<<Why are you so reluctant to admit the obvious? Today, in the year 2007, none of the other religions of the world has this huge problem of followers carrying out violent attacks targeting innocent civilians in the name of their religions claiming their motivation is their religion.>>
I could swear I already answered this post earlier in the day, but when I checked through this thread, I didn't find my reply. So I'll try again.
I am not reluctant to admit the obvious. I know that it is not the Methodists or the Mormons who are flying planes into buildings.
I do not believe that "radical Islam" is flying planes into buildings or anywhere else. "Radical Islam" is an ideology or a group of more or less similar ideologies, and ideologies do not fly planes. People fly planes. The people who fly planes into buildings seem to be Muslim. Whether they are "radical Islamists" I am not so sure.
This thread began with a link to a sermon by Sayyed Yusef Tabatabai Nejad ("Nejad.") Presumably an example of "radical Islam." I compared and contrasted Nejad's sermon with the words of Franklin Graham, who I think many conservatives would consider a fairly mainstream American Christian. Nejad's sermon contained neither the violence nor the disparagement of other religions that were readily found in Graham's words.
So I think we first need to agree on what is considered "radical Islam," whether it necessarily includes calls to violence and disrespect of the religions of others.
Secondly, even if we can at least agree that a sermon like Nejad's, with the addition of calls to violence and zero respect shown for other religions, would be "radical Islam," we have to ask ourselves in what way is this "radical Islam" different from or worse than the quoted words of a mainstream Christian like Franklin Graham?
I think that any fair-minded person would have to admit that both "radical Islam" and the Franklin Graham position would look pretty similar on paper - - both intolerant and disrespectful of other religions and both calling for violence against the other. The Professor, though, would probably go further and say something like: "But look - - there are no Christians flying hijacked planes into buildings. There ARE Muslims doing this, and THEY believe in radical Islam." The Professor might even go further and say something like, "Radical Islam promises rewards in the afterlife for this kind of conduct and Christianity promises a one-way ticket to hell for it."
What is the actual responsibility of "radical Islam" for the acts of "terrorism" that have been perpetrated against Americans? I think it is at least possible that for some of the 911 "terrorists" and their backers, "radical Islam" might have convinced them that (a) it was their duty to attack Americans, (b) they should be prepared to sacrifice their lives in the attempt and (c) they would be rewarded in the afterlife for the attack.
So I think we should examine whether in fact "radical Islam" was the prime motivator of the "terrorists" of, for example, Sept. 11: were they moved to act because "radical Islam" had convinced them that (a) it was their duty to attack Americans, (b) they should be prepared to sacrifice their lives in the attempt and (c) they would be rewarded in the afterlife for the attack.
There are numerous difficulties with this theory. First, we don't know if all the participating shuhada actually knew that they were intended to die in the attacks, so it's impossible to state with any certainty that the promise of rewards in the afterlife had any effect at all on them. Secondly, if we assume that "radical Islam" at least persuaded them that it was their duty to attack Americans we have to ask ourselves, on what basis, or with what logic or reasoning could that have been accomplished? Since America did not even exist in Koranic times, the Koranic justification could not have been a simple injunction to attack and kill Americans. The commandment, or justification, would have to be found in some passage dealing with the duty to attack and kill, not just infidels - - because infidels are everywhere, and many are much more vulnerable than Americans - - but infidels of a particular kind, most likely, enemies of the Muslims, enemies of Islam itself, or enemies of God.
In order to be considered as enemies of the Muslims or Islam or God, some demonstrable reason stronger than mere unbelief (IMHO) would have to be demonstrated. It seems painfully obvious to me that the strongest argument that America was an enemy of Muslims (or of Islam or of God) would have to be the continuing forty-year military occupation of the West Bank and the perpetual suffering of the Palestinians under it, conducted by the Jews with the support of the Americans. If anything could inflame an Arab or Muslim that would be it. Nothing to add, nothing to explain - - it's a story that is well-known to every living breathing Muslim Arab. If "radical Islam" preached the destruction of America, I believe its strongest supporting argument is the situation in the West Bank, until recently in the Gaza Strip as well, and the American support of the occupation.
I would also venture to guess that even without the contribution of "radical Islam," the anger generated in the Arab world by the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip, and American support of it, would be white-hot. Whether that anger needs the additional motivation of rewards in the after-life to make the transition from mere anger to suicide mission remains to be demonstrated. I would not rule out the possibility in individual cases but to answer the question in the affirmative would still leave some very important issues unresolved.
