“So, like the First Council of Nicaea, Dogma and Rituals were replaced with Principles – the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments.” That should read – “ … Dogma and Rituals replaced Principles – the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments.”

My apologies!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

Referring to the Spanish Inquisition in particular is a favorite. This was not something born of the people as a whole, or even any significant proportion of them ‘interpreting’ the Scriptures in a specific manner. The Catholic Church at the time denied the people the education which would have enabled them to read the Scriptures for themselves in order to see that what the Church was doing had no relationship to the Scriptures.

Voltaire wonderfully identified this problem: “Why then have we been cutting one another’s throats almost without interruption since the first Council of Nice?”

And on the Catholic Church at the time, he said this: “If we would attend closely to the fact, the Catholic, apostolic, and Roman religion is, in all its ceremonies and in all its dogma, the reverse of the religion of Jesus!”

Yet, since the Reformation, all Christians began to gain access to the Scriptures, and could determine for themselves what it said. And that, based (in my opinion) primarily on the power of the Ten Commandments, led to a remarkable transformation of Western society. And that transformation did not come about as a result of any specific church, but from the power of the Scriptural message itself.

The Koran, on the other hand, is in essence’ a re-writing of the Scriptures to place Mohammed at its center. That is why we find all the Scriptural characters referred to in the Koran, although they are there mainly to proclaim Mohammed as the true Prophet, the Prophet referred to at Exodus 18:18 [Koran 2:76 refers to this]. And the preceding verse in the Koran explains why – the Jews, it claims, “Heard the Word of God, and perverted it knowingly after they understood it” [Koran 2:75].

That the Jews and Christians “falsified” the true Word of God is a constant theme in the Koran. That is also why the Jews are described as “apes and swine” [2:65; 5:63; and 7:166].

This re-writing of the Scriptures is clearly why Schweitzer called Islam “unoriginal”.

In relation to the “decadent” part of Schweitzer’s description, we need to go to 5:13 – 14 of the Koran (and see 2:63). Here, the Koran claims that God did not hand down the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, but the first part of the Five Pillars of Islam.

So, like the First Council of Nicaea, Dogma and Rituals were replaced with Principles – the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments.

The effect of this was that the more rigid specific ‘laws’ of Moses were ‘enacted, so to speak, as the Word of God Himself in the Koran. The specific ‘laws’ were not ‘subsidiary’ to the Ten Principles, and thus unable to ‘adapt’ as circumstances demanded.

That is why we see in the West a transformation of the way we derived specific laws from the Principles enunciated in the Ten Commandments – and that is the essence of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.

That has enabled us in the West to ‘adapt’ our ‘laws’ but still adhere (more or less) to the Principles set out in the Ten Commandments. Because Islam has treated the ‘specific laws’ as God given, and removed the primacy of the Ten Commandments, Islam has been unable to adapt. That is why we still see in Islamic countries punishments that we regard as ‘barbaric’ even though the same ‘punishments’ are prescribed in the OT. We moved on, retaining the Principles enunciated in the Ten Commandments as the foundation of our ‘values’, but adapting the laws made under them to accommodate changing values as civilization developed.

Of course, I cannot do justice to this analysis in a short Comment – it is, however, the subject of my next book.

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

The 1.2 billion reference is no vindication for Islam but just to point out the dimension of the problem, particularly if your conclusion is that the religion invariably leads people to violence, which the historical record disproves.

The Koran has not changed in 1400 years nor has the Bible in 2000. Yet it was the same Bible in 1492 when Jews, Muslims, and all people who did not accept Catholicism were burned at the stake in Spain.

I don't say this to attack Christianity, but just to point out that it is not the sacred texts that are at fault but how people interpert them.

After all, are you claiming that the moderate muslims who don't believe in violence, like the one I refrenced, who has the TV show, are misinterperting their own book. If so, lets hope they continue.

It is a well worn argument to claim that Islam should be ‘tolerated’ in the West because of the number of its adherents. But the fact that 1.2 billion people subscribe to a religion, or as I prefer to think of it, an ideology, does not transform the fundamental nature of that ideology from a malevolent one, to a benevolent one.

That’s a bit like arguing that smoking is good for people because billions of people have succumbed to the habit.

And one final matter, I do not believe that all Muslims are destined to become violent terrorists – Islam only requires a ‘sufficient number’ (fard al-kifāyah) to partake in Jihad

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

But it is interesting that a man like Albert Schweitzer would conclude, a hundred years ago, from reading the Koran, and his experience with Islam in Africa, that Islam itself was “unoriginal and decadent”.

He was not writing in response to ‘terror’ – just what is in the Koran, and what he saw.

But, as I have said, I for one would be very happy if Muslims could ‘edit’ the Koran so that Schweitzer could be proved wrong. I just wouldn’t want to be the one doing the editing!!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

I am hardly a religious scholar, but I have read parts of the Koran and have found it to be like most religious texts, open for interpertation.

