CDZ What do American Muslims want?

[Coyote]

If any Muslim is working to replace our civilization with an Islamic one, they ARE part of a fifth column.

Since one of the most basic values of western liberalism involves the free exchange of ideas, that would extend to any who believe criticism of Islam should be forbidden.

All those display such an excessive deference to Islam to the point that they are working towards this same objective are most definitely part of the fifth column as well.

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

 

[froggy]

But are they truely American? Or for that matter any one living like they were still in the country of their parents origin here in America are they truely American.

There is no "American" culture. It's a crazy-quilt of traditions brought from everywhere else and stitched together here.

We Indians were doing very well before the Europeans showed up.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Quran tells those who do not have the guts to kill us, to pray for the success of those who do.

I have never seen that in the Quran?

Please list chapter and verse that makes this statement.

Thank you in advance. .......

 

[Slyhunter]

If any Muslim is working to replace our civilization with an Islamic one, they ARE part of a fifth column.

Since one of the most basic values of western liberalism involves the free exchange of ideas, that would extend to any who believe criticism of Islam should be forbidden.

All those display such an excessive deference to Islam to the point that they are working towards this same objective are most definitely part of the fifth column as well.

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

You compare Today's actions with today's religion. You don't reach into the ancient past and point and say, see they did it too. What matters is what are they still doing. Muslims are still using violence against non-muslims for being non-muslims.

 

[Coyote]

But again, those are cultural questions, not religious ones.

No, not at all. Rape as an instrument of Islamic conquest has the most direct religious connection possible.

Mohammad ORDERED his men to rape the women in the lands they invaded, in front of their husbands, no less, and this despite the men's objections. It comes right from the Hadiths.

Are you unfamiliar with the Hadiths?

Are you familiar with the facts regarding the Hadiths?

I would like to know what he is talking about. I don't recall any prophet or God condoning rape.

I know God condoned abortion in some cases

Rape is condoned in the OT, and probably the NT and also in the Quran - but the problem is, we are taking it out of it's historical context. Rape as a means and reward of warfare was common place in that era. That's the problem with how extremists like ISIS look at it - they take it literally (whatever most pleases their thuggish brutality) and ignore any nuance or the fact it might only apply to those who commit warfare.

 

[Pogo]

But again, those are cultural questions, not religious ones.

No, not at all. Rape as an instrument of Islamic conquest has the most direct religious connection possible.

Mohammad ORDERED his men to rape the women in the lands they invaded, in front of their husbands, no less, and this despite the men's objections. It comes right from the Hadiths.

Are you unfamiliar with the Hadiths?

Are you familiar with the facts regarding the Hadiths?

I would like to know what he is talking about. I don't recall any prophet or God condoning rape.

I know God condoned abortion in some cases

Rape is condoned in the OT, and probably the NT and also in the Quran - but the problem is, we are taking it out of it's historical context. Rape as a means and reward of warfare was common place in that era. That's the problem with how extremists like ISIS look at it - they take it literally (whatever most pleases their thuggish brutality) and ignore any nuance or the fact it might only apply to those who commit warfare.

Unfortunately, and disgusting as it is for what it says about human nature, rape is and always has been a standard tool of conquest in war, everywhere on earth, forever, and still is. To try to ascribe it to a single ethnic group, culture or religion, not to mention one that is relatively young, is to ignore the glaring facts of recorded history.

 

[froggy]

What does the Bible say about rape?

 

[Coyote]

If any Muslim is working to replace our civilization with an Islamic one, they ARE part of a fifth column.

Since one of the most basic values of western liberalism involves the free exchange of ideas, that would extend to any who believe criticism of Islam should be forbidden.

All those display such an excessive deference to Islam to the point that they are working towards this same objective are most definitely part of the fifth column as well.

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

You compare Today's actions with today's religion. You don't reach into the ancient past and point and say, see they did it too. What matters is what are they still doing. Muslims are still using violence against non-muslims for being non-muslims.

There are two different aspect I see, in how Islam/Muslims are attacked.

