[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx

"everything I stand for is righteous, and I must kill those who believe otherwise" sounds like basic Muslim teachings.

I disagree.

For one thing, when a Muslim is sitting with you at Denny's, he's not acting as a good Muslim in the eyes of Mohhamed, now is he? He wouldn't make it very far in the eyes of most Fundamentalist Islamic Mullahs.

Considering that he was witnessing (sorry if this is the wrong term, I've predominantly Christian background) to an unbeliever, I'd think he was being a very good Muslim.

Now, Shari'a itself isn't a dangerous concept. They are just religious laws....but the stonings, and woman & non-Muslims as second class citizens ARE key Shari'as which stem from Koranic verses, and again, they follow the ideals that you describe as being on par with animals.

I already addressed this point: we can pull verses from Islamic scriptures to argue whether or not violence is integral to Islam. I can think of a few Christian scriptures that were probably used to justify the more heinous acts of the medieval Church, but that doesn't mean Christianity is integrally violent.

I would go so far as to say fundamentalisms, in general sense, are regressive and bad for social development. But they are infinitely preferable to extremisms.

Unwillingness to see a difference between fundamentalism and extremism in a religion is a big problem for secularists and opponents of a particular religion, but if we are to acknowledge a place for religious liberty in this world, then it is a very important difference to acknowledge.