Accepted. Give me a little to go back and read your commentary, then I'll type up a bit before lunch.
So following that "logic" the Koran or the Bible, etc. are neither religions of peace nor war. They are 100% neutral, and human beings are the problem, not any scriptural text.
Maybe so, I dunno, I just know which ones are attacking my culture. For what it is worth, I consider all of them ( Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Budhism, etc.) Titans which Zeus has allowed to prey on an ungrateful mankind. I for one appreciate the good things the Gods can bestow upon us and look towards Olympus and also Delphi with fondness lest I should be among those who have fallen into disfavor.
The first issue I think we disagreed with was where I believe that education is the key to preventing extremist behavior in Islam. I stated that the hijackers were probably not middle class Americans prior to their recruitment into Al-Q. While I admitted to having no proof, the foundation of my argument is a primarily (moderate) Muslim belief. And that is that education is the key weapon to battle extremists. Take Pakistan, for instance. Their religious schools, called Madrassahs, were once about the true teachings of Islamic law, passed on for almost a millenia. "Over the last decades, however, they increasingly have played a role contrary to their original intent. Founded as centers of learning for the next generation of Islamic scholars and clerics, the schools now increasingly dominate the education sphere. The present danger is that a minority of these schools have built extremely close ties with radical militant groups and play a critical role in sustaining the international terrorist network. Madrassahs' displacement of a public education system is also worrisome to the stability of the Pakistani state and its future economic prospects."1 (I'll put the links down below). The key mission of these extremist groups are to grab young men, preferably poor and without previously firm education, and teach them their version of Islamic law - with the caveat that all who do not follow Islam are infidels and deserve to be either brought to Islam, or killed. You have to agree that poverty and lack of education tends to make people desperate. Look at our inner city youths. Imagine this in a country where you have no hope, then someone comes along and offers you a purpose in life - to kill the infidels that caused all your pain! They are at fault! Again, this is my belief. I am not trying to push you to believing what I do. (1) http://www.brookingsonline.org/views/papers/singer/20020103.htm
As for the Prophet and tolerance, when I said "He was all about tolerance" I meant of other religions that worshipped the one God. I'm not saying he was tolerant of drinking, gambling or other such nonsense. And he absolutely was. If you want, I can dig up the passages in the Quran and find quotes to prove he respected Judiasm and Christianity. Just let me know if that's what you'd like me to prove or whether you are not disputing this.
My point about the constitution was that activist judges have totally disregarded the plain meaning of the text. So much for your "logic".
I accept that he 'tolerated' Judaism and Christianity. Zoroastrianism, too. The principle was that these groups had a written scriptures and worshipped the one God. Thus they are known as "People of the Book". The fate to be meted out to pagans and polytheists is far harsher. This 'tolerance', however, is a far cry from what the term means in the 21st century. There were all sorts of humiliating conditions imposed on Jews and Christians that came under Muslim rule, such as having to pay a poll tax (which Muslims didn't), having to dismount from their donkey when a Muslim passed by, not being permitted to build new churches (or even repair rundown old ones), and many other such. Mohammed also condemned to death anybody that would leave Islam. That, too, cannot be considered particularly tolerant. Mohammed can also fairly said to be a murderer and a plunderer (I'll dig up sources on request), as well as a paedophile, given that he was attracted to a six year old, and had sex with her when she was nine. I honestly find very little to like about Mohammed. In fact, my main problem with being more accepting of Islam is that I find its founder such a despicable character.
So activist clerics and Mulahs have disregarded the real meaning of Islam. So much for your "logic." The stupidity of your comment about "plain" language underscores the ridiculousness of your position, as there have always been different ideas on what words of a Constitution or scripture mean. If the words were plain, we wouldn't need a legal system to argue against or for what those "plain" words are supposed to mean. This will always happen when the authors of Constitutions, or founders of religions are not around to tell us exactly what they intended.