Islam & Talk Radio

[Dror]

Well, maybe the teachings and example of a man who lived 2000 years ago are no longer pertinent, but...

What would Jesus do?

Can you honestly picture him torturing people, even though they would be willing to torture him? Can you picture him killing all radical Muslims become some of them commit acts of terrorism?

Maybe '24' would not be as exciting to watch, but we're talking about real life and real people, not a TV show--there is a difference.

Dror

[CrimsonKairos]

Perhaps we don't know Jesus as well as we think.

Remember in the Old Testament when Israel left Egypt and re-claimed the promised land? Remember the part where Jehovah (who is Jesus) authorized the Israelites to do the following to Jericho:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ######, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)

Now I'm not intersted in debating this to death. I'd like to think that you'd agree that torturing someone (and I'm not talking the iron maiden...sleep deprivation, threat of force, psychological intimdation, et al) is not as extreme as killing them.

How is it that the same Jesus who authorized the wholesale slaughter of a city, wouldn't allow his servants to torture the wicked if it would save the righteous and fulfill his purposes? Doesn't make sense to me.

If Nephi could've acquired the brass plates by torturing Laban, instead of cutting his head off, would that have been better or worse?

[MaidservantX]

Reading this gives me lots of thoughts.

First of all, I would encourage everyone interested to get a hold of and read a book entitle "The Mainstream of Human Progress". Islam, as it was first established and practice for many centuries, is the direct parent of the economy and ideology and personal liberty (etc) we enjoy in the United States of America today. Muslims, in my mostly uninformed opinion, have lost this heritage, rather than kept it as even themselves might believe. For the Cliff notes version of that parenthood that allowed the arising of the United States to be possible, it is: Prophet Mohammed, the age in Islam of economic freedom and wealth (i.e. production of beautiful buildings, cloth; i.e. invention of algebra; so on), moors conquer spain, spain and italy's rennaissance based on the infection of thought brought by moors (or the synergy of the two ways of thought), rennaissance led to age of enlightment through several stages til we get to people like Isaac Newton, Hobbes and Locke, and Martin Luther, and then, of course, most LDS can pick up the chronology from there both as to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution and the Restoration of the Gospel. This book, of course, has no knowledge of the Restoration, but as I read the book, I personally marvelled that Heavenly Father was preparing for the First Vision way back when he sent Gabriel to inspire Mohammed. That's what I got from it, anyway. In fact, this book was part of my answer when I asked God if other religions on the earth were given by him, or what.

Also, here is one of those exceptions, one of my favorite: 3 Nephi ch 5: 4 thru6. For myself, I would put more emphasis on v4.

LDS know that they are supposed to stand up for the right, and often we translate that into fighting for the right. Not that that is wrong, but I just wonder if we could translate it into teaching for the right a little more often.

Dror, I notice you have a Rumi quote there (who is Muslim -- and perhaps Dervish?).

Here is a Rumi poem. It just gives me shivers for its beauty and redemption.

[it gets translated a variety of ways; here is the one I like best]

Come, come whoever you are

Wanderer, worshipper, lover of leaving

Ours is not a caravan of despair

Ours is a caravan of hope

Come, come even if you've broken your vows a thousand times

Come yet again, come

[Serg]

I'm concerned about the tone and approach that many--including some religious leaders--have taken towards Islam and the War on Terror.

1. The War on Terror is not a war on Islam

2. There are plenty of "moderate Muslims," who are happy to live in western Democracies, and quietly practice their faith.

3. To argue that Muslims are dangerous because a few are and not enough of the rest condemn them to our satisfaction, is an outrageous standard.

4. The media drumbeat against Islam, primarily aimed at convincing the public that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, and bent on conquest, is dangerously similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews in the mid-1930s.

Speaking for my own faith, to condemn non-aggressors in such blanket fashion creates fear and hate. My God is not a God of fear, and my Scriptures tell me that He is love.

Bottom-line: We should be able to combat terror without resorting to mass barbarism.

Interestingly, if an"american' response is yuxtaposed against a 'nazi'response in the sens ethat the american one is the most 'proper'or tight you deceive your self. because Americans did for the russians(i.e.cubans) what the nazis for the jews. So this is no choice, most territories of teh american empire have been taken through force and deceit. Not something to be proud of. Say it to me that am puertorican!!

