Should those of religious faith be allowed to run this country?

CAIR is, indeed, a subversive organization that fronts for AL-Qaeda/Taliban/Wahabbi Islamist groups in the ME and elsewhere (Islamism being a fascist religious/political ideology claiming to represent true Islam and its Allah-given directive to conquer, subjugate and convert all the world to Islam). There are a few excellent, democratically minded Islamic groups in the US. Do not in any way confuse the two.Here's more on CAIR:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=...

Historically Jiahd has meant martial war against non Muslims. There are a n umber of specific references to this in the Koran, but only one anywhere in the faith that can be seen as spiritual. More on that here from Harvard scholar, Daniel Pipes:Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out - David Horowitz

A front for Al Qaeda/Taliban/Islamists - who believe it is their Allah-given mission to conquer, subjugate and convert all the world to Islam (Read the Koran's war verses, if you want to understand). They believe democracy is evil, as it is man ruling man rather than Allah ruling man through Sharia Law, carried out by men.

But that is, overwhelmingly, its preponderant historic meaning, as is referenced in the Koran, Hadith and elsewhere. And it is what the Islamists - a powerful movement in Islam that controls Iran, Sudan, did control Afghanistan, and is a powerful 5th column throughout the Islamic world - mean by Jihad. It is the belief of Hezbollah, which just won a victory in the lebanese preliminary election. It is what the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia mean by Jihad. It is what CAIR means, no matter how carefully they skate around the issue.

I assumed that most North American Muslims must be moderates. But then I noticed that hardly any Muslims ever showed up in marches for democracy or against terrorism. I was told by Muslims that almost all congregations and mosques have been taken over by Saudi financed Wahabbi Islamists. And then this question occurred to me: Why doesn't this "moderate majority" get on the congregation boards and fire the Wahabbi Imams? And if for some reason that isn't possible, why don't they resign from the congregation and form a new one? The implied answer is disturbing: The silent majority may favour democracy, but they ultimtaely identify more with fellow Muslims, no matter their religious and political views, than with their fellow liberal democratic American/Canadian cirtizens. I'd love to be proved wrong, but reason suggests that won't happen.

There's probably some truth to what you say. On the other hand, many people remained convinced that Communism was good no matter the evidence; many opposed and continue to oppose the war in Iraq; and many people are leaving liberal churches for conservative ones.The Islamists/Wahabbis don't just have a point of view (such as a disagreement over the war in Iraq, or on gay marriage), they passionately want liberal democracy destroyed; they passionately want the US conquered; they passionately want you converted or dead. Muslims who acquiesce to such people running their organizations and taking over their mosques are equivalent to those who would have allowed Nazis to take over their American organizations in the 1940's.Sorry: I don't buy the excuse. This is a matter way beyond the niceties of our liberal democratic understanding. This is a matter where a line gets drawn.

I'm anything but a fundamentalist myself, but I disagree that there is a parallel between Islamists and Christian fundamentalists. That is why we do not see Christians of any denomination flying planes into buildings, chanting from the New Testament while cutting off heads of live and conscious victims, blowing up thousands of fellow citizens in an effort to derail democracy, and so on.Not that i haven't occasionally come across a Christian who, in the name of his faith, wouldn't want to see some kind of circumscribed democracy that is akin to a Christian theocracy. They, however, are very rare. The clear majority of evangelicals are like George Bush himself, a democrat to their very core.

They said nothing - truly, nothing.

I should add that a number of famous Muslims, like the avowed democrat and author Stephen Schwartz, have written extensively about the Wahabbi takeover of North American and, to a lesser degree, European Islamic organizations. In other words, this is not just a hearsay opinion.

It is a myth that the Crusades were Christian aggression. When Islam began in the 7th century, almost all the Middle East was Christian. How then, did it become Islamic? War. Mohammed's wars against Christians and Jews are noted in the Koran and elsewhere, and documented in history. The Crusades were a counter strike, an effort to take back Jerusalem and other defeated Christian land.

To get a bigger picture, we must understand that Islam was foudned with the intent to defeating and displacing Christianity and Judiasm. A quick read of the Koran makes that clear. Hence, Islamic civilization was born in opposition to, and with the mission of conquering spiritually and martially, Western civilization. Muslims are raised with this as a given. Hence, why even democratically minded Muslims acquiesce to Wahabbi takeover. That is, ultimtaely, they identify more with their Wahabbi brothers than their liberal democratic Christian citizen cousins.Perhaps, they are like the naive democratically minded Iranians who enjoined with the islamists to bring the Shah down, thinking they'd come out on top when the smkoe cleared. Instead, the utterly ruthless Islamists rampaged and murdered the democratic leaders, and took over. So, North American Muslims support the Wahabbi long term goal of transforming us into an Islamic civilization, but fail to realize that they cannot both keep liberal democracy and allow the Islamists domain over their institutions.Case in points: An imam of a major Vancouver, BC mosque, stated in a public sermon that Jews are pigs and monkeys (tytpical Islamic belief, but this time caught publicly). He was condemned coast to coast, but still has his job. Another Islamic leader, president of Canada's largest Islamic organization and a regular columnist in the influential and respect Globe & Mail, said on public TV that all Israelis iver 18 were fair game for terrorist murder. Again, coast to coast condemnation. Again, he keeps his job. If a prominent Jew or Christian had said the something similar about Palestinians, he or she'd have been toast.If we are to defend ourselves, we must realize that the tolerance and "liberal" part of democracy is not, to paraphrase someone else, a suicide pact. We must expect all others to accept these values. For if it is liberal democracy for me, but not thee, then nor will it be for me either much longer.

