Ping!
We can worry about the morality later.
Absolutely correct. There is no over-riding “authority” in Islam to declare what is valid and what is not.
Also, interpretations of the Koran basically ended in the 10th century. There has been no debate or new “schools of thought” since then (viewed as legitimate anyway) as to Islamic dogma and epistemology.
Moreover, Islam is, and has been fully entwined with governance and politics of the mid-east since its founding. Therefore, it is highly biased politically - in sum, it means whatever the leadership of the country from which an Imam speaks wants it to mean.
Catholics will need to answer that for themselves. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. " The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
(1) "Peace", as defined by secular persons is an absence of mass violence in a region with a high degree of personal freedom.
(2) "Peace", as defined by a Christian, is a knowledge that Christ died for our sins and through God's love for mankind we can possibly achieve eternal life in heaven.
(3) "Peace", as defined by a Muslim, is a world where everyone is in a state of submission to Allah. "Islam" means "submission to Allah". The Quran provides both voluntary and non-voluntary means to obtain this submission. Non-voluntary means include violence.
There is only one use of the word “jihad” in the Koran. It is what we moderns might term violent jihad.
In countries with moslem majorities (or even a critical mass of a minority of moslems), the interpretation of islam is stricter than elsewhere. In other words, most of the moslems in the most islamic countries do, actually, pretty much want to kill us all, or at the very least, make us all dhimmis.
Islam must be destroyed.
I don’t think there is a pope in Christianity, either.
Dear JoAnna Wahlund,
“Going back to the “Coexist” refutation, I don’t believe that the author’s intent was to say that every single Muslim on the planet would eradicate all non-Muslims if given the chance.”
This is precisely what the 12er Shiite sect in Iran believes, and why they as many nuclear weapons as possible for use against the non-believers, the Great and Little Satans, and Rome. They believe that mass blood will bring the 12th Imam out of the well he climbed into centuries ago; he will smell the scent of that blood, emerge and lead all of humanity to Paradise (aka extinction).
The Sunni, on the other hand, will leave alive only those non-muslims who are willing to be dhimmis or those wealthy enough to pay the non-Muslim poll tax. All others will be killed.
All muslims not willing to go along with either overall plan will be considered apostates and killed. So if there is some “peaceful” muslim lurking in some dark alley, he will be found and will either follow the plan or be killed. Therefore and ultimately, your attempt to defend Islam is misleading at best, taqiyya at best because it is correct to say that “every single Muslim on the planet would eradicate all non-Muslims if given the chance.”