The Sword of the Prophet

Wait - you mean the conclusion isn't to destroy Islam? Just to take all the oil? Or, is there division about the practical implication? I am so confused. Are we supposed to be exterminating them, saving their souls, or merely robbing them blind? Is the conclusion as to which completely voluntary?

I quite agree that there is little in Islam to attract modern westerners, or for that matter non-barbarians with a conscience, voluntarily, anywhere at any time. But people also tend to follow the faith they were brought up in, even if it is certifiable.

True enough. Your first post gave me the impression that you were going to argue for the side of islam. Glad we got that cleared up.

"It seems there was a fanatical, barbaric religion in Japan a few years back."
Oh, I think that was largely a matter of state power, actually, and ambition for empire, and miscalculation about the chances of the Germans.

Okay, you're right. The muslims aren't even considering the chances of the Germans.

Do you mean that we should ask for the unconditional surrender of all Muslim-majority states on earth, and nuke those that do not comply?

Hmmm. Tempting, isn't it?

Or do you only mean that states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally, until we defeat them?

Without delay, without UN permission, without regard for the fact that those targeted may feel that we've "profiled" them, without concern that we might hurt their feelings if we shoot at them. Conventionally, until they dare to use WMD's on us, at which time we consider that "permission" to obliterate them.

I should think, however, that a little strategic analysis would be in order around this point. As in, which enemies to take on when, over what, with whom, by what means, etc. Thus the need for a little detail, spelling out practical recommendations you think follow.

You really think the whole USA will follow my game plan? Golly. How about we target those who fund the fanatics? Add to that the idea that we target Mecca, and then tell them all to behave "or else"? That way the nuking of Mecca could be blamed on muslims.

Oh, I hardly think it required any great strength to tell the truth about them after their acts of and declarations of war.

Then why is it so hard now? Have you heard? Saudi Arabia is our ally. Islam is a religion of peace.

We did not simply jump from "this is a false ideology" (they nearly are all false, of course) to "let's wage war to the death with it".

And we didn't rely on the strategies of posters oN FR. Good thing, that.

"If islam is what the koran says it is"
An interesting turn of phrase. Does this leave open the possibility of a non-literalist Islam? One not slavishly tied to every barbarism of the 7th century between the covers? Or is it just a sort of rhetorical flourish, a way of saying "of course, it is, and that is all it is, or ever will be"?

1. Ask around at your local University. 2. Only on campus. 3. Yeah, that's it.

"we should eliminate it."
Which makes the previous a rhetorical flourish, I take it. That is, you do not really mean this as a conditional, inside of an "if" that to you is really an "if" - is that fair? What you really mean is that Islam should be eliminated. It is a view.

Uh, okay.

"Nobody misses fanatical kamikazee Shintoists, either."
Oh, somebody probably does, but I sure don't. For that matter, there probably still are some, but they are individual wackos knocking off individual politicians with short swords, or killing themselves artistically after writing pretentious short stories about it all. Which are loads better than them having control of an industrial nation with a large navy.

LOL. Thanks for that.

thank you for at least having the honesty to spell out what you think it means. But I'd like you to go just a little further and examine the practical aspects and strategy of it.

Way out of my league, and I'm not sure why you want my opinions there. That islam must be defeated for Western civilization to survive is plain enough. How do we accomplish this? Good question. I don't have detailed plans, but I do know that pretending that there is no problem will not make it go away. That is why I spoke of starting by "telling the truth".

Should we simply pick countries the CIA world fact book lists as having majority Muslim populations, and nuke each of them?

Nah. Go for the really nasty leaders, movements, camps, and "armies" first. I wouldn't go for "majority muslim" as much as "capable and determined to inflict serious damage on the USA".

Issue any ultimatums beforehand about renouncing Islam or else, or not?

Probably not very practical, but I do rather like that.

Should we pay any attention to the stated positions of the governments of each of those countries, or ignore those as potential lies, or what?

