What does Isl�m mean to you?

[Pazuzu bin Hanbi]

Hello there folks. When I used to follow Isl�m, I always wanted to know people’s reasons why they turned to this religion, and what made them strong in their faith, what experiences they had. I admired, about the Christian community, their dedication to a living, breathing connection to their saviour.

In Isl�m, I mostly read boring, dry, legalistic, copy & paste type texts which would bang on at length about the necessities of praying, fasting, and suchlike. To which I would reply: “I know. It’s in the qur’�n.� I wanted more personal details, such as when my father told me he turned to the qur’�n for solace and comfort after his father died, and grew more and more religious.

So, I ask you: what does Isl�m mean to you? Personally?

I would also like to ask this of any non–muslims reading this as well: you may hear about muslims in the news, know a few people who have turned to Isl�m and whatnot, but what does it mean to YOU?

[cnorman18]

...If talking with one's opponents isn't an option -- what's left?...

I do want to dialog with Muslims. But at the same time, one should go into the discussion with some awareness.

Nothing wrong with that; but I'd also like to point out that one should NOT begin such a dialogue by telling the person on the other side of the dialogue that you figure him for a lying hypocrite and an extremist. My own dialogues with people who tell me that all Jews are lying schemers and out to corrupt and rule the world and own the banks and the media, etc., haven't gone very well.

And I'd like true dialog--not just boorish and repetitious Islamic propaganda.

I feel sure that the Muslims with which one would dialogue aren't particularly enamored of boorish and repetitious anti-Islamic propaganda, either. religionofpeace.org isn't a good place to get your talking points.

So far the only time this has been possible for me is with the Muslim woman who was willing to admit that the Qur'an has its own set of problems and that Mohammad does not represent an ideal standard of behavior for people today.

You must not get out much. I've had excellent, fruitful, cordial and respectful conversations with Muslims here, on this forum. I hope to have more.

And I'm a JEW. If I can do this, anyone can.

[EduChris]

...one should NOT begin such a dialogue by telling the person on the other side of the dialogue that you figure him for a lying hypocrite...

Agreed.

...I feel sure that the Muslims with which one would dialogue aren't particularly enamored of boorish and repetitious anti-Islamic propaganda, either...

Naturally.

...I've had excellent, fruitful, cordial and respectful conversations with Muslims here, on this forum..

On this forum? With who? Can you give a link to such a conversation?

[cnorman18]

...one should NOT begin such a dialogue by telling the person on the other side of the dialogue that you figure him for a lying hypocrite...

Agreed.

...I feel sure that the Muslims with which one would dialogue aren't particularly enamored of boorish and repetitious anti-Islamic propaganda, either...

Naturally.

...I've had excellent, fruitful, cordial and respectful conversations with Muslims here, on this forum..

On this forum? With who? Can you give a link to such a conversation?

It'll take me a while, but if memory serves, another member was so moved he posted a pic of a Palestinian boy and a Jewish one, friends, sitting with their arms over each other's shoulders. Such pictures aren't hard to find - there is a lot of that in Israel, though it doesn't get into the press much.

It was a couple of years back. That's not the only such exchange, but probably the most memorable. It started with misunderstanding and rancor, but ended in friendship. Haven't heard from him since, to my sorrow.

[Murad]

Well at least you admit this. Many Islamic apologists lie about her age.

Your wrong, nobody denies her age or her family, maybe the source you read the information made it sound like it was a world first event & that muslims themselves are unaware of it.
Thats how most anti-islam websites style their text.

...Joseph, Mary's husband, was "90 years old" when he married...

This must be some strange and unsupportable Islamic notion. Where did you come up with this?

Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm), says:

"When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had
six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."

Note: That article on Catholic Encyclopaedia obtains its information from early

So back to my question, was Joseph a pedophile?

...In the western countries, the media is being used to create hate for the muslims.

False. Our mainstream media does backflips trying to promote the idea that Islam is a religion of peace.

No it takes 2 to tango, since George Bush, the media in America has been spreading propaganda altering the public's opinion about Islam. 'weapons of mass destruction' & '911' were both used to invade the middle east without prompting fear in Great Britain.

