Oh, for God's sake.

Here's yet another article you won't read discussing the many forms of Jihad within Islam.
http://www.meforum.org/article/357

Search for the word "Sufi", and you'll discover that greater Jihad (the internal struggle to be a good Muslim) is a central tenet. Muhammed himself describes actual warfare as "the lesser jihad." Sufis accept lesser jihad only as a defensive struggle.

Scroll further down, to the "modern times" sections, and you'll find the article names many Islamic scholars who argue the "greater jihad" line. to quote:

Two groups of contemporary Muslims have articulated doctrines of peaceful jihad. Modernists may see the concept as central to the religion but see it as encompassing all forms of political and social action to establish justice. Fazlur Rahman, a Pakistani scholar and long-time professor at the University of Chicago, argued that it had to exist to accomplish Islam's social and political agenda. "There is no doubt that the Qur'an wanted Muslims to establish a political order on earth for the sake of creating an egalitarian and just moral-social order. Jihad is the instrument for doing so."29 In this spirit, President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia, used jihad to describe the struggle for economic development in Tunisia, much as Lyndon Johnson spoke of a "War on Poverty." In this context, jihad implies no more violence than does crusade in today's English.30

The Sufi doctrine of greater jihad remains alive. Though less influential than Islamism in the political realm, it may have more impact on the spiritual life of Muslims, at least in Egypt where one writer contends that the number of Egyptians active in Sufism may well exceed the number of Islamists.31 Sadat wrote articles for the first issues of Sufi journals in 1958 and 1979, both entitled "The Greater Jihad," in which he welcomed the diffusion of Sufi ideas.32 On the basis of field work in Egypt, the Sudan, and Tunisia, an anthropologist mentions jihad only in the context of the Ramadan fast: "Fasting for the whole month is a . . . personal trial for Muslims . . . a form of personal jihad . . . part of the more difficult inner struggles with the flesh and worldy appetites."33

The Sufi outlook remains important enough so that Islamists like Hasan al-Banna and The Neglected Duty author Muhammad 'Abd al-Salam Farajfeel compelled to repeat medieval criticisms of greater jihad.34 This criticism, plus the prevalent definition of jihad as warfare, causes Sufis often to employ mujahada, a related word for al-jihad al-akbar.

Here's a link on Ahmadis.
http://www.ahmadiyya.org/books/f-ahm-mv/ch10.htm

They explicitly reject wars to spread religion.

As for Western Muslims, just about every source available agrees that Western Muslims are extremely moderate. There's a reason jihadists and suicide bombers aren't drawn from their ranks. Because people practice forms of religion that fit their culture. Islam as practiced in the west is notably less conservative and medieval than Islam as practiced in conservative, medieval cultures.

Here's a guy who's pretty much on your side. Yet even he admits that Western Muslims are overwhelmingly moderate, modern and liberal.
http://markhumphrys.com/islam.west.html

His concern is the 10-20% of immigrants that aren't.

Islam in Southeast Asia is notably more peaceful as well.

God forbid you would at least scan it. It's an entire article devoted to outlining who moderate Muslims are. But to summarize for you, here's the key sentences:

The first are ordinary citizens of Muslim countries for whom faith but not politics is central to their lives. They pray daily, fast during Ramadan, make the Haj if they can afford to, but evince little interest in public affairs. Constituting a kind of silent majority, they do not participate in violent actions, and mostly do not support them.

The second group of moderates is made up of regimes, like those in Egypt or Jordan, whose “moderation” consists in alignment with the West. A third group comprises secular liberals who are largely in sympathy with the political and cultural values of the West; well-known examples include the late Egyptian novelist Naguib Mahfouz and the Iraqi writer Kanan Makiya.

Finally, there are various self-described Islamists who dissent from the violent ways or extreme doctrines of other Islamists. These “moderate Islamists,” so it is claimed, are searching for an analog to European Christian Democracy: to wit, a political stance that is in some sense inspired or informed by religious ideals but is neither dogmatic nor exclusionary.

I've given you plenty of links and scholarly discussions, which you dismiss as "politically correct" and "inaccurate" -- without demonstrating how they are wrong.

But here's a whole page of prominent Muslims who have condemned terrorism:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

Among the names you will note many imams.

Here's a similar list of Muslims opposing extremism.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/fun(*)(*)(*)(*)etalism.htm

Um, why? I live in the West, and I don't read Arabic. And Israeli sources aren't generally pro-Muslim. There are Israeli doves, of course, but not nearly as many Muslim apologists.

But suicide bombings and violent wars of agression are not among them.

Good; at least you weren't talking out of your butt. Yet my source has him saying the opposite, in documented public addresses, both before and after your source. Your source is unverifiable unless you were present and spoke Arabic.

