Why I think being a Muslim is rational.

[franklin]

Oh yeah? Give me some examples of this "violent, Islamic World" prior to the Second World War. If you have this view, how in Gods name can you explain three faiths co-existing in all islamic countries for millennia?

Islam post-Muhammed was a divide and conquer nation. That was the way of the world back then though and I don't see the point condemning Islam any more than than I agree with anti-Christians inside America condemning Christianity as the cause of all wars.

To answer your question though, you can read into Zoroastrianism and what Islam did to that religion. Let's not whitewash things. There was an era where religion and community was the way of life all across the globe.

 

[Siro]

You keep bringing up ancient history to support your view of Islam. The situation of the Muslim middle ages is complicated and warrants a long discussion of its own. But let's say that Islam had a period of 400 years where it was not a horrific backward force. So what? The Greeks did well for a long time too, shall we sing praises to Zeus? Or should we start building temples for the Roman gods? Back when I was a Muslim I used the very same arguments you're using. But the problem in such arguments is obvious if you examine it objectively.

But you will not do so. You know why? Because you cannot begin the debate from its logical natural point; whether Islam, as a human-made ideology, is beneficial. If we start with the assumption that Islam is written by whatever "god" means, then no rational debate is possible. All the failures of Islam can be attributed to such and such cultural factors, and the successes are expected manifestation of the "correct" usage of Islam. It's not an honest debate.

From a rational perspective, the situation across the vast swaths that make up the Islamic world is a far better indication of the influence of Islam than an act of kindness by a tiny European country. The vast majority of Muslims come from the middle east and east Asia. Those places do not have freedom of religion. And by the way, allowing a Jew to reside in the same place as you is not an enlightened example of tolerance. It is a forgone conclusion that is shameful to even bring up. In the Muslim world, you change your religion, you die (if you're a Muslim, otherwise you're welcome to change your religion to Islam). This mentality is reflected in much of their beliefs and behavior. Islam, as it stands now, is a terrible ideology that is a serious threat to the progress of the past few hundred years.

 

[Stoked]

Islam post-Muhammed was a divide and conquer nation. That was the way of the world back then though and I don't see the point condemning Islam any more than than I agree with anti-Christians inside America condemning Christianity as the cause of all wars. To answer your question though, you can read into Zoroastrianism and what Islam did to that religion. Let's not whitewash things. There was an era where religion and community was the way of life all across the globe.

One of the reasons why I do not see Islam as anymore violent than any other major religion. There are those that use it to better themselves and those that use it to oppress. Islam, like Chirstianity or Hinudism, Athisim is what you make of it...

 

[The Thriller]

I don't see how a religion that denies women (any) rights, has them marry their rapists, beheads others, celebrates two towers crashing down with thousands of innocents dying, and is ultimately just completely intolerant of anything else can be considered "rational."

(Some) Muslims might be rational.

Islam itself? Completely irrational, violent, and probably does much more harm than good. How many more folks need to perish because of Islam's intolerance and demands to kill infidels before we can admit that Islam is pretty jacked up? How many more women need to be raped (and then forced into marriage with that person)? Where were all those Muslims protesting Osama Bin Laden? Was there any peep from (any) Muslim when that school of little kids was attacked?

I keep hearing how Muslims are rational and tolerant. Yet... Whenever Americans, Jews, or Christians are blown away, I never see any "protest." If anything, I see an increase in cheering, more American flags being burned, and shouts of how great Allah is.

Also, gotta love Mohammad. Man of God who beheaded thousands for not converting.... Definitely sounds rational... Oh, and your salvation is dependent upon praying and touching some meteorite protecting by a black cube?

Yeahhh... Definitely makes sense... Completely rational...

I say, the USA needs to cut off all handouts to these dumbass Islamic ME countries and let them (rationally) tear each other apart. I grow weary of our tax dollars being wasted by the billions to make irrational punkasses like Karzai rich. And then these punks trash talk us while stretching out their hands waiting for handouts.

Eventually, babies need to graduate from diapers to pampers. Let Afghanistan take dumps in its own diapers and stink up the place. Let them and about 5 other ME countries sink or swim on their own. USA cannot police, fund, build, educate, etc every single ME country.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

Quote violent verses in Islam.

