Short post to make up for all of my long rants.

Most civilisations in the past have used conquest as a means of spreading their religion. Christianity is no different. This does not mean Islam actually teaches this. Heres a piece from the Qu’ran supporting my point.

“Surely the believers and the Jews, Christians and Sabians [Middle East groups traditionally recognised by Islam as having a monotheistic orientation], whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret” (2:62).

‘China probably doesn’t register as a current threat to the Islamofascists, because they’re not doing much in the Middle East.’

China actually has problems with Islamic fundamentalism. Its estimated 15 to 40 million Muslims live in China. Most notably in the Xinjiang area, which was annexed along with Tibet. It has had problems with terrorism in the past.

‘Not because the people are not Muslim, but because the country is not Muslim. In Iraq, the hardliners who kill Muslims (usually accidentally, as they just happened to be near the explosion when the bomb went off)’

There is no accident about the killing of fellow Muslims in Iraq. Iraqi’s who have any association with the Coalition, or want to are the target of extremists. Note the suicide bombings against Iraqi muslims trying to join the police force.

‘It’s not the religion of the victims that matters, it’s the fact that the states involved were part of the Dar al-Harb.’

I disagree. Al Qaeda, maybe. But people like the Chechnyians, and terrorists within Iraq are fighting, chiefly a political war against occupation, and in the case of Chechnya for an independent state. Its important that Chechnya is not exclusively Muslim, Christians also fight for the separatist cause. Same in Palestine, Christian Palestinians fight alongside their Muslim countrymen.

‘would agree with Omar that jihad should be interpreted as peaceful struggle, there is a significant number who do not. In their interpretation, jihad means “holy war” and justifies just about anything.’

Good call. I agree with you here, im just saying that these terrorists use the term indiscriminatly, despite the fact the Qu’ran speaks against this. The purpose of Jihad, is not to take over the world for Islam, and the Qu’ran states this.

Maybe a better way of phrasing it would have been: “Let’s figure out a course of action that moderate Muslims won’t mind, but that will have the Islamofascists absolutely quivering with rage. Then let’s do it as fast as we can.”

I wouldn’t be too surprised to see India targeted by the Islamofascists, either. On the other hand, Pakistan is right next door. Maybe the reason they haven’t carried out terrorist attacks in India is because they’re diverting those resources towards preparing Pakistan for a conventional war.

China probably doesn’t register as a current threat to the Islamofascists, because they’re not doing much in the Middle East. Ditto Switzerland, etc.

Yes, I think U.S. actions in the Middle East probably have something to do with the Islamofascists’ hatred of the U.S. After all, our vision of democratic governments, carrying freedom of religion with them, is a major threat to the Islamofascists’ desire to spread the Dar al-Islam across the entire world. Bin Laden cited the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia as one of the reasons why he wanted to attack the U.S., although personally I think the combination of America’s high visibility and the “weak horse” theory was the largest factor in that decision. (”People will back the strong horse, and America is a weak horse” is how I remember Bin Laden’s words. He figured that America wouldn’t respond in a significant way to the September 11th attacks. He figured wrong.)

But you know what? I wholeheartedly oppose the Islamofascists’ goal! I think trying to appease them by picking foreign policy positions that please them would be a horrendous mistake, because their ultimate goal is nothing short of world domination. To push an analogy, we can’t just let them have the Sudetenland and hope they’ll be satisfied. They won’t. No matter what actions America takes, the Islamofascists will still come up with reasons to hate us and attack us. Therefore, I think a good rule of thumb for foreign policy decisions might well be, “Let’s figure out what would please the Islamofascists the most. Then let’s make sure to do the exact opposite.”

So Miller is correct and his opponents are wrong, Kerry did oppose the systems, even if they never did come up for a vote outside of committee.

In other words, do you really think U.S. policies in the Middle East have nothing to do with any of this?

“Islam does not teach forced conversion.”

Its early history suggests otherwise. Muhammed was a war leader, and his immediate successors carried on his tradition. Islam’s early spread was primarily through conquest. The non-violent spread of Islam is a much more recent phenomenon.

“Islam … does not recognise Jesus as a ’son of God’.”

I knew that already, I just didn’t point it out in my post.

