No ifs or buts; there was an insurgence started by Mohommad in 8th
century into Mesopotamian by Arab armies driven by Islamic belief that
the world has to become Islamic.
It continued after the Prophet's death and is still following the
same rules.
Submit to Allah, pay the Jizaz or die !
The same rule is being currently applied in parts of Africa today.
Thousands of Christians are being slaughtered, but the press just
calls them insurgents, rebels etc or in Europe "Mentally Disturbed".
After the Prophet's armies finished in Mesopotamia they turned to
Nth Africa, Persia and India where the battle still rages.

Wherever Moslems go there is trouble because their religion is totally intolerant.
There are interesting developments in that some Moslem groups are
becoming embarrassed by some of their beliefs and try to ignore them.
However the fanatics then call them blasphemers and the punishment for that is death. Watch what is happening in Pakistan.

If you think that is all over the top then you need wake up and not
ignore all that is happening around the world.

Did you know that in the UK you can be prosecuted for having
Islamophobic thoughts or at least be questioned by police.
A man in the UK was arrested when he admitted that he was a Christian
and was praying quietly to himself in a public place.
I never heard what the result was, wouldn't be surprised if it got
dropped because of lack of evidence.

Dear Bezza,

Islam is less intolerant than Christianity. It regards itself as superior to other religions. However, it has respected people of the book, Jews and Christians. In areas where Muslims dominate non-Muslims may have to pay a special tax, but they were usually allowed to practice their religion and have their own courts. In Australia in the mission stations Aboriginal children were not allowed to speak the language of their tribe. They were forced to follow the Christian observances. In other areas of occupation by Christian countries missionaries tried to eliminate the indigenous cultures including the belief systems. I have read that one reason the early Arab conquests were so effective was that Christian rulers were intolerant of other branches of Christianity, and the people of those areas preferred Muslim rule to the rule of intolerant Christians of another sect. Some of the Christian Crusades were directed at other Christians. Christian Crusaders sacked Christian Constantinople. In their first three centuries Muslims regarded their religion as only applicable to Arabs and discouraged conversion as Muslims didn't have to pay tax. However, they never were as evil as the Christian Germans who tried to eliminate people of another religion. The Holocaust was a triumph of missionary Christianity. If you can't convert them wipe them out. That was in the spirit of Martin Luther whose diatribes against the Jews were used by the Nazis to spread their hate.

David F said-

You want freedom without a bombastic name. Humans are a social animal and organise in groups. Some humans stay outside of groups and are hermits. They are a small minority. Those are the choices. Either be part of a social group or be a hermit. Social groups have names. Democracy is one of the names. Bombastic means high sounding but with little meaning. What social organisation with a non-bombastic name can you suggest?

Answer- I think that one label for Yuyutsu position might be Sovereign Citizen- which has been given bombastic connotations from the communists- but I'd need to research more to confirm. Democracy like Communism often has multiple overlays depending on scale and jurisdiction.

Sovereign citizen seem to ignore group ethnic ownership of territory in a sense as does Liberal Democracy both on the Communist and Business sides.

I believe that ignoring ethnic ownership of territory ignores evolutionary territorialism in nature and is what Ayn Rand classifies as a looting and mooching philosophy- at a group level- but she would disagree because she doesn't believe in group ownership either probably because she was a moocher when she came to America- but she does have strong views on individual property ownership. Communists don't believe in ownership at all- and say that property should be "owned" by the government- basically power becomes centralized under a dictator.

Property ownership and how it's embodied in political ideology is interesting. Does the nation state own it, does the culture or ethnicity own it, does the community own it, does the family own it, does the individual own it. In reality all of these entities have a stake and these interests are expressed in different paradigms. For example a community may express it's claim when it says that a built house must be in character with the street. Estate laws are an expression of a families interest that property should be passed to members of the family even if the will expresses a different view.

Territorialism principles in non-humans seems to overlay human principles of ownership.

Bezza- talked about the rise of Islam in the Middle East

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=22481#390827

Answer- It seems that Islam is much focused on the principle of justice but there is an ethnic component- seems similar to the Pharises of the Bible- but maybe correlating legalism with justice is wrong.