>Its bad enough that most Americans are ignorant of the outside world. But statements like yours do nothing more than promote that ignorance.< I see. How many doses of LSD-25 did it take for you to come to this relativistic conclusion?

>Gentlemen, Gentlemen. Why fight each other.< I guess its because I come from the narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant view that justifying violence in the name of religion is barbaric, while Shaka appears to be of the open-minded, inclusive, permissive view that being endangered by barbarism is the key to building a culturally diverse utopia.

>At NO point in the entire history of Islam has it not been a bloody, violent, intolerant religion< You can say the same thing about Christanity. >When we talk of reforming Islam away from these tendencies, something we all want ...< Who is "we"? Westerners? Christains? Whatever reform or transformation Islam will go thru is not the business of those who are not Muslims. >Wabbi sect... core teachings of Muhammad< Don't play word games. None of this is relevant to mainstream Islam. Is it so hard to understand that radical Islam is not the same as Islam? The "god fearing Klu Klux Klan" was Christain. So are all Christains racist?

>... that justifying violence in the name of religion is barbaric ...< You've never said that is this thread, nor is that what the debate is about. >...permissive view that being endangered by barbarism is the key to building a culturally diverse utopia...< Never said that. I'm more along the first quote. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu You sound more like the second or third one.

>At NO point in the entire history of Islam has it not been a bloody, violent, intolerant religion< "You can say the same thing about Christanity." But we're not talking about Christianity right now, are we? But even if we were, does the fact that Christians have engaged in violence and intolerance lend to you a veneer of respect for violence and intolerance when you observe it in Islam? >When we talk of reforming Islam away from these tendencies, something we all want ...< "Who is "we"? Westerners? Christains? Whatever reform or transformation Islam will go thru is not the business of those who are not Muslims." I suppose "we" are myself and the mice I keep in my pocket to protect them from evil barbarians who want to kill them for being a non-Muslim. I tend to forget there are terrorist sympathizers among us. I bet you'd make reformation of Islam your business if you realized you're a "kafir" too. >Wabbi sect... core teachings of Muhammad< "Don't play word games. None of this is relevant to mainstream Islam." "Mainstream" Islam? What is "mainstream" Islam? Wouldn't that be the Wahabbis, who with the assistance of their rich friends in the Saudi royalty have internationalized with madrassah schools and student centers that spread Islamic teachings all over the world? Just about every university Islamic Studies program in the Western hemisphere was founded by Wahabbists. If not the Wahabbis, then who best defines Islam? The Maliki legal school that teaches that terrorists should be defined as "those who wage war against Allah and his prophet?" That makes Osama Bin Laden a hero, not a terrorist. What about the Hanifa legal school? Their leadership just recently piped in from Rawalpindi, Pakistan (where Al Qaeda operations cheif Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was arrested) to encourage the entire Muslim Ummah to jihad against the United States and Britain for an attack "upon" the Mausoleum of Hazrat Abu Hanifa (the founder of their school) in Iraq (but not the Fedayeen Saddam snipers hiding in it, naturally). How about the Shafiite and Hanbali schools? One could argue they perfected the art of justifying terrorism with the Koran, by avoiding the flexibility of applying common sense opinions and cultural precedents to issues the Koran and Hadiths do not specifically address. You rule out those four schools of Shariah jurisprudence, and you've pretty much eliminated "orthodox" Islam - the 88% of Muslims that identify themselves as Sunnis. Turn we then to the Shia... Ayatollah Khomeini and Hizbollah, anyone? Sufi? The majority of Muslims don't even recognize them as a part of Islam, particularly because they preach tolerance for the existence of non-Muslims on our planet. The Kahrijites? The Ismailis? The Zaidis? How about Fatimids? Here's one! The Nizari assassins? They can't even agree on who should have lead the slaughter of non-Muslims after Muhammad died. But not that non-Muslims shouldn't be slaughtered and enslaved. On that, they all agree. If I missed a "mainstream" Islamic group, let me know. >Is it so hard to understand that radical Islam is not the same as Islam? The "god fearing Klu Klux Klan" was Christain. So are all Christains racist?< Is it so hard to understand that "radical" Islam only exists where Islam is actually practiced? Your analogies aren't analogous.

>... that justifying violence in the name of religion is barbaric ...< You've never said that is this thread, nor is that what the debate is about. >...permissive view that being endangered by barbarism is the key to building a culturally diverse utopia...< Never said that. I'm more along the first quote. "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle." Sun Tzu You sound more like the second or third one. I confess. I don't have a clue to what extent your ignorance of Islamic philosophy, theology, and history goes.

No need to confess. I realize you don't have a clue. Would you like to pick a new topic?

Do you believe in the following? People, of any color or gender, are equal. People have the right to do whatever one wishes so long as those actions do not infringe upon the equal rights of others.

i just read AKs post and he makes a very good impression that indeed Wahabbis are the mainstream of islam. I'm not as knowledgable about Islam as you are, what form of Islam is the mainsteam? Whats it called? And why is it better then the Wahabi Islam? (Im assuming you believe it is better, just because you seem to look down on the Wahabi) Ok one other point confused me, >>Whatever reform or transformation Islam will go thru is not the business of those who are not Muslims.<< I'm not sure what you mean here. In a 'global society' (i hate those words), a transformation of a large religion should affect everyone. In ways from foreign policy, to interpersonal relations, to big companies like Nike trying to market their products (hey thats a good example, its exactly their "buisness"). So it seems that at least part of the non-muslim world would have a fairly large interest in any change.

Throwing some more gasoline on the fire... There are many who would like to see the Catholic church, if not shut down entirely, then forced to undergo massive internal changes. Something to do with institutionalized pedophila. Shaka, you're not discussing this with a Crusader. You're arguing this with a Macabee. Know ones enemies indeed... MASADA, CL