What do you think of letting their deeds declare their intentions, rather than their words?

Map it out for us. The whole idea, as a practical program. See, I suspect there are some who may get off the train sometime after it pulls out of the station. Maybe not, maybe your recommendations will appear so airtight certain to everyone that they will all go the whole way. But if you don't explain the actions envisioned directly, and let us consider them, turn them over and look at them, then people will be judging in ignorance. I am sure I am not the only one interested in the practical program, in all its this world messy detail.

Yeah, okay. Give me ten more minutes.

I have argued at length on this board that the real issue is religious tolerance, not "peace", and that the civilizational problem is that Islam has not accepted religious tolerance, in the real meaning of that term. (Which is not letting "peoples of the book" remain breathing, it is the right to be wrong about matters of conscience). That is my take on that aspect of the question.

While you're waiting for my detailed plans, why don't you map out your own detailed plan for a change toward religious tolerance in the muslim world. Given your tone, you must have a practical program with airtight recommendations yourself. I'll take the war plans; you take the social transformation plans. I'll email them to the Whitehouse when we're finished.

For starters we can educate the public regarding the nature of Mohammedanism; its' history of expansion by violent conquest and its intolerance of minorities, etc.

Secondly, we can deport all Mohammedan illegals, students and visa holders.

that the civilizational problem is that Islam has not accepted religious tolerance

At last the heart of the problem. When Mohammedanism becomes tolerant it will cease to be Mohammedanism.

Men said that of Catholicism, but they were wrong. It ceased to be intolerant long ago, without ceasing to be Catholicism. Because it contained within itself the seeds of correction. There are such seeds in Islamic civilization. Indeed, some of ours came from some of theirs, as your screen name suggests to me just now, but that is a long story.

Is there a principled reason why you want to refrain from deporting all the other illegals, too?

"the impression that you were going to argue for the side of islam."

I am arguing in favor of two things - religious tolerance as a principle for our civilization and theirs , and a political strategy recommendation for our present fight, that I abbreviate "good muslims and bad muslims". Which, incidentally, I think the administration is basically already pursuing.

On the religious tolerance point, we've got it already, but I'd like to still have it after we are through with this war. They don't have it yet, and we will have won when they do, and those of them that don't like it don't have any more nasty toys.

On the good muslim-bad muslim point, it is divide and conquer. I want to give them a way to surrender that is reasonably attractive from their point of view. I want to dry up the recruitment flow, as well as get rid of the already radicalized nutjobs by direct military action. The study of guerilla war convinces me that is rather essential to lasting success. I do not want to drive all the villagers into the hands of the VC by a policy of "kill all the gooks". That means a political end-state some of them will be able to live with, a way for them to opt out of conflict with us while remaining both breathing and Muslim - but not belligerent. (Indeed, they may pick any two out of those three, within the confines of this war anyway).

"The muslims aren't even considering the chances of the Germans."

I agree. Those arming them don't seem to be considering the Muslims' chances very much, either. E.g. Russia is giving nuclear technology to Iran. There is a wider conflict, or at least a wider arena.

"Tempting, isn't it?

Not to me, no.

"'states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally'" - "Without delay, without UN permission, without regard for the fact that those targeted may feel that we've "profiled" them, without concern that we might hurt their feelings". Yah, I don't think there is going to be a heck of a lot of the last, but there may be some strategic concern for aftermaths in each place, overall strategy including keeping others out (which may involve diplomacy, horror of horrors), move order, yada yada. As for "states we know have attacked us", obviously Iraq is on the on-deck circle. Iran is looking like it may happen be internal political means.

"target those who fund the fanatics?"

Meaning invade Saudi. Just considering its advisability, it is a serious question I quite agree. It is not going to happen, at least not soon. Mostly we put up with the Saudis because they are cowardly enough we don't care that they also spread hatred, and because they are practical enough lapdogs on the matter of the oil. This is almost certainly shortsighted of us. Political pressure and a few examples next door may have some effect. But they may decide to flip out rather than go along, at some point, and we should indeed be ready for that possibility.

