Thank you for reading and for commenting. Yes, unfortunately most of the vaunted American Press Corps leans far to the left, holding hands with the World of Islam. So, no, we do not get pictures and stories of Muslim atrocities. The beheadings of Pearl, Armstrong, Berg et al are long forgotten.

But there are sites like this one, where we have not forgotten.

Best wishes,

JW

I think the answers lie somewhere between the over-generalizations of the more conservative writers and the overly relativistic ideas of the more liberal folks. Ultimately we all take our sides I suppose…but I still try to argue for the middle ground one way or another.

"Time will tell us more about where all this is going, will it not? "

Ya, that's the hard part. All of these opinions and ideas are all well and good, but the only true test is time. Good point!

Seeya.

It matters how these things are interpreted. Books do not force people to do anything. People either decide to act or they are convinced to act by others.

Your argument completely dispels any notion of actual responsibility by pretending that the source of all of this is not the political and military leaders who call for violence, but the old texts and doctrines that they use to rationalize it. I vote for avoiding the generalizations about the powers of old doctrines and for holding specific contemporary individuals and organizations accountable.

You have already acknowledged the fact that most Muslims are NOT violent extremists, which kind of shoots your basic thesis down right there. The problem is clearly not Islam, but those who use it for violence. My point: clearly adherence to Islam does not automatically result in violence (as millions of followers empirically demonstrate). So there must be something else that we should look into.

But you're not getting that for some reason.

I have mine, along with evidentiary reasons for holding them. I sincerely thank you for the debate and wish you well. And I also thank you for exercising your right to free speech by commenting here.

Time will tell us more about where all this is going, will it not?

JW

"This scripture relates Jesus' narration of a parable about a nobleman who gave each of his servants ten pounds, then demanded an accounting of how each spent the money. It is the nobleman in the parable that speaks the words about killing them who would not serve him. Jesus never commanded anyone to kill non-believers. Muhammad did, and killed them himself."

Ya, I know where it comes from. That's why I used this one–this is one example of how people use an out of context quote to try to prove something about these types of doctrines. It's easy to clear up with a little more context. This is one of the most common passages that is taken out of context to mean that violence against non-believers was advocated. Read what I wrote above before you jump the gun.

"You've completely misrepresented the words in this scripture and the context in which they were spoken. I refuse to debate any more. I'm wasting my time."

You didn't read what I wrote. I pulled that quote PRECISELY because it's one that people use all the time to try to claim that Jesus called for violence against non-believers. But the actual context reveals otherwise. It's pretty cut and dry, and was meant to illustrate that a lot of this has to do with interpretation and what people do with it. But you missed that point.

But there are ghosts in the system that like to gobble up perfectly good comments sometimes.

If your comment doesn't show up and you don't know why then contact us about it. It's more likely than not a glitch.

This scripture relates Jesus' narration of a parable about a nobleman who gave each of his servants ten pounds, then demanded an accounting of how each spent the money. It is the nobleman in the parable that speaks the words about killing them who would not serve him. Jesus never commanded anyone to kill non-believers. Muhammad did, and killed them himself.

You've completely misrepresented the words in this scripture and the context in which they were spoken. I refuse to debate any more. I'm wasting my time.

Best wishes,

JW

"Where in codified Christian doctrine is violence against non-believers mandated? I would be very interested to read that."

Now you want to play interpretive ping-pong? I think that starts to miss the whole point–much of this comes down to some very ancient doctrines and how different people interpret them and put them to use. In the Bible, people try to use this quote as one example of what you are talking about:

Luke 19:27

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

That SEEMS to argue that non-believers should be killed…but this passage is interpreted in many different ways by Christians. But there it is, in the text. By your logic, this should be damning evidence…in mine it matters more what people make of this and how they decide to act in accordance. The same goes for Islam. It's not about just quote-farming and finding evil passages in Islamic doctrine…IMO it's more important to pay attention to the people and organizations who actually advocate and commit violence.

"All Muslims do not act in the same way. I never asserted that. Please do not put words into my hand that I did not write. Most Muslims live peaceful lives and do not answer the call to violent jihad…"

Good, I am glad to see that you recognize this point.

"…you still have not acknowedged is a codified, documented tenet of Islam."

I completely understand this fact. But you seem stuck on the idea that this somehow means that people have no choice, and that they automatically impelled to followed 1400 year old ideologies. Your version completely dispels any notion of actual responsibility, and seems to argue that these terrorists are merely products of history. My argument is that you have to pay closer attention to what is going on–you can't just lump all of Islam into one coherent historical narrative because it makes for good storytelling. There is a lot more to it. The issues that we are seeing in the ME have their own specific histories, and many of the current issues have a lot more to do with recent histories (19th and 20th century) than they do the 1600s.

