Name a few, please.

Perhaps, or perhaps you don't know what you're talking about.

The author is not a Muslim, much less a Muslim scholar.

There are more than one definition of jihad. My claim is only that no Muslim scholar has discounted or denied the veracity of the militant version.

But none of them disagree with the Prophet himself. They just disagree with the application of jihad. I'm talking about the principle of war in the name of religion. This principle is a part of Islamic teaching.

To drive the point home:

Well, thank you. And thank you for putting words in my mouth.

But my statement still stands, and quoting rabbi's and Western journalists doesn't really impress me.

Muhammad, in a hadith that is well-attested to being his own words: "I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact there is no god but Allah, and believe in me that I am the messenger from the Lord and in all that I have brought."

Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi has described suicide bombing that killed innocent bystanders as "a legitimate act according to religious law, and an Islamic commandment."

The theory of jihad in the military sense was derived by classical Muslim theologians from the Koran, scholars who are still read today, like Ibn Tamiyyah, Averroes, and Ibn Khaldun, and not some fringe group who look to find some religious justification for war. In fact, Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, translator of the Hadith collection "Sahih Bukhari", has explained that the Koran's violent verses take precedence over its peaceful ones: "At first the fighting was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory." S.K. Malik in "The Koranic Concept of War" says Allah gave Muslims "a divine command making war a religious obligation for the faithful." All four schools of Sunni Muslim jurisprudence teach an elaborate doctrine of jihad that sanctions violence in the name of Islam.

Again, please name one Muslim authority who has repudiated violent jihad.

Sufis
Ahmadis
Most Muslims living in the West, regardless of sect

Here's a survey article on moderate Muslims.

So what? In order to disprove your absurd claim, I can't rely on reporting, I have to go track down specific Islamic scholars? To which you'll doubtless reply "well, that's just one."

Sorry. I'm going to provide broad scope links that show the overall picture.

My links say otherwise, notwithstanding your rejection of journalists and Israeli rabbis as viable sources.

Jihad translates as "struggle." That has multiple meanings.

Yes, historically Islam was used to justify conquest. But then, so was the God of the Old Testament. As I've noted before, if Christians can ignore inconvenient verses in the Bible, why do you insist that Muslims cannot? Especially when hundreds of millions of them *do*, ever day?

Yep, Muhammad was a warrior and conqueror. No question. And the Jews killed everyone in Jericho, and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and sent bears to kill children. The Bible is soaked in blood.

If your point is that Muhammad wasn't anywhere near as peaceful as Jesus, no duh. That does not mean that Islam is inherently violent, or that it can't evolve and discard its most violent aspects.

The point of the first link I provided was to show that Muslims themselves have been divided over the meaning and scope of jihad since the beginning. So maybe the passage you quote simply isn't as clear-cut and authoritative as you'd like to think it is.

That would seem to be badly outdate, if not a blatant lie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Sayyid_Tantawy

To quote the relevant text:

He has taken a line against Suicide bombings, and unlike his compatriot Yusuf al-Qaradawi, he has condemned the use of suicide bombings against Israelis, rejecting the argument that all Israelis were legitimate targets because at some stage they would all carry a gun. In 2003 he called suicide bombers "enemies of Islam", adding "people of different beliefs should co-operate and not get into senseless conflicts and animosity. Extremism is the enemy of Islam. Whereas, jihad is allowed in Islam to defend one's land, to help the oppressed. The difference between jihad in Islam and extremism is like the earth and the sky"

Speaking after the September 11, 2001 attacks he said "It's not courage in any way to kill an innocent person, or to kill thousands of people, including men and women and children." He said that Osama bin Laden's call for a Jihad against the west was "invalid and not binding on Muslims", adding "Killing innocent civilians is a horrific, hideous act that no religion can approve". He said the Qur'an "specifically forbids the kinds of things the Taliban and al-Qaida are guilty of".

