My sincere apologies for not being clearer, the reference to past actions wasn't directed at your comments, but at other comments made referencing actions and quotes from Mohammed's era as somehow being relevant to assessing modern Muslims' motivations or violent tendencies. The Crusades example was intended to demonstrate other violent past actions (and the fact that people are keen to point out that example as silly kind of proves my point...). And thanks a lot for the sources, they were quite interesting! I thought the second site's description of Islam as "a tolerant religion in victory" allowing the conquered to keep practicing their faith was an interesting contrast to both other faiths at the time and the message of bin-Laden and his sort today.

As for Christians of today not killing people based on religion: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernir...
Northern Irish violence still hasn't subsided, and its far from the only global example.

I don't mean to say that Christians are violent and should somehow be similarly rounded up. I just wanted to point out that if you substitute "Muslim" for another group like "Christian" where the same arguments can be made on very similar evidence, everyone tends to object. I think that suggests that a) people have a bias against Muslims, or b) both situations are complicated, but we're more used to dealing with, for example, Ireland and we recognize that. Or c) being further away from the Ireland situation, we're more able to look at it calmly. Personally, I think it's most likely b) or c), but I wouldn't rule out a).

Well, don't think I'm a troll, but am I allowed to try?

Maybe supporting equality for a group doesn't mean they have to support everything that group believes? Example: I generally disagree with democrats, but it would seem kind of silly not to let them run. So I support them getting equal treatment to Republicans though I disagree with them.

Though to be honest, maybe that example's not the best. I used to love the Republican party and I was so sad when McCain lost (I still think he'd be a better president than Obama!) but I might be falling out of love. King and such are really worrying me: by targeting the group we all need help from and treating them as second-class citizens who have to actively fight terrorism rather than just being law-abiding like the rest of us, I think he's likely to make any alienated youth feel even more alienated, rejected by the land they call home, angry and lost, making them ripe pickings for al-Qaeda. He may be well-intentioned, but I'm terrified that he's doing the very think likely to make al-Qaeda stronger.

i must admit, I'm a bit confused as to how demonstrating the importance of peace in Islam does nothing to contradict the theory that there is no peaceful Islam.

And it seems quite similar to Norther Ireland to me: two groups with a long and complicated history, the inherent religious reasons to kill each other are flimsy, but centuries of conflict over the same land has polarized them; both groups have some members who have desperately resorted to violence as well as many members that condemn violence. To be honest, the only difference I really see to Northern Ireland is that there both groups were white, and I don't think that difference should be relevant.

In terms of whether we should give Muslims the benefit of the doubt: since 9/11 there have been more terrorist plots by non-Muslims than Muslims (80 to 45, almost twice as many) according to Congressional Research Service statistics. I admit that these numbers oversimplify things, but it does suggest that we need to prove ourselves to Muslims at least as much if not more so than they need to prove themselves to us. I thought the founding fathers were big on that whole idea of everyone being created equal? Everyone else gets to be innocent before being proven guilty, but not Muslims, merely because they are Muslim? I think we've managed to admit that rounding up all Japanese-Americans and putting them in internment camps was a bad idea. Based on that, it seems we won't be judged to kindly by our children for singling out Muslims.

i must admit, I'm a bit confused as to how demonstrating the importance of peace in Islam does nothing to contradict the theory that there is no peaceful Islam.

I'm also a bit skeptical that the willingness of "Shia to kill Sunni and vice versa" goes far beyond Northern Ireland. It actually seems quite similar to me: two groups with a long and complicated history, the inherent religious reasons to kill each other are flimsy, but centuries of conflict over the same land has polarized them; both groups have some members who have desperately resorted to violence as well as many members that condemn violence. To be honest, the only difference I really see to Northern Ireland is that there both groups were white, and I don't think that difference should be relevant.

In terms of whether we should give Muslims the benefit of the doubt: since 9/11 there have been more terrorist plots by non-Muslims than Muslims (80 to 45, almost twice as many) according to Congressional Research Service statistics. While I admit that saying such numbers explain the entire issue would be massively over simplifying things, it does suggest that we need to prove ourselves to Muslims at least as much if not more so than they need to prove themselves to us. Seriously, I thought the founding fathers were big on that whole idea of all Americans being created equal? (well, they did say "men", I'm substituting "Americans" to avoid that whole 18th century men may have been a tad sexist issue). Everyone else gets to be innocent before being proven guilty, why should we reverse this basic idea of justice for all Muslims, merely because they are Muslim? I think we've managed to admit that rounding up all Japanese-Americans and putting them in internment camps was a bad idea, or blaming all Jews for the woes of Europe was a tad racist. Based on that, it seems we won't be judged to kindly by our children for singling out Muslims.

