I continue...
Here we go with slogan analyses of Evangelicals ( does he mean "right-wing"?)
and "gotcha" slanting..
-1. Which Evangelicals? He makes a strong charge here, not even one anecdote, much less the context of his quote..
-2. Deuteronomy chap 17-18-19-20-21 are about Israel ( as recounted by the proponents) and its politics viz foreign policy. Chap 20 is the conduct of war. Against a city that DOESN'T submit to paying tribute..
it says how to excuse soldiers who shouldn't be in the war.. and it says what to do to the enemy cities.
-3. It is a fairly commonplace instructions for that period of time.
-4. It also is a direct connection to ISRAELI ( that is: jewish ) claims to hegemony and autonomy. NOT necessarily-
-5. -that most European Christians, much less American Christians ( or "Evangelicals") hold with the "slogan" of literal interpretation.
and that..
-6. The Koranic passages are "milder" or contextually comparative, or that modern islamic extremist clerics are presently calling for actions that ARE as uncompromising and militant( as in the islamic response to the danish cartoon, Van Gogh's murder, Rushdies targeting, and the riots that routinely engulf islamic communities ( viz the Niger riot about Miss Universe four-five years ago))


The Evangelicals, and their right wing peers( ah, evangelicals, like pres GW Bush are NOT "right-wing" ) are right in being "bothered" by a present day president of a theocracy; a theocracy AND administration that are daily ( see internet restrictions there) ruling as if their authority were the same as centuries ago, and are extreme fundamentalist in nature.
No mention of the premises that this Iranian regime holds concerning jews, Israel, and Europe.
The first thing a semi-educated person is going to say( and a moderately educated christian "evangelical") about Martin Luther is that he posted a set of proclamations against the catholic theocracy.. Specifically the German Church.. They might know that he started the generational wars that he later regretted, but they would recall mostly the fundamental focus of Luther ( and Calvin and Cotton and such ) of a breaking with a dictatorial and Fundamentalist Theocratic system that WAS acknowledged to be tyrannical, despotic, and stagnating.
NOT the spin Asghar tries to feed his readers.

Hmm,.. this sounds like Ahmejenedad would agree with this opinion. Too bad it is an uninformed and slanted piece of propaganda..
-1. Hawks? again with the politics of foreign policy? In America ( and the west) our perspective does not so easily identify the religion with the civilization, with the nation, with the culture. Nor is it ( generally) so shallow and simple-minded as to connect Israeli present actions with Hitlers policies of seventy years ago..
( although Iranian spokesmen do seem to routinely analyse the nazi programs effectiveness themselves)
-2. Spiritual, or philosophical? Just what is the specifics of spiritual values, philosophical ones?
-3. If Westerners come from a checkered past.. perhaps even fatally flawed..
and have moved beyond and STRIVE to..
and the PRESENT DAY Islamic Fundamentalists are DEMANDING those archaic standards of conduct as the right ones to have TODAY.. and
-4. just who is " grasping for a new, politically acceptable substitute for their rage "?


Seems to me that the history of the mid east.. locals, religions, crusaders, and sympathisers of all stripes, must be boiled down to a lot more than
this.. The local connections of one tribe and family versus another probably had a lot to do with allegiances and mercy..
After all, there were many semitic christians and jews who were supportive of non-arabic authority.
right?


The secularising of the islamic culture, and the recent acknowledgement of American economic superiority are not new to Islam, the "umma", nor
"embittered" fundamentalist sects.. and is in fact the basis of their own civil struggle. The rhetoric of these clerics and leaders ( viz the danish cartoons, and the french riots) are far more militant, divisive, and uncompromising.
In fact, THEIR rhetoric makes no allowance for islamic tolerance while in foreign lands..( and we are reminded incessantly that islam is tolerant of foreign religions in their own territories{ like in Saudi Arabia, where Christian and jewish women routinely act as they see fit})..
and their madrasas routinely include just such ignorant propaganda.
Even in the "moderate" mosques. This by their own admission.

