I guess the map is meant as a grand symbol; a reminder that Islam is not happy being one of three major religions of the world. The aim is to conquer the world. The fanatics are fuled by this force, as we well know. But -- and just as importantly at least to me -- the sheer growth of Islam inherents throughout the world gives one pause because it is through even this natural burgeoning growth that the non-fanatic Muslims will eventually be giving non-Muslims a run for their money. I guess to me the problem is that Islam is a distinct religion and way of life that doesn't seem to be as conducive to co-existence with other religions as are the other great religions. Therein lies the potential rub.
Think of Europe and Michigan as quick examples and think of all the changes made to suit Islam. They know there is strength in numbers -- especially in democratic nations -- and their strongholds keep growing. There are statistics showing Islam to be one of -- if not the -- fastest growing religions but I won't get into that here.
So in this way they have progressed forward and the Muslim footprint is making itself known is areas previously unheard of. Even following 911, interest in Islam skyrocketed and this "recruitment" was so deliriously exhilerating to the jihadis as evidenced by their bragging on the Muslim forums.
I do not believe there is any code to that map other than green (and non-green by default). Of course, this map does not say anything new, as you said. Overall, this is one jpg that, IMO, needn't be overanalyzed. It would be fun it something was hidden there, but I don't think this is the case and sometimes what is hiding in plain site is the main point. In fact, it is sometimes fun to hide in plain site because it is easy -- and often welcome -- to be overlooked. ;)
You said: "It is all about the green countries (or more precisely the literal 99.95% of the Muslim world that even after 1000 years still will not engage in active global 'jihad')." I like this comment very much. There is something subtly important in there. Many folks say that all Muslims are duplitious and one cannot rely on what they do or say as the absolute truth. But for all of the talk of Muslim al-taqiyya (hiding beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies), I am not sure what the truth is here since scholars are all over the road on this one. Perhaps al-taqiyya is simply our own "the end determines the means." It's possible. Of course, the jihadists no doubt have their own less-than-innocent take on this.
And, yes, usama bin laden's aim is/was to manipulate Muslims into seeing a unilateral and deliberate clash of civilizations instigated by the two Great Satans (America and Israel) against the Muslim world. So we are in agreement that no matter what is contained in the Koran, most Muslims are not -- nor will they be without a good cause -- active fanatics. The key word is active. However, we know they all disapprove of the Palestinian problem and we know where they all place the blame (the two Great Satans again).
In fact, I am somewhat surprised that al qaeda has not employed the Palestinian issue more to their advantage even though they have used it over and again. When they have used it, they always muddy it up with a multitude of additional Muslim issues and situations in the world. This dilutes the strength of the Palestinian issue in rallying all Muslims, which I believe this one single issue appears to have the power to do because it's not logical, it's Biblical. It's actually a boon that they don't stick to this one topic.
Yes, I saw. Thank you (and Tilly) again for the info.
I agree that there is an overwhelming predisposition/mandate to compulsion within the Islamic world stemming from the inability to separate mosque and state - - the failure to accept that the kingdoms/governments of men are not extensions of the Kingdom of God.
But while the jihadi factions take theological justification for their hyper-militant "political" or "super-politicized" theocratic Islam from parts of the Koran, it is a grave mistake to assume that is accepted as the case for a billion practitioners throughout dozens upon dozens of different nations, cultures, and historical backgrounds. One has to "choose one's battles carefully".
Islam has long been used (and is being used) as a tool to further personal or national ambitions. Christianity for much of its history spent many centuries in a similarly corrupted deformation - - men assuming a "divine right of kings" using religion and clerics to legitimize their ambitions. From Constantine all the way through the Dark Ages, the Crusades, the "Holy Roman Empire", the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, and then even into the Renaissance and the religious wars within Europe, the Christian faith was exploited to further petty, temporal political objectives. For many historical reasons, Islam has yet to leave these Dark Ages.
There is no moral symmetry in my mind between the Judeo-Christian faith tradition, and the general belief system of Islam. I think that was the very subtle point made in a very unsubtle manner within Benedict's Regensburg lecture. Christianity recognizes the distinction between the temporal kingdoms of mankind and the eternal Kingdom of God ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's). Islam in most cases does not accept that distinction.
However, there is a certain moral symmetry between the violent and compulsive manifestations/perversions of Christianity over the centuries (corrupted as it was by both church and state) and modern Islam. Even in our own nation, at its formation, some of the early colonists who had fled the persecutions (and compulsions) of European Christianity, began to compel others in the newly settled American colonies to adopt their own warped views of the Christian faith. Miniature theocracies even appeared and forced new persecutions. Colonial America was not always a "shining city on a hill".
The devil's children tend not to be clothed in the uniform of the "tax collector" or the apparel of the "adultress", and they are not to be found at the local bar or house of ill-repute. The most evil among us typically wear religious garments, and the "sons of Satan" usually hold court in "houses of worship". This has been the case from time immemorial for many faiths. And anyone who has read the words of Jesus knows that is the "gospel truth". Power corrupts. And when men exercise their power "in the name of God", it can corrupt in a way that no power on earth can match.
The conversation Benedict recounted was profoundly ironic because it was set in the days of Ottoman ascendancy (late 1300s) which then began the empire that would last six centuries until Sykes-Picot at the end of World War I. It was a dialogue between one of the final Byzantine emperors and an "educated Persian" (read "Iranian"), discussing the nature of "holy war" and the incompatibility of faith (read "submission to God") with compulsion and violence - - as the Muslim Ottomans were bearing down on the gates of Constantinople.
That dialogue took place in a city about to be conquered in "holy war" (oxymoronic as such a term may be) that was founded 1000 years before by Constantine, a man who changed the course of Christianity by transforming it from a persecuted faith of the catacombs to the state religion of the fading Roman Empire after he witnessed a vision of a cross of light bearing the inscription "in this sign you shall conquer". Christians brought the concept of jihad to the world three hundred years before Mohammed. This was the first call to jihad. And like Mohammed's vision of Gabriel calling him to recitation, Constantine's pseudo-revelation brought unspeakable suffering to humanity for centuries to follow. Indeed, Satan poses as "an angel of light".
So two months before the Pope is scheduled visit to Turkey (the descendants of the Ottoman conquerors and home to the ruins of Constantinople), and as the Muslim world is being radicalized by their own jihadis (led by Persia) who are pushing for yet another civilizational religious war just like the one underway during that first dialogue between the Christian emperor and the Persian, he gives this speech, which is an attack on the idea of conversion through violence that Constantine used to build his city. Profoundly ironic.
But again, the real issue is not the general belief system or theology of Islam, but how it is practiced by its adherents. Most Muslims (almost all) do not believe in offensive jihad, and most do not even believe in defensive jihad as meaning organized violence. Even if a million Muslims worldwide were to come out onto the streets, that means over a billion are going about their lives. Traditional Islam will have to reassert itself and define "jihad" in its generally and historically accepted *non-violent* context (as a spiritual struggle, not a physical one). Like the dialogue between the Byzantine and the Persian, the struggle of "jihad" should be a call to reasoning minds and not a call to severing heads.
So let us see where their "day of rage" leaves us Friday. It took "Christians" over a thousand years to let go of the sword when talking of advancing the Kingdom of God (and in some ways many will still not let it go). I do not expect it to happen in a week's time with "Muslims".