Mohammed's time was also many centuries ago, many centuries before the Crusades. Are actions of Muslims from his time relevant in assessing Islam today, but more recent actions by Christians aren't?

In terms of a Muslim Jihad in Europe triggering the Crusades, I would really appreciate it if you could give me a source or wikipedia article even (seriously no sarcasm, just honest curiosity. In years of study I've never heard a mention of any such thing, which would seem a huge hole in my research. So far, what historian accounts and such I've found seem to suggest that the main motivation behind the Crusades was that many feudal kings were finding their rule unstable and needed something to keep the peasants occupied, and ideally get them killed. Plus the scientific, educational and social advances of the Middle East beyond Europe meant they had lots of nice things to plunder.)

In terms of Muslims helping, my point is merely that they already seem to be. From the Congressional Research Services statistics, %40 of terror threats have been foiled by muslim help and almost twice as many terror plots since 9/11 have been perpetuated by non-muslims than muslims (80 to 45).

Now, there is still a threat. I absolutely agree that alienated and disaffected youth are a huge target for al-Qaeda and a vulnerability for America. The problem is that one of the best ways to alienate people, make them feel unwelcome, angry and abandoned by their home country (America) is to do exactly what King is doing: target Muslims because they are Muslims, demand more from them than any other Americans because they are Muslims (seriously, who else has to defend their existence and show that their are actively trying to stop terrorists? Most people are allowed to just be law-abiding and that's enough). I sympathize with King in the sense that there is a threat to America, I disagree with him because I think his actions are the very sort of thing likely to drive understandably angry youth towards Al-Qaeda.

I think there's a difference between not denouncing radicals and maintaining that not all Muslims are radicals.

A radical sect of Islam undoubtedly exists, and it's a huge problem. It doesn't mean that all Muslims are part of it though.

And do all Muslims really have a duty to actively fight it? It would be good if they did take action against it, but that seems a bit unfair. I don't think all Catholics had a duty to fight the IRA, just because they were Catholic.

Just out of curiousity, would you mind sharing when Mohammed said that? I'd love to know, because I've never heard any quotes of him saying that.

The first I ever heard of calls to kill the infidels was when Christian countries invaded the Middle East in the Crusades

On a brief comparative note: when the Christians invaded Jerusalem, historians said the streets ran with blood "up to their horses knees", including women and children. When Saladin retook Jerusalem, he offered generous terms of surrender.

I'm not trying to say that somehow makes Islam better than Christanity or vice-versa. Just that it doesn't seem as simple as you suggest.

One slight problem with that theory - the tremendous emphasis on peace in both Muslim religion (as in from the Qu'ran and the prophet) and Muslim Culture. One example: the traditional Muslim greeting "Asalaam 'u 'alaikuum" means "May peace be upon you". A second: One of the names for God "Assalaam" means "the source of peace". A third: when discussing jihad, Muhammed said that struggles between people are a "lesser jihad", and that the "greater jihad" was the struggle with oneself to do good, to follow God's teachings and to be at peace.

Granted, Islam isn't as peaceful as some parts of say, Christian teachings. As far as I've found, there is no "turn the other cheek" message in Islam - if someone hits you, you're allowed to fight back. But then again, it's highly questionable whether that message is widely followed in Christianity. After all, Jesus reportedly also said "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” (Luke 22:36)

I'm not trying to say that any religion is better than another, or that there aren't verses in the Qu'ran that can be pulled out of context to seem to say something aggressive. But I think, like Christianity or many other religions, the whole picture is much more complicated.

Those are also considered Muslim names. The Qu'ran teaches that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all "People of the Book" who follow the same path and that Jewish and Christian scriptures should also be largely followed by Muslims. As such, many Judaic names are also considered Muslim. That may also be because Hebrew and Arabic are both Semetic languages, closely related, and traditional Muslim names are in Arabic, which tend to be very similar to Hebrew.