The Bible, for example is very plain and explicit.. Yet you see very spirited arguments on the interpretation of scripture that exist to the present day. I know that personally I have big problems with the way some passages are intrepreted by my Catholic bretheren. I maintain that I am correct in this and by the same token I can see where a "moderate" Muslim might argue that he's a "true" muslim and be convinced of it..
He may well be wrong, but if he believes it and is not using the Koran to justify religious oppression then who am I to argue and why would I wish to?
It's understandable to try and find some sectarian conflict in our experience, and try to construct an analogy regarding Islam. However, I think the utility in that is limited, and the reason is the objective difference between the moral character of Jesus and that of Mohammed.
Reasonable people can look at the worst atrocities committed ostensibly in the name of Christ, and objectively say that those who committed the offenses were not acting as Jesus did, or would. Yet when we look at the worst atrocities of Islam, we can objectively say that the transgressors were acting just as Mohammed did and would; which is exactly the opposite of our observation of faithful Christian behavior.
Despite differences in doctrine, the vast majority of Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, are in fundamental agreement on the nature of Christ. It is Christ's nature, and our agreement upon it, that have rendered bloody sectarian strife between Christians, or between Christians and other religions, ever more infrequent. Most Christians understand that to initiate bloodshed is not Christian.
An atheist or an agnostic wouldn't mind having a neighbor who emulated the behavior of Christ in his day to day life. It's hard to imagine they'd like a neighborhood full of people who emulate Mohammed.
The initiation of bloodshed is very Mohammedan.
In addition, we're also aware of a vast number of so-called Islamic moderates who nevertheless make every conceivable excuse for the atrocities of their co-religionists. How moderate can the really be?
Far more rare is the Muslim who actually condemns the brutality of the civilization spawned by his religion. They deserve all the credit in the world for the courage of their stand, even though they are not yet ready to reject the source of that brutality.
In addition, we're also aware of a vast number of so-called Islamic moderates who nevertheless make every conceivable excuse for the atrocities of their co-religionists. How moderate can they really be?
I don't know, obviously such a thing would be very subjective as you are dealing with a great many people. I am sure there would be a diversity of views here, as is the case when you try to build a consensus on anything religious.
I do know that in my experience "moderate" Muslims can be very "moderate" Almost benign in fact.
I used to manage a chain of retail stores in Cincinnati. Cincy can be very dangerous at times. I can tell you stories about people (two separate incidents, btw..) of people being attacked with baseball bats in front of our stores (which I witnessed myself) Armed robberies. Our salespeople being attacked and robbed. Break in's. Public beatings. It can be a very dangerous environment.
Our plaza maintenance man was a Muslim. Very mild, honest and upright. Completely non-violent. Total contrast to the vast majority of people in the area, regardless of religion. I actually had the guy pegged as a wimpy, lefty, peacenik for years.
One day I offered him a piece of pizza and he refused. I razzed him about it and come to find out he was fasting, because of his Muslim religion.
Yeah, I agree that he's not going to get to heaven with Allah. However, it's difficult for me to condemn him outright for his religion when he proved himself to be one of the most worthy & decent men in the entire area.
If my mothers car broke down, I would certainly want this man (even if he is a Muslim) to help her over and above most of the amoral street urchins that dwell there. So it bothers me when people just blindly lump all American Muslims together and call for their oppression.
I think it's counter productive and I think it's unjust. Maybe he wasn't a "true" Muslim, but so what? Frankly if all of them behaved like Lamonte, we would never have a problem.
Further still, oppressing him because of his religion would only validate Osama's words and quite possibly drive him to the harsh side of Islam. Who would benefit from that?
I think allot of the people calling for their own, domestic jihad against Islam are speaking out of either ignorance or blind hatred and would do us far more harm than good.
That and the Constitutionality of such an action are about my only beefs with the Anti-Muslim crowd.