__________________
Man up.

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.

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.

So, we are backpedaling, are we? That's good to see. As usual, in your inimical dishonest way, you change your stance as we go. My point, from the onset, was that there was a militant aspect to Islam. How convenient that you agree with me now, and try to paint me as saying the converse.

Well, since you don't read it at all, I can't see what you're criticising.

Quite simply, I'm saying you are a dishonest person, who tries to put false words in other people's mouths and then goes on to disprove the fallacy you have attributed to them. And then, in a complete turn of hypocrisy, agree with your opponent and try to make it seem like they were wrong all along.

And I said that---where? Oh, I'm sure you can't find that. But throw up some bogus links anyway, my friend, and maybe people will be confused enough to believe you are right. I have said, and I still say, that there is a militant aspect to Islam, and that no single Islamic jurist, in history, has ever denied that militant aspect. And you will spin and turn that to suit your argument whatever which way...?

None rejected the sura in question, now did they? Ooops, I guess you forgot that. Go back to your ivory tower. It's so much safer there, my friend.

So, what? Now you're trying to claim its a basic inadequacy you have reading the written English word? Where did I say all Muslims justified suicide bombings? or terrorism? or killing civilians? Why don't we just make up some more arguments and then shoot them down and pin a medal on ourselves?

With no credence, evidence, or logical argument. Again, in a discussion, it's expected that you should listen and respond to the arguments of your opponent.

Because that is the way it is. And you cannot prove the converse, because it simply isn't true. All the mainstream interpretations of Islam admit that jihad implies, in some form, objective violence in the name of religion. You have failed to prove otherwise.

So, because some Muslims don't understand their religion, we should dismiss the dogma of their faith? I think not. Islam is the only faith that professes violence specifically against infidels, i.e. people who do not follow their faith. Every other religion, in cataloguing the violence in the pages of their holy books, do so only as a historical afterthought. Islam, in contrast, stands alone in urging its followers to give its un-believers a choice of death, conversion or submission.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, make up what phony arguments you want. You know that's not what I said.



But you fail to define how. Will they allow non-Muslims equal rights in their Islamic Republics? Will they allow Muslims to change their faith to other faiths? Will they allow non-Muslims not to show their submission by not paying the special tax, the jiyza, to the Islamic state? I think not. Yet you call that moderate, and in the same breath say you are not an apologist.

But you have no arguments at all! And what I'm not objective to is ignorance, of which you've shown you have an abundance.

I rate myself, on the Rictor scale, two points under you.

I've read a lot about Islam. I can't help it if you chose to ignore the information I've availed you.

A complete thought here would be welcome. Of course, if that's too much to ask....

Maybe I'm talking to a hollow head....

With one small difference, the Old Testament nowhere commands the destruction or subjugation of non-believers, whereas the Koran does. And you, o great learned scholar, have failed to prove otherwise.

Read the Halakha sometime. (I'm sure you never will.) No where in Jewish law is it anywhere stated that Hebrews have the right to subjugate anyone, anywhere. In Muslim law, however, it's as plain as reading a page. In all your posts, somehow, you keep ignoring this basic fact. The only fact, in truth, that I've been claiming from the onset.

Right. And where do Bin Laden, the Laskar Jihad Organization, Hamas, the Abu Nidal organization, the Abu Sayyaf Group, Ahl-e-Hadees, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, al-Gama's al-Islamiyya, Al-Ittihad al-Islami, Armed Islamic Movement, Asbat al-Ansar, Fighting Islamic Group, Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, the Muslim Brotherhood----fit in, in this ivory tower world of yours?



Translation: I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'm going to continue throwing up empty links.

And therefore you lied.

To a simple mind, possibly. To a dualistic mind, perhaps not. Again, death is not anathema to Islam. Islam is militant, as the Prophet was militant. Tantawi knows this, and you try to cloak him in a false robe of peace.

You're dishonest, as none of the later quotes contravene what he said earlier. He advocates wanton violence against Israeli's, but since, at the present time, it does not suit his violent temperament to pit himself against he United States, he has deemed certain suicide actions unjust. You applaud his hypocrisy. I do not.

You accuse me of misrepresenting your position and changing mine. But this whole discussion has revolved around whether Islam is inherently violent and aggressive or whether there can be peaceful interpretations of it.

In that context, you did this:

This in response to a mention by you of the lack of churches in Saudi Arabia. If that wasn't meant to say that banning churches is an inherent part of Islam (and thus, presumably, representative of the faith), what *was* the point?

