Exaclty the issue with religion, such debates just hit a brick wall as soon as you bring up god's word or will.

Naturally that was possibly a bad example given its religious content, but the same responses are provided for a range of issues.

Usually that is the only side of Islam they get to seem, the author does raise some interesting issues however, ones that i feel affect then majority of modern religions.

I think the fact that these religions were conceived in a time very different to ours, that paradigms have caused us to think, as some would say at least, in a more civilized manner than back then, causes grave issues.

Religion for the most part is no longer responsible for dictating was it right and wrong, case and point being how most people here in the UK are scratching their heads while the Anglican church publicly embarrasses itself over the issue of women bishops.

This also leads me to show that religion has a hard time changing or acknowledging change, this is usually brought about by the very notion that you are altering the word of god himself if you go about changing things that appear in Holy Scripture. Take a look at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, any negotiation over the issue falls flat on it's face when Imams say that no Muslim on the planet has the right to debate the issue with Jews as such it is not open to discussion. A fairly convenient approach for them isn't it?

Seeing such educated men quibble in such a means drives me close to insanity, but i suspect that i must just grit my teeth and deal with it, conservatives biggest enemy is the mortality of man. In a few generations time I suspect (hope at least) that we'll look back on such struggles and wonder at our stupidity.

Many people are confusing Islam with secular terrorists (like the PLO), secular nationalists (like Nasser and Saddam Hussein), and fanatical heretical sects (like the Wahabis or the followers of Khomeini).

I think it is easily understood that an openly secular group with Muslim and Christian members (like the PLO) does not represent Islam. Arab dictatorships that dethroned their Muslim kings also do not represent Islam; I hope that is equally clear.

Wahabiism (Saudi Arabia's and the Taliban's ideology) was, before the discovery of oil that allowed them to take over mosques worldwide, roundly condemned as heresy by Muslim scholars all over the world.

And Khomeini's ideology was certainly not the traditional Islamic view of how a country should be run. (For example, Iran/Persia was never run that way before, even under the most Islamic rulers.) Shia Islam traditionally (i.e. before Khomeini) regards Muhamme'd descendants as the legal leaders of all Muslims. But that would be the ruling family of Jordan and Morocco rather than people like Abjadinad (or whatever his exact name is).

Islam is not only not specifically intolerant but is one of the few religions that has rules that command tolerance to be practiced.

Not only does the Quran specifically mention Judaism and Christianity as acceptable true religions, but the first Islamic state, Muhammed's rule over Medina, had a constitution that enshrined the equality between Jews and Muslims in that Islamic state.

The fact that groups like Hamas tend to live a different "Islam" doesn't Islamic teachings intolerant. I think that should be kept in mind.

I'd also recommend reading up on Adam Smith and Baron de Montague, truly amazing thinkers whom really moved our society forward.

Many Greek philosphers were truly ahead of the time, and i'm greatful to the Arab world for keeping much of their teachings their scriptures intact while we went about destroying them during the dark ages.

I'll add one (obvious from the post):

Fuck spellcheck and grammar and syntax rules. We's da shitz and anyone who don't believe it can kiss our asses!