I thought we were discussing whether Islam was inherently (and irrevocably) violent.

In that context, the differing interpretations of jihad matter a great deal.

If your point is merely that the "lesser jihad" exists, I agree. Duh.

My point is that the militant Islamists who think Islam justifies the killing of innocents and aggressive war against nonMuslims constitute a minority. Where the "war" version of Islam is most widely accepted is as a *defensive* struggle, not an offensive one.

As far as spreading Islam, the stated duty to turn the whole world to Islam does not inherently require violence, just like "spreading the good word" doesn't require missionaries to kill people. And most Muslims reject the whole "nonbelievers must submit to Islam" stuff. Just like most Jews and Christians reject nearly all of Leviticus.

You're reading the Quran like an Islamic fundamentalist. Most people don't.

So that *is* it: you're making a ridiculously obvious point. Sorry, I thought you were saying something beyond "the sky is blue."

I am never surprised by what theocracies and dictatorships do. Especially ones based in areas dominated by conservative, medieval, tribal cultures.

But to argue that those regimes and cultures are representative of Islam everywhere is folly.

And how, pray tell, did you determine that my links were apologists and wishful thinkers? Oh, right: they disagreed with your preconceived conclusion.

Muslims who disagree with the militants about the justification of suicide bombings, terrorism, offensive war and killing civilians.

See? You *are* claiming more than "there are militant interpretations of Islam." And it was to this that I was responding.

You are essentially claiming that all Muslims *must* hew to a militant fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. That's not true of any other religion; why must it be true of Islam?

Every religion has a not-too-devout majority. But Islam is, once again, somehow different than everybody else. What a convenient way to both dismiss that majority *and* suggest that they're all just suicide bombers in waiting.

I think the point was that Muslims aligned with the west are, by and large, more moderate.

That's such a disingenous dismissal I can't even respond. You're not even pretending to be objective. You're simply ignoring things that are inconvenient to your argument.

How obtuse can you be? If you're not going to read stuff, don't pretend you understand it. The section is talking about Muslims developing an Islamic interpretation whose place in the world is similar to Christianity's -- "a political stance that is in some sense inspired or informed by religious ideals but is neither dogmatic nor exclusionary."

You seem to be a one-man echo chamber sometimes.

I agree in general, with this caveat: The Old Testament describes an ideology that is just as exclusive and violent as anything in Islam, complete with divine justification for slaughtering the neighbors.

I think that's a distinction without much difference. If one wants to use the OT to justify killing nonbelievers, one can do it easily.

Once again, though, you're interpreting the Koran like a fundy, and ignoring alternative interpretations. Jews don't go around slaughtering people indiscriminately even though the OT allows it; there's no reason to think that Muslims must.

They condemn violence for spreading Islam, and they condemn the killing of innocents. For most Muslims, the only acceptable place for "militant jihad" is defensive war. And even then it's an obligation of governments, not individuals.

Have some Muslims twisted around the definition of "defensive war" to suit their political purposes? Sure. But that doesn't mean that everyone does or must agree.

I guess where I disagree is the whole "vastly overshadowed" bit. The Islamists are showy and violent, but they do not represent a majority even within the Middle East -- and nowhere near that outside it.

I *do* think we are witnessing a struggle for Islam's soul -- I've referred to it as Islam's Reformation. It's a struggle between the atavistic, violent, repressive Islam of the Taliban and the modern Islam of the West and Asia. It's going to be a messy struggle because it's not just about religion -- it's tangled up in the cultures and politics of regions where Islam holds sway. And the lack of a central authority (like the Catholic Church) complicates things further.

But those differing strains of Islam exist. Which is why I get bent out of shape whenever someone starts claiming "Muslims this" and "Muslims that." They're a diverse religion -- probably more diverse than Christianity. You can't just impose the fundy interpretation and insist that all Muslims must believe it.

Translation: Your single, unsubstantiated cite is accurate, but my substantiated cites aren't. Whatever.

Maybe Tantawi said what you claim. But he also said what I linked to. Those statements are diametrically opposed. So either he's saying one thing to one audience and another thing to another, or else he changed his mind (in which case my 2003 cite trumps yours), or else one of us is wrong.

What's dishonest? Your cite is from 2002. My link contains cites from 2001 and 2003 saying the opposite. Am I wrong about that?

__________________
Man up.