Then why have you yet to produce one?
You're comparing apples and oranges. "Clerics" are not "legislators"
They are when you're an Ayatollah in Iran.
and we can thank the separation of church and state that Fred Phelps can only thank God for killing gays and not act on it himself.
Is Fred Phelps your example? Strange that you would consider him "mainstream," as per my original request.
Of course there are plenty of millenialists inside Islam as well as outside. (I remember a recent survey indicating that something like 25% of Americans believe Christ will return this year.)
Another tu quoque aside, very few if any of those persons are the president of a country and even fewer have hinted that they intend to obtain nuclear weapons as a means of instigating the millenial event.
Not all Muslim leaders base their policies on an imminent Second Coming. Consequentially, these are not the ones you hear about in the news. Nor did I say they do. My point was that many mahometan leaders base their policies on beliefs in radical theological doctrines surrounding the expansion and unification of the Dar al-Islam. The goal is comparable, though the means and sects diverge. A new Caliphate is bin Laden's means of reaching this goal. A mahdi figure is Ahaminejad's.
I am familiar with the meaning.
If so, then your prior misuse of the term heresy must have been intentional. That, or you did not know a meaning that you thought you knew.
And while we're on the subject of PC here, let's get over the "Judeo-Christian" bit, okay? I fully appreciate the sentiment, but it's a term that gained widespread use (and public acceptability) when Christians stopped constantly persecuting Jews, i.e., in the 20th century
Actually far from it. Christian persecution of Jews was never a unified or monolithic thing. There are explicit references to judeo-christian or hebriac-christian culture from the time of the American founding and discussions pertaining to the 1st amendment. Explicit articulations of the concept appeared in the century or so before the founding. Explicit tntegrations of thought from Judaism into the Christian philosophical tradition date to at least Maimonides, and in its earliest forms a millenium prior to Jewish Roman writers such as Flavius Josephus.
Will every attempt to contextualize your proclamations on Islam be labeled as tu quoque?
No. Only those that respond to a transgression or shortcoming of mahometanism by ignoring the substance of that transgression and shouting about how the west did something terrible too. Since that seems to be your favorite mode of argument, I fear the need to identify your tu quoque statements has yet to be exhausted.
Chile is (in addition to being outside Central America)
I'm perfectly aware of where Chile is. I simply cited it as an example of a horrible regime that was justly ousted by somebody who the left calls a "despot."
probably the worst example to use in an argument about Just War. Unpalatable as he may have been, he was the country's legitimate president.
Doubtful. At the time of the coup, both the Chilean Supreme Court and the Chilean Chamber of Deputies (= House of Representatives) had declared Allende in violation of the Chilean Constitution, thus negating any legitimacy Allende had. He had also violated the terms of an agreement with the Chamber of Deputies that elevated him to the presidential office in 1970 when no majority winner emerged from the election.
They cite the influences of their predecessors they find most favorable and you accept their reading as not only the single accepted reading, but the only one that ever existed over 8 centuries.
Once again you misstate me. They do not merely cite predecessors as inspiration. They repeat the ideas of predecessors, and those ideas are the dangerous part of it all. It's not how somebody else "reads" Taymiyya or Ghazali that is the problem. It is what Taymiyya and Ghazali themselves said. Read Qutb, then go read Taymiyya. Different times, same doctrines.
That's because you continue to define "mainstream of mahometan theology" as philosophies that follow the most ignoble of these 11th century views.
Ghazali was deemed "mainstream" by mahometan theologians long before I was ever around to select him. I merely judge him by the works he wrote that are considered to be his most important, and those works contain ignoble doctrines at their very core. The fact that mahometan theology has chosen him as its equivalent of an Aquinas or Augustine is well beyond my control, but it is a fact nonetheless and one that permits judgement of his doctrines, and with it judgement of those today who endorse him. Besides, if the shoe fits...
Public execution is publicly supported by several Heretic churches, with a lineage going back to Luther himself. However, our Constitution and judicial precedent consider death by stoning, etc. cruel and unusual punishment and thus illegal.
They are when you're an Ayatollah in Iran.
Well, there's a legitimate government!
. My point was that many mahometan leaders base their policies on beliefs in radical theological doctrines surrounding the expansion and unification of the Dar al-Islam. The goal is comparable, though the means and sects diverge. A new Caliphate is bin Laden's means of reaching this goal. A mahdi figure is Ahaminejad's.
We've already discussed bin Laden and Ahmadinejad. So name some more.
If so, then your prior misuse of the term heresy must have been intentional.
Where did I misuse the term?
Actually far from it. Christian persecution of Jews was never a unified or monolithic thing. There are explicit references to judeo-christian or hebriac-christian culture from the time of the American founding and discussions pertaining to the 1st amendment. Explicit articulations of the concept appeared in the century or so before the founding. Explicit tntegrations of thought from Judaism into the Christian philosophical tradition date to at least Maimonides, and in its earliest forms a millenium prior to Jewish Roman writers such as Flavius Josephus.
The term itself is of very recent pedigree, first published just a few decades before the decline of "Mahomet".
No. Only those that respond to a transgression or shortcoming of mahometanism by ignoring the substance of that transgression and shouting about how the west did something terrible too. Since that seems to be your favorite mode of argument, I fear the need to identify your tu quoque statements has yet to be exhausted.
Should you believe that these Mahometans live set apart from the rest of the world, then by all means, continue to do so. I will be happy to provide historical context even if it means suffering your Latinate barbs.
I'm perfectly aware of where Chile is. I simply cited it as an example of a horrible regime that was justly ousted by somebody who the left calls a "despot."
Not Just by Augustinian standards. Pinochet and his cohort had no legitimate sovereignty. They fail the first test.
It's not how somebody else "reads" Taymiyya or Ghazali that is the problem. It is what Taymiyya and Ghazali themselves said.
Or rather, what they have said that has been quoted by extremists. To give another example, even the most moderate medieval Papal Bull dealing with Jews would be extreme by today's standards. The solution is not to try to explain the Bulls away as the works of moderates, but not refrain from citing them as theological precedent. You cannot blame Ghazali's for Qutb's selections from his works. Qutb is the one who gives them present meaning.
Ghazali was deemed "mainstream" by mahometan theologians long before I was ever around to select him.
This is not a valid argument for why you, or anyone, might consider him to be "mainstream" today.