[Outshined]

Perhaps we don't know Jesus as well as we think.

Remember in the Old Testament when Israel left Egypt and re-claimed the promised land? Remember the part where Jehovah (who is Jesus) authorized the Israelites to do the following to Jericho:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ######, with the edge of the sword." (Joshua 6:21)

Now I'm not intersted in debating this to death. I'd like to think that you'd agree that torturing someone (and I'm not talking the iron maiden...sleep deprivation, threat of force, psychological intimdation, et al) is not as extreme as killing them.

How is it that the same Jesus who authorized the wholesale slaughter of a city, wouldn't allow his servants to torture the wicked if it would save the righteous and fulfill his purposes? Doesn't make sense to me.

If Nephi could've acquired the brass plates by torturing Laban, instead of cutting his head off, would that have been better or worse?

That sure puts an interesting twist on the question.

[MaidservantX]

It sounds so simply true to say that it is better to torture a war prisoner (or at least higher up terrorist criminals) when compared with increased safety of United States citizens (and the world) if we could get information from them that would allow us to protect ourselves. It's hard to argue that; and yet, I find that I must.

Let me see if I can show where I'm coming from.

There is a principle called 'on the table'. In this world, individually, nationally and at every point in between, we obviously are still fighting the struggle that started in heaven -- between Heavenly Father and Jesus' plan versus Satan's plan. We have to choose with small actions in our ordinary daily lives -- and this is really the most important and crucial arena -- but quite often we also have larger arenas and conflicts where we have to defend ourselves against Satan's plan. I think, as a society, that we have come far beyond believing that the end justifies the means; indeed, I'm not sure that the above statement of 'truth' comes under that heading. Meaning, I'm not discussing the idea that the end justifies the means, because that debate is obsolete, as a society we already realize the resolution of that debate. But I wish to emphasize a concept that I think we need to try more often.

When something bad happens -- such as 9/11 -- we have to respond in some way, and we have to respond in a way that defends the right and frustrates evil. But what is the actual technique of that response? What do we have at our disposal?

War is an invention. It was invented by man and Satan. But there are a few societies on the earth that do not practice war, even when they have negative emotional conflicts. They don't have a concept of war.

In the United States we have the concept of war and we have the concept of torture. They are responses we can put in hand if we reach the stimulus that would in our minds make them necessary.

I hope for the day when we can take war and torture off the table of possible responses. Most people will think I'm off my rocker and ask what else is there and would pull their hair out if I provide the semantic 'diplomacy'. (I think that's a hokey semantic, too.)

Coming back to torture, and leaving war aside, I was under the naive impression that torture was, OF COURSE, off of the table as far as the United States. I felt very betrayed finding out it was not; not that I've reached the frenzy of outrage one sometimes gather from some media. I always have the image of Iraqi soldiers surrendering to American Troops in a battle or two of the Kuwaiti war -- they knew that that surrender was better for them than the cause they had been required to be a soldier for. I'm sure I'm generalizing those incidents egregiously, but, nevertheless, that was my perception at the time.

Torture, as with all violent acts to force someone to do something, is a temporary solution with a huge (future) backlash. I personally think that we would get more information in the long run and more total peace in the world, if we treated all people with respect, even if the only respect they deserve is that they are children of God. We are saying that the terrorists are MAKING us torture them because they are so bad and won't tell us things. We've all heard the shape of that argument among children. He MADE me do it, otherwise I wouldn't have. We know very well we have to get past that and make choices we know are RIGHT. I can't imagine too many torture methods that I would put under 'RIGHT' no matter what.

I appreciate others' opinions to the contrary, because it's not an easy or simple question, and I'm certainly not first person in the middle of it. Maybe I would think differently if I was. But, as an American Citizen, I do not authorize torture to anyone. No one in the world EVER should be tortured. It should be completely off the table.

[CrimsonKairos]

Good thoughts, xhenli.

The only problem is, the terrorists are never going to give up torture and murder. There will always be terrorists until the Millenium. In fact, it's only going to get worse, according to the scriptures.

So here's the situation. The "bad guys" aren't afraid to use force or do cruel things (rape, mutilate, behead) to innocent people in order to get their way. The "good guys" (in your model) would eschew weaponry, a military, and definitely torture.

