No.....

Submitted by donvan (United States), Jun 17, 2009 at 07:08

The advance of I'slam requires violence to be accomplished. A cursory look at the dogma and history of patern and practice of so called "Islam" cannot help but use violence. It is difficult to undertand the rationale that even rises the question. It is obvious that the intellectual energy that animates this intrinsically violent ideology is misplaced. The question is settled; the composite ideology dubbed "Islam" is, by its very nature, a violent ideology, with no redeeming social value. Propaganda not withstanding, the intellectually dishonest notion that this ideology is not a clear and present danger and antithetical to civilization is a great failing of academia and a disservice to the American experiment of individual freedom and liberty. The veneer of the "Third great Abrahamic religion" does not hold up. While the myth of Ishmael , a son of Abraham, relates to the Arab tribe, it has no connection to Muhammed. One more myth fueled by I'slamic propaganda. In fact Muhammed left the Arab tribes in worse condition than before his delusions.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".