Is his assessment accurate? Hope it is, but I have no idea.

What I do know is that Snopes only verifies that Major Rydbom sent the email:

This item is "true" in the sense that Eric Rydbom is indeed an engineer stationed in Iraq with the Army's 4th Infantry Division, and he sends monthly e-mail dispatches such as the one quoted above to fellow members of his congregation at the First Lutheran Church of Richmond Beach in Shorline, Washington.

This piece was one of those messages, forwarded to the church's prayer chain and thence to the larger world via the Internet.

We know it's accurate in the sense that the guy exists, is where he says he is, and did say what's attributed to him.

Given that it's bolstered by other sources (such as here and here and here and here and here), however, I remain moderately optimistic.

Amazing progress for three and a half months if you ask me.

Christianity = Judaism + Jesus. Islam = Christianity + Mohammed. Of course it's compatible with free-speech, free religious excersize, and free markets. If it wasn't, then neither would any other western-religion.

Attn: dowingba

Islam is NOT "Christianity + Mohammed". Islam does not recognize Christ as the divine son of God. The entire premise of Christianity is that the Divine Christ (Jesus) is capable and willing to save your eternal soul. Interestingly, Christ is Jewish and revers the Jews as the chosen people of Yahweh. Yahweh and Allah are NOT even the same god in spite of mis-translations in western english. A blog is certainly not sufficiently long to explain this. I suggest an excellent book called "Unveiling Islam", written by two muslim brothers. Its both well-written and informative.

Putting the doctrinal issues aside for a moment, one of the most interesting ideas that the founder of the Islamic Libertarian group asserts is that Islamic Civ = Western Civ - Interest. Perhaps the lack of interest-based financing prevented the Islamic World from having their own industrial revolution. I have some thoughts on this notion here.

Please see also this.

If Islam is unable to judge itself by the same standards it imposes upon others, it fails the most basic of tests for any idea advanced as a categorical imperative -- and all religions, regardless of specifics, are advanced as such.

Sorry, Dean, but I saw more of the same there concerning Israel, minorities, and dhimmitude.

And I fail to see how someone like that could convince the Wahabbis that they need to change their ways.

Did you notice that he said that he can't figure out a reason why non-Muslims would even WANT to set foot in Mecca?

Hey, I'm Jewish. If I go to Rome, you'd better believe I want to visit the Basilica.

It's as simple as that, and the fact that he denies non-Muslims the right of sheer curiosity or appreciation of art tells me that he still considers us second-class citizens.

Dean:

Wanna start a blogpool on how long it takes for some Wahabi mullah to issue a fatwah on Imad A. Ahmad? Put me down for three months, tops.

I think it matters less whether Islam is dogmatically compatible with free speech and capitalism than whether Islamic countries actually allow free speech and capitalism. I take a jaundiced view of trying to find justifications for Western Civilization in religious texts -- they tend to contain so much contradictory information that it's more in the interpretation filtered through culture than it is the raw text itself.

In other words, if you read any text -- religious or not -- in the right way, you can justify almost anything.

To clarify: there is much, for instance, in the Bible that might justify a theocratic or oligarchic form of government; yet there is much in it that seems to support individual liberty, free will, and free trade. Our current civilization, which values freedom and capitalism, views the Bible through that filter. In other eras the filter was different, so the justifications were different.

I generally agree with John, which is why I find this group interesting and hope for good things for them. We can mire ourselves down in an endless debate as to whether or not Islam "really" fits with western-style liberalism. Fact is that if someone can find a way to do it, and be persuasive to other Muslims, then more freaking power to them. Because the notion that over a billion Muslims are going to simply give up their faith so they can become democrats (small "d") is rather fruitless.

It has just been about three months and we do need to give it time. I happen to agree with what Dean opened up with, what John said and of course others about how we could debate this but it is far too soon. Remember who we have over there- Great man that ol Mayor Guliani sent along with the greatest military on earth.
We are good people and respect the different religion over there as well as in our own country, at the very least we tolerate it. I think it is more of an understanding they will come to realize as to a change and that takes patience and time. Yes, you said it too what it says in the bible, John.
I say again. We can all give credit to our great group of people from the good of USA over there.

In answer to ": Ask yourself, as a libertarian, if you really believe that free markets and liberty are necessary to human progress, then how was it possible for the Islamic civilizations to have been so successful for so many hundreds of years? "

One word, plunder.

After being thrown back from the Gates of Vienna, in 1683, Islam which had depended upon dynamic expansion by force of arms, went into decline.