Winning Over Moderates

To say that Islam is not inherently barbaric one must completely ignore the teachings and the actions of the Last True Prophet, Muhammad. You also have to close your eyes to the fact that Islam, according to the Qu'ran, is not just a religious belief, but an all encompassing way of life that is to be the only authority in the world. Politics and religion are one, as the religion becomes the political fabric.

No, Islam IS most definitely a barbaric, blood thirsty, intolerant, opressive, murderous religion. Any Muslim who is really a moderate is not practicing true Islamic theology. If these moderates will swear an oath of allegiance to the USA and the Constitution I will accept their moderation as true. It is an offense punishable by beheading to swear allegiance to any but Alla.

Islam has had their share of geniuses and artists though. Good for them.

Sceptically,
Glenn Flowers

I can't go that far. To look at the Koran that was is to do the same thing as anti-Christian polemicists who look for silly laws in Leviticus and think it disproves Christianity. To be fair, if one were to examine Judaism or Christianity without any of the context provided by centuries of interpretation, the Holy Books alone provide a pretty barbaric picture.

And if you trust the Torah, Judaism falls in the same role of all encompassing religion and government as well.

I am hardly going to convert, but I do believe in dealing fairly with those subjects which arise, and Islam, as Christianity and Judaism deserves to be viewed as more than just a blindly literal reading of a holy book.

Finally, despite the excessive adoration current Islam demands of Mohammad, it must be recalled he is a prophet not a messiah. (Wahabbis seem to sometime make of him something almost divine, but that is an error on their part.) TO cite his errors is no more valid then calling Moses' morals into question to invalidate the Torah. A prophet's imperfections are not those of the religion.

Again, not about to convert, just arguing that we should be fair in our evaluation, and if I am going to defend Judaism and Christianity against those who say "So you follow the Bible, how are your slaves?" or "did you stone your daughter for talking back", then I have to do the same for other faiths as well.

Now, to argue about particular interpretations of that faith, or against specific practitioners, I have no problem. As concerns the current widespread, intolerant, expansionist meaning given to that faith, I have no problem saying that it is a problem. But I have to be fair enough to say that even historically that is not the only possible meaning.

To look at militant Islam today and call the entire religion barbarous is like looking at Torquemada and dismissing Christianity as a religion of torture.

I must admit, you have very persuasive points which are, again reluctantly true, especially regarding some of the content of the Bible and Torah.

I have met and become friends with a few Muslims in my life. I had no reason to harbor any ill will toward them and association came easy as they were good, good folks. That was long before Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. Their appearance on the scene has almost poisoned me to Islam entirely.

I appreciate your reply.
Glenn

I am sure you have seen my recent post clarifying this a bit more.

I do think the current dominant, and basically only, interpretation of Islam is highly dangerous and destructive. But I do not think that is inherent in the religion itself.

Well, I am glad I managed to give you some different perspective. Even if you don't agree, it is always nice to find a new way to look at things. It is why I bother reading blogs here, from time to time they give me a new way to look at things.