So you're not just claiming there is a militant aspect to it; you're claiming that all Muslims must agree with that militant aspect -- including your definition of what it means, since you dismiss peaceful interpretations of it as not counting as rejection.

Do you see why I might think you're not being clear or consistent on your points?

What's more important: the outdated esoterica of a religion's holy book, or how that religion is practiced today? After all, don't the believers define the faith?

Do Jews and Christians support slavery, polygamy, genocide, killing homosexuals, etc. -- all practices accepted in the Old Testament? Do they observe the draconian punishments of Leviticus? Most American Catholics use birth control, despite the pronouncements of their church. Do they simply "not understand their faith"? Martin Luther was profoundly anti-Semitic; do you think Protestants must therefore do the same?

You are treating Islam as a special case, and Muslims as retarded children who can only do what they are told.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion. Me, I think Muslims are every bit as capable of outgrowing the tribal roots of their faith as Christians and Jews were.

What, not willing to stand by your words? You wrote this:

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.

Now tell me. How are you *not* "dismiss(ing) that majority *and* suggest(ing) that they're all just suicide bombers in waiting"?

You realize, right, that most governments of Islam majority areas are not Islamic Republics, even though they're run by Muslims? I guess those guys don't read the Quran, either. So your question has already been answered. But please: provide me a list of Arab or Persian governments that charge the jiyza.

Conversion is an issue in some areas; I've blogged about some of the cases and how completely indefensible that is. But again, show me, say, the Egyptian law prohibiting it. Even in the conservative Middle East, where there is the strongest support for killing apostates, it basically doesn't happen -- though converts are discriminated against.

You have the same thing in Malaysia, but that's because of that country's weird deal with religion and religious courts.

Elsewhere, however, conversion is accepted.

Wow, you're in fine form with the insults.

Hey, if you refuse to read stuff, don't blame me. You're the one who thought it was about "Muslims for Jesus" or something.

As already noted, so the hell what? The Bible commands lots of things that no Jew or Christian does anymore.

Then why did they do it so often in their holy book?

Oh, wait. They didn't subjugate. They slaughtered and drove out. My bad. You're right; Islam is *much* worse.

On the extremist militant side, using Islam to justify their political goals and tactics. Most of those groups are small, and the larger ones -- Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas -- are hardly monolithic. Hezbollah's the worst of the big guys, but even they have built their popularity more on the social services they provide than on their militant actions -- though those do draw some support for "standing up to Israel."

It must be nice to know you're right and not have to deal with contrary evidence.

The guy condemns suicide bombings in two cites, and supposedly endorses them in another. That seems like opposites unless there were specific qualifiers that I didn't notice in skimming the links.

Most Arabs have a moral blind spot when it comes to Israel. But you're simply wrong. From the 2003 pronouncement, on the link you didn't bother to read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3059365.stm

Sheikh Tantawi said Muslim suicide attacks, including those against Israelis, were wrong and could not be justified.

Your arrogance would be justified if you actually read stuff.

__________________
Man up.

did jesus say those words "comes with the sword, to wage war and not peace" or is that coyote's interpretation amongst other interpretations of jesus's words??

on the other hand mohamed did wage war, mohamed did order killing of civilians in villages, rape women, sell slaves, plunder, and terrorize populations into submission.

but i would like coyote to give the jesus quote that he came "to wage war and not peace" with appropriate links.

for my part i will supply some of the more popular mohamed quotes about war and slaughter

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:

The Prophet said, "War is deceit."
Hadith 4:271

Narrated Jabir:

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)."

Hadith 4:259
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."


[url]http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh1/index.htm]u/url]
&
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

so i provided some random samples of mohamed's belligerent behavior which support his words.

And to this, there is one fundamental question: do you deny that there is a militant aspect to Islam, in its doctrine and its teachings? If you do, then you are not stating the truth. If you do not, then you are backpedaling and changing your position.

I would think that the point would be obvious, the same point I've been hammering since I first posted. The Koran teaches that non-believers are to be given three choices: conversion, death, or submission. The banning of churches in Saudi Arabia would certainly imply submission to a clear-thinking individual. Perhaps not to you.

I'm claiming that the teachings of Islam presume a militant aspect to jihad. I'm claiming that no mainstream Muslim cleric has ever denied that militant aspect. I'm claiming that you, in your painfully long-winded series of posts, have completely failed to prove otherwise.

Since I've only been making one point, no. Skirt around it as much as you like.

Well, let me just ask, what evidence have you furnished that Islam is not a special case? Because, if you have furnished it, I must say, I haven't seen it.

So, just to further educate you, let's take a look at a few quotes from Iran's most revered religous leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini: "Those who know nothing of islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]... Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundred of other Koranic psalms and Haditha urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim..."