If leave Islam, there is no punishment according to the Qur'an AND the Haddith. It was added later by Arabs.

The Qur'an says stuff like this.

88:21, 22; also see 24:54 And so, (O Prophet!) exhort them your task is only to exhort; you cannot compel them to believe.

39:41 Assuredly, We have sent down the Book to you in right form for the good of man. Whoso guided himself by it does so to his own advantage, and whoso turns away from it does so at his own loss. You certainly are not their keeper.

42:6, 48 And whoso takes for patrons others besides God, over them does God keep a watch. Mark, you are not a keeper over them. But if they turn aside from you (do not get disheartened), for We have not sent you to be a keeper over them; your task is but to preach

64:12 Obey God then and obey the Messenger, but if you turn away (no blame shall attach to our Messenger), for the duty of Our Messenger is just to deliver the message

60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just

60:9 Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong

There is also a verse I can't seem to find. It goes something like this: Treat enemy's with kindness even if they treat you badly and eventually they will lessen their evil to you.



I don't think people understand what I am trying to say.

I agree the Muslim world has violent people, perhaps more then the Buddhist world, or the South American world, or any other world.

However, not even 1% of this blame can be placed on Islam. You cannot blame the gunmaker to the murder of a family when the purpose of the gun was to hunt game and not murder humans.

Also, this violence, while present, is greatly exaggerated. I'm guessing a lot of you guys are fox news listeners and other mass media. The Jewish Media takes the black sheeps of the Muslim community and displays them as exemplary Muslims.


I dare people to quote the violent verses of the Qur'an for every verse I will quote two violent Bible Verses and Two peaceful Qur'an verses AND dispel that those Qur'an verses as not being violent.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Islam post-Muhammed was a divide and conquer nation. That was the way of the world back then though and I don't see the point condemning Islam any more than than I agree with anti-Christians inside America condemning Christianity as the cause of all wars.

To answer your question though, you can read into Zoroastrianism and what Islam did to that religion. Let's not whitewash things. There was an era where religion and community was the way of life all across the globe.

Yes, the Iranian persecutions of the Zoroastrians was quite the disgusting ones indeed. However, a majority of modern-day Kurds living in Turkey and Iraq are also Zoroastrians. To me, the mere presence of these cultural groups in these countries far-surpasses things like the Spanish inquisition, which ensured that not a single Jew or Muslim resided within the Spanish Peninsula. Not to mention the fact that the Quran specifically states that it is blasphemous to force people of other faiths to convert. But meh, you did raise an example of Islamic nations persecuting people of other faiths, and I respectfully agree. However, I still maintain that it wasn't nearly to the level of their Christian counterparts. I suppose we can agree to disagree on that point.

You keep bringing up ancient history to support your view of Islam. The situation of the Muslim middle ages is complicated and warrants a long discussion of its own. But let's say that Islam had a period of 400 years where it was not a horrific backward force. So what? The Greeks did well for a long time too, shall we sing praises to Zeus? Or should we start building temples for the Roman gods? Back when I was a Muslim I used the very same arguments you're using. But the problem in such arguments is obvious if you examine it objectively.

I am missing your point.

1) Please, feel free to being up this "complicated discussion", I'm all ears.
2) Yes, the Greeks did well for a long time. Why should we not praise them? The reason that they are not exactly relevant as a faith anymore, is because many people found monotheism as a much more rational take on this world, than polytheism. However, if a person was trying to prove to me why polytheism is the way to go, him bringing up the vast progress that the Greeks made would definitely be a valid point. The same consideration should be taken for Islam, no? If you don't thin so, I know I do. But anywho.

But you will not do so. You know why? Because you cannot begin the debate from its logical natural point; whether Islam, as a human-made ideology, is beneficial. If we start with the assumption that Islam is written by whatever "god" means, then no rational debate is possible. All the failures of Islam can be attributed to such and such cultural factors, and the successes are expected manifestation of the "correct" usage of Islam. It's not an honest debate.

From a rational perspective, the situation across the vast swaths that make up the Islamic world is a far better indication of the influence of Islam than an act of kindness by a tiny European country. The vast majority of Muslims come from the middle east and east Asia. Those places do not have freedom of religion.

