Citing this kind of thing is not to cherry-pick violent quotes out of context; over 100 passages explicitly call for violence against non-believers, see for example 9:5 in which they are offered three choices: And remember that for Muslims, this is the immutable and indisputable literal word of God.

Sadly, you're doing exactly what you claim you're not. Congratulation on your successful doublespeak.

In any case, many sects of Christianity (billing itself as following the teachings of the 'Prince of Peace') who offer the same choices to non-believers: conversion, subjugation or death. There's at most a dimes worth of difference between the creeds.

Keep also in mind that the central tenants of Islam were reportedly dictated to Mohammed by the Archangel Gabriel, whereas the Christian Bible was written expressly by we pathetic mortals. Taking it as the 'immutable and indisputable literal word of God' (while a bit of an exaggeration of the book's import) is only natural given its origins.

Or are you dismissing the Word of God?

I'd like to see otherwise intelligent, progressive people face up what Islam really is, and stop pretending that this ideology can be used as a club to attack political opponents.

Will you do the same with the many denominations and sects of Christianity?

In other words, let's educate ourselves about Islam, and allow ourselves to have a conversation about it without immediately descending into the vicious personal attacks that questioning that sacred cow always seems to inspire.

This requires you, my son, to hold your tongue from the outset as your opinions have clearly been already fully formed and you embrace a shallow reading of the Qu'ran, taking it as sole scripture Islam follows and focusing upon a select few passages.

When you're ready to discuss the full dimensions of Islam and its history, without prejudice, then we can talk.

I shalln't hold my breath.

All right, let's begin by discussing the topic that is simultaneously 1) the central exhibit of Glen's article and 2) being studiously ignored by just about everyone in this forum. Namely: Why did a quarter of Muslims in America, when polled, refuse to condemn al Qaeda?

What are you? The condemnation police? I note you haven't condemned the Bush Administration for getting the country into this disaster of an occupation, nor the many Religious Right luminaries who routinely call for jihad against the rest of the world.

In any case, others have hammered you on this seriously mistaken focus upon one question within the Pew report. I'll leave it to them.

You're declining to comment on the findings on Christian's tolerance and insistence upon using torture is more telling than your ongoing refusal to discuss Islam intelligibly. I'd pray for your soul, but you clearly sold that for pocket change a lifetime ago.

Iokannan, I did condemn Bush's invasion of Iraq. It's about six minutes upthread of your post.

My bad. Clearly we got crossed in the mail.

I'm addressing a specific and very revealing question asked in the poll. No one has hammered me on it, Iokannan, because the only way to do that is to attack the validity of the poll.

Actually you were hammered on reading too much into one question that of dubious wording the broader dynamic of the poll itself. You really should re-read the comments addressed to you.

The results are there in black and white: 5% of Muslims in America are willing to put their names and addresses against a positive statement of support for al Qaeda, the same organization seeking to kill millions of Americans. Another 19% or so (prudently, I'm sure!) refused to comment.

Which translates to how many actual Muslims nationwide? Where do these people live? How devout are they? What is their per capita income? What professions do they hold? How many have criminal records? How many are immigrants? If so, from which country?

There are a huge number of questions that need answering before you take this scripture.

By my math, that means about a quarter of Muslims in America are supporters of al Qaeda - and the reality of polling mechanics means that number is probably vastly understated.

A quarter of self-identifying Muslims responding to this poll make such a 'statement', although as others have pointed out suggesting so is a massive stretch. Its equally a stretch to suggest that extrapolating upon the 'positive' responses to this one question somehow concretely confirms a larger trend.

If you choose to ignore that, and want to focus on torture etc. be my guest. Please don't pretend, though, that it is possible to "argue" your way out of these poll results and defend Islam.

Then please don't pretend this poll is anything more than what it is, or that your focus upon a single question somehow excuses the demonstrated and implied excesses of other religions.

What precisely about the Pew Poll do you find so disturbing you focus upon it to the exclusion of other, more worrisome conclusions reached in the other polls Glenn cites?

The fact a minority of respondents hold arguably positive views of Al Qaeda?

Or the fact the poll overall shows American Muslims to be less extreme, less prone to advocating violence than their Christian counterparts?

Or are you simply too fixated upon the islamofascist boogeyman under your bed to see how big a fool you're making yourself here?

Hallmark, it seems remarkable to me that many progressives continue to deny the reality of Islam

It seems still more remarkable that you are unwilling to accept the 'reality' of Christianity, even as you embrace the 'reality' of Islam.

None of which is any more real or applicable than the "Left Behind" novels or "The Late Great Planet Earth".

You really don't get how big a bloody fool you're making of yourself, do you?