“Western definitions of Jihads are usually pretty flawed. Jihad simply means ’struggle.’”

That’s why I did not attempt to expound the definition of jihad at any great length; I simply linked to a site that has a much better analysis of what the Qu’ran (and various Islamic teachers commenting on the Qu’ran) have said about jihad.

The main point, I believe, is that while many Muslims (quite possibly the vast majority, although I don’t know how to find numbers on the subject) would agree with Omar that jihad should be interpreted as peaceful struggle, there is a significant number who do not. In their interpretation, jihad means “holy war” and justifies just about anything. They are the ones generally referred to as the “Islamofascists”; they are the ones who fly planes into office buildings and take schoolchildren hostage.

We’re not trying to analyse why moderate Muslims commit these acts, because moderate Muslims don’t commit them. We’re trying to analyse the mindset of the hard-line radicals; and they don’t believe what Omar just stated.

“I disagree with the assumption fundamentalist attacks are made just because the people are not Muslim.”

Not because the people are not Muslim, but because the country is not Muslim. In Iraq, the hardliners who kill Muslims (usually accidentally, as they just happened to be near the explosion when the bomb went off) are usually committing those acts of violence in opposition to the U.S. occupation. Or, more recently, in opposition to the new Iraqi government, which they see as illegitimate because it was set up by the U.S. and co-operates with the U.S. military. In places like America and Russia, the violence is because those are non-Islamic states.

Omar is right that these fundamentalist attacks have little to do with the religion of the victims. There may have been Muslims among the victims in the WTC and the Russian school; because of the large numbers of people, there’s a very high likelihood that a good number of them were Muslim. But the terrorists carried out those attacks anyway, because they wanted to send a message to America and Russia. It’s not the religion of the victims that matters, it’s the fact that the states involved were part of the Dar al-Harb.

‘Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets, and acknowledges the Bible as a holy book, but says that later revelation (such as the Qu’ran) trumps earlier revelation like the Bible.’

This is true. Islam recognises previous prophets, but does not recognise Jesus as a ’son of God.’ Islam is heavily tied to Judaism and Christianity.

‘Note that the term “jihad” does not necessarily mean “holy war”, and many Muslims interpret jihad to mean the struggle of persuading non-Muslims to follow the principles of Islam. But there is a strong strain of Islam which interprets jihad to mean “holy war”, and there is plenty of evidence in the Qu’ran to support that.’

Western definitions of Jihads are usually pretty flawed. Jihad simply means ’struggle.’ Jihad can be both offensive and defensive, but only in the right situations. This is what the Qu’ran says.

” Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love the transgressors” (Qur’an 2:190).

‘I have not been able to find any Qu’ranic support for the claim that those who become martyrs in jihad will be granted seventy-two women as wives in Paradise;’

In terms of the Qu’ran, this doesnt exist. This is an interpretation, like Christian interpretations of heaven.

‘But if you follow Islam all your life, you will still be questioning and wondering: “Did I do enough? Did I live a good enough life? Or when I get to Paradise, will I discover that I didn’t quite measure up becasue I skipped early-morning prayers every now and then?” ‘

The Qu’ran teaches there are several levels of paradise, each beyond human logic.

I disagree with the assumption fundamentalist attacks are made just because the people are not Muslim.
In Iraq, extremists have been known to kill people who are Muslim to achieve their goals. Islam recognises that Christians and Jews are ‘people of the book,’ and should be tolerated. In Medieval times, Muslims accepted Jews and Christians, albeit they made the pay a special tax. This didnt happen in Christian countries. Those of other religions, and even Christians who didnt follow the Pope were ruthlessly hunted down.

‘”Surely the believers and the Jews, Christians and Sabians [Middle East groups traditionally recognised by Islam as having a monotheistic orientation], whoever believes in God and the Last Day, and whoever does right, shall have his reward with his Lord and will neither have fear nor regret” (2:62).

Islam does not teach forced conversion.

In 2001 he praised Kerry’s record on defending this country.

How much have you studied the general principles of Islam? If you’ve made a detailed study, then what I’m about to say will be repeating stuff you already know. But if you’ve never studied it, then this may be new information to you.

