What stands out to me in the wonderful discussion is that all seem to agree that, yes indeed, the Koran and Hadith mandate the killing of unbelievers and apostates.

One of the problems with Islam is that it is not only a religion, but an all-encompassing system to guide all daily life. I forget who said that Islam is a religion that has spawned a state (or several states). With the state subject to the church (mosque), any action against the state is by default action against the religion, rebellion is apostasy.

Koran is peace and freedom. Many of you do not know the difference between Koran and Hadith. Spencer himself admits the Koran has complete freedom. But he szays these verses have been abrogated by verse 9-29. Thats Sunni talks. Sunni Islam is a later innovation that emerged during the Abbasid Empire. It has nothing to do with Koran.

Koran is peace and freedom:
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?54…

Robert Spencer only talks about SUNNI Islam. Sunni Islam is not Koranic. They emerged during the Abbsid Empire two cennturies after the Koran. Sunni Islam is what Spencer focuses on because on the Koran he hasnothing. Sunni and Spencer relies on hadith(oral traditions) thatw ere compiled centuries after Muhammad. Like the Judaic Talmud. Jesus condemned the talmud so did the Koran.

Koran is peace!
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?54…

When faced with an environment where reasoning is quashed, my father used to advise me to simply respond with an 'ok', but go ahead and do what is right. We too need to keep working towards a groundswell of a new Muslim awkening, while taking some of the vetriol in the commentary with a grain of salt…

I'm not an Islamic scholar but these gentlemen failed to get at the heart of the matter.

There's a reason why the Islamic world is so adamant about a literal translation of the Quran and Muhammad's sayings. That reason lies at the very theological heart of Islam. So, to deny the literal interpretation is to deny the central tenet of Islam.

Moderate, modern Muslims like Mr. Jasser appear to be unwilling to confront this truth, for to do so results in the entire theological basis for the religion collapsing.

That fundamental tenet is that Muhammad didn't write the Quran, God did…

Muhammad merely took dictation, as Muhammad claims that the Archangel Gabriel physically visited him numerous times and directly dictated God's words to Muhammad for him to put in the Quran.

Muhammad claims that in every particular it is God's words, not his and that Gabriel ensured that he got it exactly right. Which means, that a literal translation rests upon the very firmest theological ground. Many passages in the Quran are unequivocal with literally no room for misunderstanding.

So logically, if one denies the literal translation, then you are asserting that Muhammad didn't get it right. But if Muhammad got who wrote it wrong, what else did he get wrong? And if Muhammad got it wrong, then the Quran can't be God's perfect word…

That is why Islam hasn't had its reformation, nor can it because to reform it, you have to 'gut' Muhammad's central and foundational tenet. But do that and the religion becomes theologically bankrupt.

Romans 4:16, 17 (New Living Translation) — So that is why faith is the key. The promise of God is given to us as a free gift. And we are certain to receive it whether or not we follow Jewish customs if we have faith like the faith of Abraham because Abraham is the father of all who believe. That is what the Scriptures mean when God told Abraham, "I have made you the father of many nations." (Gen17:5) This happened because Abraham believed in the God who brings the dead back to life and who brings into existence what did not exist before.

Anyway, the problem I have with "democratically-minded Muslims of good will" (if not an oxymoron), as I pointed out, is how they can possibly reconcile that dissonance without repudiating their "prophet".

Shalom

(BTW, while I hold Jesus as a great example of ideal conduct, that i say as a Jew and not a Christian.)

I guess I've become too sickened by diplomacy's bastard child, "Political Correctness", to be bothered indulging it any further (as the refuge of intellectual wankers) when the truth is the truth. In other words, call a spade a bloody shovel or be damned!

"Luther et al only had to show how the RC Church had perverted the original teachings and should not be followed – while Muslims have to be shown how their original teachings are already perverse and should not be followed! "

One faith is inherently peaceful, the other not. One's founder a true example for all mankind, the other a terribly – pun intended – "imperfect man."

It never ceases to amaze me how supposedly intelligent and educated people (especially when raised in a free Judeo-Christian society) can still adhere to and claim Muhammadan Islam as a legitimate ‘religion’, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The extraordinary mental and psychological gymnastics required to persist in the notion that it can ever be “moderate” or “reformed” without completely repudiating everything associated with its vile founder/creator and exemplar is beyond my comprehension.

Trying to use the protestant reformers of Christianity as an analogous example is totally backwards; since Luther et al only had to show how the RC Church had perverted the original teachings and should not be followed – while Muslims have to be shown how their original teachings are already perverse and should not be followed!

To believe that attempting to prune or graft the branches of a tree poisonous at its roots is anything but a naive exercise in futility is intellectually dishonest.

Apostasy hu Akbar!
http://www.ummat-al-kuffar.org/

Zuhdi Jasser says,

"I and my family and many other Muslims have lived and believe
"in an Islam and modernization of the message of the Prophet Muhammad
"that is not in conflict with our oath to the U.S. Constitution."

Question –

Which came first, and who decides to amend Muhammad's historical authority in a way that true believers will agree is justified so that it is not in conflict with an oath required by later generations?

Well, from the perspective of "true believers," the answer is historical, and not open to debate, is it?

If Islam and the message of Muhammad preceeded the U.S. Constitution, on what basis is an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States to be proposed?

What is the answer from "top-rung-of-the-ladder" Islamic true believer thought leaders? What is the 21st century answer from "literal" Islam? Vijay Kumar's "literal" Islam seems to be more accurate than "radical" Islam.