Peter F

Of course. How else would it work? None? One? Why don't you tell us about all the cases that went by unnoticed and why they were unnoticed and why unnoticed things need dealing with?

Yup.

and, by the same token, it's a Canadian value to rape and murder 14 and 15 year olds.

ah, no. Thats the food supplier imposing itself on the buyer.

Excellent - so they weren't all bad now were they? We accept lots of casualties associated with boozing - no problem at all. How many casualties shall we accept? I think it was your idea that 60,000 per day would be about right before we need to start questioning things? The casualties of the Somme was your bench-mark was it not? No, this is what you are jumping to a preferred conclusion about. I will defend many religions, probably most of them. Put my name in your little book. Or actually, since its probably already there, put an asterisk beside it.

Very commendable and, I imagine, very trying in certain circumstances.

....except for the millions that aren't, of course. And Islam need not go anywhere.

And the Quran is the basis of the Islamic state, is it not? Your claim is that Islamic states will require the masses to take up the sword on command. I am saying so what? We Westerners already do that and have been doing that for centuries.

No cite needed just look around you. You claim that its the duty of all muslims to kill infidels upon the command of ISIS. ISIS has issued the command. How many have taken up the sword? Sliks statement 'the vast majority of Christians and Muslims are moral despite their scripture not because of their scripture.' is true and your claim that all muslims 'must' and especially your insinuation that they 'will' is obviously false.

Not at all. It is a requirement of the State whenever the State feels the need. Note that the State, in Western experience has never been an Islamic one.

Oh wow. Like that is a foreign concept to us Westerners. Ever hear of Conscription?

Maritime law?

Citizenship oath: " I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen."

Dog says it needs fixing: So FIX it!

Fine. So you dismiss the letter as drivel. Help yourself, consider them apostates and terrorists and fringe elements. But do not proclaim ISIS as the right and true and only interpretation of Islam - just as DogonPorch did .

Not being a scholar of Islam myself, so it would be very difficult and tremendously presumptuous of me to provide you a list of approved-by-PeterF scholars of Islam. I assume the authors of the letter are scholarly types. Perhaps some members of ISIS are Islamic scholars too, maybe. The authors of the letter didn't think so. But I can say who I definately do not think are scholars of Islam: Peter F; Dog on Porch; Drummindiver; Argus and pretty much everyone else on Maple Leaf Web. *in reply to post 241

Did I say what their interpretation of Islam is? No. The authors certainly have a different interpretation than Dog on Porch does They wrote a letter to al-Baghdadi telling al-Baghdadi why he and ISIS are wrong. I am pretty sure that their interpretation stands on its own with no need for approval from me you or anybody else. Do you know what every muslim is thinking? Do I? does Dog? Does Argus? Did I claim such?

Excellent source Argus! Who wrote that blog entry Argus?

Yes, I understand and do not doubt that you don't believe in Bronze Age myths. Yet despite the fact (undisputed by me) that you do not believe in bronze age myths and therefore give no credence to the authors of the Letter to al-Baghdadi, You continue to pronounce that ISIS is the true form of Islam, as If al-Baghdadi does have credence where the others do not. The muslims from Iraq or Syria or Iran or Jordan or Saudi-arabia or Kurds or Turks for that matter are battling ISIS as we speak. Are they not also followers of the true Islamic faith of ISIS? Do they agree that the Caliphate is legitimate, a true reflection of Islam? Why are those fervent muslims battling ISIS? They all believe the same thing don't they? If it was true that ISIS is the soul of Islam then why has most fervently muslim nations in the region taken up arms agains them? Do you not see the contradiction in your position? That there are indeed other interpretations of the Quran? That your lack of belief in Bronze age myths is irrelevant to the question you asked 'What other interpretation is there?' As an atheist you have given credence to the ISIS version of Islam as the true version. As an atheist you have dismissed other versions - real versions that result in actual wars as is happening now. Why uphold al-Baghdadi's version and dismiss the others ? I dont dismiss Islams military history and your claim that I do is an unadulterated pile of ....well, Straw.

Well, the issue me and Dogonportch have is that he thinks ISIS is the true and only serious rendition of Islam and when shown an interpretation from learned scholars of Islam - Ignores it. Does he ponder that perhaps those learned scholars may be as qualified as himself or Sam Harris to argue interpretation of Islam? Nope. But sure calling bullshit from time to time is a good thing, particularly when confronting bullshit.

Recent dogma, I think. Certainly not historical dogma. And the same is true of Islam.

DoP Yes it has, along with centuries worth of conflict in Europe and Asia - just as brutal and just as non-stop. So lets stop bullshitting about how Islam is somehow more violent than Christians or Buddhists or animists. Sure Islamic powers controlled access to the Silk route much to the chagrin of Venice and Genoa and Spain and Portugal and England and France and the Dutch and whoever else wanted access to Silk. Those states sank each others ships;burned trading posts; sacked various ports; fought wars with each other etc etc in attempts to get exclusive access to that silk. Lets stop the bullshit that Islamic nations were cause of all that.

Like you would know.

Yet, despite your lack of belief in Bronze-age myths, you said: You contended, in ignorance, that ISIS had it right in regards to Islam. Anything countering that is 'sophomoric' and a 'Bronze-age myth' Now you have had the opportunity to become enlightened in that, perhaps, the Letter to al-Baghdadi indicates - maybe - that ISIS has it wrong.

Of course al-Baghdadi will come up with something to justify why he is not the loser some folks say he is. Thats not unusual. Even Hitler had endless sessions of table-talk about why he was right. The thought that 'Hey, maybe I fucked-up' won't enter al-Baghdadi's head. No doubt he will even latch onto Abrogation to justify his beliefs. Will he be correct to do so? What do you think? You seem to believe that ISIS is the one and only true Islamic religion. You claimed that you had no knowledge or evidence that al-Baghdadi and the Caliphate were not the one true version of Islam. I provided an equally islamic view that al-Baghdadi is not the one and only true vision of Islam. And for that you believe you are about to be banned? or that you are being 'shut-up'? Relax, its not all about you.