In Indonesia, Homosexuality will get you whipped and/or imprisoned.

Your source is wrong or it is old.
Homosexuality is legal in Indonesia.

A national bill to criminalize homosexuality, along with cohabitation, adultery and the practice of witchcraft, failed to be enacted in 2003 and no subsequent bill has been reintroduced

[EduChris]

...Your wrong, nobody denies her age or her family, maybe the source you read the information made it sound like it was a world first event & that muslims themselves are unaware of it.

Not at all. I have personally encountered many Muslims who try to claim that Aisha was 14 to 18 years old at the time of her marriage to Joseph.

...Joseph, Mary's husband, was "90 years old" when he married...

This must be some strange and unsupportable Islamic notion. Where did you come up with this?

...Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm), says:

You took that quote out of context. The article states that these sources are "unreliable," "apocryphal," and "contrary to all probability." Since you have misused your source, please retract your claim.

...Your source is wrong or it is old. Homosexuality is legal in Indonesia.

The source I provided is only one year old. Please provide evidence to support your claim that gay marriage is legal in Indonesia or else withdraw your claim.

[Murad]

Not at all. I have personally encountered many Muslims who try to claim that Aisha was 14 to 18 years old at the time of her marriage to Joseph.

You mean Muhammad.
There is evidence that shows Aisha could of been 18-19 at the time of her marriage but overwhelming evidence shows it was younger.

You took that quote out of context. The article states that these sources are "unreliable," "apocryphal," and "contrary to all probability." Since you have misused your source, please retract your claim.

How exactly is it unreliable?... the Gospel of John that was written by an anonymous author is unreliable. I dont intend to retract my claim, show me why its not as reliable as other sources Christians use.

The source I provided is only one year old. Please provide evidence to support your claim that gay marriage is legal in Indonesia or else withdraw your claim.

I provided you evidence if you bothered to read:

A national bill to criminalize homosexuality, along with cohabitation, adultery and the practice of witchcraft, failed to be enacted in 2003 and no subsequent bill has been reintroduced

But i do not deny there is prejudice towards homosexual's.

[EduChris]

You took that quote out of context. The article states that these sources are "unreliable," "apocryphal," and "contrary to all probability." Since you have misused your source, please retract your claim.

How exactly is it unreliable?...I dont intend to retract my claim.

Is it your standard practice to cut paragraphs not just out of context, but contrary to context, and then present that as "evidence"? How do you think such practices affect any assessment of your honesty and integrity?

The source I provided is only one year old. Please provide evidence to support your claim that gay marriage is legal in Indonesia or else withdraw your claim.

I provided you evidence if you bothered to read:

Okay, I found your source in Wikipedia. Here is what it says specifically about gay marriage:

The law does not recognize gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits.

And here are some other quotes from the same article:

Under the law homosexuality is defined as an act of ‘prostitution that violates the norms of common decency.

Fifty two regions have since enacted sharia law from the Koran which criminalizes homosexuality.

In Jakarta lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered, and transsexual are legally labeled as cacat or mentally handicapped and are therefore not protected under the law.

Again you have offered evidence that runs precisely opposite to your claims. Retract your claim or I will report you to the moderators.

[Murad]

Is it your standard practice to cut paragraphs not just out of context, but contrary to context, and then present that as "evidence"? How do you think such practices affect any assessment of your honesty and integrity?

Here is the source:

It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.

Verifable evidence varies from perception to perception. In your perception, the Gospel of John is authentic even though its written by some anonymous author. And in my opinion the apocryphal writings are authentic.
So whats the conflict?

The law does not recognize gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits.

I never said it recognizes gay marriage, But its not criminal, thus not illegal.

Under the law homosexuality is defined as an act of ‘prostitution that violates the norms of common decency.

Fifty two regions have since enacted sharia law from the Koran which criminalizes homosexuality.

In Jakarta lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered, and transsexual are legally labeled as cacat or mentally handicapped and are therefore not protected under the law.

I dont see anything that signifies homosexual marriage to be illegal.
Regions and local governments might do what they wish, but on the federal level, its not illegal.
Until you find me a verifable source that says the government of Indonesia passed a bill that made homosexuality illegal you have no foundation in your arguement.