One is what is in their texts - yet, what is in their text is little different than what is in the OT and NT. There are extortions to peace and tolerance, rules for warfare, rules for how to treat people, extortions to violence. If some one is using that to attack Islam, then it's appropriate to point out the same in other religious texts. The material is there - it's how the followers choose to interpret or what they take that matters.

The other thing is - Today's Religion. What is totally ignored is the majority of Muslims who don't use violence against non-Muslims and instead the focus is on those who do and culture seems to have a good bit of influence there as well. Should there be condemnation for persecution, intolerance of religious minorities etc in Muslim majority countries where that is a problem? Absolutely yes. Those who do that should be condemned and focus should be on protecting minorities and changing those views - but that is not to say it represents all the religion.

Again - look at American Muslims - there is no indication of any of that, or at least not any difference from the non-Muslim community, so why is Islam as a whole attacked rather than the bad players (which would be the case in any other religion)?

 

[Slyhunter]

If any Muslim is working to replace our civilization with an Islamic one, they ARE part of a fifth column.

Since one of the most basic values of western liberalism involves the free exchange of ideas, that would extend to any who believe criticism of Islam should be forbidden.

All those display such an excessive deference to Islam to the point that they are working towards this same objective are most definitely part of the fifth column as well.

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

You compare Today's actions with today's religion. You don't reach into the ancient past and point and say, see they did it too. What matters is what are they still doing. Muslims are still using violence against non-muslims for being non-muslims.

There are two different aspect I see, in how Islam/Muslims are attacked.

One is what is in their texts - yet, what is in their text is little different than what is in the OT and NT. There are extortions to peace and tolerance, rules for warfare, rules for how to treat people, extortions to violence. If some one is using that to attack Islam, then it's appropriate to point out the same in other religious texts. The material is there - it's how the followers choose to interpret or what they take that matters.

The other thing is - Today's Religion. What is totally ignored is the majority of Muslims who don't use violence against non-Muslims and instead the focus is on those who do and culture seems to have a good bit of influence there as well. Should there be condemnation for persecution, intolerance of religious minorities etc in Muslim majority countries where that is a problem? Absolutely yes. Those who do that should be condemned and focus should be on protecting minorities and changing those views - but that is not to say it represents all the religion.

Again - look at American Muslims - there is no indication of any of that, or at least not any difference from the non-Muslim community, so why is Islam as a whole attacked rather than the bad players (which would be the case in any other religion)?

Show me a Muslim country that is civilized and not following their barbaric ancient ways. There are what 57 Muslims countries plus Spain, France, Africa, etc. Wherever you find Muslims you have strife.

 

[Coyote]

If any Muslim is working to replace our civilization with an Islamic one, they ARE part of a fifth column.

Since one of the most basic values of western liberalism involves the free exchange of ideas, that would extend to any who believe criticism of Islam should be forbidden.

All those display such an excessive deference to Islam to the point that they are working towards this same objective are most definitely part of the fifth column as well.

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

You compare Today's actions with today's religion. You don't reach into the ancient past and point and say, see they did it too. What matters is what are they still doing. Muslims are still using violence against non-muslims for being non-muslims.

There are two different aspect I see, in how Islam/Muslims are attacked.

One is what is in their texts - yet, what is in their text is little different than what is in the OT and NT. There are extortions to peace and tolerance, rules for warfare, rules for how to treat people, extortions to violence. If some one is using that to attack Islam, then it's appropriate to point out the same in other religious texts. The material is there - it's how the followers choose to interpret or what they take that matters.

The other thing is - Today's Religion. What is totally ignored is the majority of Muslims who don't use violence against non-Muslims and instead the focus is on those who do and culture seems to have a good bit of influence there as well. Should there be condemnation for persecution, intolerance of religious minorities etc in Muslim majority countries where that is a problem? Absolutely yes. Those who do that should be condemned and focus should be on protecting minorities and changing those views - but that is not to say it represents all the religion.

Again - look at American Muslims - there is no indication of any of that, or at least not any difference from the non-Muslim community, so why is Islam as a whole attacked rather than the bad players (which would be the case in any other religion)?

Show me a Muslim country that is civilized and not following their barbaric ancient ways. There are what 57 Muslims countries plus Spain, France, Africa, etc. Wherever you find Muslims you have strife.