You did, with your Grand Sheik. I list entire populations that have repudiated it at the beginning of this post. And like it or not, the broader context links I provided say the same thing.

__________________
Man up.

Strong? In most? I don't see that and yes, I'm familiar with that study. It appears to show declining support for violence.

For example look at the following from their site:



Many of those are also very small extremist terrorist groups, some supported by Al Queda others not seeking to destabilize governments. If you look at Wikipedia's list of recognized terrorist organizations you will find a great many Islamist ones, but you also find a number of other religious terrorist groups, political groups and many ethnic terrorist groups. What all the religious groups have in common is extremism - an extremism that feels violence against innocent people is justified in the name of their religion. In fact - moderate Christians and Muslims have far more in common with each other then they do with their extremist factions.

The number is not so small as you think. Look at the "Religious Right" in this country - look at the constant attempts to force creationism into schools disguised as science.

Muslims reject the violent verses in the Koran every day...unless you believe there are 2.3 billion muslims out there busy jihading (not).

There are Muslim authorities who indeed have repudiated this meaning of Jihad, one example (from many that came up in searches): http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...EAskTheScholar

Again, it comes down to words...whether one chooses to interpret doctrine in a fundamentalist and literal way or seek deeper meaning through context and metaphor.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

here we have a grouping of 57 nations melding the religious with the political:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is an international organization grouping fifty seven States which have decided to pool their resources together, combine their efforts and speak with one voice to safeguard the interests and secure the progress and well-being of their peoples and of all Muslims in the world.


The Organization was established in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco, on 12 Rajab 1389H (25 September 1969) when the First meeting of the leaders of the Islamic world was held in the wake of the criminal Zionist attempt to burn down the Blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque on 21 August 1969 in the occupied city of Al-Quds.


Six months after that historic event, i.e. in Muharram 1390H (March 1970), the First Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers was held in Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during which the OIC General Secretariat was established to ensure coordination among Member States. The Conference appointed a Secretary General for the Organization and chose Jeddah as the city to house its temporary Headquarters pending the liberation of Al-Quds Al-Sharif to which the General Secretariat will then be transferred, as the Permanent seat of the Organization.


Under the Charter, the Organization aims to:


1. Strengthen:


a) Islamic solidarity among Member States:


b) Cooperation in the political, economic, social, cultural and scientific fields:


c) The struggle of all Muslim people to safeguard their dignity, independence and nantional rights.


2. Coordinate action to:

a) Safeguard the Holy Places;


b) Support the struggle of the Palestinian people and assist them in recovering their rights and liberating their occupied territories.


3. Work to:


a) Eliminate racial discrimination and all forms of colonialism;


b) Create a favourable atmosphere for the promotion of cooperation and understanding between Member States and other countries.


The Charter also enumerates the principles governing OIC activities, namely:


1. Full equality among Member States;


2. Observation of the right to self-determination and non-interference in the internal affairs of Member States;


3. Observation of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each State;


4. The settlement of any dispute that might arise among Member States by peaceful means such as negotiations, mediation, conciliation and arbitration;


5. A pledge to refrain, in relations among Member States, from resorting to force or threatening to resort to the use of force against the unity and territorial integrity or the political independence of any one of them;


In order to coordinate and boost its action, align its stands, and achieve concrete results in various fields of cooperation, political, economic, cultural, social, spiritual and scientific among Member States, the OIC Summit and Ministerial Conferences have created different committees including:


-- The Al-Quds Committee,


-- The Standing Committee for Information and Cultural Affairs (COMIAC),


-- The Standing Committee for Economic and Trade Cooperation (COMCEC),


-- The Standing Committee for Scientific and Technical Cooperation (COMSTECH),


-- The Islamic Commission on Economic, Cultural and Social Affairs.

http://www.oic-un.org/about/over.htm

once again the koran in the sequence as revealed to mohamed demonstrates an evolving intolerance.