So the terrorists attack us or our allies. We don't attack back (I don't know what we'd do in that case, except follow the example of the martyrs in Alma 24:21-22). This lack of a military response reinforces the mindest of the terrorists, namely, that strength is the way to achieve political goals. We don't set an example for them by laying down and dying, we validate their murderous mindset.

Now perhaps you will say, "Hey CK, Alma 24 shows that by allowing the enemy to kill us without fighting back, they can be changed." I don't think that would happen in our day and age. Why?

In the age of swords, spears and cudgels, killing the enemy was a face-to-face affair. You saw the look in their eyes as you slashed their chest open; you heard them cry out in pain as they bled to death under your blade. It was a very personal, powerful experience.

Today, the foe sits in a look-out spot hundreds of yards away from his IED, and when the enemy vehicle is in place, he hits a button and wham, he's killed four to six soldiers without even touching them. Without even facing them, to be honest.

I think the Alma 24 effect was powerful because the Lamanites were faced with those they were murdering. Today, say we dismantle our military. We declare that we love peace and refuse to harm any of our brothers and sisters worldwide. Then the first dirty bomb goes off in D.C. It's all over the news, but the terrorists only get as close to their slain enemies as they can get to their plasma TV that's showing the aftermath on CNN's special report. They feel no pity, no remorse, only the addictive rush of victory. More bombs follow. More news coverage follows. The pattern doesn't end.

Finally, America ends up with Arabic as the national language and Christianity and capitalism forbidden. Oh yeah, and your sisters, wives and daughters must wear abayas and veils in public or risk being beaten by the mutawa, the religious police (as per Iran and Saudi Arabia's examples).

Based on prophecy, the pattern of recent history and the nature of the enemy overseas, I don't see the conflict lessening, slackening or even staying even. It'll get worse. We either throw down the gauntlet, or the Constitution. I for one might not mind dying for my cause, allowing my enemy to slaughter me as an example of innocence. But when you're talking about my family, that's where the martyr-mode stops.

I don't know if I have it in me to torture someone. I do believe in the value of torture as a means of saving innocent lives. Our enemy grew up in a totally different culture than us. I'm talking besides the religious and political differences. In America, we go to the grocery store and pick out a leg of lamb, or take advantage of the nearest drive-thru to get our meat. In the Middle-East, it's still fairly common for many families to butcher their own animals for food. There is no separation between the slaughter and the supper. Americans get grossed out by baiting a hook with a worm, or cleaning up roadkill, or cleaning a fish (gutting it).

We don't have the stomach for war that they do. Not because they're more evil, but because they've lived a harsher, more unforgiving life than most Westerners. I've watched several beheading videos. It turns my stomach, sure. Makes my throat constrict and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth. Brings a sour taste to my mouth. I'd like to think that's partly the Spirit confirming the evil nature of those acts, but it also has to do with my upbringing and culture.

Disarming ourselves is not a viable option. When the Lord comes, all nations will worship him. Until then, it's brother against brother and right against wrong. It is not wrong to fight to protect our rights, lives and liberties. In fact, I think it's divine. There was a war in heaven, remember. Not a bloody war, more a war of testimony and words, but a war nonetheless.

"Peace through war" is one of those seemingly paradoxical truths that is often rejected. Capital punishment is society's way of affirming that life is sacred...despite the apparent self-contradiction. We don't emphasize the value of peace by refusing to fight. We affirm the value of peace by siezing it by the throat and levelling the point of our sword at any who would rip it from our grasp.

This is a telestial world, with telestial people in it. Righteous men may have to behead the wicked (as per Laban's demise); righteous men may have to torture the wicked. Make no mistake, the enemy is going to torture captured soldiers whether we torture our prisoners or not. They're not going to serve tea and cakes to their prisoners even if we serve it to ours.

The only message they understand is one written by M16's and punctuated by mortar rounds. Sad, but true. The question is, do we deliver the message or swear allegiance to Mohammed? Islam does mean "submission," but unfortunately the strictest, most radical Muslims believe it is the West who should submit to them and not just to God. Oh, yeah, and they happen to be well-funded and hard as heck to track and eliminate.

If torturing one man saves just one life from being snuffed out carelessly by extremists, then I say put the bamboo under their fingernails as a start...and then get serious until the truth is revealed.

