Michael Penn wrote:

It's impossible to grasp jihad and jahiliyyah as understood and practiced by modern Islamic terrorists by simply invoking Quranic ideas without addressing how Qutbism significantly helped create a radically new phenomenon.

Sure, Saayid Qutb has his important place in the jihad's modern revival, but I would seriously argue that he was advocating a 'radically new phenomenon.' He was merely reminding his modern Muslims what the core of Islam is about and what it truly preached.

"So Knut, please stop your moral equivalency, it's embarrassing."

Christianity was introduced in our country through the sword. The burning of temples and gods / idols, the killing of people who refused to convert, abducting children and threatening to kill them unless their parents converted etc. 

What Jesus said matters only to the extent that christian churches and christian princes followed it. It is a fact that Christianity was promoted by the sword as well as peaceful means, and heretics and apostates were put to death. It doesn't matter what christians say Jesus is all about,if it's contradicted by what really happened. Just like it doesn't matter what moslems say Islam is all about, if it's contradicted by what really happened.

Not a big fan of Islam, but it really isn't unique. And I'm not saying this to somehow let Islam off the hook.

It's just that I'm living in an environment where I'm constantly confronted with the absurd generalization that Christianity is flawless whereas Islam is evil. So to me, all too often the "flip-side" of the "Islam is evil" argument is the implication that "They should all be christians instead because that's a good religion".

Obviously I'm not attributing those views to you, but it is the reason that I feel that such a context must be seen. Also, the understanding that some of the problems of other ideologies have been mitigated through exposure to democratic and humanist ideas suggests that it may be possible for Islam to "grow up" in a similar manner.

And if Judaism had its version of the Jihad, as your jewish friend claims, it would probably be the crossing of the Jordan and the following genocide as described in the Book of Kings. Though most scholars, including rabbinical scholars, tend to think that was an empty boast, a lot of hot air, as there is no external evidence of such a campaign.

Zaki wrote:

'Bosch....I consider your worldview to be no different than those demons you're railing against, and in some ways just as destructive...'

Yes, I am no different than the irrational and violent Mohammed and his true believers, hahaha. It never ceases to amaze me that Muslims cannot, for the life of them, accept the truth about their own religion.

You can always count on Muslims, who live outside of Islam, to sugurcoat the brutal truth about Islam and their prophet, and then accuse those who broach this uncomfortable subject of being just as bad as the enemy.

Here's something I wrote about Muslims like Zaki, and this goes for some of my family members as well:

AMERICAN ISLAM?

I S L A M E R I C A

Michael Penn wrote:

Qutbism is the "core of Islam"?

Islam is the core of 'Qutbism', [as you call it.]

Like with others who dare refer to Jihad today as 'Bin Ladenism', it's really embarrassing and an attempt to make lukewarm critics stay clear from isalm.

It's Islam and its Jihad that drove Qutb and drives Bin Laden.

Knut,

You mistake the idea of jihad, a doctrine of warfare within Islam, and practiced by Mohammed, to Jews and Christians who may have acted violently outside the moral bounds of their religion. No Crusader could legitimately have said that he was following Jesus' orders. Bin Laden can say he was following Mohammed's actions and orders.