Before I start, I should point out that I am not a Muslim. I am a Christian. But from here on out I’ll be writing from the perspective of Islam as best I understand it. For clarity’s sake, I’m not going to put “according to the teachings of Islam” into every sentence, but just read it as there, OK?

The word “islam”, in Arabic, means “submission” — submission to the will of God (Allah), as revealed through Muhammed, the final prophet. Islam acknowledges Moses and Jesus as prophets, and acknowledges the Bible as a holy book, but says that later revelation (such as the Qu’ran) trumps earlier revelation like the Bible. Where the Qu’ran contradicts the Bible, the Qu’ran is to be followed, because it came after the Bible. And within the Qu’ran, the later surahs trump the earlier surahs. (Later in chronological order, that is.) This can be tricky for non-Muslims to figure out, because the Qu’ran is not arranged in chronological order, but rather in length order, with the lengthier surahs first and the shorter ones last.

The basic world view of Islam is that the world is divided into two parts: the Dar al-Islam (”house of submission”), where Islam rules (which usually is interpreted to mean that the government is run along Qu’ranic principles); and the Dar al-Harb (”house of war”), where Islam does not yet rule. Note the word “yet” in the previous sentence. It is the ultimate destiny of Islam to bring the entire world into submission to itself, and the means to do so is through jihad, “holy struggle”. Note that the term “jihad” does not necessarily mean “holy war”, and many Muslims interpret jihad to mean the struggle of persuading non-Muslims to follow the principles of Islam. But there is a strong strain of Islam which interprets jihad to mean “holy war”, and there is plenty of evidence in the Qu’ran to support that. I won’t go into all of it here; over at http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/jihad.html, you can find a very detailed analysis of the word “jihad” in Islamic tradition.

Finally, the concept of martyrdom. From the same page: “Those who…fought in the path of God have the hope of the mercy of God…” (02:215). “Those that…fought and died for My cause shall be forgiven their sins and admitted to gardens watered by running streams…” (03:194). I have not been able to find any Qu’ranic support for the claim that those who become martyrs in jihad will be granted seventy-two women as wives in Paradise; but that the claim exists and is widely believed is quite clear. Look, for example, at the case several months ago of a mentally-retarded teenager who had been recruited as a suicide bomber. (This was either in Iraq or Israel; I forget which). He was caught by the guards at a checkpoint and disarmed without being killed. When questioned about why he did it, part of his answer was “Nobody would want me to marry their daughter; so martyrdom is the only way I’ll ever get to experience sex.”

Besides the obvious benefits of Paradise for those who die in the cause of jihad, there is another benefit that may not be obvious to non-Muslims until it is pointed out. While the Qu’ran lists a whole lot of things one must do in order to be allowed into Paradise (give alms, pray five times a day, etc.), there is no guarantee that such things will be sufficient! There is a certain guarantee of hell for those who do not follow the teachings of Islam, or for those who slack off in their duty. But if you follow Islam all your life, you will still be questioning and wondering: “Did I do enough? Did I live a good enough life? Or when I get to Paradise, will I discover that I didn’t quite measure up becasue I skipped early-morning prayers every now and then?” The only guaranteed way to get to Paradise (and this guarantee is right there in the Qu’ran) is to die a holy martyr in the cause of jihad.

OK, enough talking from an Islamic perspective. Back to being me again.

Put all this together. The world not controlled by Islam is the Dar al-Harb (”house of war”). Jihad is the holy struggle against non-believers. Becoming a martyr in the cause of jihad is the only way to know for certain that you’ll reach Paradise, says Islam — and the promise of Paradise is a pretty nice one indeed. Is it any surprise at all, then, that a rational Muslim will deliberately choose martyrdom? If you believe all this, then martyrdom is suddenly not the act of a crazed fanatic at all, but the right choice based on a very rational cost-reward analysis. Suicide bombings, piloting planes into buildings, whatever: the means are many, but the end is the same. They want to become martyrs in the process of killing infidels, because that’s the way to get into Paradise. America, Israel, whoever. Doesn’t matter. They’re all part of the Dar al-Harb; they’re all infidels.

How’s that as evidence for the claim that “Islamofascists attack America [and other countries] because it is not an exclusively Islamic state”?