[nmap]

Why the negativity? I suspect it's because the implication is conflict of some sort. Whether that conflict consists of civil discussion or activities skewed toward the kinetic does not matter - disturbance of the present calm prosperity would follow. (Note - I say "calm prosperity" with a small hint of sarcasm).

I had the chance to attend a talk by an Imam. I will be the first to concede that a single, brief talk in a public venue to a non-Islamic audience does not provide any expertise - but I got some impressions. If I'm too far in error, perhaps others will offer correction.

First, Islam appears to offer the leadership a remarkable opportunity for control. I gathered that the designated leader (the Imam) controls both the religious and a substantial portion of the non-religious life of the affiliates. For example, an individual who needed employment or financial aid would go to the Imam. If this is true, then the leadership seems unlikely to want to give up such authority.

I noted at the time that the underlying view of Islam (admittedly based on a single and none-too-dependable data point) seems contrary to the fundamental constitutional principles of the U.S., and, perhaps, Western Civilization in general. Specifically, it seemed that Islam combined church and state into a single, unitary leader, whereas the separation of these roles seems emphasized in the West. In addition, I note that a central schism in Islam rests (as far as I understand it) on the destruction of the Caliphate due to conflict between two individuals who claimed they were each the more appropriate inheritor of authority. Since there still seems to be some friction between the Shia and Sunni sects, and I get the impression that there is a certain longing for the reestablishment of the Caliphate - once again combining absolute religious and secular authority in a single individual ruler - then the Western and Islamic views are inherently in conflict. Furthermore, this may suggest that, in the end, at most one such view can survive.

I have to wonder whether an attitude as a MINO is viable in a system where both religion and secular aspects are combined. I think it would take quite an unusual person to be able to navigate appearing to believe 24/7 - 365 for decades, while actually believing something else. That is, perhaps, a strength of the Islamic system. It appears that if an adherent rejects it, then they walk away from the entire support system.

The situation may become more interesting as exponential growth plays out. I notice that a number of Islamic countries have high birth rates but a seeming inability to provide support (or, for that matter, sustenance) for the population. This suggests either immigration (to the U.S., for example) or social instability. But if there is privation, then it seems likely that they will go to their Imam, who will bind them even more closely to Jihad. Thus, a self-reinforcing cycle which will drive escalating conflict.

What of the moderates? I suspect they will do whatever fills their rice-bowl for the short term. Just like most people do. But this has implications if the world faces shortages (as I believe) rather than ever-growing abundance. The moderates may be nearly as deadly as any other combatant, and yet be seen as canon-fodder by their leaders. In a population-surplus scenario, their use in warfare might represent a relief of the excess population, not unlike the situation in Europe centuries ago.

As for testing friends...there are friends, and there are acquaintances. I have heard it said that if, over an entire lifetime, you have as many friends as you have fingers on one hand, you can count yourself as fortunate. I think a distinction between someone who supplies amusing banter over lunch and someone who would help one through dire circumstances is in order. Rhetorical question: What if Nmap's ravings are right, and you really need a friend? Wouldn't it be nice to know who they were?

And finally, a respectful note to Richard. I sometimes remind myself that this or that group is not against me, they are just for themselves. I think this may apply to the collision of values between our system and Islam. They are for themselves. This implies that we must be, unabashedly and without hesitation, for ourselves and what we believe in. I am not at all sure that we are, as a society, willing to follow the path of being for ourselves. If that's true, then those who do believe in themselves just might win - leading to a transition from our existing system of beliefs to a different one. To steal a line from NDD - do we still want to quit?