"the nuking of Mecca could be blamed on muslims."

You sound like an OJ lawyer. Um, no, it can't be. Not a good idea either. Al-Quada would love the extra recruits, and it would pretty much nuke their surrender option.

"why is it so hard now?"

It isn't. There are useful idiots in the world, of course, but that is not the reason for the policies you mention.

"Saudi Arabia is our ally. Islam is a religion of peace."

There is a difference between lying and being stupid. OK, "religion of peace" is bad propaganda, which is in a way a two-fer on that score (and something I have myself derided). It is a hamfisted way of enunciating the "good muslim - bad muslim" policy.

As for the wit over Shintos, my perhaps too subtle point is that enemy ideas can survive, provided they are disarmed and politically marginalized. I really don't care very much how much I am hated by powerless cowards. The point being, the endgame in our war will involve the continued existence of Muslims, as a practical matter. We require only victory.

"How do we accomplish this? Good question. I don't have detailed plans, but I do know that pretending that there is no problem will not make it go away."

Uh huh. Has it ever occurred to you that others might have plans? Those plans might not depend on pretending there is no problem. But also may not see trumpeting the thesis "Islam must be destroyed" as particularly useful. If the plan is to divide Islam to conquer it, unifying it is not the one thing needful.

"I spoke of starting by "telling the truth""

Think states ever avoid doing that in the pursuit of a strategy? Hint - "Uncle Joe".

"Go for the really nasty leaders, movements, camps, and "armies" first - capable and determined to inflict serious damage on the USA."

Quite. Shall we make sure they have as many allies as possible the moment we go, or shall we isolate them first, as best we can? Shall we roll them all into a ball and whack at all of it, or plan a move order that gets them in sequence, while they stand around hemming and hawing? If the latter, how do you suppose we might go about that? Should we "start by telling the truth"? "letting their deeds declare their intentions"

I quite agree. Although it seems to me you are the one that also insists that words are sometimes deeds (e.g. Saudi, which does little to cross us directly but says plenty indirectly). Notice, though, that this standard means we leave room for practical surrender. We therefore need and have a category of "good Muslim" - one who commits no deed to oppose us. The point is we are not going to get into the thought-crime business. We are not going to run through countries "testing" people and bumping off those whose views we don't like. If their views are wiggy enough and they aren't the practical sort of coward we can live with, then they will do something and we will have plenty of cause.

"why don't you map out your own detailed plan for a change toward religious tolerance in the muslim world."

Already have, on other threads. Step one is to paint literalism as a heresy, because it closes off change and we need a change. That includes taking down Wahhabism and attacking the most important medieval theological support for things like it, the teachings of one Ibn Taymia, which are rampant in the Islamic world now. Step two is to establish instead a wide range of options for them to pick among that all leave room for "new legislation" - secularism, philosophy, Shia authority, legal schools that stress the most recent precedent not original intent among Sunnis, Sufi Islam with its moral sermonizing against envy and pride, moral motive mattering more than externals, etc. This includes peddling counterweights to Ibn Taymia in the same "weight class", like Al-Ghazzali, various philosophers, etc. Step three is by any of those routes to arrive at the "ruling" / fatwah that the "house of war" means only places Muslims are not free to practice their religion, while "house of peace" means any place they can. Which will involve the whole war program (aka convincing them they are going to lose anyway so it is a good offer), propaganda in favor of human rights, standing up to fanatics' intimidation attempts (i.e. making tolerance a practical reality on the ground), retelling how religious tolerance was learned in western history and deploying many of the same arguments, etc.

As for mailing anything, I am sure somebody connected to the White House reads FR, and plenty of think tank style pundits and the like are obviously already on the case.

"the impression that you were going to argue for the side of islam."

