"To those who can't answer in the affirmative, why come here and pretend you have a right to argue about things you have no knowledge about? "

Leaving aside the issue of what I personally know or don't know, are you serious?  This is a democracy, Bosch. We have the right to argue about anything we'd like, no matter the level of our knowledge on the subject.

You may question the level of our insight or understanding of the subject, and clearly you do, but to suggest that people have to show their credentials at the door for the privilege of disagreeing with you on somebody else's website? Damn.

I think the extremist  Islamic frame of my mind that you so fiercely condemn has damaged you more than you realize. You view the world exactly as you say your enemies do, only with Islam as the pure Villain instead of the pure Hero.

We've seen this before, many of us. It is the blind fervor or zealotry of the recent "convert". The recently sober alcoholic who vilifies people who drink in moderation as "alcoholics in denial". The Born Again christian who condemns others for actions that pale in comparison to his own former depravities.

Don't just tell us what you believe. Challenge your anger. Consider the possibility that you are wrong and attack your own views with every ounce of logic and insight that you are capable of. I do that myself. I've been able to rid myself of some prejudices and affirm my positions in other areas by such self-examination.

I'm not sure you've examined yourself and your beliefs as fully as perhaps you should. Your anger remains a dull, heavy instrument without accuracy or grace. Anger can motivate great art, but only if that anger is honed into a sharp, light, graceful instrument that cuts to the quick and debones with the flick of a wrist. That takes a lot of work, and clearly you haven't done the work.

Kevin, Zaki, now Knut. My man-love is reaching across the world!

*****************

*sigh*

Non-association with followers of other faiths is a feature of all Abrahamite religions. Less so with Islam (at least for the first few centuries)  , as it only discourages instead of prohibiting it except in cases of intermarriage and then primarily in cases where the woman is moslem. (In christianity limited freedom of association is a feature introduced post-ascension by Peter as a lead in to the conversion of gentiles).  As far as I understand it, in relation to people of the book, there is no call to do them any harm whatsoever. However, apostates or people who seek to convert moslems to other faiths are at risk for a death penalty in many islamic countries under Sharia law.

In terms of periods of pragmatic co-existence, of course these non-association rules have been more relaxed. During the golden age of the Ottoman empire, freedom of religion was assured to a great extent (in view of the time period). And in most christian and jewish communities these days the non-association rules are not observed at all. Most, but not all. Many islamic countries in Africa and the Middle East are not at present experiencing a period of peaceful pragmatic co-existence.

It is speculated that what is required is an internal movement towards reformation or enlightenment that can only arise from within Islam itself. There are some signs of it, people reaching back to an idea (as opposed to the more complex reality) of Islam's Golden Age in terms of the pursuit of knowledge and peaceful trade and tolerance towards people of other faiths, as a template for an Arab/ Islamic renaissance.