@hawkeye10,
Quote:Long ago I was reading a detailed argument that Islam did not start out as a brutal religion
Hmmm...the use of the word 'brutal' is...interesting. A person can be violent without being brutal Eg, a soldier can be violent without being brutal (depending on how you would define the word, and whether or not you are using it in a comparative sense).
However, the founding - Mohammed was a warrior prophet. He lead raids himself. He condoned assassinations that benefited him. When he returned to Mecca it was those who criticised him that he had killed.
According to the Islams theory of abrogation, he went from:
- teaching absolute people,
- to violence only in self defence,
- to pre-emptive breaking of treaties,
- to violence as a means of domination,
- then after suffering a severe military defeat, stated that if you face a militarily superior enemy, sue for peace and convert by any means possible until you are stronger than him
...because Allah revealed such to him as the community was capable of hearing such and surviving...and that each command superseded the old command, which (old command) was no longer valid.
That of course, is a very watered down version. And I'm not 100% I got the order right. That said - if you read the founding from a purely political perspective, Mohammed kept changing the rules to suit his political situation, as that evolved.
Quote: if the West does indeed renounce violence as a way to impose will
I don't think that even a quick look at recent history would support this...and definitely not history over the last few hundred years.