Latter-day Saints View of Islam.

[BCSpace]

I've tried to get BCSpace to clarify his objections or concerns regarding my comments, above, about the Muslim doctrine of jihad.

But only in the context of some misrepresentation of something I said on another board. Hence, you'll have to seek your answer there. Wasn't it Orpheus who said on the first page of this board "No more personal remarks or bringing in spats from other boards please."?

For BCSpace's benefit, the definition of invective as it appears in the Oxford American Dictionary: "a violent attack in words, abusive language." I don't recall having been violently abusive of BCSpace here on this thread or anywhere else.

Here Mr. Peterson picks the definition that suits his own invective and tries to shift the conversation away from his own error. Which begs the question....Why won't Mr. Peterson actually quote what I said on the other board? It's because he can't talk about it any more than I can here. But perhaps he wants to poison the well first because his postion on Islam is relatively weak?

I think that once Mr. Peterson aknowledges that I was not impugning his character on the other board as is his accusation here, then perhaps he and I can can proceed. Otherwise, I shall respond only to other posters on this topic.

[Pahoran]

I've tried to get BCSpace to clarify his objections or concerns regarding my comments, above, about the Muslim doctrine of jihad.

But only in the context of some misrepresentation of something I said on another board. Hence, you'll have to seek your answer there. Wasn't it Orpheus who said on the first page of this board "No more personal remarks or bringing in spats from other boards please."?

For BCSpace's benefit, the definition of invective as it appears in the Oxford American Dictionary: "a violent attack in words, abusive language." I don't recall having been violently abusive of BCSpace here on this thread or anywhere else.

Here Mr. Peterson picks the definition that suits his own invective and tries to shift the conversation away from his own error. Which begs the question....Why won't Mr. Peterson actually quote what I said on the other board? It's because he can't talk about it any more than I can here. But perhaps he wants to poison the well first because his postion on Islam is relatively weak?

I think that once Mr. Peterson aknowledges that I was not impugning his character on the other board as is his accusation here, then perhaps he and I can can proceed. Otherwise, I shall respond only to other posters on this topic.

Really? Then perhaps you'd like to respond to me.

You quoted Dan above:

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

Then responded:

Which is it? If it is a component (and a very major component it happens to be), then all other reasons fade to nil in importance or existence.

What do you mean by "which is it?" Wherein do you see some kind of either/or dichotomy?

And what is the basis of your next assertion? My floppy disk drive is a component of my computer. Does that mean that all the other components "fade to nil in importance or existence?" Would you care to explain your reasoning here? I confess that it escapes me entirely.

By the way, just so you know: "duplicity" means "double-dealing." Now I'm not privy to what goes on in other fora, but if you are accusing Dan of something elsewhere and fighting shy of the accusation here, that looks rather like double-dealing to me. If you are going to accuse him of misrepresenting what you said elsehwere, then perhaps you'd care to back up the accusation by quoting, in context, what you actually did say. Alternatively, if you are worried about board wars, since you have already expressed a rather cryptic opinion about the disputed passage in this thread, why don't you expound your objections to it here?

You have at all times a right to own your own position. Just as Dan has a right to own his. And if you are unwilling to engage Dan in a forum where he is active, preferring instead to go behind his back to one where he is not, then I don't think very many people will conclude that he is afraid of you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

But only in the context of some misrepresentation of something I said on another board. Hence, you'll have to seek your answer there. . . I think that once Mr. Peterson aknowledges that I was not impugning his character on the other board as is his accusation here, then perhaps he and I can can proceed. Otherwise, I shall respond only to other posters on this topic.

Until Monsieur BCSpace recites "Jabberwocky" backwards in Esperanto while acknowledging by means of hand signals that I'm the tallest person in my house, I shall respond to Monsieur BCSpace only when I feel like it.

For BCSpace's benefit, the definition of invective as it appears in the Oxford American Dictionary: "a violent attack in words, abusive language." I don't recall having been violently abusive of BCSpace here on this thread or anywhere else.

Here Mr. Peterson picks the definition that suits his own invective

Fiendishly clever of me, I thought, to pick out so eccentric a reference as the Oxford American Dictionary.

But I can top it!

