Agreed, ISIS is not the only Muslim terrorist group.

But not all Muslims identify with Wahhabism (which percentage of the total Muslim population is Wahhabi?), nor live in Saudi Arabia. It's also not automatically true that all Wahhabis, even if more intolerant, want to murder the infidel.

Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported. The fact remains that most Muslims don't want to kill you.

> Again, your conclusion about Muslims being fundamentally blood-thirsty is unsupported.

I've certainly never concluded that, you can verify all what I wrote. What I wanted to point out is that there is real danger that once Muslims attempt to read the "primary sources" themselves discover inspiration for immense intolerance, really not comparable to such present in Old or New Testament (and I've met some very radical and unpleasant Christians too). Not to mention that most "converts" are sucked in over their acquaintances, independently of the will of their families.

> most Muslims don't want to kill you

One of my best friends from childhood from basically secular Muslim family later converted to more fundamental Islam and he specifically isn't fighting except intellectually, at least as far as I know about him now, so you don't need to explain me that. Still I personally saw the fundamentalism rising and was actually close enough to atrocities of different kinds and directions. A member of my family had the luck just by accident to avoid one Islamic bomb attack. A few generations ago more neighboring (Christian) villages of my relative were wiped out by Muslims, women and children included. The world isn't for everybody as nice as is maybe for you so that you can just turn the head away and pretend that dangerous and disgraceful things don't exist and in some periods don't ugly grow.

Ask Armenians (Christians killed by the Ottoman Turks): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide

A Hindu from India also gave his voice in this discussion and somebody downvoted him, even though he wanted to point to something meaningful:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

"The Indian historian Professor K.S. Lal estimates that the Hindu population in India decreased by 80 million between 1000 AD and 1525 AD, an extermination unparalleled in World history" [3]" (at the time of Muslim invasions and rule)

The Christians in the areas controlled by the Islamic law had the periods of "relatively quiet times" (with always much worse treatment than Muslims) and another periods of extreme suffering performed by the Muslim ruling minority. Note: just the minority of the population in their area were Muslims, and that was enough for extreme suffering. The biggest proof: Hindus.

So what the "most" of Muslim population does isn't even important. Even small number of determined oppressors (claiming to do just what their religion gives them right to do) is enough to make huge damage. And this can't be downplayed.

Ok, so this is a personal issue for you. My apologies if I offended you. I won't push this any further. I disagree with your position, but we're running in circles now.

PS: I know about the Armenian Genocide, and it's terrible. But as I'm sure you're aware, at other times Christians killed plenty of Muslims (and other Christians, while we're at it) and were decidedly intolerant of Jewish people. Ahem, I don't even want to go there. So I'm not sure what we can conclude from this about the current world-wide Muslim population.

I don't conclude anything "about the current world-wide Muslim population." Do quote when I ever wrote anything about the "world-wide Muslim population." I wrote about Islam as religious doctrine (which has more elements of a fight manual than of a spiritual text) about Islam's primary holy texts and about the violence and intolerance that they provably contain and can nurse and inspire. If they inspire it in minority, but minority with a lot of means of producing enough fighters and fanatic believers, that's more than enough to produce huge problems to this world. The another minority necessary are the ideological leaders. Only these two minorities are enough. The fanatics know that already: their prophet and his army are their role model for that (together with always-available case studies in Hadith). Even the Muslim women who didn't have to cover their hair until recently in a lot of Muslim countries know what it means the rule of "more religious" Muslims (as the smallest thing that changed to them in the last decades -- we had more secular societies in different now already again more and more "dark-age" Muslim countries). Only the people from the parts of the world where Muslims weren't effectively present aren't aware of the danger. It's not some ancient history, it never stopped. There was just a more quiet period.