I am much more than repeating an assertion. I have said that many well-known Muslim moderates, including Schwartz and Manji, have written about the Wahabbi takeover of islamic organizations. These same writers have bemoaned that the most prominent Islamic voices, such as CAIR, are Wahabbis in sheep's clothing. And there's more. Many Middle East studies departments have Wahabbi sympathizers, some have been financed by Arab states. Indeed, a few Muslim profs have been arrested for terrorist activities, to the shock of their universities and fellow faculty. And they also were associated with CAIR. (Check out "Middle East Forum," a web site run by a Harvard Professor on exactly this matter.)--quoteerhaps, they are like the naive democratically minded Iranians who enjoined with the islamists to bring the Shah down, thinking they'd come out on top when the smkoe cleared.I don't understand your point. The shah was a known evil that needed to be dealt with -- the fundamentalists were the only ones in any position to be effective in this regard.At any rate, the majority of Iranians, who are still Muslims, support the more democratically minded reformers. That would seem to dispute your point.The conservatives who are in charge of Iran are not Wahhabis. In fact, they are very critical of the Wahhabis, considering them to be a medievel throwback (kind of funny, eh?). The conservatives in Iran are slightly more tolerant of religious dissent and Iranian women have more rights in Iran than in, say, Wahabbi dominated Saudi Arabia.-quote:n imam of a major Vancouver, BC mosque, stated in a public sermon that Jews are pigs and monkeys (tytpical Islamic belief, but this time caught publicly).Jerry Fallwell made some bizarre comments linking homosexuals, feminists, and, I believe, the ACLU with the 9/11 attacks. This was publically caught, too. I don't recall that he ever made a definite apology for this, and I believe that he still has his job.--quote:If we are to defend ourselves, we must realize that the tolerance and "liberal" part of democracy is not, to paraphrase someone else, a suicide pact.Nor is posing a false dilemma a sign of logical thinking.

Forgot to address your other points. I'll do that now:You wrote: "I don't understand your point. The shah was a known evil that needed to be dealt with -- the fundamentalists were the only ones in any position to be effective in this regard." Read Amir Taheri, the famed Iranian journalist on this. It was through him that I learned about a coalition that brought the Shah down, rather than the Islamists alone."At any rate, the majority of Iranians, who are still Muslims, support the more democratically minded reformers. That would seem to dispute your point."
First, of ocurse some pockets of Muslims are more democratically minded than others. It is instructive, though, that Iranians are not arabs, and that iranians ahve experienced first hand the horror of Islamism. Thus they see what others have not.
Second, I do not argue that the majority of Muslims would reject democracy. I assuredly took took note of the Iraqi election. Rather, I am saying that North American Muslims, even those who are democrats, have demonstrated a greater sympathy for Islamists than liberal democracy, by allowing Wahabbis to takeover their organizations. That, frankly, is ominous.You wrote: "The conservatives who are in charge of Iran are not Wahhabis. In fact, they are very critical of the Wahhabis, considering them to be a medievel throwback (kind of funny, eh?). The conservatives in Iran are slightly more tolerant of religious dissent and Iranian women have more rights in Iran than in, say, Wahabbi dominated Saudi Arabia."True, they are not (Sunni) wahabbis. They are, instead, Shiite equivalents. Both are Islamist. Both quote the war verses. Both see democracy as evil. Both believe in sharia Law, adn that all the world should be ruled by it under an Islamic caliphate."Jerry Fallwell made some bizarre comments linking homosexuals, feminists, and, I believe, the ACLU with the 9/11 attacks. This was publically caught, too. I don't recall that he ever made a definite apology for this, and I believe that he still has his job."Jerry Falwaell was in charge of his own creation, and it and he took a major hit as his credibility was destroyed. But you say something significant: he "made some bizarre comemnts." Exactly, they were seen as bizarre. This imam's comments were not at all seen as bizarre by the congregants - because he was merely repeating what they have heard since they were children, and was is right there in the Koran.--I wote: If we are to defend ourselves, we must realize that the tolerance and "liberal" part of democracy is not, to paraphrase someone else, a suicide pact.You responded: "Nor is posing a false dilemma a sign of logical thinking."
True, but this is not a false dilemma. 9/11 was real. That the Islamists had Afghanistan, and still have Iran and Sudan - where they have committed a gemocide against Christians and now moderate Black Muslims - is real. That the Islamists had their finger on the Pakastan nuclear trigger, un til Khan was fired after US pressure following 9/11 - is real. That they are close to getting more nuclear weapons is real. That they despise the US and liberal democracy is real. That they have taken over American Islamic organizations is real. And so on.The war in Iraq has brought about significant losses for them. Democracy has been introduced into the heart of their world. Arab intellectuals are discussing democracy even in repressive countries like Egypt and Syria. we don't know yet the ultimate outcomes. we do know that Islamism was gaining steam fast, was probably going to conquer most of the Arab world and much of the islamic world, and then was going to come after us in an annihilist nuclear war. it was the Nazis of the early 30's. This time a western leader, Bush, recognized what was happening and intervened sooner. (Churchill warned us all about the Nazis, but was dismissed with the same kind of arguments the left has used to dismiss Bush).ironically, it appears we need a democratic revolution in the ME in order to assure that NA Muslims will push out the non democratic forces within their communities and reaffirm their commitment to our societies as they are.

Two points:1) The Crusades were not Christian aggression.2) There is nothing in the New Testament that justifies war and violence. In contrast, gthere is a whol;e section of the koran, The War Verses, that is a call to Muslims to conquer, subjugate and convert all the world. And worse, there is Sharia Law, Allah's Law, that all the world is to abide and be ruled under.

May I suggest you check out this site:
Campus WatchYes, a few moderates warn...about that the majority of muslims are acquiescing to Wahabbi takeover. Would you not consider it ominous if the majority of American Christian congregations and organzations were taken over by Nazis dedicated to our destruction...without a fight?