[MaidservantX]

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my opinions and beliefs. I would always want to defend myself against an attack of any kind -- individual, national. I may decide that it is better to turn the other cheek, but I might decide that I don't need to be a doormat. I may even decide that the best defense is an offense. It would depend on the unique case. I believe wholeheartedly that all adults in the United States ought to be part of the armed forces or receive training to be able to defend ourselves (not plugging for a draft here, however; but I do like Israel's requirements for everyone to serve). I believe in strong weaponry as a nation. I think that a direct, "thrash the nations" war (although that's a missionary quote, I know) can be conducted without torture. Again, I may hardly know what I'm talking about, sitting in my lovely living room. I refuse to be subjugated by any one, and I hope I'm never guilty of oppressing another.

But I NEVER think in terms of "us" and "them". It's ALL us. We're all us. The world belongs to us. ALL of us. We still have to admit the possibility of no war, I hope, and see if in actions, large or small, we can move that way.

As far as the kind of men who are perpetrating oppression and terror and whatever else you want to call it -- I do respect them as children of God, but that is truly where the respect stops. And I wouldn't call these criminals Muslims. They dirty that religion, shame it. I want them stopped. HOWEVER, I wish we could see that part of STOPPING THEM (not letting them go on), might be NOT to play their game. How do we know the difference between honorably and thoroughly defending ourselves; and stooping to their level (speaking of any conflict, even personal ones, not just the current world war)? Gosh, that's a big lesson even I haven't learned completely yet.

Also, for the record, at least this newest Bush plan I believe is an honorable defense (not a 'stooping to their level'). Just please don't torture people.

Thanks for the back and forth of ideas.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for the clarification xhenli. I'd like to ask a hypothetical question, just to stir thought, not to prove my point. Suppose the following:

A terrorist cell (not necessarily Muslim, it can be any religion or no religion) has infiltrated your home city. They have a bomb powerful enough to kill anyone within a 10 mile radius, and this includes you and your family.

You and a squad of police officers locate and capture the cell leader. He tells you that the bomb will detonate in 10 minutes. After a few punches in the gut, he admits that the bomb is only seven minutes away.

You have three minutes to discover the location of the bomb. You don't have time to call in negotiators, specialists or any outside help. Every second that goes by is one second closer to your city going up in a mushroom cloud.

You can arrest the man and take him to the police station as protocol requires. Or you can do anything you can think of (read: torture) to get the man to tell you where the bomb is...and you have three minutes. Oh, and your daughter is pregnant with twins. And she's in the city limits.

What behavior would you be willing to countenance in that situation? How far would be too far in the pursuit of this life-saving information?

I'm not trying to get you to admit that torture has its place in extreme situations. You very well could answer, "I'd arrest the terrorist according to law and let the bomb detonate rather than offend the standards of decency I hold to." That's your prerogative. I'm just trying to provide an example of a situation where it might be very tempting to employ torture, when we might otherwise despise such behavior.

[MaidservantX]

Well, as you say, I can't completely disagree with your scenario and wouldn't know what I would do in individual situations. I suppose I could be comforted if I knew that the United States didn't employ torture systematically and as a matter of course and that it was employed on people who don't crack information with methods more humane than torture and only employed on those who could be deemed to have unutterably crucial information. That may be exactly how the United States is doing it now, I don't know. I guess my fear would be the use of torture to punish a war prisoner for existing, for his crimes, without trial, even after trial (just execute them) -- for just a release for our offended supposed righteousness. I still don't think torture ought to have place in our beliefs, but . . . there might be times, you are right. Another point I think about is that torture actually shows a lack of imagination, and weakness on our part with the idea that moving to torture in any situation means that we are increasing our strength. I think it would be a weakness to move to torture, not more strength. If we aren't scary enough with our basic American posture, torture adds to it? I can't see it. Of course, I'm not the one who has to see it -- war criminals do. I suppose it also depends on how they perceive torture -- is it gaining control or losing control? In my eyes, it is losing control. But, maybe the war criminals which we are dealing with today see it as gaining control. But is there no way to connect to something deeper in our "foe" as a whole?? I don't know. (I'm not one who believes in 'rehabilitation' for every criminal. There are some that this just isn't possible.) Just some ramblings.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for the insights into your views.

[Tzu-Jan]

I agree and it bothers me often.