Have already proven to you time and time again that Muslim nations have revolved on freedom of religious expression moreso than any other nation around the world, over 90% of its existence. Persecutions of the Armenians in Turkey (more nationalistically fuelled than religiously, IMO) and the persecutions of the Zoroastrians or obvious exceptions. But feel free to concoct this vision of Islam being completely backwards, simply because a few rulers that declare their corrupt governments a theocracy, seem to support your points, despite the fact that the Quran scripturally supports the fact that people of all faiths should be granted the freedom to express any faith of their choice, as long as they pay a tax that should be equivalent to the zakat that Muslims pay.

And by the way, allowing a Jew to reside in the same place as you is not an enlightened example of tolerance. It is a forgone conclusion that is shameful to even bring up.

Nice backpedal. I thought this was your initial point:

Islam creates a violent and destabilizing atmosphere wherever it takes hold. Muslims don't play nice with others. There is no freedom of religion in Islam, and no acknowledgment of cultural differences. Just black and white absolutes. Whether it is in India, or the Philippines, Russia and Eastern Europe, or anywhere else, Islam becomes aggressively divisive and inevitably leads to conflict.

Well, looks like you're gonna have to accept defeat on this one.

In the Muslim world, you change your religion, you die (if you're a Muslim, otherwise you're welcome to change your religion to Islam). This mentality is reflected in much of their beliefs and behavior. Islam, as it stands now, is a terrible ideology that is a serious threat to the progress of the past few hundred years.

This is true....FOR THE PAST FORTY YEARS. I have been stressing this point again and again. The fact that you tie the activities of dictators SO CLOSELY to the faith altogether, when really, they have by and large only been behaving in this manner in <5% of the religion's history is just.....amusing.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I don't see how a religion that denies women (any) rights, has them marry their rapists, beheads others, celebrates two towers crashing down with thousands of innocents dying, and is ultimately just completely intolerant of anything else can be considered "rational."

(Some) Muslims might be rational.

Islam itself? Completely irrational, violent, and probably does much more harm than good. How many more folks need to perish because of Islam's intolerance and demands to kill infidels before we can admit that Islam is pretty jacked up?

Lol.

The religion tells us to do this? Oh please Thriller, please post some excerpts of the Quran that denies women rights, insists that they marry their rapists, beheading others, and intolerance of other faiths.

Also, here are some "celebrations" of 9/11 from organizations that do a much better job of representing our faith, than some terrorist faction :

The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur’an: ‘No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another’ (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”

https://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/

Also, in response to the bolded part of your message, I am willing to place a hefty wager that more people have died due to Christian intolerance of other faiths, than Islamic intolerance to other faiths. To quote Stoked: Spin it baby!! Keep on spinning it!


PS: You're an idiot.


PPS: I Have noticed that you have edited much of your original post- nice try. I still have most of it quoted.

But now, you've said this:

Also, gotta love Mohammad. Man of God who beheaded thousands for not converting

I am contemplating putting that as my sig.

 

[franklin]

One of the reasons why I do not see Islam as anymore violent than any other major religion. There are those that use it to better themselves and those that use it to oppress. Islam, like Chirstianity or Hinudism, Athisim is what you make of it...

Only in a modern view but that doesn't account for the evolution of society. Blaming religion for the campaigns of King David or Moses, or Egyptian empire building, or Islamic conquests, or Christianity burning the Maya and their history to the ground... is an injustice to the societal progression that came in lock step. We tend to look back on the bad associated with each era without realizing the benefits of modern technology--and the luxury of widespread education by extension---so we judge the downsides without considering the everyday frame of mind people really had no way out of.

 

[Siro]

Islam conquered much of the old world and completely demolished their culture. To this day, Muslims are taught the history of their cultures starting with Islam (I know you can find exceptions, I am just generalizing). As if nothing existed before! To this day Muslims celebrate "Al-Fotuhat Al-Islameyah" (the Holy Wars) and the destruction of native cultures (3abadat-Al Asnam and Al-Majoos) and call pre-Islamic cultures Al-Jahileyah (the ignorance). They allowed Christians and Jews to live in the land they took from them, as long as they didn't build any new places of worship. BIG ****ING DEAL! You're going to pick a word out of a long post and show an exception to the rule as if you proved anything?

