Is Islam compatible with a post-Enlightenment, pluralistic society? It is now commonplace (one might even say trite) to commend Islam as a "religion of peace,"; and it is certainly true that most Muslims do not count themselves among those who wish to re-establish and expand the ancient caliphate (radical Sunnis) or those who wish to hasten the return of the Twelfth Imam (radical Shiites). But since a dedicated and militant minority--seven percent is the number I have most recently seen--can easily overwhelm an indifferent majority, it does not seem at all unreasonable to worry. Quite a lot, in fact.

Here is a pertinent quote from an article entitled "The Religion Of Peace Shows Its Fangs":

"While Moslem leaders insist that Islam is the religion of peace, the history of Islam says otherwise. Islamic radicals, and many sects of Islam, are anything but peaceful. These radicals can easily dominate the majority of Moslems, and perpetuate a reign of terror on local non-Moslems, as well as any Moslems who oppose this religious violence. Most Moslems, and especially Moslem leaders in Moslem majority nations, delude themselves that this 'Islam Is Peace' mantra is true. The result is that, when the Islamic radicals show up (and they have always been there, since the founding of Islam 1500 years ago), the more moderate leaders try to placate them. That doesn't work, and in a tragedy played out regularly in the history of Islam, the radicals are either suppressed, or gain strength until they are strong enough to fight a civil war. If the radicals win, they establish a religious dictatorship that lasts a generation or two, but eventually collapses from corruption and poor administration (running a government and economy according to the Koran does not work, a fact that the faithful keep denying despite evidence to the contrary)."

And the rest: Indonesia: The Religion Of Peace Shows Its Fangs

Comments?