[terry0400-40]

The media drumbeat against Islam, primarily aimed at convincing the public that Islam is inherently violent, coercive, and bent on conquest, is dangerously similar to Nazi propaganda against Jews in the mid-1930s.

Uh, speaking of Nazies and Muslims here's some REALLY interesting pictures that were probably not in your high school social studeis textbooks.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/2543

By the way PC, have you ever asked your Islamic cleric what his vision of America is? If not, please ask him what his ideal America is and what kinds of laws would exist if the majority of Americans were Muslim.

Also, why demonize Michael Savage? I have only heard him a few times but he seems to have a braod background -- being originally a liberal Jew and eventually evolving into a conservative. He is blunt but could you give me some examples of what he says that might put him into the extremist camp?

Thank you for this very interesting information, and also the photos, i will have another look, but it is amazing how beings have conspired amoungst one and another to eliminate those they perceive as a threat or an enemy, just one of the ways men react i suppose, its a good thing all will turn out well in the end.

[Mahdi]

In the name of God.

I think All of us believe in God so Comparing religions with Satanism Humans like Hitler,Saddam,... is not right.

we should compare religions with religions.

[Dr T]

In the name of God.

What exactly do you mean by that Mahdi?

[FrankJL]

Perhaps I'm too coarse or uncaring, as result of seeing my fellow soldiers get killed, and having personally killing several Iraqi's myself...but...

I could care less about smacking around some Iraqi pow, if it means saving the lives of even one of our soldiers, or civilians back home.. Its all this political correctness crap that has caused this war to drag on as long as it has, if we were allowed to go over there and do the job that we are trained to do, this insurgency would have been dealt with long ago. Instead we are worried about what France, or some other quasi socialist country thinks of how we act, or we are too damn scared of what might be on CNN, to get misinterpreted by a bunch of tree hugging hippies in this country, who wouldn't stand up for this country even if a Chinese tank was rolling down the road in front of their house. It is complete nonsense what is going on over there, we get all riled up because someone had to wear panties on their head, and seem to turn a blind eye to when they hung 3 of our contractors from a bridge and burned their bodies.

Instead we repeatedly bend over and grab our ankles to try to appease these people, and its done nothing for us but get our people killed, and bring our soldier's morale down to the point where most of them over there right now really don't care about the mission, because they know they really can't do anything to stop it. Try to put your self in the position of a solider that has to go out on a patrol every day, knowing that your going to take fire from a mosque, fire which 2 days earlier killed on of your people, but yet you can't return back anything more then small arms fire, because its a "historic and religious protected site". Instead of having the whole place leveled by cruise missile. We can't do that though, as soon as we did it would be front page news in the new york times, cnn, and every other liberal, hate america media institution in this country. Oh and btw...according to the geneva convention, a protected site (i.e mosque, school, hospital, ect) loses its protected status when hostile action is taken from within it. So we would be still be playing by the rules, even if we did level it, but we don't because we fear some public backlash. Of course not that the geneva conventiona even matters in the first place, it seems we are the only country that even follows it.

ok..i'm done for now, before I say something to really upset someone...as if I probabbly haven't already.

[CrimsonKairos]

Why are liberals surprised when our soldiers stumble in completing their mission, when it's the liberals who gave those soldiers feet of clay to begin with? It's ridiculous.

Frank pretty much said everything I want to so...Amen!

[sixpacktr]

Thanks for the clarification xhenli. I'd like to ask a hypothetical question, just to stir thought, not to prove my point. Suppose the following:

A terrorist cell (not necessarily Muslim, it can be any religion or no religion) has infiltrated your home city. They have a bomb powerful enough to kill anyone within a 10 mile radius, and this includes you and your family.

You and a squad of police officers locate and capture the cell leader. He tells you that the bomb will detonate in 10 minutes. After a few punches in the gut, he admits that the bomb is only seven minutes away.

You have three minutes to discover the location of the bomb. You don't have time to call in negotiators, specialists or any outside help. Every second that goes by is one second closer to your city going up in a mushroom cloud.

You can arrest the man and take him to the police station as protocol requires. Or you can do anything you can think of (read: torture) to get the man to tell you where the bomb is...and you have three minutes. Oh, and your daughter is pregnant with twins. And she's in the city limits.

What behavior would you be willing to countenance in that situation? How far would be too far in the pursuit of this life-saving information?