To claim that the book inevitably leads to muslim extremism is to ignore history. There have been periodic muslim extremist terrorist tendencies through history, but this is true of all religions.

Christianity gave us the Spanish Inquisition, slavery, apartheid etc. and even today groups such as the Lords Resistance Army which seeks a "so called" Christian theocracy, does barbarous deeds to further their ends:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Muslims have not spent the last 1400 years as terrorists, and within our own lifetimes the level of hatred and support for extremism has grown geometrically. Growing up in the 50s and 60s attacks on the US were almost all from the Communists and there was no significant muslim threat directed to the West other than perhaps Israel.

I am not going to analyze what caused the rise of extremist violent Islam, but it is not the Koran which has not been recently edited. That book is also the basis for the Sufi faith which has always been a peaceful group and there are many movements within Islam that are anti violent such as one of the fastest rising Islamic televangelist Moez Masoud who preaches tolerance and modernity:

http://www.andyross.net/moez_masoud.htm

I share with you, the concerns about violent Islam. A poll in the UK at the time of the subway bombings indicated that 5% of the muslim public was sympathetic with the terrorists. This is an alarming number to be sure. I would guess that less than 0.1% of the US was sympathetic to Timothy McVeigh, but it still indicates that 95% of that population did not support the terrorists.

By condemning the 1.2 billion muslims of the world as hopelessly, invariably, destined to be violent terrorists, you are condemning us to a rather hideous prognosis.

Alternatively, may I suggest, that our efforts simultaneously be geared to rooting out extremist Islamic terrorism while supporting the moderating trends within that movement such as Mr. Masoud.

Another short Comment – it has not taken “decades” to get to this point of Islamic Extremism – it was introduced from day one – 1,400 years ago. It’s all there in black and white. I don’t mean to be insulting, but have you ever read the Koran, or engaged Muslims in Islamic countries in conversation?

Take the right to Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness. What do they mean to a Muslim? – they mean the ‘right’ to live (life) according to Islam (submission to Allah), the liberty to submit to the will of Allah, and the right to be happy knowing that you are doing the will of Allah.

No McCain, Bush, or American way of life (which they regard, often correctly, as decadent) is going to convince them that there is a better way than the way God (Allah) has Himself instructed.

To think that the ‘appeal’ of what Muslims regard as utter decadence will hold allure to them is pure fantasy!!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

The Afghani Constitution says there can be no law contrary to Islam, so how exactly would you propose that America (or more specifically McCain) begin ‘re-educating’ Afghani children? Now that really is a recipe for conflict. But I’d love to hear your proposals for convincing Muslims that McCain’s views should be adopted rather than what they regard as the word of God Himself.

As long as we labor under such naïve notions, the battle is already lost.

If people are sentenced to death for downloading articles on women's rights, just imagine, if you can, the punishment for leading children from the 'path' of Islam!!

Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com

Joseph,

The current situation in Afghanistan is far more complicated than you pretend. It took decades to get to this point of Islamic extremists, and it will take decades to get away from it. We have to work on the children, and hope for a brighter future.

These are my personal feelings. Let me know what you think. In 1964, Ronald Reagan gave his famous "A Time For Choosing" speech. You can read it at:

http://www.reaganlibrary.com/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp

You may remember his famous words, "I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course." Later he said that he didn't leave the party, but the party left him. Rather than submit to a new agenda, he set about setting the old one back on track. With his leadership and through our efforts we recovered from the abyss that was the Carter Presidency.

I came of age in the 1960's and here are the things I remember. JFK was a very well meaning idealistic young man but whose family had a huge appetite for political power. He led us into the disastrous invasion of Cuba which in turn led to the Cuban missile crisis. He chose a VP from Texas (LBJ) because he needed the Texas vote and not because of his executive leadership qualities. This ultimately was part of the disaster that became Vietnam.

Jimmy Carter was also an idealist. Like Huckabee and Bill Clinton, he came from a small Southern State and had no real executive ability. Hillary Clinton has told us she wants to take the energy company profits for the research.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Carter did exactly that with his "Windfall Oil Profits Tax" and it was a disaster. Rather than produce more energy that we desperately needed, he further crippled the energy industry. He tried to substitute idealism for know-how. He didn't like the human rights record of the Shah of Iran and let him be overthrown. And now we see what his policies have given us.

Today we have the choice between Clinton or Obama, and McCaim. It is the choice between a liberal or a RINO. And, like Ronald Reagan, I choose not to go along. Using a sports metaphor, I see the week position we conservatives are in and I say it's time to punt. Our secondary line of defense is in the House and Senate. We can't advance our agenda but we can limit the damage to it. And it will be easier to make our case to the American people if we have a distinct difference to show them. I would rather have a liberal in the White House to fight than a RINO intent on deal making and appeasement.

Just say NO!

RJ