Again you have offered evidence that runs precisely opposite to your claims. Retract your claim or I will report you to the moderators.

Im not retracting anything and your in no position to give me orders.
Go ahead and find anything verifable that says Indonesia passed a bill that makes homosexuality illegal, and then i will retract my statement.
Until then don't whine, this is afterall a debate forum.

[otseng]

Is it your standard practice to cut paragraphs not just out of context, but contrary to context, and then present that as "evidence"? How do you think such practices affect any assessment of your honesty and integrity?

Here is the source:

It will not be without interest to recall here, unreliable though they are, the lengthy stories concerning St. Joseph's marriage contained in the apocryphal writings. When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age. Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place. These dreams, as St. Jerome styles them, from which many a Christian artist has drawn his inspiration (see, for instance, Raphael's "Espousals of the Virgin"), are void of authority; they nevertheless acquired in the course of ages some popularity; in them some ecclesiastical writers sought the answer to the well-known difficulty arising from the mention in the Gospel of "the Lord's brothers"; from them also popular credulity has, contrary to all probability, as well as to the tradition witnessed by old works of art, retained the belief that St. Joseph was an old man at the time of marriage with the Mother of God.

Verifable evidence varies from perception to perception. In your perception, the Gospel of John is authentic even though its written by some anonymous author. And in my opinion the apocryphal writings are authentic.
So whats the conflict?

The law does not recognize gay marriage, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits.

I never said it recognizes gay marriage, But its not criminal, thus not illegal.

Under the law homosexuality is defined as an act of ‘prostitution that violates the norms of common decency.

Fifty two regions have since enacted sharia law from the Koran which criminalizes homosexuality.

In Jakarta lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered, and transsexual are legally labeled as cacat or mentally handicapped and are therefore not protected under the law.

I dont see anything that signifies homosexual marriage to be illegal.
Regions and local governments might do what they wish, but on the federal level, its not illegal.
Until you find me a verifable source that says the government of Indonesia passed a bill that made homosexuality illegal you have no foundation in your arguement.

Again you have offered evidence that runs precisely opposite to your claims. Retract your claim or I will report you to the moderators.

Im not retracting anything and your in no position to give me orders.
Go ahead and find anything verifable that says Indonesia passed a bill that makes homosexuality illegal, and then i will retract my statement.
Until then don't whine, this is afterall a debate forum.

Moderator comment:

Though I disagree that Joseph was 90 years old when he married Mary, I would have to admit that he did produce a document that says this. So, he has backed up his assertion with evidence. However, it would be better if you also included a link so that others can check out your source. I had to search for your quote myself to see where it said this.

Murad claims "I never said it recognizes gay marriage, But its not criminal, thus not illegal." The evidence appears to support this to be true.

So, there is no violation here on Murad's part in failing to back up his claims.

[Woland]

Hello cnorman18,

If you're just going to reject and dismiss the remarks of the Muslim scholars and thinkers that I have posted here as "evidence," as well as the rest of the discussion presented in the article to which my post was linked, I don't think I have anything more to say.

The claims of a few people who call themselves moderate Muslims do not demonstrate, as you claimed, that the majority of Muslims practice tolerance, respect and pluralism, or that these are an integral part of Islam.

Unsubstantiated opinions =! evidence.

Fine. Substantiate yours.

Certainly.

Let's see what you want me to substantiate.

Do you admit that you have no evidence for your claims mentioned above?

The religious texts of Islam openly call for bigotry, hatred and intolerance...

So do those of Christianity and Judaism.

That they do.

I despise all the Abrahamic texts, and praise the seemingly boundless human ability to deal with cognitive dissonance or convince itself that loopholes such as "inspired but not dictated by God" solve the problem of the infinite cruelty, pettiness, and general distastefulness of the God of Abraham as he is described in the Bible.

