[Technogeeb]

Perhaps he is a good Muslim with reservations about some aspect of his religion, sort of like a lot of Christians that don't agree on everything

Islam isn't that kind of religion. Many aspect of Christian doctrine are subject to debate. For example, under Catholicism the Church is the authority of interpretation, and the anabaptist and protestant sects believe the bible itself is the final authority. Thus, the Christian religion is "mutable" in respect to the meaning of much scripture. Different individuals at different times can legitimately derive different meaning, and this is acceptable under the fundamental beliefs of the Christian Church.

This "interpretation" mechanism is simply not legitimately available under Islam. The "worst" verses of the bible can be explained away in context (and ironically, still hold meaning to the faithful), but such is not true of the Quran. Similarly, the Catholic church could choose to reinterpret some verses, but the sects of Islam have not done so (because the Quran is so clear in meaning that there really is no way that they could do so).

A "good muslim" that doesn't believe in Jihad against the infidels is theologically equivalent to a "good Christian" who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ. They might call themselves Muslim (or Christian), but the fact would be that they ignore a core point of dogma. As such, they are not really a muslim. Of course, these "false muslims" can indeed be loyal, productive citizens of the United States. But those who believe in such a way are just as much a target of Jihad from the "real muslims" as Christians and Jews would be.

[stuartcr]

Sorry, I disagree. I believe that the Koran is open to interpretation. There are at least 6 different Islamic sects that I can think of. All religion is interpretive, just by definition.

[Inkie]

Good analysis.