So this High Schol essay ends with not a summarizing of American Christians "trouble" with Islam.. but with a smug, condescending piece of
misdirection..
Grace? When did he contend ( or give examples) of Christian grace?
it seems that Asghar was criticizing the west of electing a weak leader who isn't more true to his Christian principles..
That the west should be more aggressive and consistent with its policies viz foreign religions..
That in fact, Western Christians should be more true to their God, and righteous against their enemies..
.. or is it? Was he trying to undermine our civilizations foundations by misinforming us?
His audience is ( presumably) jordanians who are not acquainted with Euro-American-Christian history.. is he painting the west as inconsistent or hypocritical?

Which is it?

This is an article written by the above quoted robert Asghar in the Wall Street Journal.. On August 9th 2002.
It does seem that THEN he had a different point to make..
Islam's Silent Majority
White Americans unlearned hatred. So must Muslims.

BY ROBERT ASGHAR
Friday, August 9, 2002 12:01 a.m. EDT

Innocents are killed in Murree, Pakistan, at a school that I visited from time to time as a teenager. Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl loses his life in Karachi, a town that was once my home. And an Islamabad church is attacked, just a few miles away from another previous home. In each incident, the name of Allah is invoked. The question is then asked once again: Is Islam a religion of peace?

Many Muslims are peaceful, and I was raised in one such family. However, it's quite clear that they are by and large not the hosts of the party, but rather bashful guests. For the sake of their faith--and for the sake of a world that Islam professes to care about--the time has come for them to step forward, take control of their assembly, and kick out those who preach a more violent version of the faith.





My family's story intersects in odd ways with the narrative being played out globally. While recognizing the demands of self-defense and just war, I have a pacifistic streak; that streak did not seem to be accommodated within Islam, so I affiliated with another religion, much to the chagrin of my family.
Here is where they began setting a good example for their faith. Many such families toss out apostates in the best-case scenario and often do much more--a Kurdish immigrant in Sweden killed his adult daughter in January for defying their heritage. But my family made peace with my decision and kept me in the fold.

When it came to light after Sept. 11 that Pakistani madrassas had nourished a culture of hatred, my father used a significant amount of his life savings to build new schools in his mud-hut hometown village--schools that would offer a liberal education and inculcate an anti-extremist approach to civil life and offer economic opportunity to marginalized youths.

Such acts come at the risk of inflaming the passions of radicals. People like my father will need the support and protection of like-minded moderates. Most Muslims are in fact both moderate and cowardly, but perhaps understandably so; they are buffeted by bullying forces unlike anything we know. American agnostics who dislike saying the Pledge of Allegiance, like spoiled princesses who feel a pea under a stack of mattresses, have no idea how good they have it.

The bullying limits opposition to nothing more than snide mutterings among progressives cowering at dinner parties in Pakistan, Palestine or Saudi Arabia. Far be it from them to challenge extremism publicly, however--it's not worth the fight or the trouble, in their minds.

But now their very civilization is at stake--and so is that of the West. It's time to put one's money where one's prayers are. The rest of the world is looking on with puzzlement and fear, wondering where the heart of Islam lies. In all likelihood, the outcry against Islam will grow deafening in coming months and years. This will polarize moderate Muslims: Either they will feel under attack and align themselves fully with their fundamentalist cousins, or they will become radical moderates, fighting for the honor of Islam against these backward cousins. The former scenario would be a disaster for the planet.





Here, one can learn from white Americans. Fifty years ago, racist views were tolerated, even encouraged by mainstream society. The Marge Schotts of our nation used to get away with their rantings, thanks to the tepid response of most white citizens; but now, such bigots are ostracized with devastating swiftness. Sure, you can be a racist--but you'd better keep it under wraps if you plan on working in this town again.
Let that be a lesson for Muslims. Too many people have been thrown out of Muslim families for being insufficiently fundamentalist. Start throwing out sons and daughters for being insufficiently peaceful. Too many Muslims are more bothered by competing forms of monotheism than by demonic forces rumbling in their own camp. Too many hundreds of millions of Muslims can tolerate, rationalize and even promote violence. All this must change, and change now.