I am arguing in favor of two things - religious tolerance as a principle for our civilization and theirs , and a political strategy recommendation for our present fight, that I abbreviate "good muslims and bad muslims". Which, incidentally, I think the administration is basically already pursuing.

On the religious tolerance point, we've got it already, but I'd like to still have it after we are through with this war. They don't have it yet, and we will have won when they do, and those of them that don't like it don't have any more nasty toys.

On the good muslim-bad muslim point, it is divide and conquer. I want to give them a way to surrender that is reasonably attractive from their point of view. I want to dry up the recruitment flow, as well as get rid of the already radicalized nutjobs by direct military action. The study of guerilla war convinces me that is rather essential to lasting success. I do not want to drive all the villagers into the hands of the VC by a policy of "kill all the gooks". That means a political end-state some of them will be able to live with, a way for them to opt out of conflict with us while remaining both breathing and Muslim - but not belligerent. (Indeed, they may pick any two out of those three, within the confines of this war anyway).

"The muslims aren't even considering the chances of the Germans."

I agree. Those arming them don't seem to be considering the Muslims' chances very much, either. E.g. Russia is giving nuclear technology to Iran. There is a wider conflict, or at least a wider arena.

"Tempting, isn't it?

Not to me, no.

"'states we know have attacked us, we should fight back against conventionally'" - "Without delay, without UN permission, without regard for the fact that those targeted may feel that we've "profiled" them, without concern that we might hurt their feelings". Yah, I don't think there is going to be a heck of a lot of the last, but there may be some strategic concern for aftermaths in each place, overall strategy including keeping others out (which may involve diplomacy, horror of horrors), move order, yada yada. As for "states we know have attacked us", obviously Iraq is on the on-deck circle. Iran is looking like it may happen be internal political means.

"target those who fund the fanatics?"

Meaning invade Saudi. Just considering its advisability, it is a serious question I quite agree. It is not going to happen, at least not soon. Mostly we put up with the Saudis because they are cowardly enough we don't care that they also spread hatred, and because they are practical enough lapdogs on the matter of the oil. This is almost certainly shortsighted of us. Political pressure and a few examples next door may have some effect. But they may decide to flip out rather than go along, at some point, and we should indeed be ready for that possibility.

"the nuking of Mecca could be blamed on muslims."

You sound like an OJ lawyer. Um, no, it can't be. Not a good idea either. Al-Quada would love the extra recruits, and it would pretty much nuke their surrender option.

"why is it so hard now?"

It isn't. There are useful idiots in the world, of course, but that is not the reason for the policies you mention.

"Saudi Arabia is our ally. Islam is a religion of peace."

There is a difference between lying and being stupid. OK, "religion of peace" is bad propaganda, which is in a way a two-fer on that score (and something I have myself derided). It is a hamfisted way of enunciating the "good muslim - bad muslim" policy.

As for the wit over Shintos, my perhaps too subtle point is that enemy ideas can survive, provided they are disarmed and politically marginalized. I really don't care very much how much I am hated by powerless cowards. The point being, the endgame in our war will involve the continued existence of Muslims, as a practical matter. We require only victory.

(continued)

Sorry about the double post. I thought I had to split it for length when the first try didn't seem to "go", but evidently it did.

Is there a principled reason why you want to refrain from deporting all the other illegals, too?

Mohammedans illegals should be given priority because their beliefs are antithetical to our form of government.

Men said that of Catholicism, but they were wrong. It ceased to be intolerant long ago, without ceasing to be Catholicism. Because it contained within itself the seeds of correction. There are such seeds in Islamic civilization.

This seems to be more wishful thinking than anything else. Where are "such seeds in Islamic civilization"?

There are two fundamental reasons why Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with non-authoritarian government. First, in a positive sense, "The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him." (See below). Secondly, in a negative sense, Mohammedanism embraces moral irrationality. In Mohammedanism, God wills both good and evil. Therefore, Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with the natural law which is written on the human heart and which provides the moral foundation for our form of government.

