posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 01:20 AM
Except for the period from about 1800 (defeat of Egypt to Napoleon) to 1980 (Khomeini revolution in Iran), the Islamic world was generally at war with
its non-Islamic rivals and borders.
There is a different scriptural basis between Judaism,Christianity versus Islam.
Even in the hebrew bible (old Testament), the wars etcetera were stated as historical *facts* or as part of god's will or plan.
It was also made quite clear that humans and kings and rulers can be sinful and fallible. Even the great King David, who is as close to a worshipped
conquerer as anybody in the old Testament, was said to be prohibited from building the Temple housing the Ark because he was a soldier and had blood
on his hands.
By contrast, Mohammed's actions are not just facts but explicit scriptural *proscriptions*: thou shalt's. To be like Mohammed is desirable in
The reality is that Islam and Muslims are hence less intrinsically resistant to radical and intolerant interpretations than Judaism and Christianity.
They can be moderate and many are and have been. But the central ideologies *ARE* different.
Also Jewish law is not interpreted to automatically supercede or be incompatible with civil law, but Islamic law, Sharia, is explicitly seen to be the
*only* law and hence is incompatible with democracy in some justified religious interpretations, i.e. man is not supposed to make law, only God.
There was a Protestant Reformation in the Christian world which tried to "get back to its roots" (though that certainly didn't stop the wars,
though Catholics were pretty responsible for many atrocities too)....despite the wars a large thrust was to remove from Christianity the non
scriptural crust which had built up, and that included wars and the Crusades.
If there is an Islamic Reformation, though, getting "back to the roots" would mean more war and violence and less tolerance of non-Muslims.
Unfortunately, Usama bin Laden is pretty accurate scripturally. He just emphasizes some parts and not others.
There are different parts to the Quran---the early "mecca" part is generally pretty nice. Then when people didn't all flock to him and love him,
Mohammed got medieval and more warlike and hence the "Medina" part and Hadith, which were more militant.
Now what about Medina? What happened there? In a nutshell, Mohammed killed and ethnically cleansed the Jews who lived there.
[Contrary to the modern-day radical propaganda which says that Jews in the Middle East are all European usurpers, there has been continuous presence
for thousands of years. How many Jews are presently living in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Zero.]
The wars of the Hebrews against the Akalamites and pagan Romans are over, no Akalamites and Romans are around any more.
But the Islamic scripture has an explicit account of Mohammed conquering Jews---and even after making a temporary truce to lull them into thinking
there would be peace.
It is silly to imagine that this clearly doesn't influence current issues.