Here is the definition of invective from another truly obscure dictionary, carefully chosen to support my position:

invective: "of, relating to, or characterized by insult or abuse: denunciatory . . . an abusive expression or diatribe: a vehement verbal attack . . . <invectives fierce and scurrilous> . . . critical or insulting language: violent abuse: vituperation <as his anger mounted, ridicule and invective poured from his mouth searing and burning all that they touched . . .>" (Webster's Third International Dictionary, Unabridged)

I don't think that any reasonable person, reading this thread (or any other), will find that I've ever engaged in a fiercely violent and scurrilous verbal assault on Monsieur BCSpace.

But then, of course, Webster's Third International Dictionary, Unabridged, is a pretty off-the-wall dictionary, probably edited by some cronies of mine to bail me out of just such situations as this one.

and tries to shift the conversation away from his own error.

Actually, I've repeatedly implored Monsieur BCSpace to explain precisely what my alleged error is.

But he refuses to do so unless I touch my elbow to my ear while reciting the periodic table of the elements, or some such thing.

Which begs the question....

Actually, it raises the question (if, indeed, it really does). "Begging the question" is a specific logical fallacy that involves circular reasoning. Although that is, no doubt, merely one among my many sins, it doesn't seem relevant here.

Why won't Mr. Peterson actually quote what I said on the other board? It's because he can't talk about it any more than I can here. But perhaps he wants to poison the well first because his postion on Islam is relatively weak?

Perhaps.

But I've granted Monsieur BCSpace a free pass for what he said about me on the other board, seeing as how he's so touchy about it. Three times now. I've invited him on this thread, on this board, to explain, simply, what he meant by his comments on this thread, on this board, about what I had said earlier, on this thread, on this board, about jihad. That's all. A simple request. I can't see what all the bobbing and weaving is about.

He doesn't need to justify his accusation against me, there, of "duplicity." In fact, just to show good faith, I hereby plead guilty to being duplicitous.

There.

Now. What is the problem with my comments, here on this message board and, indeed, on this very thread, about jihad?

[BCSpace]

Really? Then perhaps you'd like to respond to me.

Only once because, like Dan, you have brought into the context a misrepresentation of something I posted on another board.

By the way, just so you know: "duplicity" means "double-dealing."

You are just like Dan in that you are picking the definition that suits your argument but may not necessarily speak to the issue at hand. Duplicity also means.....

"the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action"

In other words, Dan was trying to have his cake and eat it too.

You have at all times a right to own your own position. Just as Dan has a right to own his.

Indeed.

And if you are unwilling to engage Dan in a forum where he is active, preferring instead to go behind his back to one where he is not,

Using your logic here (which I agree with).... Dan went on another board (where I am active) and brought back to this board a misrepresentation of what I said there. So by your own logic, if Dan (or you) wishes to address this issue in the context of what I posted on the other board, then Dan (or you) will meet me on that board (where I am active) and we can continue this discussion in that very same context.

then I don't think very many people will conclude that he is afraid of you.

Why does fear rule your thoughts? I said nothing of it. I don't fear to converse with Dan on this subject, but in order for me to present my evidence, I must do it on a board where I am allowed to do so. And to prevent a board war, Dan must initiate a query on that board and continue to discuss it there. He is not going to, so I don't see the need to further discuss the duplicity issue (especially since I was not the one who brought it up on this board) here except to answer false claims about what I posted.

If you wish to continue discussing the topic of this thread, then do so without making it a board war.

[Pahoran]

Really? Then perhaps you'd like to respond to me.

Only once because, like Dan, you have brought into the context a misrepresentation of something I posted on another board.

By the way, just so you know: "duplicity" means "double-dealing."

You are just like Dan in that you are picking the definition that suits your argument but may not necessarily speak to the issue at hand. Duplicity also means.....

"the technically incorrect use of two or more distinct items (as claims, charges, or defenses) in a single legal action"

In other words, Dan was trying to have his cake and eat it too.

You have at all times a right to own your own position. Just as Dan has a right to own his.

Indeed.

