I read it, but I dont understand how it responds to my post?
The Qu'ran contains silly and cruel passages. So does the Bible. You can argue about which one has more or less, but the elementary fact is that, digging through these holy books, you can find plenty of evidence of evil-sounding teachings. Then again, you can also find plenty of kind and virtuous teachings.
Which brings us back to practice. Christianity is experienced and practiced in a range of ways. They range from yours to Momma's to that of the Nigerian Christians engaging themselves in revenge murder and mayhem. That makes it easy and necessary to criticize bad Christianity, but also kinda hard (for me, anyway) to be anti-Christianity, per se. After all, there are many Christians who take the Bible as their lead, yet do not implement its more cruel lessons or exhortations - and in fact let their belief in the Bible lead themselves to good deeds. And if there
are indeed harmless ways to practice Christianity, why be anti-Christianity period?
If one acknowledges that there are harmless ways to practice Islam too, then the same goes for Islam. Ie, if one acknowledges that some Muslims experience and practice their belief in Islam in ways that are harmless or even benefitial, then it is obviously not
Islam itself anymore thats the enemy - only the alternative experiences, interpretations and implementations of it that propone murder and mayhem. In that case you're no longer anti-Islam, but anti-the-wrong-kind-of-Islam.
If one maintains that Islam is an evil of and in itself, on the other hand, than how could one possibly still maintain that there's nothing wrong with this or that person being a Muslim? There's the crux, for if one believes there is something inherently wrong with someone believing in Islam - ie, with being a Muslim - than one is anti-Muslim, me thinks.
Okay! 