Granted, the language of the Koran can seem aggressive and belligerent to some ears. But let the graceful image of Prophet Mohammed, depicted by scholars such as Huston Smith, become the normative one for Muslims and Westerners alike. The prophet was long-suffering and merciful toward Meccan authorities who had abused him during his ministry. Let a Palestinian child meditate on that. Let Muslims tolerate no lower standard of civic life, and divorce all those who would object.

The five million Muslims who call the United States home are the best candidates to step forward and set this standard. Doing so would give Islam an authentic claim as a religion of peace.

Mr. Asghar is a Los Angeles-based editor of management and leadership books.

Is it my imagination.. or are there two different positions taken by this man?

Maybe it is because of who he is writing TO?

I wouldn't count on getting a response anytime soon. Ken seems to be a bit too busy lately to post much of anything here.

its not just about ken e s response. Its to get the rebuttal and the deflation into the forum.
There are more readers than participants.

It is a remarkable piece PhilosopherWarrior.
You might want to suggest to the readers of your remarks that they read it aloud, you write exactly like I imagine you would speak. Does your computer take dictation from you.

It's not your imagination. I have read articles by several authors just like this man, who claim to be "unbiased" in their views toward Islam and Christianity but who are in fact very suspect. He shows a remarkable bravado toward Islam that tends to feed the very anger that he claims he’s trying to quell. All the while he’s admonishing Evangelical Christians for growing angrier about the numerous attacks and attempts to attack us and how those attacks are supported by Islam. How unbiased is that?

Likewise, in his attempt to admonish Christian Evangelicals for speaking out about the unprovoked violence promoted in the Qur’an he makes the same mistake most Muslims make. The only sources he seems to find to back up his admonishment don’t even apply to Evangelical Christians; such as Old Testament rules of war (intended for the Israelites), the worn out, one sided Crusades (not Evangelicals) argument, and a quote from Luther (Also not an Evangelical). They just don’t seem to understand that it’s ludicrous to use material that’s 500-6000 years old and about totally different people to try to shut Evangelicals up about attacks that are happening today and supported by their Qur’an, the contents of which he never feels the need to defend.

In my opinion, he’s not nearly as removed from Islam as he claims to be. It appears his leaving Islam was for one purpose only, to put him in a position that he believes would make him more acceptable to Westerners so he can have a stronger voice with which to promote Islam. But his arguments give him away and the reason he focuses his arguments on Evangelical Christians is because we're the ones who are most outspoken about our support for Israel and who demand that the so-called "moderate" Muslims who claim Islam has been hijcaked take control of it.

No kidding PW... stop hitting the pipe.

__________________
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

— Benjamin Franklin

The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.

John Adams from the " Treaty of Tripoly, article 11

I was researching.. and it seems that in arabic there are two kinds of jihad..
A Greater Jihad..
and a lesser jihad.. its known as..
jihad asghar.


hmm.. a coincidence?

Not a coincidence at all. I've been amazed at what I've found out in my research and I have NO doubt it was a lot more than I would have if I'd just listened to what they've been trying to feed us.

I had a conversation with a Muslim once who claimed that my problem was that I was using a Qur'an that was translated into English and that the only accurate version was in Arabic. He also said that a good test of loyalty that a new Muslim has to Allah is to expect him/her to learn Allah's language, which of course is Arabic. Needless to say, he got pretty bent out of shape when I told him that a God who created all mankind certainly knows how to fluently speak all the languages men speak without losing any context. But his anger over that statement was nothing compared to how angry he got when I told him that if his book couldn't be accurately translated so that every man on earth could read it and understand it then he probably needed to accept the fact that it didn't come from God.

Of course I went ahead and bought an Arabic version of the book because I'm curious about just what differences there are in it.