And if you are unwilling to engage Dan in a forum where he is active, preferring instead to go behind his back to one where he is not,

Using your logic here (which I agree with).... Dan went on another board (where I am active) and brought back to this board a misrepresentation of what I said there. So by your own logic, if Dan (or you) wishes to address this issue in the context of what I posted on the other board, then Dan (or you) will meet me on that board (where I am active) and we can continue this discussion in that very same context.

then I don't think very many people will conclude that he is afraid of you.

Why does fear rule your thoughts? I said nothing of it. I don't fear to converse with Dan on this subject, but in order for me to present my evidence, I must do it on a board where I am allowed to do so. And to prevent a board war, Dan must initiate a query on that board and continue to discuss it there. He is not going to, so I don't see the need to further discuss the duplicity issue (especially since I was not the one who brought it up on this board) here except to answer false claims about what I posted.

If you wish to continue discussing the topic of this thread, then do so without making it a board war.

Okay.

You somehow managed to entirely avoid addressing any part of the meat of my post. I here reproduce it for your convenience.

You quoted Dan above:

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

Then responded:

Which is it? If it is a component (and a very major component it happens to be), then all other reasons fade to nil in importance or existence.

What do you mean by "which is it?" Wherein do you see some kind of either/or dichotomy?

And what is the basis of your next assertion? My floppy disk drive is a component of my computer. Does that mean that all the other components "fade to nil in importance or existence?" Would you care to explain your reasoning here? I confess that it escapes me entirely.

Since this is the substantive point at issue, I would like to see at least an acknowledgement that it has been raised. Please note that it relies exclusively and only upon what you have posted in this thread. I am not interested in anything going on elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan . . . brought into the context a misrepresentation of something I posted on another board.

For purposes of discussion, I'll grant that, just as I've granted that I'm duplicitous.

What about jihad?

Dan . . . pick[ed] the definition that suit[ed] [his] argument

Maybe I need to consult better dictionaries, because that was the only definition that I could find in the Oxford American Dictionary and Webster's Third International Dictionary, Unabridged.

Dan went on another board (where I am active) and brought back to this board a misrepresentation of what I said there. So by your own logic, if Dan (or you) wishes to address this issue in the context of what I posted on the other board, then Dan (or you) will meet me on that board (where I am active) and we can continue this discussion in that very same context.

Dan has granted you the right to publicly accuse him of "duplicity" without opposition. He concedes all charges on your other board, and enthusiastically pleads guilty to them. He asks only for elucidation, on this thread, of your comments on this thread about what he said on this thread.

I don't fear to converse with Dan on this subject, but in order for me to present my evidence, I must do it on a board where I am allowed to do so.

So, on this thread, you can't discuss comments on this thread about comments on this thread?

And to prevent a board war, Dan must initiate a query on that board and continue to discuss it there.

In order to avoid a board war, comments about comments made on this thread about earlier comments on this thread must be posted on another board?

Daniel Peterson, justly convicted of duplicity

[Jan]

BC,

What's going on? You are acting weird.

[BCSpace]

What's going on? You are acting weird.

How so?

[Jan]

What's going on? You are acting weird.

How so?

You are straining at gnats about answering questions about what you and DCP have said here. Regardless of what has been said on another board, you are being asked about things that have been said here. Why do you continue the tug of war instead of just answering?

[structurecop]

Didn't I make the original statement over which there has been so much controversy?

[BCSpace]

You are straining at gnats about answering questions about what you and DCP have said here. Regardless of what has been said on another board, you are being asked about things that have been said here. Why do you continue the tug of war instead of just answering?

No straining. Mr. Peterson is apparently attempting to poison the well by misrepresenting something I said on another board and bringing it into this context. I am quite familair with his modus operandi (trying to personalize the debate), so if he wants to address what I said on the other board, then he can address it there.

If he wants to discuss this topic, by itself, with me, he can acknowledge his error and misrepresentation (perhaps by including an actual quote of what I said on the other board) and I shall give a more than satisfactory answer on topic of jihad.

[Jan]

Didn't I make the original statement over which there has been so much controversy?

Maybe

I've just read the last two pages of tug of war. Whomever said what, certainly if it was said here it can be discussed here. I find the excuse of creating a board war unwarranted.

SC, maybe you could reconstruct the salient points of contention in a post and then the discussion can move from there?

