It's a good thing Paul Revere was trying to warn us only about the British

Even more on the controversy:

ucfengr,

...Communism and nazism are ideologies, not religions.

On this point the difference between ideology and religion is moot, since both consist of a set of beliefs that will determine much of their adherents' behavior.

Islam is an ideology. It is unique among religions in that it defines all aspects of life. Islamic law (Shari'a) is the only law allowed. Men do not rule under Islam, Allah does. And it is not enough that only Muslims in Muslim lands are subject to it. For the conquered Infidel, there is only conversion (never "forced," but there aren't a lot of other good options under Allah), the oppression and humiliation of living as a "protected" people (Dhimma), or death.

The point of the analogy was that it is unwise to allow those who share (or who have a high likelihood of sharing, since their god commands it) the same goals as those trying to kill us into any position where they might do us harm.

Being a Muslim is more like being a Catholic. Being a Catholic doesn't require more than a nominal belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church, only that you have Catholic parents and haven't actively embraced another religion.

You and I have different definitions of "Catholic." I prefer the term have some meaning to it.

Here again is an important difference between Christianity and Islam, a misunderstanding under which many decent, well-intentioned people operate.

A nominal Catholic who discovers the Bible will find Christ commands them to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love your enemies." A nominal Muslim who discovers Qur'an and Hadith will find Allah commands them to "Fight...the People of the Book until they feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya," "...kill the unbelievers wherever you find them...," and "If anyone leaves his Islamic faith, then kill him."

As I've written previously, decent Muslims will be revulsed at Allah's commands for violence against innocents when they become aware of them. No Muslim of good will can read of Mohammed's crimes against humanity and feel anything other than disgust, shame, and anger. The trouble is that some Muslims who do become aware of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira will seek to fulfill Allah's commands against the Unbeliever. Distinguishing between those who will never accept jihad and those who, under the right circumstances, will accept the call to "fight in the cause of Allah" is not easy (until it is too late).

Jihad means different things to different Muslims. Not all agree (most probably don't) that there is a requirement to wage violent jihad to bring the world into submission to Allah. I've been to several Muslim countries, and while I don't like the fact that it is very difficult or impossible to get a beer or bacon cheeseburger, I have never had anybody try to convert me to Islam, forceably or otherwise.

"Probably?" That's beginning to sound like wishful thinking rather than a reasonable conclusion forged from the careful consideration of Islam's "holy" texts and history.

That some Muslims are ignorant of (or try to allegorize or otherwise dismiss) Allah's repeated calls for violence against the non-Muslim world does not mean that Islam's foundational "holy" texts do not require such violence. They do.

Other Muslims will not admit to a Westerner what their god's ultimate goal is. Oftentimes, supporters of Jihad in the West will say one thing to gullible, English-speaking Infidels, and say something quite different to their own.

You should also be aware of Mohammed's example: when weak, everything was cooperation and tolerance. When he finally had the military strength, it was submission or death.

(And one last note--technically-speaking, an Infidel will not be given a choice between conversion and death. They will be given the call to Islam; upon rejecting that comes Jihad. At that point, the alternatives are submission and humiliation for the "People of the Book" or death.)

Since their god does require Jihad against the Infidel, and since their prophet did practice it, the best that you can hope for from the faithful, devout Muslim is that they will reject Allah's command and his apostle's example. That means you'd be putting your hope in Muslims' disbelieving or compromising what their god clearly requires. That seems an insult to the integrity of those who profess Allah (and too much for the Infidel to expect).

Who set you up as the authority for what Allah's commands are or aren't? There is a lot of disagreement in Islam about what the Koran commands, just like in Christianity or Judaism.

(Now you've gone from "probably" to definitely?)

Rather than resort to an ad hominem attack, examine for yourself Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. Allah and his prophet are the authorities for what Allah commands, and according to Mohammed, Qur'an cannot change.

As to the false analogy, implying that because there are disagreements on some matters of doctrine in Christianity, there is also disagreement on Jihad within Islam is false. Among those who take the Bible as Christ intended, there is very strong agreement on most matters of doctrine. The same is true of Islam.

Where is the widespread "disagreement" on Jihad to which you appeal? What major school of traditional Islamic thought has rejected the doctrines of Jihad, Shari'a, and Dhimma? What Islamic groups have publicly renounced Jihad, Shari'a, and Dhimma? Which Muslims reject the timelessness of Allah's commands and Mohammed's example? What Muslims have publicly denounced bin Laden as an unbeliever and apostate?

I doubt you'll find any, because Allah's word is clear. This is why the "tiny minority of extremists" (the entire appellation is a falsehood since the supporters of Jihad are neither a "tiny" group nor "extremists") cite Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira in their justifying Jihad against the Infidel and Apostate. No Muslim can refute their claims based on Allah's revelations. This is also why we often see recent "reverts" to Islam so eager to wage war against the enemies of Allah.