Also, plenty of ancient ideologies and religions have aspects that can be used to justify violence. Humanity as a whole has been plagued by violence. People manipulate these sorts of things all the time. History makes that pretty clear. Have you ever read some of the ways in which the Spanish justified what they were doing in the Americas? Was that the fault of Christian doctrine or the Spanish conquistadors?

Clearly there are violent extremists who use Islamic tenets to justify violence. But there is no need to start drawing upon 7th century religious doctrine to explain all of this. That certainly IS NOT the only determining factor. We should probably pay attention to all of the wars that have ravaged the region, to the corrupt military leaders, to colonial histories, etc. The terrorism that we are seeing today cannot simply be boiled down to the tenets of Islam, despite the fact that fools like Bin Laden use those tenets as part of their propaganda all the time.

"I can see you have an issue specifically with Robert Spencer. You brought his name up two times. That must be a very sore spot. Fine."

Again, you're long on assumptions. I could care less about Spencer–he is just another polemic who I put in the same camp as Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. Polemic pop history that glosses over the details in favor of shockers that sell. Big deal. There is more to history and international politics than the comic book versions that these people pump out.

"How about Brigitte Gabriel, Diana West, Mark Steyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Gregory Davidson, John Esposito, Walid Shoebat, Reza Aslan, Edward Said, Winston Churchill, John Quincy Adams."

Well, that covers a lot more of the spectrum. But I would put Pipes in the same reactionary camp as Michael Moore. That's just me though.

"In twenty years of American police work, I did grasp the idea of following the evidence. I'm following the evidence. The doctrine says what it says, despite what apologists may say to try to obfuscate it."

Great, but the evidence is more than just 7th century doctrine. There are many different trajectories of what Islam "really means" and we can't just connect the dots where we see fit because it fits a particularly appealing version of the story.

Can we find the roots of contemporary US in ancient Greece and ancient Judeo-Christian ideology? Yes, to an extent. But to argue that the actions of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were determined by those ancient philosophies is to ignore a massive amount of more recent historical events, decisions, and contexts.

Claiming that we can understand the actions of AQ by only looking at the ancient tenets of Islam is to ignore a massive amount of historical and political data…and it also somewhat takes the blame away from people like Al Sadr and Bin Laden. Is your argument, ultimately, that they did what they did because some old book told them to? The problem is the fact that Bin Laden actively chose to manipulate people and ideology to fit his violent agenda–that's the problem.

"And as to your allusion to the IRA, it is an organization based in Marxist ideology, not Christianity."

That's a pretty nice reading of the IRA–they were composed of Christians, and the violence was very much about religions (and political differences).

"May I suggest that you actually do some research into the ideology of Islam. Read Robert Spencer, Stephen Coughlin, Bat Ye'or, Hugh Fitzgerald, Wafa Sultan. The highest calling of all Muslims is to wage violent jihad against non-believers and die in the act."

May I suggest that you broaden your reading list outside of the likes of Spencer. Also, notice that Sultan is talking specifically about RADICAL Islam–that's an important point.

"It is the abjectly stubborn refusal by people like yourself to examine, debate and understand these doctrines, and their direct correlation to acts of terror, that has put us into this terrible fix. Until minds are opened our situation will only continue to deteriorate."

How am I stubborn? Because I disagree with you? How do you know what I am willing to "examine, debate, and understand"? Do me a favor and drop the assumptions.

Your version of history is incredibly oversimplified. You completely ignore the fact there is not just one Islam, and that not all Muslims, by any means, are terrorists. By your logic, should be blame "Christianity" for the terrorism of the IRA? Hardly. The IRA, while composed of many Christians, was an organization with specific histories and politics.

Your version of history assumes that all Muslims are somehow like-thinking and all act the same. You also assume that history and doctrine dictates the actions of all Muslims, as if they are all automatons. The only problem with your theory is that it's all in your head (and in Spencer's and maybe Ann Coulter's). All Muslims around the world DO NOT act and think the same, and Islam takes some very different forms.

Therefore, the problem is not Islam per so (since that's an ideology that can be used toward various ends) but what SPECIFIC people and groups do in the name of Islam. Yes, there are terrorist organizations, and yes, they need to be dealt with. No doubt about that. But there is no need to simply assume that since SOME Muslims commit terrorism therefore Islam is all about terrorism. They don't. And you have empirical reality to back that up. If you're not blinded by your own ideology, then you'll take the time to read a little more and realize that history isn't always as neat and self-serving as writers like Spencer make it appear.