Most muslims are indeed decent people on most issues. So were most Nazis, most Crusaders, most catholics etc. John Rabe, a committed Nazi, saved thousands of innocent lives at personal risk to himself, during the Chinese massacres in Nanking for example. I am sure the average Nazi party member in Germany would have been a fairly friendly fellow, put you up in his house if you were lost or a guest, be square in his dealings with you, and so on. That does not make Nazism any less horrific an ideology, and that did not stop Nazi German society butchering tens of millions of innocent people. That did not stop the horrors of the Crusades or the Inquisition, did it? So, I think we can safely say that the day to day conduct of the average member of an ideological movement is fairly irrelevant. The conduct of most muslims is completely irrelevant to the assessment of Islam as a doctrine, just as the conduct of most Christians is completely irrelevant to the assessment of Christianity as a doctrine, or atheist conduct has no relevance to the claims and credibility of atheism, or the conduct of mathematicians has to the claims of mathematics. What matters is what the doctrines command and claim. Islam commands that apostates (muslims who decide to change religion) be killed. Virtually all islamic scholars, including so-called moderates, support this position. That is a barbaric act. There is NO common ground between that belief, and the belief in liberty, and in freedom of religion. The Inquisition also held the same belief - presumably you would not try to defend the Inquisition and its supporters on the grounds that most Spanish catholics were pretty decent fellows in most other respects? Therefore, any muslim must choose either to support the commandments of their religion, and support the execution of apostates, or they must reject and turn their back on that particular commandment of their religion - thus becoming, in part, anti-muslim in their beliefs and conduct. They must either accept islam and reject liberty and civilised values, or they must reject islam to at least some extent. Attempting to say that we are all the same is to ignore this gigantic difference. Most muslims support execution of apostates. Most non-muslims do not. If you have any concern for the plight of innocent victims, this is a very important distinction. If you are an apostate, that is literally a matter of life or death. I'd say that is a pretty GIGANTIC difference in personal conduct and morality. Trying to whitewash this is just ignoring reality and turning your back on innocent victims of religiously-sanctioned murder and oppression. It is always productive to criticise evil and barbaric actions - that is how you stoke opposition and eventually reform and positive change. Horrific things like slavery were not abolished by assuming the good nature of man, they were abolished because a few pioneers realised how evil it was, and worked with former or existing slaves to popularise this basic fact, and convince normal 'good-natured' people that it was fundamentally immoral. It took literally thousands of years for this to happen. I would say that abolishing barbarism and killing of innocent people is a VERY productive thing to do.
All belief systems change, and Islam is no different. Hebrew Monotheism got the 2.0 update, Christianity (which the Jews have failed to install). Scholars may confirm what is said in the older versions of these systems, but that does not mean that modern members are adhering to those statements. In fact, it's quite clear that the vast majority of members of all three of these systems are not paying any attention whatsoever to the old words. The lethal Muslims in my neighborhood are filled with kid-ferrying rage and dealing death with their minivans. Like the rest.
Bullshit, many Muslims are paying VERY close attention to the words of their holy books, and that's the problem.
Eventually the world will have to revolt against the take over when it reaches a tipping point. Or, God may intervene before that happens. Also, trends can and do change.
"The conduct of most muslims is completely irrelevant to the assessment of Islam as a doctrine" Islam is not a doctrine. Islam is a religion, that has been interpreted by extremists and fundamentalist dogmatists as an excuse to exert political influence over different religions and ideologies. Men have been perverting and using various religions and ideologies for their own gain since the beginning. Right now, Islam is not the danger...fundamentalist extremist thinking is, was, and always will be the danger...when it is focused externally and is accepted with such fervor that a man can act in a manner that violates the golden rule... It is convenient of course to blame Islam, just as it was easy for Nazis to blame Jews, or Christians to blame "savage" natives, etc. Point that matters is the mind of man who is attracted to extremist violent anti golden rule movements. That is the danger...it could be Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Atheism, Communism, Capitalism, etc. The actions are what counts...and extremist thinking, like lizard brain thinking, is difficult to combat reasonably.
well if you ask muslims, God is helping them So which God are we talking about here? I thought there is only one God
It is not the God of Islam, nor the God of Judaism, nor the God of Christianity, etc. that is the issue. It is the man who follows the teaching of another man's thinking of God of a particular religion that is to blame... An extremist thinker follows the teachings of an extremist leader, not Mohamed, or Christ, or Buddha, or Moses, etc. All the religions we see today are far removed from the prophets upon which the current religions claim as their origin, so I submit that it is not God that is to blame, but extremist and political men with personal ambitions of power over others...