Islam's texts are much clearer in their enjoining Muslims to practice Sharia law (and enforcing Islam's clear political agenda) than Christianity's are in practicing Mosaic law and gaining political dominance. "New covenant" etc. excuses are aplenty for the latter. There exists no such excuses available to Muslims for ignoring the words in the Quran.
The best they can do is twist meaning in some places enough so that a particular element is more palatable than "first appears", but they cannot do this in all instances by a long shot.
Furthermore, there is only one author of the Quran according to all the mainstream schools of Islamic "thought" - Allah.

The same cannot be said of the holy texts of Christianity or Judaism.

This makes an undeniable difference in the "reformability" of a religion.

... but most importantly, untold numbers of Muslims and their scholars from mainstream denominations agree that, as written in the Quran, the Quran is the literal word of God, dictated by Allah "as is", and justify (and have always justified) all sorts of atrocities and iniquities on this basis.

So do untold numbers of Christians and Jews when speaking of the Bible.

Yes, and these are dangerously delusional human beings.

Are you actually trying to deny that Islam, at its core and as an undisputedly (by all the Muslims I've ever encountered and all the scholars I've read) "divinely dictated religion", is more likely to be interpreted as "the immaculate word of Allah" than the other religions with all their loopholes of many authors and divine inspiration and new testament etc.?

Where are the cognitive dissonance loopholes in Islam? "Let me just ignore what Allah said here because I don't like it"?

This seems to be the best that "moderate" Muslims can do, as far as I've seen, and it's why Muslims are so very, very easy to "radicalize", and will always remain so as long as the Quran and Hadith are taken to be authoritative.

Try to get unconditional condemnation of Allah-sanctioned atrocities in the Quran from any significant number of Muslims, just for fun.

Please explain to me how it would be possible for Muslims to reform Islam without blatantly contradicting basic principles of the Islamic faith, and substantiate your claim that the majority of Muslims value tolerance and respect and that these have anything to do with Islam.

Substantiate your claim that the majority do not.

I see.

Avoidance of retracting or substantiating your own claim, and shifting the burden of proof on me while I've made no such claim as that which you are falsely attributing to me.

Next.

Cherrypicking isn't as easy in Islam as it is in Christianity.

LOL! You must be used to posting on a different forum.

Not sure what you mean, but I consider that I have reasonably extensive experience, thousands of hours in fact, in generally researching and debating Islam and religions both in real life and online (in several fora, be they Islamic or Christian).
I've yet to encounter a single Muslim who doesn't believe that the Quran is dictated by Allah and flawless - like religious fundamentalists of other religions. I know there are some out there, but let's face it: how could any large number of Muslim religionists accept this while describing themselves as religious? Is it natural that a religion should be damageable to one's values to the extent to which one takes it seriously? How does a Muslim exactly believe that the Quran is not the word of Allah while believing in Allah? Such a position is absurd. It doesn't mean that people don't hold this position, but what it means is that it's relatively easy to destroy this position and "radicalize" people who already believe Allah exists.

Do you have a significant sample of such Muslims to show me? I would be quite interested to discuss with such a -from my point of view- rare specimen.

Just for starters, I would venture to state my opinion that it is likely that the immense majority of self-proclaimed Muslims believe in an eternal Hell of divinely sanctioned torment (what with the endless threats of eternal torture in the Quran). That's already extreme enough for me, but we needn't stop there.

Fundamentalist Christianity does precisely the same.

Are you actually implicitly acknowledging that you can only adequately compare mainstream Islam to fundamentalist Christianity?
This would help the conversation move along quite a bit.

If not, how does your comparison have any meaningful value?

Is it not extreme enough to believe in divinely sanctioned eternal torture?

There is dialogue and discussion and respect, and there is obdurate and obstinate rejection of the same; and the latter is not worth my time to oppose.

Then I ask you to substantiate your claims or retract them.

Back atcha, dude. Let's see your proof that the MAJORITY of Muslims worldwide are the kind of extremists you claim. I've posted extensive quotes from moderate Muslims on this very thread, and I could post a couple of hundred more links if you want to see them -- and you know that that is absolutely true. NO ONE is more concerned about the influx of extremism in Islam in recent decades than Muslims themselves, and there are few, if any, more widely debated topics in the Muslim community -- except perhaps the influx of anti-Muslim bigotry in the West, with obvious examples ready at hand.