I'm not trying to get you to admit that torture has its place in extreme situations. You very well could answer, "I'd arrest the terrorist according to law and let the bomb detonate rather than offend the standards of decency I hold to." That's your prerogative. I'm just trying to provide an example of a situation where it might be very tempting to employ torture, when we might otherwise despise such behavior.

CK...

I think I saw that on 24!

While I think that we need to be open minded to the good in others, and the contributions of other societies, we also can't hide our heads in the sand and hope that the moderate and good muslims will stand up and be counted BECAUSE THEY AIN'T DOING IT! They are letting the gadianton robbers rule the roost and refusing to do anything about it. We have to protect ourselves and defeat them. Then we can help them out, much as we did Germany and Japan after WW2, and they will be our allies, not our enemies.

[Mahdi]

In the name of God.

What exactly do you mean by that Mahdi?

Well I only wanted to begin My Writing by the name of "God".

[Guest Yediyd]

I do not claim to be an expert on the Qur'an. I've taken some courses, read bits, and worked with Muslims. The mainstream orthodox understanding of the Qur'an is that many of those passages, like many passages of the Old Testament, were time-specific, and NOT meant as universally and eternally applicable commands.

If I wanted to do violence to Christian Scriptures, I could take the verses about cutting off the hands and cutting out the eyes that offend, about hating mother and father, about Jesus saying he did not come to bring peace, but a sword, etc. Look how Peter, one of Jesus' main disciples, cut the ear off a soldier? etc. Most here know enough about the Scriptures to answer each of these, but if someone were to take this litany to a Muslim audience, unknowledgeable about our New Testament, and say, "How can you say Christians are peaceful? Don't you see the inherent violence?" . . .

Sometimes we need to walk in the other's shoes a bit, imho.

Got to agree with PC on this one........

The things I was taught to believe about the Mormon church were just false...I had to find that out for myself....

Ignorance and prejudgedes...produces hatred and intolorance.

[Dr T]

Yes but what did that signify in beginning your post?

[MaidservantX]

It is simply a way to offer praise and humility to God when undertaking to speak (at all).

[a-train]

Let's just let Israel handle the middle east and forget about the whole thing.

-a-train

[Mahdi]

Let's just let Israel handle the middle east and forget about the whole thing.

-a-train

Ithink Jesus(pbuh) will come and solve the problems . I know He wouldn't help those who do against of His teachings.

[valkator]

The history of Islam can only be understood by studying it from the multiple angles and histories it understands itself from. It's best to not project our own sense of history, identity, and 'ways of living' onto them. There is an effort on the part of many Muslim apologists to whitewash the development of their religion, the history surrounding it, and the utter brutality that has characterized it from the beginning. It's unfortunate that many, in their wanting to remain optimistic about the 'good nature' of people, have a difficult time seeing through the veil of Islam; to actually look at it and see the reality for what it is. What's happening in Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and throughout the Muslim world is what has always been.

From its inception, it has been plagued by slaughter, genocide, warfare, conquering, and the subjegation of its enemies through any and all means. It's own internal and bloody factionalism, as we see today on display throughout much of the Muslim world, was even more bloody in the beginning. Look at the Shia and Sunni chronicles of their respective sects' history and you will see not a peaceful, once-benign and peace-loving religion that has fallen away from a 'gloden age' - but brutal and genocidal rival factions all competing for power and control. The 'religion' of Islam is a political and social constitution and less of a religion. Wherever it has gained power and the people submitted, agency has disappeared and been ruthlessly eliminated. The only trend within Islam that even approaches 'spiritual' would be the Sufi-linked groups - and even they are marginal and have little to no influence in the wider Islamic world. It's ironic that ONLY in the non-Islamic nations do the 'reformers' or 'moderate' Muslims exist in any significant numbers. In their own lands they, basically, do not exist at all other than as marginalized individuals who will never speak up since they will be killed if they do so.

While it's good to not generalize and to always have empathy for the suffering of others regardless of their religion, we have to keep in mind that Islam is being pushed as the major 'cure' to all the problems of 'the West' - and many are buying into the sinister deception because the 'West' is attempting to defend itself with force and Muslims as a whole are being portrayed as the 'victims'. By not directly challenging its claims and meeting the test - which is not simply a military one but a spiritual one at the core - we may all find ourselves living in the grip of a system that would destroy us all.