Amazing that he doesn’t get any more traction here at antiwar.com, isn’t it.

The actual leader against the IWR. Hasn’t voted to spend a penny on the war and occupation. Has HR 1234 written and ready to be implemented, etc., etc. and so forth.

Paul’s fine, but you guys need to stop flipping off the leader against the Dempublicans.

I’m not giving the Qu’ran a free pass. I’m merely defending it against your rhetorical bait and switch which repeatedly transposes Islamic doctrine with Islam as it is practiced today in order to blur the distinction between the two and cast me as some kind of apologist for terrorism. I certainly wouldn’t like to live as a dhimmi, but I’m pointing out that the “dhimmi” concept has no counterpart in the Bible. I’m also making this comparison to illustrate the futility of trying to explain terrorism by reference to religion. Of course the Qu’ran contains objectionable material; the whole point is that it is not unique in this respect, and can’t be used to make generalizations about the behaviour and aspirations of 1.3 billion people.

I defy you to find messages of violance from the mouth of Jesus that is on par with the violence from the mouth of Mohammed.

I defy you to find support for gratuitous violence from Mohammed (note my use of the term “gratuitous”: I do not simply mean violence of any sort. I mean violence directed against those who have done no wrong).

I have given you many examples but you choose to ignore them or make lame excuses that they are “taken out of context.”

You have chosen sources that don’t dovetail well with your general perspective of Islam. They’re not taken out of context, they merely don’t say what you claim they say.

On relgion a few points you should understand. In Islam, a “person under protection” is a “Dhimmi” one who accepts his status as a second class citizen and pays a special tribute tax to his superior Muslim overlords. He must also practice his religion quietly and in relative seclusion. Is that a society you would like to live in? Why do you insist on making excuses for these things? You seem like a smart guy and you are quite willing, and rightfully so, to lambaste the shortcomings of the Old Testament but with you the Quran gets a free pass!

Also, you wrote, “In Christianity, both the Old and New Testaments are canonical, so one can’t simply cite verses from the New Testament to negate the Old.” Well, actually there are several passages where Jesus negates precepts of the Old Testament. Jesus says, in the old testment you heard of an eye for an eye, but I say turn the other cheek. In the old testment it says you can stone people to death, Jesus says, “He who is without sin should cast out the first stone.” I defy you to find messages of violance from the mouth of Jesus that is on par with the violance from the mouth of Mohammed. As for scriptural sources of violence in the Quran, again, I have given you many examples but you choose to ignore them or make lame excuses that they are “taken out of context.”

But anyway, I am enjoying the discussion!

You’ve yet to establish scriptural support for Islamic “violence” that is uniform throughout the Qu’ran.

And the Christians have the New Testament, which I would argue in inherently peaceful, at least the things that Jesus said. Jesus said to “love your enemies” while the Quran says to strike off their heads, thats a pretty big difference if you ask me.

Well, uh, yeah. “Enemy” in Qur’anic parlance is anyone who oppresses or commits injustice. Not an unreasonable response, methinks, especially since you are willing to countenance (indeed, even promote) violence on far weaker grounds. It does, however, strictly proscribe attacks against non-Muslims under protection, so it has a redeeming feature that the Bible lacks. In Christianity, both the Old and New Testaments are canonical, so one can’t simply cite verses from the New Testament to negate the Old.

I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can execute someone for turning away from the religion. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam that would have a woman given 200 lashes after she was just raped.

You don’t? Try googling “Christian Reconstructionism”.

But a lot of the radical Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century.

A few points: in the seventh century, Islam was a great deal more socially progressive than it is now. It is more accurate to say Islamic states have regressed. You can hardly hold the unelected governments who enforce this kind of interpretation responsible. Perhaps if the majority of Muslims voted for it, but seeing as Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and the linchpin of American propaganda is that the Middle East lacks “democracy” they can hardly be held accountable for the crimes of their governments, no? Second, your assertion borders on analytic: any sampling of the radicals, depending on how “radical” is defined, will, indeed, reveal that nearly all of them support a strict interpretation of Qur’anic law. What matters is not the radicals, but the moderate majority.

Next point, the same critical method that Jews and Christians have used to modernize their religions CAN be employed with Islam. However, most Muslims are not doing so! Look at the Pew Research Studies, they all show high rates of suppport for suicide bombings amongst Muslims.

Because of the actions of the occupying powers (such as Israel and America) at which they are directed. Suicide bombing is a tactic, Tim, one aimed at getting foreign interlopers to withdraw. Inasmuch as it is aimed at military targets, it is a legitimate form of resistance. It has little to do with Islamic fundamentalism- Islamist organizations have simply usurped the role once played by secular nationalist and Marxist organizations (remember the P.L.O.?).

Where are the good Muslims to stand up and repudiate the violence in their religion, categorically?

Well, seeing as the American-backed dictatorships in the Middle East don’t permit much freedom of expression, they’re hard to hear. There is, indeed, a great deal of trouble with Islam today. It is an inferential leap, however, to conclude that this is the reason for terrorism. Islamic terrorism, which has simply replaced nationalist terrorism, is rooted in the concrete facts of the Islamic world’s current political environs.

“What’s not clear is why you don’t think the same critical method can be employed with the Qu’ran (and clearly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be lifting passages from it to argue that Islam is inherently violent). ”

Islam IS inherently violent, just like the Old Testament was. However, most Jews have repudiated the violent portions of it and modernized their religion. The vast majority of both reform, conservative and even some of the more modern orthodox Jews would be horrified at the thought of putting someone to death for many of the reasons descrbibed in the old testament. And, unlike the case with Islam, it just does not happen anymore! A Jewish ecclesiastical court has not put someone to death in 2,000 years. Jews don’t stone people to death for sexual immorality or anything else anymore, but Muslims do!

And the Christians have the New Testament, which I would argue in inherently peaceful, at least the things that Jesus said. Jesus said to “love your enemies” while the Quran says to strike off their heads, thats a pretty big difference if you ask me! Yes, Christians have done some awful things in the past, but they, unlike many Muslims, have progressed a great deal since then. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can put people to death, and actually does so, for “sexual crimes.” I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can execute someone for turning away from the religion. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam that would have a woman given 200 lashes after she was just raped. Jews don’t stone people to death anymore, Catholic Preists don’t burn people at the stake anymore. Judaism and Christianity have progressed a great deal. But a lot of the radical Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century.

Next point, the same critical method that Jews and Christians have used to modernize their religions CAN be employed with Islam. However, most Muslims are not doing so! Look at the Pew Research Studies, they all show high rates of suppport for suicide bombings amongst Muslims. Where are the good Muslims who will repudiate the violent portions of the Quran without making lame excuses like “it was taken out of context” or “it is refuted by other, more peaceful, portions of the Quran. Where are the good Muslims to stand up and refute the violance in their religion, categorically? There are some, yes. But far too few.

I will gladly stop singling them out when and if the overwhelming majority of homicide bombings and other terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are no longer being perpatraded by them.

Yes, it’s perfectly clear. What’s not clear is why you don’t think the same critical method can be employed with the Qu’ran (and clearly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be lifting passages from it to argue that Islam is inherently violent). The mere fact that you think you can repudiate the ugliest portions of the Talmud without undue theological consequence upends the better part of your puerile attacks on Islam.