Again, I've made no such claim that I know of, ask you to cease doing this once again and note that you've yet to substantiate your own claims with valid evidence.
Do you retract your claims?

I do not claim that the majority of Muslims are extremists by the most common Western understanding of "extremist".
This isn't the point.
Many Muslims are also, in my experience and like adherents of other religions, utterly ignorant about their faith and the history of violence of the man they profess to look up to, and many of them just go through the motions without ever really thinking about it or questioning it.

In other words, many just don't care that much - especially the ones we have in the West who fled the Islamic hellholes that their brethren have created.

My contention is that Muslims are easy to radicalize because of the way the religion is fundamentally designed: one flawless text dictated by God, one prophet who's a great example but also a murderous, lecherous, intolerant warlord, etc.

Do you have a statistically significant sample of Muslims who deny that the Quran is dictated by Allah?

I have always said that Jews, and only Jews, are qualified or have the right to define Judaism. I would also say that Muslims, and only Muslims, are qualified or have the right to define Islam.

You aren't, and don't.

Yet despite these words you are the one trying to pass off Islam as a fundamentally tolerant ideology, etc. Do you see the problem here?

No, I don't. I'm not trying to pass Islam off as anything; I freely admit that I know little about that religion.

Did you not make the claim that

"From what I've seen, Islam is an ancient and honorable religion that teaches peace, honor, love for one's neighbor, caring for the poor, the orphan and the widow, devotion to God and to the Good, and moral responsibility and rectitude."

If you want to state that this is only your opinion, that's fine.

Muhammad did not preach peace, honour, or moral responsibility, but instead war, conflict and intolerance, misplaced honour, and absolute, very questionable morals based on the "honour" and tribal mentality of the desert societies of old.

This is extremely well documented in the Sahih Hadith, the biographies of Muhammad, and the Quran.

My position is that assuming that all (or most) Muslims are conscious deceivers and hypocrites, intent on dominating the world and imposing Sharia law on everyone, is a matter of prejudice rather than evidence, and that there are many, probably most, Muslims who approach their faith in an entirely different manner, as the writers whose words I have posted are saying. Feel free to prove otherwise. That may be true of Wahhabi Islam and other fundamentalist varieties, but if someone wants to tell me that Terry Jones represents all Christians, I'd like to see proof of that.

Where's yours?

And for the record: Material from anti-Islamic websites like religionofpeace.org and the like don't impress me much. They remind me of JewWatch.com, and their credibility is zero.

Why would I need to substantiate claims which I do not hold as true and have indeed never made?

Are you the only non-Muslim who has a right to define Islam? Or do you think that cherrypicking a few moderate Muslims and posting their unsubstantiated opinions counts as defining Islam, as long as their opinions are in line with yours?

Prove that there are so few moderate Muslims that posting their remarks constitutes "cherrypicking." All I did was Google "moderate Islam." Discounting the dozens of sites that say that there is no such thing, there are a few hundred thousand hits there. That there IS such a thing seems inarguable.

Moderate Islam will always be shaky at best. There will always be a Muslim who will say "Hey, why do we ignore this again? It's dictated by Allah and it's well-substantiated in the Quran and Hadith. Do you deny that Allah knows best?" and we will start all over again.

What do you call moderate?
Is firm belief in an immutable dictated word of an unsubstantiated Allah "moderate"? I think not.
Is believing that there is a place of eternal torture in case of non-compliance "moderate"? I think not.
Is it "moderate" to believe that you are allowed to beat your wife, but only in certain circumstances and with a toothbrush? I think not.

And then show me how a Muslim's opinion on the nature of his own faith can be "unsubstantiated."

Simple. They make up stuff as they go to fit beliefs they thankfully already have because (according to my observations) humans are not as despicable as the Quran and Sahih Hadith suggest they should be.

Did you know that a massive number of Christians have never read the Bible?
Do you think it is much different when it comes to Islam?

There are undisputedly such innumerable creatures as "cafeteria Christians" who simply don't care about their religion that much but choose to describe themselves as Christians.
Do you have any reason to think that things are different for Muslims?

