Yes, to some extent, though I believe the major sects within Islam all split in its still formative years, and the splits may have had more to do with power than doctrine. Still, I’ll readily admit I’m no scholar of Islam, and I put forth the idea of the belief system’s exceptional “brittleness” just as a suggestion or hypothesis.

The point of making that suggestion, however, and the reason the reformability of Islam is of concern to those outside it, is just that it’s of great significance for understanding the nature of the conflict we’re now engaged in. One theory, for example, is that the islamists are just a tiny, violent splinter group, reacting to post-colonial grievances, and treatable with a combination law enforcement, appeasement, and kind words. Another, opposite theory is that they’re simply the shock troops in an unfamiliar, asymmetric war of cultures or civilizations rather than nations. So far, I think the reality lies somewhere between these extremes — but the reason the suggestion about the nature of Islam is disturbing, is that it pushes things toward the latter, “clash of civilizations” theory.

I should say that I’d be happy to see the suggestion proved wrong. But reality doesn’t always correspond to our hopes or wishes.

I think we all also need to recognize that asking for ‘reform’ in Islam might be nice for us, but might not be so nice for those in the Islamic world, as warring is likely to be a part of the process. Things are rarely as clean and easy as we might wish them to be.

….what utter chauvanism! There are several branches/denominations of Islam with various interpretations and customs. Wahabists are a small minority.

That is proof in itself that reform, interpretation and disagreement is not only possible but is a reality.

What sort of logic and belief system do you employ when you can’t recognise self-evident truth?

War is a great way to change society. I’m a great believer in how war changes society.

No, it may not. Why? Because of the disturbing possibility that Islam itself is a peculiarly brittle culture or belief system, that can’t flex or “reform” very much without breaking altogether. And that in turn would be a consequence of the possibility that Islam is a belief system essentially without a core — consisting instead simply of a text that can really only be memorized, not interpreted, and a set of practices or rituals, that can only be followed or not followed. That is, Islam may largely lack a real message — other than a self-referential one of converting and/or subduing the infidels — and so have nothing by which “reform” in the true sense may be measured. Any change can only be seen as a falling-away.

What’s disturbing about this, obviously, is that it suggests the “root cause” (so to speak) of the conflict between the islamists and the modern world is just Islam itself, a belief system that cannot reform, cannot even change, without shattering. And where does this leave us?

I’m not an optimist on the reform issue, but I believe it’s possible. I don’t think it can happen quickly enough, though, so perhaps a total defeat of wahabbist terrorists would be a good start to demonstrating to other muslims that Allah is not supporting that ‘false’ brand of Islam.

The only reason I responded is that the “non-jewess” tripe is an Aryan Nation quote I found long ago and recognized. The Talmud Exposed site which I quoted has a clear refutation of all the Aryan Nation anti-semitic c**p.

I’m sorry it had to be posted on your site. I could not let it stand.

RESPONSE
This is of course poppycock, there is no such source called Hadarine, while the chapter in Choshen Mishpat 348:2 states clearly that one may not steal from a gentile exactly as one may not steal from a fellow Jew. E.S.