[BCSpace]

I've just read the last two pages of tug of war. Whomever said what, certainly if it was said here it can be discussed here. I find the excuse of creating a board war unwarranted.

Except that certain of what what said and it's analysis was said on another board. But overall, you are correct, there need not be a board war which is why it is baffling to me why Mr. Peterson would initiate one. He could simply have answered on the other board or he could've ignored it there AND not mentioned it here.

Jan, the reason why I cannot debate the duplicity issue here is because it involves making reference to quotes the source of which FAIR has banned. Mr. Peterson could easily remove that ban with a word, but he cannot take sources that are in the same tone and mode of voice that he himself uses.

[Daniel Peterson]

Didn't I make the original statement over which there has been so much controversy?

Actually, yes you did. Funny!

I didn't remember the statement, and thought it didn't quite sound the way that I would have phrased things, but I didn't go back to check it.

Unless I'm mistaking his meaning, Monsieur BCSpace has accused me of . . . well, anyway, has justly accused me on the basis of something actually written by somebody else! Perhaps I'm guilty not merely of duplicity but of some sort of dual-personality syndrome.

It would be interesting to hear Monsieur BCSpace's clarification of all this, but I'm afraid that, unless I dramatize the Dow Jones Industrial Average by means of hand puppets while standing on my head at the top of a Buddhist stupa in central Oklahoma, or whatever his requirement is, he's not going to offer any explanation at all.

You are straining at gnats about answering questions about what you and DCP have said here. Regardless of what has been said on another board, you are being asked about things that have been said here. Why do you continue the tug of war instead of just answering?

No straining. Mr. Peterson is apparently attempting to poison the well by misrepresenting something I said on another board and bringing it into this context. I am quite familair with his modus operandi (trying to personalize the debate), so if he wants to address what I said on the other board, then he can address it there.

Mr. Peterson has repeatedly asked, and, now, Pahoran has twice asked, that Monsieur BCSpace clarify (here) what he said (here) about what he seems (here) to have thought that I said (here), but which, it now seems, structurecop actually said (here).

If he wants to discuss this topic, by itself, with me, he can acknowledge his error and misrepresentation (perhaps by including an actual quote of what I said on the other board) and I shall give a more than satisfactory answer on topic of jihad.

This is truly bizarre.

[Nighthawke]

I've just read the last two pages of tug of war. Whomever said what, certainly if it was said here it can be discussed here. I find the excuse of creating a board war unwarranted.

Except that certain of what what said and it's analysis was said on another board. But overall, you are correct, there need not be a board war which is why it is baffling to me why Mr. Peterson would initiate one. He could simply have answered on the other board or he could've ignored it there AND not mentioned it here.

Jan, the reason why I cannot debate the duplicity issue here is because it involves making reference to quotes the source of which FAIR has banned. Mr. Peterson could easily remove that ban with a word, but he cannot take sources that are in the same tone and mode of voice that he himself uses.

Enough nonsense already!

Dan Peterson nailed it dead on earlier when he posted:

I've tried to get BCSpace to clarify his objections or concerns regarding my comments, above, about the Muslim doctrine of jihad.

He would rather discuss my allegedly poor behavior ("duplicity," according to his comment on another board; "invective," according to his repeated comments here).

And that's exactly what BCSpace has been doing ad infinitum unless the beneficent mods (Hello? Any mods online?) put an end to his doing so.

There are too many of these nonsense threads around here these past couple of days. If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute then move away from the keyboard.

[BCSpace]

Didn't I make the original statement over which there has been so much controversy?

Actually, yes you did. Funny!

I didn't remember the statement, and thought it didn't quite sound the way that I would have phrased things, but I didn't go back to check it.

Yes indeed. I have checked it and it seems that as the FAIR boards were down (as I mentioned in that post), I could not at the time check to verify it's accuracy. So on that account, I do humbly apologize to Mr. Peterson and do hereby move my description of duplicity for the relative words onto structurecop...sorry structurecop! But rest assured that the dictionary definition of 'duplicity' I am using in this case is not the one Mr. Peterson wanted it to be.