Our form of government is based on the natural law and the derivative traditions of the common law. We simply cannot assimilate a religious group that does not and cannot logically admit the dictums of natural law.

The 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia entry under Mohammed and Mohammedanism concludes with the following paragraph:

In matters political Islam is a system of despotism at home and aggression abroad. The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him. The rights of non-Moslem subjects are of the vaguest and most limited kind, and a religious war is a sacred duty whenever there is a chance of success against the "Infidel". Medieval and modern Mohammedan, especially Turkish, persecutions of both Jews and Christians are perhaps the best illustration of this fanatical religious and political spirit.

This summary is as true today as it was 100 years ago and 1300 years ago.

"This seems to be...wishful thinking... Where are "such seeds"

Yes, there is wishful thinking in it, in the sense of a strong desire not merely for it to be so, but to make it so. For entirely practical reasons - it makes the task ahead of us easier. Asking where there are such seeds is perfectly reasonable.

The particular example I was thinking of when I made the comment and related it to your screen name was Averroes. Who provided (or transmitted, in some other cases) many of the arguments used by Acquinas, such as the famous principle that "truth does not contradict truth", to make revelation accord with reason. He is not the only philosopher; Avicenna is in some respects closer to western theological views.

Which is only one aspect of a more general fact - that medieval Islam was heir to elements of the Hellenist tradition that also influenced the Church fathers in the west. Doctrines learned from Aristotle and Plato, the Stoa, neo-Platonism, Gnostics, eastern Christian churches, and Christian fathers all influenced Islamic philosophy and theology.

On the side of practical moral piety, there is al-Ghazzali and the Sufi tradition more generally. Moral intention weighing more than outward act has obvious relevance for curbing the excesses of fanatics. Humility and self-criticism can accomplish some things on its own.

On numerous theological questions (free will, the problem of evil, etc), there are the Mutazilites, the rationalist theological school associated with the Abassid dynasty.

There are also principles of legal precedent giving greatest weight to the most recent ruling, which allows development. Consensus is recognized by most as a source of legal and theological legitimacy, based on the tradition "the community of the faithful will not agree on an error".

There are various modern Islamic thinkers who have tried to use various portions of the above to formulate positions compatible with the modern west. Examples are the Pakistani philosopher Muhammad Iqbal (who adds aspects of modern idealism), Fazlur Rahman (who is more traditional, borrowing from Avicenna on key questions), and Mushin Mahdi (political philosophy).

"two fundamental reasons why Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with non-authoritarian government."

I note first off that what we most require is religious tolerance, not absent of authoritarianism. Republican government certainly has its strengths and benefits, but it also makes high demands on the virtue of the populace. Limited monarchy is a legitimate alternative with lower demands. Enlightened despotism, where actual, may be only a third best, but is compatible with practical justice (think say of Salazar's Portugal). So, I simply note that perfection is not the standard. But I turn next to your substantive points.

"The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him."

So did Luther. He taught passive obediance in principle to whatever was the government of the day, and cited the practice of Jesus toward the Romans as evidence. In practice, of course, things look rather different. Similarly in Islam, there have been any number of historical movements against the rulers, typically alleging an absence of religious legitimacy. Only Shia fully acknowledge the principle of obediance to a designated Imam, and they disagree over who that is. The Umayyad dynasty in Islam gave passive obediance a bad name, and provoked the Mutazilites to formulate theories of legitimate rebellion when the caliph violates the law. At most one can say this has been a practical issue in Islam, as is was in the west.

"God wills both good and evil."

So does the God of Calvin. I agree it is bad theology. But it has hardly made all Calvinists enemies of popular or limited government in practice. It may have once, with Cromwell. But later they became the backbone of the Whigs, who formulated the versions of limited government most widely accepted today.