you have presented a contradiction which indeed makes your words meaningless on the topic therefore you cannot use them.

so after you nullify your statement you continue as if you had not nullified your words with "In addition - Jesus can not be entirely removed from the context of the Bible which is full of bloody crap and smiting and vengeance"

your statement is not coherent.

mohamed was a marauder who savaged and plundered the surrounding communities. he had members of whole communities summarily murdered and the women/children put into slavery. i want you to demonstrate comparable behavior in jesus.

i gave the example of his 10th wife, Safiyah, whom he raped within sight of the slaughter of her husband, father and relatives.

in your zero sum multicultural manipulations provide similar jesus activity. you excused mohamed's behavior as representative of the time thus jesus living centuries earlier should have manifested equally primitive behavior.

Quote:
Originally Posted by halla
"I think that Islam as a set of norms and ideals that emphasizes the equality of people, the accountability of leaders to community, and the respect of diversity and other faiths, is fully compatible with democracy."

by that assertion, one would think the islamic world brimming with democracy. but reality check posits the opposite. thus the author's opinion is vacuous and without merit.

9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

Anyone can cherry-pick quotes. Thus this opinion is vacuous and without merit.
************************************
i do not think i was picking cherry when i quoted from a post you provided

the proof is in the pudding. if islam is fully compatible with democracy as posited then there should be mandy examples in the islamic world. as a counter argument i proved sura 9.5 which demonstrates the opposite of what is required of a democracy.

it is not that i am picking cherries, but that you are blowing bubbles.

Strong? In most? I don't see that and yes, I'm familiar with that study. It appears to show declining support for violence.

For example look at the following from their site:



the fact that the study shows a declining support doesn't mean that strong support for "suicide bombing" doesn't exist. it may mean that "suicide bombing" are counteproductive since they have declined from higher to lower numbers. one of the reasons for the iraq population turning against al qaeda is because of the indiscriminate nature of "suicide bombings"

here is another graph from same link supporting that save the palestinians who have a warm place in their heart for suicide bombing thus justifying israel's suicide deterrent barrier:

it seems little desire for separation of mosque/state in islamoland.

sura 9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

I agree that it's declining, but in each of the nations mentioned in the survey the numbers are significant. Are you denying that?

Nowhere did I claim that "all Muslims are extremists." What I have claimed is that Muslims have a problem with extremism, and that Islam has a militant aspect to it which all Muslims adhere to. I've pretty much proven my points, so I won't repeat them.

I've listed two dozen Muslim organizations which are militant. There is no comparison to other organized religions. That's a plain fact everyone on this forum knows.

This is a lie. Muslims do not reject anything in the Koran. They may re-interpret it, but they do not reject it, as it is the word of Allah. Why do you think there was so much of a stir about the Koran being destroyed? Why was the depiction of the image of the Prophet such a cause for violence? Because these are the purveyors of the word of God, to a Muslim.

The Koran, quite clearly, gives infidels three choices: conversion, death, or submission. This verse comes from Sura At-Tawba, the last sura revealed. If any verse contradicts it, Sura 9:29 must be given precedence because it is the last word on the subject, according to Islamic teaching.

Nothing in this quote directly repudiates the sura in question. Indeed, the author of this isn't even identified, so I'll question his credentials.

Words or not, there's no question that Mohammed was a warrior. There's no question that Islam has a high degree of militancy. And there's no question that the Koran gives infidels three choices, submission, conversion or death, as its final pronouncement on the matter.

Again - most religions are antithecal to democracy particularly in their fundamentalist forms. Those countries where democracy flourishes alongside religion have secular systems of government and a seperation of church and state. The Abrahamic religions overall are strongly heirarchical and stress obedience and conformity to "God's law" - tolerance for diversity is limited in actual practice. This is clear in Islamic fundamentalist governments such as Iran or Saudi Arabia. If you wonder how it would look under another religion - consider this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!