However, Mr. Peterson is not off the hook. But in order to address his past duplicity, he will have to do it on the other board as it does involve previous discussions banned by FAIR.

Feel free to give me some few lashes before proceeding with the discussion.

[Nighthawke]

Didn't I make the original statement over which there has been so much controversy?

Actually, yes you did. Funny!

I didn't remember the statement, and thought it didn't quite sound the way that I would have phrased things, but I didn't go back to check it.

Yes indeed. I have checked it and it seems that as the FAIR boards were down (as I mentioned in that post), I could not at the time check to verify it's accuracy. So on that account, I do humbly apologize to Mr. Peterson and do hereby move my description of duplicity for the relative words onto structurecop...sorry structurecop! But rest assured that the dictionary definition of 'duplicity' I am using in this case is not the one Mr. Peterson wanted it to be.

However, Mr. Peterson is not off the hook. But in order to address his past duplicity, he will have to do it on the other board as it does involve previous discussions banned by FAIR.

Feel free to give me some few lashes before proceeding with the discussion.

Oh that's special. What discussion?

[Alf O'Mega]

At the risk of injecting substance into this discussion, I'd like to solicit your opinion, Dr. Peterson, of Noah Feldman's longish article in Sunday's New York Times: Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age. I'm no scholar of Islam, so I found his outline of the history of Islamic philosophies of war very helpful in understanding some of the issues at stake. Is there anything you'd clarify?

[Pahoran]

Feel free to give me some few lashes before proceeding with the discussion.

Well, now that that entertaining little diversion is out of the way, I'm happy to leave out the lashes and get back to something substantive.

You quoted Structurecop above:

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

Then responded:

Which is it? If it is a component (and a very major component it happens to be), then all other reasons fade to nil in importance or existence.

What do you mean by "which is it?" Wherein do you see some kind of either/or dichotomy?

And what is the basis of your next assertion? My floppy disk drive is a component of my computer. Does that mean that all the other components "fade to nil in importance or existence?" Would you care to explain your reasoning here? I confess that it escapes me entirely.

Since this is the substantive point at issue, I would like to see at least an acknowledgement that it has been raised. Please note that it relies exclusively and only upon what you have posted in this thread. I am not interested in anything going on elsewhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

Dan Peterson nailed it dead on earlier when he posted:

I've tried to get BCSpace to clarify his objections or concerns regarding my comments, above, about the Muslim doctrine of jihad.

He would rather discuss my allegedly poor behavior ("duplicity," according to his comment on another board; "invective," according to his repeated comments here).

And that's exactly what BCSpace has been doing ad infinitum

You see what you want to see, but it was not me who brought up the duplicity issue from the other board in the first place. In any case, I wrongly attributed the words to DCP for which I do apologize to you Nighthwake as I am ultimately at fault for DCP's unwarranted reaction (in the context that we both thought we were speaking of the same thing, which as it turns out, we weren't.)

And because I erroneously attributed those words to DCP, it brought out the bone I have to pick with him regarding the protectionism and selective censorship on FAIR especially in regards to him. Feel free, Nighthawke, to discuss that on the other board if you wish.

[Nighthawke]

Dan Peterson nailed it dead on earlier when he posted:

I've tried to get BCSpace to clarify his objections or concerns regarding my comments, above, about the Muslim doctrine of jihad.

He would rather discuss my allegedly poor behavior ("duplicity," according to his comment on another board; "invective," according to his repeated comments here).

And that's exactly what BCSpace has been doing ad infinitum

You see what you want to see, but it was not me who brought up the duplicity issue from the other board in the first place. In any case, I wrongly attributed the words to DCP for which I do apologize to you Nighthwake as I am ultimately at fault for DCP's unwarranted reaction (in the context that we both thought we were speaking of the same thing, which as it turns out, we weren't.)

And because I erroneously attributed those words to DCP, it brought out the bone I have to pick with him regarding the protectionism and selective censorship on FAIR especially in regards to him. Feel free, Nighthawke, to discuss that on the other board if you wish.

I have no clue what "the other board" is. This is the only board I post on. I have posted on Times & Seasons a couple of times but that's about it for my activity on the WWW which is why I get cheesed off when this message board veers off into the occasional binge of cyber garbage courtesy of various posters who should know better.