Say someone says he's a Nazi and believes that the principles laid out in Mein Kampf are just fine and dandy, except for the murder of the Jews.
Does Nazism stand even partially redefined because of this cherrypicking?

No.

Why grant a special status to religions with established religious texts whereby its adherents can just invent all sorts of nonsense and fallaciously link it to the original notion of the founder of the faith?

Seems to me moderate Muslims ought to have the right to define the nature of the things they believe themselves. Are only extremist, fundamentalist Christians allowed to talk about the nature of Christianity?

Of course not - but don't expect me to take cafeteria Christians seriously when they claim to "know" all about Christianity.

I know much more about Christianity than most self-described Christians ever will, in all likelihood.

Let's look at what mainstream schools of Islamic thought recommend today for apostates, homosexuals, "adulterers", "fornicators", thieves and blasphemers, won't we?

Prove that those schools of thought are universally regarded as "mainstream" by all Muslims.

Do you understand the definition of mainstream? What you just said is nonsensical.

What, do you mean to tell me that only you and the well-meaning "moderate Muslims" are correct about the Islamic faith?

And you mean to tell me that only the fundamentalists are?

You're "answering" questions with questions again.

Additionally, I certainly mean to tell you no such thing.

However, it is my contention that "fundamentalists" aka widely accepted, mainstream Sunni and Shia scholars have much more of a leg to stand on when they say "murder apostates" than the ones who say "oh just disregard those many authentic Hadith".

Same goes for stoning and other forms of torture.

I repeat: it will always be incredibly easy to radicalize Muslims because there is much evidence that the faith, as it was designed by its greedy and lecherous warlord founder, is fundamentally cruel, intolerant, and violent.

What about the endless hordes of Muslims who define their faith as an intolerant, cruel, violent supremacist ideology?

Document "endless hordes," please. Prove that they outnumber the millions of ordinary, inoffensive Muslims worldwide who don't so define it. Can't wait to see your statistics from unbiased and unimpeachable sources.

You are once again asking me to prove something that I did not claim.

Please stop doing this.

Now, as for documenting "endless hordes", I trust you will not challenge the findings of Pew polls if they do not match your preconceived notions?

http://pewglobal.org/files/2010/07/pakistan-04-04.png
http://pewglobal.org/files/legacy/268-02.gif

Note how much support violent religiopolitical groups enjoy in many countries of the Islamic world.

Also, this article (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/ ... 09_rpt.pdf) suggests that large percentages of Muslims (50-75%) in many Muslim countries agree with the Al-Qaeda goal of introducing strict Sharia in every Islamic country.

I could go on and on, there are several additional polls which depict a very sad picture of the values of Muslims everywhere, including in Western countries. To deny that Islam itself plays a large part in this is wilful denialism.

I think I've very well satisfied any reasonable definition of the necessarily hyperbolic expression "endless hordes" here.
Do you disagree?

And what do you have to support your position besides endless claims which you apparently refuse to substantiate or retract?

I have every right to comment on Islam as it is practiced and preached worldwide (and indeed, defined by Muslims themselves), and I absolutely reject your notion that only Muslims have the right or are qualified to define their faith. The reality of their faith defines it, not individual "moderates".

And YOU get to define "the reality of their faith"?

Umm - no. They collectively do, along with their scholars and the nature of their own holy books and the general way the religion was built.

Do you deny that in a large number of countries where Islam is widely practiced and, apparently, to the extent to which it is taken seriously by the populace and government, there is widespread religiously condoned oppression and/or intolerance of any combination of

-homosexuals
-apostates
-critics of Islam
-non-Muslims in general
-etc.

in the name of the religion and because of their religious beliefs?

Name a few Muslim-majority countries without oppressive policies conducted in the name of religion.
There may be a few...

Sorry, I'm not at all impressed. I've seen PRECISELY this kind of invective directed at Jews, and it wasn't any more documented, evidenced, or proven than yours.

Show me a significant proportion of Jews who support atrocities like stoning people for adultery or killing apostates because of their beliefs, then we can compare apples to apples.

The parallel you just tried to draw is inadequate and rejected on this basis.