And I say it again. I could not care any less about YOUR interpretation of Islam, or anyone else's. I don't think there's anything to interpret, and I won't waste time debating what a bronze age tribal warlord REALLY meant when he said the things he said. I am simply interested in how Islam is conducted today. If Islam changes and becomes progressive again, then we would be having a different conversation. But this is about what Islam IS TODAY. It is about the negative effect TODAY'S Islam has.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. Are you saying all the oppression and terrorism in the name of Islam is irrelevant. Why? Because YOU want to believe in a different interpretation. The arrogance!

OF COURSE most Muslims are decent and non-violent people. I mean no ****! They're just people like all others. But the influence of Islam on Muslim cultures is TERRIBLE across the board. I'm not saying there isn't a town that once helped someone in the name of Islam in 1834 or whatever. I am saying, in general, the effect Islam has on people's thought is VERY negative. The consequences of the spread of Islam, if it maintains its current form, are worrisome.

 

[franklin]

A couple other thoughts without a multiquote nightmare.

1. Maybe we should be looking at the failures of traditional Muslim-linked governance as a key to preserving freedom just as we claim to look at Greece and Rome.

2. You'll find the majority of upper echelon Muslim leaders condemning 9-11. Call it politics if you want but there was no widespread celebration going on. Saudi, for example, is highly in tune with Western growth as a self-preservation/prosperity strategy. Stable oil prices is a priority for Saudi leadership (shocking, I know).

3. Muhammed promoted womens rights and those of the poor. That seems to be a good portion of support inside the grass roots uprising.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

 

[Stoked]

I guess for me it all comes down to personal responsibility. Anyone promoting those things (violence, supression of women, stoning gays...) are doing so because they want to. They are just using Islam as "justification". Islam is not making them do it, they would do it with or without Islam. Without Islam they would just find some other "justification" for it.

 

[dodo]

While I generally hold views similar to SiroMar's, historically speaking he is not 100% correct. Because I come from a country, whose nation existed 500 years under Ottoman rule, i am somewhat familiar with its history. The Ottomans were one of the most powerful muslim empires of the past. However the peoples they ruled were able to preserve their Christian religion and identity for all those years. Certainly, there were insurgent regions which had to be dealt with and therefore a mass forceful muslimisation was ensued (Bonsia, Albania, the mountain areas of southern Bulgaria) but generally speaking the Ottomans had a as much of a multicultural society as you can get in the medieval times. Places of worships, albeit restricted (in size, etc) were allowed and Istanbul was very progressive. The eastern orthodox Christian "patriarchs" were based in Istanbul too.

 

[Siro]

While I generally hold views similar to SiroMar's, historically speaking he is not 100% correct. Because I come from a country, whose nation existed 500 years under Ottoman rule, i am somewhat familiar with its history. The Ottomans were one of the most powerful muslim empires of the past. However the peoples they ruled were able to preserve their Christian religion and identity for all those years. Certainly, there were insurgent regions which had to be dealt with and therefore a mass forceful muslimisation was ensued (Bonsia, Albania, the mountain areas of southern Bulgaria) but generally speaking the Ottomans had a as much of a multicultural society as you can get in the medieval times. Places of worships, albeit restricted (in size, etc) were allowed and Istanbul was very progressive. The eastern orthodox Christian "patriarchs" were based in Istanbul too.

I was referring to the golden age of Islam under the Umayyads and Abbasids. Some Muslim countries allow Christians to build churches even today. But that's not my point. My point is that Dalamon keeps trying to convince that since he has a more liberal interpretation of Islam, the typical backward view held by hundreds of millions is somehow irrelevant!

 

[franklin]

as long as they pay a tax that should be equivalent to the zakat that Muslims pay.

Convert to the religion of your lord conquerers, in a time of your lord conquerers, is not exactly religious tolerance.

The serfs, the soldiers, the staff, the aristocracy, they all converted to the religion of the conquering lord as a matter of survival. That was nice of your lord conquerers to go with the happy people strategy as opposed to outright submission. Hebrews saw the same in the B.C.'s. Rome used the same model. Pay tribute while submitting and we'll leave you alone... slaves.

And most Kurds are not Zoroastrian. They may be Persian decent, but they are not Zoroastrian. India saved that religion.

