[humint]

Yours is a well researched work, but is a fully academic piece that is doomed to suffocate in a logical vacuum. Islam is an extremely diverse faith supported by a myriad of cultures and philosophies. Our President is absolutely right to call Islam a “religion of peace” because his is an effort to empower peaceful Muslim leadership to perpetually define Islam as such. The stark reality on the ground in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to name a few is that Americans do have ideological allies among Muslims and your piece whitewashes them and their effort. Worse yet, your single suggestion, to manipulate Muslim’s method of worship is devoid of any possibility of practical application. Beyond that, the theoretical results of doing anything remotely similar to what you suggest is unlikely to improve the situation for our diplomats or our men and women in uniform serving overseas.

I suggest you point your exceptional analytical powers toward Islam as it is applied and find targets for your assaults there. For example the Iranian regime and its fascist theocratic government are a target not because of the Koran, but because of their interpretation of the Koran. In sheer defiance of Iran’s Shiite Muslim’s true leadership, the ideologically backward Ayatollah Khomeini redefined the role of Islam in Iran. Valeyat e-Faqhee or rule by Supreme Islamic Leadership is an anathema to much of the world’s Muslim population. Democracy dissidents in Iran are primarily Muslim!

To find tangible solutions and define Americas enemies in the coming wars I believe we must look to the roots of how religion is applied in our politics and theirs. To that end I posted Islam, Democracy and Iran. I do not portend that I or anyone else has all of the answers. I don’t think you do either but there has to be a path to finding the right answers and that path has to be one we can all live with. After reading this work, I have a strong suspicion that you’re not on it.

[Edward Watson]

Thanks for your excellent response. Much as I'd like to agree with you on a practical level, the very real problems endemic in Islamic history, scripture, and mindset makes it ultimately unworkable.

My central tenet is Islam is, at its core, a conquering movement. It cannot tolerate an existence where it is not in control. Mohammed's words and actions are to be taken seriously; we just can't sweep them under the carpet. Neither can we wish away the Islamist minority of Muslims who are determined to kill us and convert the world to Islam and Sharia.

I can point to 1400 years of Islamic history, the Koran, the Hadith, and every single Islamic-majority society today as proof non-Muslims aren't considered equals by Muslims.

[As an aside, I'm of the opinion Persia would've been the second most powerful nation on earth today if only Islam didn't conquer it.]

Lastly, there is a difference between "could" and "should."

I'm saying the West *could* intellectually shatter Islam in the event of a real genocidal religious war by simply seizing the Kaaba mosque and transporting it onto a ship and move it from place to place. I'm not saying we *should* do itg, only we *could* if we wanted to.

Let's be honest here. Is there any real doubt if the roles were reversed and Islam possessed the military capability to utterly destroy other religions and societies without fear of mutual destruction that it would hesitate to do so?

Of course not. Allah wouldn't tolerate it. It is only the West's restraint and sense of decency that prevents us from doing so.