So tell us: Do you deny the existence of moderate Muslims, or do you just declare that they have no right to hold the beliefs that they do and still consider themselves Muslims?

I think I've been quite clear on this matter.

There are moderate people who call themselves Muslims, and so may we refer to them as being such, but there can hardly be a true moderate Islam, as even the faith's most basic tenets almost necessarily require incredible dogmatism to be held as true.
I don't believe only Muslims who blow themselves up or support such deeds are extremists - in fact, innumerable Muslims who may very well otherwise be violence-supporting have a canned answer for this: "suicide is a sin".

The beliefs of ordinary Muslims in way too many countries are more than extreme enough.

What is YOUR solution to the terrible problem of this absolutely worthless, brutal and repressive religion, if no other form of it exists? How do you intend to stamp it out? What is your plan of action?

My solution is information, not whitewashing the demented cult of Islam. Calling it a peaceful or honourable religion is infinitely more damageable in the long term, in my opinion, than calling a spade a spade.

The religion is rotten at its core. I am impressed and appreciate that self-described moderate Muslims would like to ignore, and may even succeed in ignoring, a lot of unsavoury facts about their religion and its warlord founder, but their efforts seem less than futile to me.

Or is flat-out condemnation all you have to offer?

It's a large part of what I have to offer, as I no longer believe that there is hope for most of the religionists of the current generation, and I no longer believe that humans, on a wide scale, can be made to see how harmful religions like Islam fundamentally are to the general well-being of humanity since they've been taught, among other nonsensical idiocies, to "respect all religions and cultures" as if all of them were worthy of respect. The special status people give to religious ideologies is truly unwarranted to say the least.
I also no longer believe that humans who already hold that "Islam is a religion of peace distorted by extremists" can be made to see the opposite fast enough and on a large enough scale to prevent a massive war in the relatively near future.

This saddens me more than I can say.

These days, even the actions of an isolated nutcase can almost start WW3 as uncounted millions of Muslims await any opportunity to unleash the hatred induced in them by frenetic Mullahs reading from the Quran and Hadith and chant for the death of absolutely innocent people who have nothing to do with the aforementioned nutcase.
And the world just watches and parrots meaningless one-way condemnations like "Oh, what a nutcase that pastor is! Nevermind the fact that even the potential of a burning Quran sends uncountable Muslims into a bloodlust for general American blood!"

I think I'll stand by my remarks. In my experience, "they're all alike" and "they're all bad" are infallible marks of outright bigotry. Go ahead, tell us that there's no such thing as a moderate Muslim, and/or that they aren't really Muslims. The next dictum is usually along the lines of "the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim."

Where does your attitude lead? To peace and reconciliation and understanding -- or to more and more hatred and rancor and death?

You seem to incessantly negatively speculate about my beliefs, and needlessly as well as baselessly project quite a lot of things onto me - a habit which I find to be quite distasteful.

Where does "my attitude" lead?
It leads to admitting the problem as it is, undeniable magnitude and all, and finding a solution which involves an honest examination of the issues at hand and not endless negative stereotyping of well-substantiated criticism of the very rotten core of the Islamic faith - which is what you are doing, with your countless attempts at projecting your own stereotypes about people who bash on the religion of hatred and ignorance, that is to say Islam, onto me.
People are scared of Islam. Even journalists and authors are afraid of Islam. Scared to discuss it, scared to criticize it. And with good cause - even mild criticism of Islam results in very swift death threats. This is unacceptable to the highest degree.

I will not back down from exposing this hateful religion for the inhuman lie that it is - a lie which has been the dicrect (by virtue of its inherently dogmatic and near-immutable nature) cause of more suffering than you and I can even have bad dreams about with our mere human minds.

Appeasement will get us nowhere.

You should know that history teaches this lesson quite well - Chamberlain is a fine parallel to what is happening right now, under our very noses, with our governments endlessly appeasing Muslims, Muslim governments of the worst intolerant supremacist types, and intra-societal associations "for community relations", who take every gesture of peace as weakness and slap our open hands endlessly with their unwarranted victim complex, delusional thinking, conspiracy theories, and generally oppressive policies.

There are literally countless examples of these very things happening increasingly all over the world.

-Woland