In addition, the Mutazilites recognized the problem and tried to address it, placing Good higher. The issue goes back to the Euthyphro, or some would say to the book of Job or the story of Isaac. It is a familiar chesnut of the relation between God and morality.

"Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with the natural law"

First I note a logical point. Reconciliation with the natural law is in principle possible without placing natural law above God theoretically. One can instead regard the content of natural law as God's free moral legislation. There can be harmony in outcome with either scheme. That some theologians emphasize God's goodness, and others His omnipotence, need not prevent such reconciliation, if one is seen to imply the other. They may become independent possible premises from which the same conclusions are reached. I am not saying that -has- to happen. One can of course get bad theology out of the principle of a God "beyond good and evil". But "can" is not "must" on this question. (Of course, something akin to Mutazilite theology might allow a deeper reform on the question).

"Our form of government is based on the natural law"

Historically that is quite correct. However, few of our own contemporaries believe in natural law in the strict sense. Recall the controversy connected with Judge Thomas's views on the question in his hearings. The reigning legal doctrine he was asked to bow to instead, was legal positivism. Even Thomas said he put on his "natural law" hat to see how the founders (and Lincoln) may have viewed something, and regarded it as a perspective appropriate to a legislator rather than a judge. One can lament this, and argue that we would be better off if all our citizens believed in natural law. But they do not, in practice, and our government nevertheless continues to function.

My verdict on the objections is therefore a Scottish "not proven." You highlight issues that do indeed need to be addressed. But it is entirely conceivable they could be addressed successfully.

Bump

Belated Bump

The problem with war is that politicians always want to play politics with it. And as we all know politicians never have the answer because they are too lame brained. Right now as we type, they continue pumping this nation full of Muslims that we will have to deal with.

All of the wish list you have compiled can be accomplished with killing the enemy in heavy numbers until he surrenders in the face of his own annihilation, not by the egos of politicans who have never accomplished one worthwhile thing in their entire lives, if they have, name it. Life sometimes has the simplicity of a one celled organism. Kill or be killed.

Islam has called the tune and set the rules of engagment, Islam is one religion whose members do not convert to other religions, when defeated they wait for strength. This is one of the foundational doctrines of their religion. D.C. is not dealing here with Japan or Russia or with anything remotely connected with what is considered in the west as normal human thinking, reason, or mindset, Muslims are truly alien. The thing politicans can do, they won't do because they are mentally ill and corrupt.

Muslims will remain seperate from the general population while attempting to grow their numbers by conversion or immigration, buying their way into government, buying influence, until they can effect policy and laws. That is all politicians are good for. They need to step aside and let the good sense of the average population deal with this.

Cut off this monsters ability to grow, stop it's immigration. Stop condemning Americans who give these people the cold stony shoulder. The scorn of society is a good learning tool and a good defensive weapon.

Stop all immigration from terrorist nations, move the illegals here out of here, issue no visas to terrorist nations. Stop playing politics and kill the enemy, rule over those that surrender for twenty years and indoctrinate them into western thinking. I wish we had a George Patton, he would have made a great President.

The particular example I was thinking of when I made the comment and related it to your screen name was Averroes. Who provided (or transmitted, in some other cases) many of the arguments used by Acquinas, such as the famous principle that "truth does not contradict truth", to make revelation accord with reason. He is not the only philosopher; Avicenna is in some respects closer to western theological views.

Unfortunately, what I've read from second hand sources is that Aristotle's thought came to a dead end in the Mohammedan world with Averroes and Avicenna, perhaps because the principle that "truth does not contradict truth" cannot be reconciled with Mohammedan revelation (in contrast to Christian revelation). I've read that the medieval scholastics removed some of the Mohammedan accretions to Aristotle's texts before they performed the great synthesis of pagan philosophy and Christian revelation and dogma.

On the side of practical moral piety, there is al-Ghazzali and the Sufi tradition more generally. Moral intention weighing more than outward act has obvious relevance for curbing the excesses of fanatics. Humility and self-criticism can accomplish some things on its own.