I also have zero patience for people who whine about the moderating around here. If you can't stand the mods or disagree with board rules then find someplace else to crybab--- er, post on.

[Calm]

I also have zero patience for people who whine about the moderating around here. If you can't stand the mods or disagree with board rules then find someplace else to crybab--- er, post on.

Amen. Complaining about moderation on a board you volunteer to post on is like complaining about the quality of food at a dinner you are a self-invited guest at, yet contributed nothing to. Just pure tackiness and discourtesy.

[BCSpace]

As for the majority of the moderate Muslims, they will not come out en masse against jihad because it is, either in rhetorical or literal form, a component of Islamic thought. Most have bought into the conspiracy theories regarding September 11, Zionist imperialism, and other theories designed to proliferate fear of Western ideals. Speaking out against jihad is in a way condoning Western decadence and something most Muslims do not want to be part of.

Which is it? If it is a component (and a very major component it happens to be), then all other reasons fade to nil in importance or existence.

What do you mean by "which is it?" Wherein do you see some kind of either/or dichotomy?

I way I read it is that....

1) moderate Muslims will not come out against jihad because it is a component of Islam.

2) moderate Muslims will not come out against jihad because such would condone Western decadence.

While it may be argued that both are or could be valid reasons in tandem it seems to me that 1) is the real answer and 2) is the answer Western revisionist scholars and CAIR apologists give to justify the silence in the Muslim world.

It's like having your cake and eating it too.

To nonMuslims it is said that "we don't like your society so don't criticize us" while on the other hand to Muslims it is taught that "this, the house of war, is part of our doctrine so how dare they criticize us".

Since this is the substantive point at issue, I would like to see at least an acknowledgement that it has been raised. Please note that it relies exclusively and only upon what you have posted in this thread. I am not interested in anything going on elsewhere.

And I thank you for that.

[katherine the great]

Did I detect a slight New England accent?????

[Daniel Peterson]

But rest assured that the dictionary definition of 'duplicity' I am using in this case is not the one Mr. Peterson wanted it to be.

Thanks to Monsieur Space for that slow-pitch softball, right across the plate, chest-high.

(1) Borrowing Monsieur Space's mantra (because it's just too good to pass up): If Monsieur Space wants to discuss my alleged "duplicity," he should do it on his own board, where he made the accusation. He shouldn't start a board war.

(2) First, Monsieur Space attributed a quotation from structurecop to me, and now he attributes Pahoran's definition of duplicity to me. (For the record, I did not write the plays of Shakespeare, no matter what Monsieur Space may say later today.)

Mr. Peterson is not off the hook.

What a surprise.

I'm puzzled, though, as to what has caused Monsieur Space's apparent personal animosity and inspired him to launch what now seems some sort of campaign against me. I can't recall having had any real altercations with Monsieur Space heretofore, and find this all a bit mystifying.

But in order to address his past duplicity,

For the record, Monsieur Space has now accused me of "duplicity" here, as well as on his home board. If I were interested in pursuing this fascinating topic with him (which I'm not), I could now do it on FAIR.

he will have to do it on the other board as it does involve previous discussions banned by FAIR.

Monsieur Space needn't worry. He's safe.

Feel free to give me some few lashes before proceeding with the discussion.

"Discussion"?

However, Monsieur Space is free, as he has always been, to engage in a substantive conversation about the concept of jihad here on this message board, and on this very thread.

At the risk of injecting substance into this discussion, I'd like to solicit your opinion, Dr. Peterson, of Noah Feldman's longish article in Sunday's New York Times: Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age. I'm no scholar of Islam, so I found his outline of the history of Islamic philosophies of war very helpful in understanding some of the issues at stake. Is there anything you'd clarify?

Don't I first have to do something in order to qualify to converse with you? Something, say, like balancing a copy of The DaVinci Code on my nose while gargling pancake batter, dressed in leopard skin pants and vest and standing atop a moving Yugo?

I'm afraid that I haven't read Feldman's article. But I will try to do so and get back to you. (I'm out of town over the weekend, lying duplicitiously to an interfaith symposium in Topeka, Kansas. So that may interfere.)