Bless you, my son.

Keep putting them up. I don't mind ignoring links that have no bearing on the issue. If you won't read them yourself to include significant quotes, obviously they don't mean anything. However, if you're looking to win a "link" war of some kind, I give up. You win.

The fact that there is more than one interpretation of jihad in no way mitigates the fact that militant jihad is a tenet of Islam. The dualism of Islam has been well documented by a number of sources. Go to http://www.cspipublishing.com and you'll see what I mean. The Koran is composed of two books, the Koran of Mecca (early) and the Koran of Medina (later). Of course, like all Holy Books, there are a large number of contradictions in it. Islam resolves these contradictions by resorting to "abrogation," which means the later verse supercedes the earlier verse. But, in fact, since the Koran is considered by all Muslims to be the perfect word of Allah, both verses are sacred and true. The later verse is "better", in the sense that the earlier verse is cannot be wrong since Allah is perfect. The circumstances govern which verse is used.

For instance: (Koran of Mecca) 73.10 - "Listen to what they [unbelievers] say with patience, and give them dignity." In contrast, we have: (Koran of Medina) 8:12 "Then your Lord spoke to His angels and said, "I will be with you. Give strength to the believers. I will send terror into unbelievers hearts, cut off their heads and even the tips of their fingers!" So, Islam, by nature, is dualistic. Arguments over what constitutes "real" Islam are flawed if they do not include the whole of Islamic teachings. My argument does. I do not deny that Islam has spiritual interpretations of jihad. I merely point out the blatantly obvious fact that there are militant interpretations, which you have chosen, sitting in your little politically correct ivory tower, to ignore.

And I'm not arguing that doctrines of peaceful jihad don't exist. You seem to keep thinking that by putting those words in my mouth, somehow you'll get the upper hand in our disagreement. Just take a look at the Bukhari (the Hadith) for a comparison. Bukhari repeatedly speaks of jihad, and, of all his references, only 3% are about spiritual jihad. A full 97% of all the references in Muhammad ibn Ismail al-Bukhari's writings are about jihad as war. Sunni Muslims view Bukhari as their most trusted collection of scriptures, calling it the most authentic book after the Holy Koran.

This is a misunderstanding on your part, and evidence of a lack of scholarship. It's a noted tenet in Islam that there is no compunction in religion. A Muslim, who faithfully follows the Koran, will never force you to become Muslim. However, it is written, in the Prophet's own words, that non-Muslims must show submission to Islam. Don't you find it curious that Christian churches are, by law, not allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or any other Middle Eastern Islamic Republic? Throwing up vacuous links by Western apologists and wishful-thinkers cannot deny that single fact. So, while a Muslim may not force me to convert, as would be expected in "wars to spread religion," it's still a accepted theology that Islam must have the submission non-Muslims.

Moderation is a relative term which you baste all your arguments with. What is "moderate"? If Osama is im-moderate, that leaves a lot of room. My contention, which you have obfuscated and failed to disprove, is that all Muslims accept the militant interpretation of jihad, because they have to, because the Prophet has said it is the word of God. And you keep throwing up vague references to moderation.

Agreed. Southeast Asia has taken measures to avoid radicalization. The problem is that they will fail, because the basic tenets of their faith will not allow a peaceful view of their world.

Give me a break, dude. You don't read your own links yourself. Quote me something. If it's noteworthy, I'll read the whole article. I have a life too, you know. As it is, I think you're just throwing up links because you don't know what you're talking about. You call me ignorant and a propagandist. I'll guarantee you, I'm not going to spend my time catering to your politically correct whims.

In other words, these people don't read the Koran, so they can't express an opinion on it. Quite possibly, all it would take is one mullah to tell them to protest some Danish cartoons by killing people, -lo and behold- and they would do it.

This is pretty sad. I was expecting something substantial. So, you're saying we should call Muslims moderates because they align with the West. Good job. You've proven that Islam is the religion of peace. Everyone can go home now.

Well, since the West has been known to kill people too, I guess this reference really doesn't help you much.

A Christian Muslim? Wow, I wonder what percent of the Islamic proletariate they are? I would bet less than a fraction of 1%. Of course, you complete gloss over this number. I wonder why?

None of which matter, because none of them address the core issue, that Islam has an militant element in its teachings....

My whole thesis has been how they are wrong. That's the big elephant in the room. It's not my interpretation of Islam either. Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, Tafsir-al-Jalalyn, and innumerable other classic and respected Koran commentaries, all - one and all - have maintained that vilent jihad is part of the Muslim community's responsibility. You've offered nothing in response.

Sura 9:29 says, "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, even if they are the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) until they pay the Jiyza with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Now, even though great violence has been committed in the name of Christianity, nowhere in the Bible is violence stated as an ideology, whereas in the Koran it is. In the Old Testament, Yahweh clearly orders the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples, but nowhere does Yahweh command the Hebrews to destroy all non-believers or non-Hebrews. In stark contrast, the Koran abounds with passages that describes how Muslims should treat with non-Muslims, and those passages are not very forgiving, to say the least. Islam commands certain violence, against women, against apostates, and against non-believers.

But they don't condemn militant jihad. You see, your arguments are all Straw Man arguments, the arguments of a propagandist. I've never said that "all Muslims support terrorism," but, rather dishonestly, you put these words in my mouth and then try to paint me as a liar, while, in truth, it is you who are propagating the lie.

Perhaps not an apologist, but perhaps a wishful thinker. That's how I see you. Yes, I know there are a great many Muslims who reject militant behavior, but they are vastly overshadowed by those who practice Islam as it is preached in Islamic Republics. You keep ignoring the elephant in the room, the large number of terrorist groups, the popular reaction to Danish cartoons, the silence over acts of terrorism against Israel, and you chose to paint a rosy picture of Islam. Your rosy picture is not real, and you know it. Everyone who is reading this knows it.

You really have reached a new low. Tantawi has advocated terrorism. This is what I have stated. You may dance around the truth and try to prostitute your lie, but that is not going to change reality. Since we're talking about butts, why don't you pull your head out of yours for a minute?

Bull. These last lines of yours show such incredible intellectual dishonesty I don't think I'll reply to them. Let's just say, unlike Coyote, you wouldn't know truth unless it hit you in rear end.