I heard you. I contend that Islam is not the problem at heart. Every holy text can inspire hatred and violence. It's very likely the Quran was a fight manual like you said -- for understandable historical reasons -- but what matters is what it is now for most of the world's Muslims. And it's not a fight manual. The slide to religious fundamentalism is a threat in all religions; I wouldn't welcome any theocracy.

Sorry, you can quote the Quran all you want, and I can quote it back with verses promoting peace (or verses from other holy texts promoting violence; or even violence from other religions which are not frequently linked to terrorism).

There is no inherent danger from Islam. There is real danger in the world, but I think you're mistaken in placing the source. And Western countries are oblivious to their own historical contributions to violence in the Middle East. All too easy to blame it all on weird raving fundamentalists.

In the end, you think I'm mistaken. I think you're mistaken. Let it rest.

> And it's not a fight manual.

Oh, yes, it is, absolutely is, especially combined with Hadith. Both together are the primary holy texts of Islam. Read it, read the historical materials, compare the texts and the history (what is written as the "words of god to Muslims" and what was done in the name of Islam in the last 1400 years -- the instructions and the actions match, and why wouldn't, if the "believers" performed them following the "manual") then you can try to give arguments how it is not. Right now you have no real arguments. And you know you won't have, since I'll recognize if you try to give something out of the context, that's why you don't even try.

What is your background in claiming what you claim? What do you actually know about Islam and Muslims, personally? Who tortured your ancestors? Or whom your ancestors tortured? You must have ancestors and they must have been involved in something. I've given you my background. Do you know anybody who's not Muslim but who's parents and grandparents lived in the Muslim country? Try to talk to such people.

> There is no inherent danger from Islam.

Yes there is, whoever isn't a Muslim and reads Quran immediately understands. It's totally not comparable to the texts of any other religion, that's why we see what we see now every day. Muslims "behaving normal" (never having read Quran themselves before and being more in the secular environment) and then in short time becoming suicidal bombers or mass shooters or even "just" "mad" car drivers after somebody (a friend or a relative) just shows them what's really there:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325180/Two-fingers-...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30583390

So everybody should read himself what's in Quran. Especially non-Muslims.

"The Koran teaches fear, hatred, contempt for others, murder as a legitimate means for the dissemination and preservation of this satanic doctrine, it talks ill of women, classifies people into classes, calls for blood and ever more blood. Yet, that a camel trader sparks uproar in his tribe, that he wants to make his fellow citizens believe that he talked to the archangel Gabriel; that he boasted about being taken up into heaven and receiving a part of that indigestible book there, which can shake common sense on every page, that to gain respect for this work, he covers his country with fire and iron, that he strangles fathers, drags away daughters, that he leaves the beaten a free choice between death and his faith: now this is certainly something that no-one can excuse, unless he came as a Turk into the world, unless superstition has stifled any natural light of reason in him."

Voltaire (1694-1788)

Sorry, you're being unreasonable. I agreed the Quran was likely born as a fight manual (you chose to ignore that part and instead quoted out of context the next part). The fact is that it's not a fight manual now. Very similarly to how the Old Testament was born, out of desperate times, and which is not to be interpreted literally now.

You can quote the Quran all you want. I can quote back verses preaching tolerance and understanding, even of unbelievers. The fact remains that, like all holy texts, it's contradictory and open to interpretation. Islam is what modern-day Muslims choose it to be. And the vast majority of Muslims choose it not to mean a perpetual war against the unbeliever.

The notion that as soon as a reasonable Muslims picks up the Quran and "really reads it" (as I assume you imply you've done, and that all Muslims who disagree with you haven't... how condescending can you be?) he/she will turn into a murderous jihadist is so patently absurd it merits no further discussion.

Sorry, quote Voltaire all you want, but the real world contradicts you. Yes, some vocal fanatics are intent on murdering the infidel, but the vast majority of Muslims just want to live their lives. Repeat after me: "no, my Muslim neighbors are not biding their time for the moment they can kill me."

Please stop. Religious flamewars are not welcome on Hacker News.