No, that isn't true - many countries have Muslim populations with no more strife then that caused by other groups. The U.S. for example.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is nothing I can find that shows even a significant minority of American Muslim support for killing infidels in a slow agonizing death.

Then you have not read their book.

Ok, let me ask you this - the Bible, in particular, the OT is full of extortions to destroy unbelievers, exterminate people, rape women etc. Does that mean those followers of the religions that are based on it support it?

The old testament does not contain the teachings of Jesus. The new testament does.

To compare Mohammad's instructions to his warriors to rape women in front of their husbands, in order to compare apples to apples instead of apples to atom bombs, you would need to find direct instructions by Jesus along the same lines.

Christian's use the old testament anytime it's convenient.

 

[froggy]

There is nothing I can find that shows even a significant minority of American Muslim support for killing infidels in a slow agonizing death.

Then you have not read their book.

Ok, let me ask you this - the Bible, in particular, the OT is full of extortions to destroy unbelievers, exterminate people, rape women etc. Does that mean those followers of the religions that are based on it support it?

The old testament does not contain the teachings of Jesus. The new testament does.

To compare Mohammad's instructions to his warriors to rape women in front of their husbands, in order to compare apples to apples instead of apples to atom bombs, you would need to find direct instructions by Jesus along the same lines.

Christian's use the old testament anytime it's convenient.

No supposed to they're no longer under the old testament.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is nothing I can find that shows even a significant minority of American Muslim support for killing infidels in a slow agonizing death.

Then you have not read their book.

Ok, let me ask you this - the Bible, in particular, the OT is full of extortions to destroy unbelievers, exterminate people, rape women etc. Does that mean those followers of the religions that are based on it support it?

The old testament does not contain the teachings of Jesus. The new testament does.

To compare Mohammad's instructions to his warriors to rape women in front of their husbands, in order to compare apples to apples instead of apples to atom bombs, you would need to find direct instructions by Jesus along the same lines.

Christian's use the old testament anytime it's convenient.

No supposed to they're no longer under the old testament.

That doesn't stop "some" of them from using it.

 

[Coyote]

The problem with religious text is there will always be those who will pick and choose what to follow and collect a gang of followers.

Ironically, we have a regressive group of politicians who have innacted "anti-sharia" legislative actions but...we don't seem to have many Muslims in America supporting Sharia as the law of the land...

 

[Coyote]

The problem with religious text is there will always be those who will pick and choose what to follow and collect a gang of followers.

Ironically, we have a regressive group of legislatures who have innacted "anti-sharia" legislative actions but...we don't seem to have many Muslims in America supporting Sharia as the law of the land...

 

[pillars]

I have been called all of the above for not being Christian and not following Christian norms.

Your point being?

What do you think my point is?

 

[pillars]

There is nothing I can find that shows even a significant minority of American Muslim support for killing infidels in a slow agonizing death.

Then you have not read their book.

Ok, let me ask you this - the Bible, in particular, the OT is full of extortions to destroy unbelievers, exterminate people, rape women etc. Does that mean those followers of the religions that are based on it support it?

The old testament does not contain the teachings of Jesus. The new testament does.

To compare Mohammad's instructions to his warriors to rape women in front of their husbands, in order to compare apples to apples instead of apples to atom bombs, you would need to find direct instructions by Jesus along the same lines.

And yet, many Christians believe that the entirety of the bible is the inspired word of god, and hear it all preached in church, and use it to demean gays and women.

I've pointed this out to you several times, and you always seem to gloss over this point.

 

[pillars]

If any Muslim is working to replace our civilization with an Islamic one, they ARE part of a fifth column.

Since one of the most basic values of western liberalism involves the free exchange of ideas, that would extend to any who believe criticism of Islam should be forbidden.

All those display such an excessive deference to Islam to the point that they are working towards this same objective are most definitely part of the fifth column as well.

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

You compare Today's actions with today's religion. You don't reach into the ancient past and point and say, see they did it too. What matters is what are they still doing. Muslims are still using violence against non-muslims for being non-muslims.

The old testament is still being used to justify anti-gay legislation in the U.S.

Boom.

 

[Slyhunter]

Disagree.

