The fact is that there are no “moderate” Muslims. There are those who kill and hate (so-called radicals) and those that make excuses and lie about Islam (The ones known as “moderates”).

The only difference is tactics. Both want to impose their values and end our freedoms. Both believe the Quran and consider Mohammad a great moral example to follow (so what if he lied, killed, raided, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and even beat his own wife — accorcing to Islamic hadith). Figure out, if you can, what that means.

The future will not be nice.

http://www.kactuzkid.com

Old Man Kactuz

We do not need any more enemies within.

You are not exactly a Christian, I take it. However, if you are, let me gently instruct you in your erroneous thoughts, brother.

The incident involving separation of church and state as recorded in the Gospels seems, superficially at least, to be, as you say, about coinage. Jesus is asked about paying taxes, He points out that the coins used come from Caesar (and have Caesar’s face on them); since they use Roman coins, they should pay Roman taxes.

However, let me draw your attention to the fact that the American Revolution was triggered by the Boston Tea Party, and that the popular catchcry is still ‘no taxes without representation’, suggesting that in some way, taxes and government had something to do with each other. To be more specific, the tax collector represents the government, since without the taxes, government cannot function.

Indeed, the first sign that something more than simple civil disobedience is on the way is usually the group refusal to pay taxes. Not tax evasion or avoidance, but tax denial from an entire segment of society, or the whole society. It is debatable whether or not you can call yourself a government at all if you do not collect some kind of tax/tariff/assessment/fee. The government sees this power to tax as traditionally arrogated to itself and views very dimly any effort to usurp it.

In the incident involving Jesus, His enemies thought it a two-pronged sword. Should He advocate paying taxes, then He would lose His popularity amongst the people, since the taxes were crushing and the Jews did not really accept the Roman authority over them. Should He, however, advocate not paying taxes, then He is an insurrectionist and they can report Him as such – let the Romans deal with Him afterwards.

When Jesus did and said what He did and said, He pretty much established the separation of church and state; not only that the church should not interfere with the workings of the state, but also vice versa. But there is yet a higher principle here; We are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Hence, if we disagree with certain state-made laws, and we choose civil disobedience in obedience to God’s higher laws, we are to accept the consequences for this.

Islam cannot conceive of this. Because in Islam, the ‘church’ and the ’state’ are one and the same thing. You cannot, in an Islamic society, in an Islamic state, disobey the state without also disobeying Allah. Which is why the damned punishments are so bloody ridiculous, and why even the act of Christian worship requires a licence and a permit.

If anything, the cocktail of religion and government has only acted as an obstacle to modernization and freedom for the largely moderate 1.2 billion Muslims of the globe.

That’s an interesting point. I’d resolve it by observing that the “sovereignty question” is a monolithic question mark in Islam, so it was inevitable that it would crop up in some form, and would be exploited by autarchists and totalitarians. But the larger point is that there is now a competitor to this notion of sovereignty, namely liberal democracy and civil society. Christianity specifies a separation between church and state, but does so only in a small number of instances (involving coinage, mostly). Judaeism doesn’t, but leaves the issue of sovereignty in a muddled status. Islam is more like Juaeism than Christianity, in the sense that (with the exception of the Shi’a Quietists) the issue of sovereignty is muddled. I propose, very simply, that we take advantage of this ambiguity and sectarian division in order to promote liberal democracy and civil society in the Middle East. As Americans we should be very cognizant of the blessings of sectarianism. It isn’t as exotic as it seems, and clearly the military dominance that the US enjoys will influence deliberations within the Ummah. We could call this the “new realism” (not to be confused with the “new conservatism”). Tongue decidedly planted in cheeque.

Couldn’t agree more!! Now if only the “moderate” muslims would realize how chained they are to archaic beliefs and behaviors.