End of Faith Pt 3- Islam in particular.

First I have to say that my bookseller/collector friends would kill me if they saw all these pen marks in this volume. Sorry.

I am still trying to figure out the whole Islam thing, but what I have so far is this:

The chapter on Islam is one which has me troubled for a number of reasons- one of which is that I kind of agree with his assessment, though *not* his solution (his asessment is that it is an inherently violent religion- which seems very surface, but which can also be said about any number of other religions wherein the "punishment is death"). The martyrdom aspect is more prevalent in Islam- as it is applied currently- than in many other faiths, but still. His solution is to kill them all, it seems.

This is a cry which has come up a couple of times in the book so far- "they cannot be resoned with", which may well be the case, but he does present it as a kill or be killed situation, which strikes me as a justification for current policy and really, nothing more.

So- yes, I do think Islam as it is being played out now, is a dangerous thing. (I also think Christianity, Judaism, or any other faith which blinds the believer to the human-ness of the non-believer and drives the believer to violence is a dangerous sort of faith). But I take issue with his singling it out so.

While he puts forth in the book that *faith* is dangerous, he is concentrating on Islam unduly. I am inclined to wonder if, had he been born in the 14h century, he would have called for the killing of all christians, in view of the Inquisition going on then.

A number of his observations (and observations borrowed from Bernard Lewis) are that Islam is a religiously imperialist entity (I am thinking particularly of " for Muslims, no piece of land once added to the realm of Islam can ever be finally renounced." The Gaza strip comes to mind (as does any area of concession in Israel), but with 'Judaism' replacing 'Muslim'. (**for the record, I am Jewish, Reform and somewhat lapsed, but still**). NO group wants to give up their land.

I am trying to take this all with the knowledge that he started the book on September 12, 2001, but I do wonder - whither the editor? Also- where is the historical perspective? If someone shoots you on a Monday, you are not going to be looking for their finer points on a Tuesday. This is not to say there aren't problems- obviously there are. I take issue with his solution, which sounds a bit...final, if you will.