Its "Saudi" for a reason.

Submitted by Mo (United Kingdom), Jan 13, 2007 at 14:50

Firstly Iran is an Islamic State to the Shia, and not to the Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic State, it is a Saudi state, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

"Your problem is that the only "ideal" Islamic state you will admit to would be a worldwide caliphate under Sharia" I think you're not wrong there, but a country that professes Islam in its legal and its constitution will be an Islamic "state," only in a minor sense, if you know what I mean, but a pure Islamic state would encompass all Muslims within its borders.

The Coptic Christians were not slaughtered the way you so vehemently claim, if you do your research there were very few people that resisted Amir Bin Al Aas when he and his 8000 strong army took control of the nation, those who did not were allowed to live, please give me relevant articles or links to your claims.

You claims about thousands of years of knowledge destroyed, I would have you know that it was under the Muslim rule of Harun Rashid during the initial Abbasids reign that resulted in much of these manuscripts translated into Arabic so to be understood and advanced upon. The ruler employed many Coptic Christians who were familiar to the language and culture at the time. So I would say your arguments on this matter are void, again.

You do not seem to understand that my reference to America and its foreign policies in relation to the Islamic "fundamentalism" that exist today is and can only be understood in modern times, rational don't you think. India was ruled under Isamically derived dynastic rule for several hundred years, yes some injustices did occur, where the rulers became very corrupt and did not give much attention to its subjects, however this is true for the Muslims as well as the non-Muslims who were subjected to the same level or rule.

Your reference to "Jihad" as a subjection of brutality is very shallow to say the least. Jihad is an integral part in Islam; we honour it and give it a high place in our religion. Jihad (offensive and defence; militarily speaking, not that of the internal, inner purification) cannot be used to kill the innocent, nor can it be used to merely accumulate worldly gains like spoils and the like thereof. However it is used to change the political dynamics of lands, the people are not killed, as limits in transgression is imposed, meaning the dead are not to be mutilated, the POWs are not to be treated with disrespects and brutality, they eat and sleep in the same manner as the Muslims do (during the time of the Prophet (p) the POWs were given further privileges as to be given meat while the rest of the Muslims were left to eat vinegar with their bread). Also when the opposing side sought peace, it then must be given to them immediately without further delay.

You refer to Muslims killing Christians in Sudan; that may be the case, but it is not something Islam endorses. Muslims and Christians lived peacefully in many places under Islam and there are plenty of examples for this, Palestinian Christians and Jews were very happy during the times of Islamic rule, many on prime time TV have said this, including prominent Jewish Rabbis native to the region come to popular programs such as "Hard talk" on the BBC to further emphasise this.

I think you have gotten your facts wrong on this one, there are close to 2 billion Muslims worldwide. And I said "close to" meaning a figure that is near to the figure "2 billion" although I should say the figure is closer to that which you gave "1.7 billion" is near enough.

The war in Iraq did cause outrage, yes, many sentiments were visible. But it wasn't rage alone, people sincerely wanted to find sense of the events of the Iraq war, and the events of 9/11 for that matter, that had led them to be more acquainted with their faith more.

Finally, your ideal world calls for the total eradication of Islam, its followers, its sympathisers. I call that terrorism.

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".