What the historical record ( and an analysis of current trends) show is that Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, can be, has been, and is subject to differing interpretations. That was the purpose of the Armstrong quote. Nothing in your post shows otherwise.

The term `aggressive` is clearly used here to describe a debating style. That`s bigotry in your book? I don`t agree.

When did I accept barbarism? You`ll struggle to quote me.

Even if I agreed with this it would merely reinforce what I have said. Different times, places, people = different interpretation. The Crusades were not fought for a love of government.

Not according to Akbar. Nor the millions of Muslims worldwide who live perfectly peaceable lives.

I don`t know enough about Islamic schools of Jurisprudence to even start. But I will point out that many majority Islamic states do not include violent Jihad in their codified laws. Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Turkey, etc. all have secular constitutions and laws with only family law falling under the purview of religious courts.

Are you serious? I have maintained that there is an interpretation of Islam, held by millions of Muslims that decries the ways of violence and you are asking me why these peaceful Muslims haven`t embarked on a violent jihad against others? Do you not recognise the absurdity of your question?


Okay, lets look. Your link shows that, with the exceptions of Jordan and Lebanon where the issue is obviously intertwined with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, that far more oppose such tactics than support them. IOW most do not support suicide bombings. It is interesting that you have ignored the voice of the majority preferring to use a minority to bolster your argument.


So they probably wouldn`t think much agnostics and atheists. Frankly I don`t care. I don`t think much of theism but as long as theists don`t attack me they can hold whatever opinion they want.

I`m sure it`s nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, right?

There`s nasty stuff in the Bible too. It all depends on how you interpret that stuff.


This is no more to do with Islam than a vote for Gee Dubya is supportive of Christianity but, once again, you have ignored the very large section in Muslim countries that do not look favourably upon him. From your link:

And this is from Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Ask the questions again of Muslims in the West and you will see yet another view.


I don`t really know the Pew institute nor have I seen the questions asked but if we accept their figures then I would say that the numbers do not lie but your use of them has been selective and your interpretation is deceptive.

Bigotry is not exclusive to the West.

You know, IRL, from most other posters I would accept this as a simple misunderstanding but you seem to be so well educated in this subject that I cannot help but think you are being disingenuous.

How can someone so knowledgeable in these issues not be aware that the UN`s Universal Declaration of Human Rights was affirmed and accepted by the League of Arab States on 15th Sept 1994, along with the declaration you linked as part of the The Arab Charter on Human Rights?

Thanks for the `Mr. Sunshine` moniker, by the way. Classier than the names Abu usually throws my way.

__________________
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Marx (G.)

I was going to reply on a point by point basis, but quite frankly don't see the point.

I will instead offer some closing assesments.

Interpretations are meaningless without action. The historical record of islam is violent and oppressive, more so than any other faith. It is "intrinsic" because it has been so since it's inception. "Interpretations" have a hard time mitigating this reality. Maybe they will some day, but they have not thus far. You can dreg the historical record for some "gem" example of isalmic tolerance, but it will remain the exception. Why the broken Westerner is so reluctant to describe the historical record as it is, confuses me. Ditto for the reality of the world as it exists today.

For the record, every mainstream sunni and shia school of islam believes violent jihad in god's name is justifiable. However they try to explain this away when compared to the historical record of islamic jihad, which they will also defend, the true intentions of islam as a political force is obvious. If you're serious about parsing the issue I will expound, otherwise I quite franky am not interested in trying to convert apologists.

I will specifically respond to this because it is a legit issue:

And I don't believe that I really need to describe politics or mitigation to you, but here goes:

The Arab states are obviously dictatorships that recognize the need to placate int'l demands and can do so contrary to public (islamic) opinion. At the same time they must placate the (muslim) mob too. Hence, the amendment (if you will).

Concernig the amendement, it really yields the UN charter meaningless. Have you ever read the islamic version? It subjugates everything to sharia law. Do I need to explain what this means in ACTION, interpretations aside.

rgds

__________________
"I have been made victorious through terror" ~ the profit mohammed (Bukhari 4:52:220)

The truth hurts, but not as bad as a being beheaded.