Let's shift gears a little, how do you distinguish between good-willed Christians, ignorant of Jehovah's commands and the devout Christians of the Tim McVeigh or Eric Rudolph stipe, who know Jehovah's will?

The question is non-sensical. Besides that, neither McVeigh nor Rudolph professed to be Christians.

But to the point, We know YHWH's will because it has been preserved for us in His Holy Scriptures. We know whether or not a person is speaking and acting in accord with God's will by comparing what they say and do to His clear Word.

Similarly, we know Allah's will because it has been preserved in the words of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. We know whether or not a person is speaking and acting in accord with it by comparing what they say and do to the clear words of Allah.

What in any of my posts would indicate that I have blind faith in any ally, let alone UAE? I have pointed out real and tangible things that the UAE has done to help us in the War on Terror, while at the same time exposing themselves to Bin Laden's wrath. I would argue that the emirs of UAE are higher on Al Queda's hit list than George Bush, because, in OBL's mind, they are traitors to the "true faith", wheras Bush is just another infidel.

I do not deny that the UAE has helped us recently.

Do you not know their history of supporting bin Laden (an attack against him was called off several years ago because he was entertaining certain members of the UAE)? Why would you put such confidence in a group that just a few years ago was cavorting with and aiding financially (and otherwise) one of America's most vile enemies?

My comment about blind faith was a response to your statement that if we can't trust UAE, we can't trust anyone. This belief is historically short-sighted and naive since it fails to take into account the UAE's temporary self-interest. If they cooperate with us at this time, it is not because they share our values.

What kind of guarantee do you want? Not to dwell too deeply into philosophy, but what guarantee do you have that your best friend isn't sleeping with your wife (hypothetically, of course)? What guarantee do you that some disgruntled ex-employee isn't going to shoot up your workplace, with you in it? Life is a risk, making friends involves taking a risk. UAE has taken a big risk by helping us in the War on Terror, they didn't have to. If we want to continue and improve this relationship and make other ones within the Muslim world, we are going to have to be willing to assume some risk as well.

Your definition of "some risk" is apparently quite different from mine.

What you're advocating is putting your best friend into bed with your wife, or handing the heavy artillery to the guy about to go postal.

You are implying there is no difference between trusting a friend you personally know and trusting someone who swears allegiance to a god that commands he subdue or kill you. Are you really so naive? So gullible? So ignorant of Islam's "sacred" texts and history?

You seem to have an awful lot of insight into what Allah wants, does he speak to you often? There is a lot of disagreement among the various sects of Islam as to what Allah requires. Again, who set you up as arbiter of what Allah requires? There are a lot of Muslim scholars and religious leaders who disagree with you, what makes you right?

Your sarcasm betrays your ignorance of Islam.

I will ask again, what major schools of Islam reject as figurative Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? Only "apostates" and "unbelievers" do. What traditional Islamic groups reject the doctrines of Jihad, Shari'a, and Dhimma? To what "Muslim scholars and religious leaders" do you appeal? How do you know they are not engaging in taqiyya or kitman?

I have presented from Islam's own authoritative texts support for my statements. Where's yours?

The will of Allah and the example of his (false) prophet are recorded in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. In the Age of the Internet, it is no great matter for even the lowliest of Infidels to find this material (from Islamic sites) and examine it for themselves.

That you would argue against those pointing out unpalatable truths about Islam's god and apostle without knowing what Islam itself actually says about them is irresponsible, at best.

A lot of non-Muslim nations have very oppresive governments and many Muslim countries have relatively free ones. As I recall, Great Britain under Cromwell was pretty oppresive, as was Spain in the aftermath of the "reconquista". There are plenty of modern examples of extremely oppresive, non-Muslim governments as well. Freedom is a pretty recent development, it shouldn't be surprising that it's slow in spreading to the Muslim world. Why should we expect the Muslim world to be very different in that regard to the rest of the world?

That's a tu quoque apologists for Jihad like CAIR often use.

Do you realize the false reasoning you are here using? One government's oppression in no way relates to the question of whether or not traditional, historical, Qur'anic Islam oppresses non-Muslims. It always has, and it always will, as its strength allows, because Allah commands it.

Freedom (in the sense in which you are apparently using it) arose because of the religion of Christ. Freedom cannot arise under Islam because Allah requires that all religion be for him. Unbelievers are either dhimmis (subdued, oppressed, humiliated), slaves, or dead. There is no equality of Rights for all people. There is no freedom of religion or freedom of speech (Danish cartoons, anyone?). There is only Islam.