On numerous theological questions (free will, the problem of evil, etc), there are the Mutazilites, the rationalist theological school associated with the Abassid dynasty.

The Koran will be a dead letter without an authoritative interpretive body. While logically any interpretation is possible, in practice a traditional consensus will develop around the text (not unlike Protestantism). A consensus certainly seems to have arisen regarding the idea of God willing both good and evil. Other opinions seem to be a decided minority. In consideration of past history a thorough reinterpretation of the Koran appears doubtful for the foreseeable future.

"The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him."

So did Luther.

Did he command absolute submission to a bishop or cleric?

imam
1.
a. In law and theology, the caliph who is successor to Muhammad as the lawful temporal leader of the Islamic community.

He taught passive obediance in principle to whatever was the government of the day, and cited the practice of Jesus toward the Romans as evidence.

Totally different teaching.

...Similarly in Islam, there have been any number of historical movements against the rulers, typically alleging an absence of religious legitimacy. Only Shia fully acknowledge the principle of obediance to a designated Imam, and they disagree over who that is. The Umayyad dynasty in Islam gave passive obediance a bad name, and provoked the Mutazilites to formulate theories of legitimate rebellion when the caliph violates the law. At most one can say this has been a practical issue in Islam, as is was in the west.

No sign of tolerance of religious minorities here though whether in theory or practice.

"God wills both good and evil."

So does the God of Calvin. I agree it is bad theology.

It's a very dangerous idea for obvious reasons.

But it has hardly made all Calvinists enemies of popular or limited government in practice. It may have once, with Cromwell. But later they became the backbone of the Whigs, who formulated the versions of limited government most widely accepted today.

Nevertheless, the idea had to be tamed. Moreover, all of this occurred within a Christian milieu.

"Mohammedanism cannot be reconciled with the natural law"

...One can of course get bad theology out of the principle of a God "beyond good and evil". But "can" is not "must" on this question. (Of course, something akin to Mutazilite theology might allow a deeper reform on the question).

I'm not as optimistic.

"Our form of government is based on the natural law"

Historically that is quite correct. However, few of our own contemporaries believe in natural law in the strict sense. Recall the controversy connected with Judge Thomas... One can lament this, and argue that we would be better off if all our citizens believed in natural law. But they do not, in practice, and our government nevertheless continues to function.

But the train has jumped the rails, so all bets are off at this point.

My verdict on the objections is therefore a Scottish "not proven." You highlight issues that do indeed need to be addressed. But it is entirely conceivable they could be addressed successfully.

Great post, but ultimately I disagree with you based on my own limited understanding of Mohammedanism. Personally, I think the best policy is to treat Mohammedanism like a tumor: contain it and then treat it. I think Mohammedanism can be contained. I'm less sanguine regarding treatment. My two dim hopes are that Mohammedans in Mohammedan lands can be secretly evangelized through the internet (I know some people doing this) and that Mohammedan abuse of women will result in women leaving the religion.

You might want to re-post #33 on this thread

For more than thirty years I have been saying the same thing to anyone that listened. My experience is the concept of tolerance, respecting others beliefs and diversity all contribute to the ignorance of our public to the evil of Islam. For example, Christian people who suffered from Islam in other countries like the Middle East region would never allow their girls to convert to Islam to marry a Moslem guy. In the US, that happens all the time, basically because the young Christian girls and their parents are unfamiliar with the evil of Islam. It is actually an Islamic tool to romance the non-Moslems to convert them to Islam.

I am glad that many people are starting to learn about that evil cult. However, I will not be happy until our national media, and our schools start teaching our population these facts. Islam must be banned from all western countries. It is fair to do that since they don't allow freedom of religion in the Moslem world! Mohammad

Moslem nations do not allow proselytization or even practice of other religions in their lands. Yet they feel free to open mosques all over the west, and approche the misfits like the black criminals. This one way street MUST change.