> I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?"
It's not really a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy. Islamic theology plainly calls for supremacy. Not that this is a realistic threat, it just underlines a certain incompatibility with modern sensibilities.
> I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff!
At this stage in the game the open minded position is one that acknowledges the realities of world cultures and human history. The closed minded position is unthinking acceptance of the multi-cultural mantras.
>It's not really a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy. Islamic theology plainly calls for supremacy. Not that this is a realistic threat, it just underlines a certain incompatibility with modern sensibilities.
What I would like to hear is Muslim "moderates" clarifying is this so or not. Its one thing for them to say its hysteria, another thing if they say that and yet believe in supremacy.
I've studied Islam in depth, and can answer this question.
Islam calls for the presence of an Islamic state, which may live in coexistence with other non-Islamic states in peace. Within the Islamic state, all Muslims are held to the Islamic laws, but non-Muslims are free to practice and preach their own religions. Muslims are required to serve in the army of said Islamic state, whereas non-Muslims aren't allowed to - they pay an extra tax (Islamic tax is 2.5%) instead. So long as the tax is paid, they are considered to be full citizens and have most rights (with some rights related to the Islamic-religion obviously excepted).
Islam (in the Quran) does say to kill the "disbelievers," but this is almost always immediately followed by conditionals. Generally, the conditionals will refer to "those that have invoked violence upon you" and "those that have taken your lands or people from you." And then it's directly followed on most occasions by another statement: "And God doesn't forbid you from making peace with those that aren't fighting you and haven't taken your property."
So Islam demands the presence of a non-Secular entity (not dis-similar to the Vatican) which gives preference to Muslims, but does not require that there be a "Islamic World Order" and domination of the planet. Within the Islamic empire, non-Muslims are free to practice their own religions and their rights to do so are protected by Islam and outside its boundaries other countries are obviously free to do whatever they like so long as there are no transgressions - just like modern politics dictates.
It's important to note that in the history of the Islamic empire, there were great periods of tolerance and coexistence with the non-Muslim world. Take, for instance, Jerusalem when it was handed off from Christian hands to the Caliph Omar some 15 years after the spread of Islam. They would trust it to one other than the Caliph himself, and it was understood & accepted by both sides that it would remain - like the rest of the Islamic empire at the time (with the city of Makkah, where only Muslims are allowed to reside, being the exception) - open for Christians and Muslims alike without fear of religious prosecution or interference - and so it did.
> I'm part of the "grand conspiracy to take over the world?"
It's not really a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires secrecy. Islamic theology plainly calls for supremacy. Not that this is a realistic threat, it just underlines a certain incompatibility with modern sensibilities.
> I thought hackers were supposed to be more open minded and stuff!
At this stage in the game the open minded position is one that acknowledges the realities of world cultures and human history. The closed minded position is unthinking acceptance of the multi-cultural mantras.