 

[Gyp Rosetti]

Only in a modern view but that doesn't account for the evolution of society. Blaming religion for the campaigns of King David or Moses, or Egyptian empire building, or Islamic conquests, or Christianity burning the Maya and their history to the ground... is an injustice to the societal progression that came in lock step. We tend to look back on the bad associated with each era without realizing the benefits of modern technology--and the luxury of widespread education by extension---so we judge the downsides without considering the everyday frame of mind people really had no way out of.

Keep at it. Bro.

 

[The Black Swordsman]

The coolest Zoroastrian I know:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ9rUzIMcZQ&ob=av2e

Freddie Mercury

 

[Deleted member 848]

Islam conquered much of the old world and completely demolished their culture. To this day, Muslims are taught the history of their cultures starting with Islam (I know you can find exceptions, I am just generalizing). As if nothing existed before! To this day Muslims celebrate "Al-Fotuhat Al-Islameyah" (the Holy Wars) and the destruction of native cultures (3abadat-Al Asnam and Al-Majoos) and call pre-Islamic cultures Al-Jahileyah (the ignorance). They allowed Christians and Jews to live in the land they took from them, as long as they didn't build any new places of worship. BIG ****ING DEAL! You're going to pick a word out of a long post and show an exception to the rule as if you proved anything?

And I say it again. I could not care any less about YOUR interpretation of Islam, or anyone else's. I don't think there's anything to interpret, and I won't waste time debating what a bronze age tribal warlord REALLY meant when he said the things he said. I am simply interested in how Islam is conducted today. If Islam changes and becomes progressive again, then we would be having a different conversation. But this is about what Islam IS TODAY. It is about the negative effect TODAY'S Islam has.

I'm not sure what you're even trying to say. Are you saying all the oppression and terrorism in the name of Islam is irrelevant. Why? Because YOU want to believe in a different interpretation. The arrogance!

OF COURSE most Muslims are decent and non-violent people. I mean no ****! They're just people like all others. But the influence of Islam on Muslim cultures is TERRIBLE across the board. I'm not saying there isn't a town that once helped someone in the name of Islam in 1834 or whatever. I am saying, in general, the effect Islam has on people's thought is VERY negative. The consequences of the spread of Islam, if it maintains its current form, are worrisome.

Look. I joined this argument because you said this: "Islam creates a violent and destabilizing atmosphere wherever it takes hold. Muslims don't play nice with others. There is no freedom of religion in Islam, and no acknowledgment of cultural differences. Just black and white absolutes. Whether it is in India, or the Philippines, Russia and Eastern Europe, or anywhere else, Islam becomes aggressively divisive and inevitably leads to conflict."

I heartily disagreed. This had nothing to do with "my liberal Islamic view", I just thought that the notion of Islam destabilizing regions WHEREVER IT TAKES hold was an utter exaggeration, and I proved it wrong, as did the Turkish poster above me. Now, you will say that since it isn't recent, or since it occurred in a small country (you then said small village, trying to dumb down my point even more) it isn't a credible point. I again will disagree, especially seeing as your initial point made this issue very black and white, ironically like your description of the Islamic approach to tolerance. Now you're talking about Islam today, which was never really where I was headed, as far as this conversation goes. Look, I realize that it isn't in the greatest of moments for the time being. I am utterly embarrassed when I hear stories about the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, or Al-Qaeda brought up. I am even more embarrassed when I go to a mosque, and hear two kids snickering about how Saddam Hussein was a "pimp". But to me, I am of the belief that the faith itself is not to blame. You seem to hold the opposite opinion, and I don't care enough anymore to try and shed more insight as to why I carry this opinion. Regardless, you have said that you don't care about how Islam was conducted in the past, you only care for the present time. To me, that is a foolish approach to a faith, but oh well. As of now, the media's best representations of Islam are the Saudi government, and terrorist factions sparsely populated throughout the world. It does suck; however, if only 40 of a faith's 1300 years of existence are tied to notions like "the effect Islam has on people's thought is VERY negative. The consequences of the spread of Islam, if it maintains its current form, are worrisome." then I am not worried, since I have faith that my faith, as well as these "theocracies" that apparently try to represent these faiths, will come around. You seem to make statements like: "the influence of Islam on Muslim cultures is TERRIBLE across the board" despite me bringing up several instances where this isn't the case. I am fully aware that I could bring up many, many more exceptions to these hilariously generic claims that you're making about my faith, but I am quickly noticing that you seem to just bat away any exception that I make, and just repeat your points regardless. The fact of the matter is this: Islam has a history of being much more tolerant than any other Abrahamic religion of its times; it wasn't until that Western nations began to abandon religion when conducting political affairs, and running their respective governments, did the Western nations finally pull ahead of the Islamic world in terms of tolerance. Of course, there are exceptions to this, as no person (or especially government) is perfect, but what I do know is that people who followed my faith, and looked at the commands of insisting that governments allowed people of other faiths to peacefully co-exist, did a much better job of allowing this proximal communities to thrive over millennia, than their European counterparts. End of story. Is this necessarily a source of pride for my faith? In some regards yes, but I definitely make sure to look at things in context. The Islamic religion is now at the opposite end of the social progress-spectrum in comparison to western nations, ironically enough, and it has been for the last few decades. So obviously, it goes to show that the actions that are taken in the name of religion can greatly vary. Still, your insistence that Islam has had nothing but a TERRIBLE influence "across the board" is laughably naive. But oh well, suit yourself.

