicals by minimizing another Abrahamic religion
Most believe infidels are non believers of Islam whereas most Islamic scholars will tell you that all "people of the book" or monotheists are ok, it is only the true non believer in a god who is an infidel.
The book I mentioned above is fascinating in this discussion.

I experienced something similar... Early on, I would try to educate folks on the Tea Party platform / my interpretation if you will:
1. Constitutionally limited government
2. Fiscal accountability
3. Free markets.
This was too tough for many to comprehend. And I would get the response "well you got yours, so now just fck everyone else, eh?" My reply was to inform them that they had used a compound sentence, and that although I did work for and engage in commerce to accumulate wealth, that I had not fcked anyone along the way; and that it was my observation that the fcker and fckee were oft one and the same. Some (many?) folks are impervious to logic. So I think we, as individuals, need to do our own thing, build and protect our own nest and just let the whole damn thing crash to the ground, start from a clean slate.

I watched from a distance, because I don't get involved in politics at any level anymore, really. I was surprised at how the message of smaller government and less spending was met with such vitriol. I found it very troubling, in the big picture. I think it is very telling of where America's heading. People have been successfully brainwashed into associating smaller government with racism, sexism, etc.

American people typically don't listen to reason.

I'm comfortable with the Ahmadi or Sufi Muslim believers, and there are other sects with sane practice of their faith, but they aren't demonstrating strong opposition to the more extreme elements. Polls worldwide show an uncomfortable majority support among the Ummah for some extreme actions taken by ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram. It's been said, an extreme Muslim will decapitate an unbeliever, while a moderate will only sharpen the blade.

that would make a good bumper sticker !!! It really is true. Actually would also apply to Nazi and the jews. A LOT of germans wanted to get rid of the jews, thats why they didnt complain when the nazi's did it for them. What a world we live in....

A radical muslim wants to kill you.
A peaceful muslim wants a radical muslim to kill you.
The so-called "peaceful" ones contribute to "charities" that funnel money to the radicals.

Should we eradicate all white people because of the actions of the KKK or Aryan nation?
Extremism is what needs to be fought, not the entire Islamic religion

I believe there is a moderate majority of Muslims, at least here in the West. I also believe they don't matter, any more than honest police officers matter -- because none of them dares to break the "blue wall of silence" and rat out the ones who kill innocent people. And that's got to change before even good cops, or even moderate Muslims, can expect to once again be really accepted by their civilized neighbors.

For what it's worth, ISIS is trying to change that. They just issued a statement that they aim to destroy the "gray zone" in which moderate Muslims live in the West, by bullying all of them into radicalizing. I predict that this effort on ISIS' part is going to backfire spectacularly. They will lose nearly all of their support in the West and bring on a broader, lasting Reformation.

I completely disagree with you. You are factually incorrect that all Muslims oppose living with other religions and that the Muslim religion is inherently opposed to American ideals. You are projecting the hatred of the terrorists onto the entire spectrum of Muslim thought.

Jan

I think you are correct, but that means that if cause-and-effect can be reestablished, more people will come forward to espouse the Tea Party views.

Jan

wowwwwy!!!! Very good rebuttal. I have seen this lady on Fox and was impressed, but this really got my attention. I love her logic reason and most of all passion.

I say that unless we are born with feathers in our hair (american indians), we are all mutts of one sort or another. I would be percentages of all sort of things- mother and father were born here, but grandmothers and grandfathers were from italy and germany- beyond that I have no idea. And what difference does it make really unless you want an organ transplant where it does make a difference.

Should we develop "tolerance" for the Aryan Nation, or the KKK? Extremism does not deserve tolerance. It needs to be eradicated, intellectually and academically, if possible, but when it promotes violence and intolerance against all who don't follow its beliefs, it must be exterminated by any means necessary.