American Muslims practice the most basic values of Western liberalism, including the free exchange of ideas – again, American Muslims are no different than any other American.

Should an individual American Muslim advocate for laws and policies that conflict with the Constitution and its case law, then that individual alone should be subject to admonishment, not all Muslims or Islam as a religion, where he in fact is not ‘representative’ of all Muslims or Islam.

Moreover, ‘criticism’ of Islam as a religion is unwarranted, as individuals alone are responsible for their actions, not religions.

Indeed, when a Christian commits an act of terror, such as in the case of Scott Roeder, we correctly assign the blame to the terrorist alone, not ‘all Christians,’ and not Christianity as a religion; Muslims and Islam merit that same consideration.

And no one believes that criticism of Islam should be ‘forbidden,’ as hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, where bigots are at liberty to express their ignorance and hate with impunity.

Last, respecting the right of Muslims to practice their faith absent unwarranted interference and restrictions from government is not to show “excessive deference” to Islam, as all faiths are equally entitled to Establishment Clause protections, and all faiths will receive equal protection under the law.

Criticism of Islam as a religion is warranted - I don't have a problem there. But it's when it's held to different standards than other religions that I have a problem. A discussion in another thread on anti-semitism, made me realize a few things. When you hold the Jewish people to different standards than you hold those of other religions/cultures/nations - when you have to alter standards (move goal posts) in order to somehow make them unique in some evil - then that is anti-semitism. I think the same applies here - to anti-Islamism. You can argue that a religion has barbaric tenants, but if you use those to define that religion, and ignore similar tenants in others - then that is wrong. If you condemn an entire faith on it's extremists and then compare it to the most benign of others, then that seems wrong also.

And...like you point out, assigning blame to the individual vs all of the faith, or - even in other cases where the invidual is clearly mentally ill, if it's a Muslim, the religion is blamed - if he is anything else, it's a nutter.

You compare Today's actions with today's religion. You don't reach into the ancient past and point and say, see they did it too. What matters is what are they still doing. Muslims are still using violence against non-muslims for being non-muslims.

There are two different aspect I see, in how Islam/Muslims are attacked.

One is what is in their texts - yet, what is in their text is little different than what is in the OT and NT. There are extortions to peace and tolerance, rules for warfare, rules for how to treat people, extortions to violence. If some one is using that to attack Islam, then it's appropriate to point out the same in other religious texts. The material is there - it's how the followers choose to interpret or what they take that matters.

The other thing is - Today's Religion. What is totally ignored is the majority of Muslims who don't use violence against non-Muslims and instead the focus is on those who do and culture seems to have a good bit of influence there as well. Should there be condemnation for persecution, intolerance of religious minorities etc in Muslim majority countries where that is a problem? Absolutely yes. Those who do that should be condemned and focus should be on protecting minorities and changing those views - but that is not to say it represents all the religion.

Again - look at American Muslims - there is no indication of any of that, or at least not any difference from the non-Muslim community, so why is Islam as a whole attacked rather than the bad players (which would be the case in any other religion)?

Show me a Muslim country that is civilized and not following their barbaric ancient ways. There are what 57 Muslims countries plus Spain, France, Africa, etc. Wherever you find Muslims you have strife.

No, that isn't true - many countries have Muslim populations with no more strife then that caused by other groups. The U.S. for example.

Dearborn Michigan.
Chicago.
Strife is there you just have to open your eyes.
Muslims in Chicago Chant “Death to America”. Where Was the Mainstream Media on This?

 

[Coyote]

Not surprisingly, what we have so far is a variety of non-Muslim opinions of what Muslims in America want.

And not surprisingly, those errant, wrongheaded opinions are coming from those on right the with an unwarranted hostility toward Islam.

Why do you not believe in freedom of belief?

Most Muslims certainly do not, and when you characterize those who object to a belief system that SHOULD be voluntary by calling them the sort of names used for people who hate those for things that AREN'T voluntary, your name calling only indicates that you do not believe I should have the ability to criticize somebody for a choice they made because they didn't actually have that choice.

We're talking about Muslims in America. Do you have any evidence to indicate that American Muslims do not support freedom of belief?