I was referring to the golden age of Islam under the Umayyads and Abbasids. Some Muslim countries allow Christians to build churches even today. But that's not my point. My point is that Dalamon keeps trying to convince that since he has a more liberal interpretation of Islam, the typical backward view held by hundreds of millions is somehow irrelevant!

Where you now? This wasn't clear when you were making your points. Your generic statements of Islam always having a destructive impact on every single culture that it has ever met, never indicated that you were only talking about a 400 year window. Backpedal #2.

And for the record, that is not at all what I am trying to get at. Read the first few sentences of this post to understand why I even began this discussion.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Convert to the religion of your lord conquerers, in a time of your lord conquerers, is not exactly religious tolerance.

The serfs, the soldiers, the staff, the aristocracy, they all converted to the religion of the conquering lord as a matter of survival. That was nice of your lord conquerers to go with the happy people strategy as opposed to outright submission. Hebrews saw the same in the B.C.'s. Rome used the same model. Pay tribute while submitting and we'll leave you alone... slaves.

And most Kurds are not Zoroastrian. They may be Persian decent, but they are not Zoroastrian. India saved that religion.

You're definitely exaggerating this. If it was bad as you say it is, how do you even explain the mere existence of different groups of faiths other than Islam existing throughout the Arabian peninsula, as well as Turkey, and the Muslim-dominant balkan countries?

I am fully aware that it wasn't as friendly as it was on paper, but it was definitely more progressive than other nations of its time.

https://www.fravahr.org/spip.php?article31

According to Arthur Jeffery, "It is rare until modern times to find so fair and unprejudiced a statement of the views of other religions, so earnest an attempt to study them in the best sources, and such care to find a method which for this branch of study would be both rigorous and just."[15] Biruni compared Islam with pre-Islamic religions, and was willing to accept certain elements of pre-Islamic wisdom which would conform with his understanding of the Islamic spirit.

 

[Siro]

So you honestly think you somehow "disproved" my point about Islam's destabilizing effect by pointing out an instance of goodwill? If this conversation is about my excessive use of hyperbole, then yes, you win. You've yet to address my point. Through out the Muslim world, you have oppression of women and minorities, savage and barbaric Sharia laws, terrorism and social backwardness. It is all justified in the name of Islam. That is THEIR interpretation of Islam. Why do you keep talking about history? How many times do I need to acknowledge Muslim contributions to humanity before you stop hiding behind history and respond to what I'm saying!

Islam spreads in India, Muslims demand separation, and a bitter conflict is created. Same situation is Serbia. Or Chechnya. and so on and so forth. Do you really think you can sweep that under the rug with some rhetoric about allowing Jews to live?

The bombings and threats of violence that follow every incident Muslim find offensive should not be talked about?

Since I am openly an atheist, I can never go back to my country of birth. Neither can the many refugees of all kinds. But **** us. What's important is Western Muslims living in a free culture pretending their minority opinion somehow carries more weight than the other Muslims.

That is the Islam I'm complaining about. Not your kind of Islam, nor the Islam that once existed. Your faith that somehow god will fix everything means nothing to me. Clearly god is perfectly comfortable having a bad version of Islam across much of the Muslim domain for many decades. It is in fact a very real threat to modern ideals.