Mosque at Ground Zero

[Logan Darklighter]

Look, if you characterize a religion by its worst excesses, then Christianity is arguably as bad and possibly worse than Islam. (Just off the top of my head: Crusades, Inquisition, anti-semitism, conversion by the sword, justification for the American slave trade, religious/sectarian violence, Catholic sex abuse -- hell, there's still a big chunk of the Southern Baptist Convention that whines that they're being oppressed because they're not allowed to run everything and forceably convert anyone they want, just like Gawd told them to. I'm sure Rev Dark has far more examples and relevant data at his fingertips, while I'd have to go look up stuff to get more than that. Oh, and before you bring Islamic fatalism and all that up, let me just point you at Calvinism and ask you to consider just how different its predestination is from its Islamic equivalents -- and how less poisonous.)

This is an interesting game the Islam apologists play, trying to equate or bring other religions, particularly Christianity, down to the level of Islam. They say that Christianity (or other faiths) are just as bad.
(I hasten to add, that I'm not saying or thinking that you are an apologist, Bob. I'm sure you're arguing in good faith. But you've heard this line so many times that I think you've taken it for the truth. You've seen excesses in Christianity that give you pause. So have I. I'm no fan of the Catholic church hierarchy. I think the current Pope is at minimum a jerk. (I'm no big fan of organized religion myself. Most of the time I'm pretty non-religious, though I believe generally we have souls and that there's an afterlife and even perhaps a god(s). But I'd be hard pressed to pin it down further than that.))
So why pick on Islam if other religions have the same problems?
Because they don’t have the same problems that Islam does.
So - lets start with the Crusades. Since Muslims (and western apologists as well) like using the Crusades as a rhetorical cudgel, let's have a little historical perspective before we get to the main point. My purpose here is not to defend or justify the Crusades, but to explain them.
I have to admit there's much to dislike about the European Crusades. If they are contrasted with the words and teachings of Jesus, then the Crusades don't look good. But did the Europeans launch the first Crusade in a mindless, bloodthirsty and irrational way, or were there more pressing reasons? Were they the only ones to be militant? Or were they responding to an outside threat?
A time line (from American Thinker)
630 Two years before Muhammad's death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting 'agreements' from northern tribes. They could enjoy the 'privilege' of living under Islamic 'protection' (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).
This tax sets the stage for Muhammad's and the later Caliphs' policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.
632—634 Under the Caliphate of Abu Bakr the Muslim Crusaders reconquer and sometimes conquer for the first time the polytheists of Arabia. These Arab polytheists had to convert to Islam or die. They did not have the choice of remaining in their faith and paying a tax. Islam does not allow for religious freedom.
633 The Muslim Crusaders, led by Khalid al—Walid, a superior but bloodthirsty military commander, whom Muhammad nicknamed the Sword of Allah for his ferocity in battle (Tabari, 8:158 / 1616—17), conquer the city of Ullays along the Euphrates River (in today's Iraq). Khalid captures and beheads so many that a nearby canal, into which the blood flowed, was called Blood Canal (Tabari 11:24 / 2034—35).
634 At the Battle of Yarmuk in Syria the Muslim Crusaders defeat the Byzantines. Today Osama bin Laden draws inspiration from the defeat, and especially from an anecdote about Khalid al—Walid. An unnamed Muslim remarks: 'The Romans are so numerous and the Muslims so few.'  To this Khalid retorts: 'How few are the Romans, and how many the Muslims! Armies become numerous only with victory and few only with defeat, not by the number of men. By God, I would love it . . . if the enemy were twice as many' (Tabari, 11:94 / 2095). Osama bin Ladin quotes Khalid and says that his fighters love death more than we in the West love life. This philosophy of death probably comes from a verse like Sura 2:96. Muhammad assesses the Jews: '[Prophet], you are sure to find them [the Jews] clinging to life more eagerly than any other people, even polytheists' (MAS Abdel Haleem, The Qur'an, Oxford UP, 2004; first insertion in brackets is Haleem's; the second mine).
634—644 The Caliphate of Umar ibn al—Khattab, who is regarded as particularly brutal.
635 Muslim Crusaders besiege and conquer of Damascus
636 Muslim Crusaders defeat Byzantines decisively at Battle of Yarmuk.
637 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iraq at the Battle of al—Qadisiyyah (some date it in 635 or 636)
638 Muslim Crusaders conquer and annex Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines.
638—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Iran, except along Caspian Sea.
639—642 Muslim Crusaders conquer Egypt.
641 Muslim Crusaders control Syria and Palestine.
643—707 Muslim Crusaders conquer North Africa.
644 Caliph Umar is assassinated by a Persian prisoner of war; Uthman ibn Affan is elected third Caliph, who is regarded by many Muslims as gentler than Umar.
644—650 Muslim Crusaders conquer Cyprus, Tripoli in North Africa, and establish Islamic rule in Iran, Afghanistan, and Sind.
656 Caliph Uthman is assassinated by disgruntled Muslim soldiers; Ali ibn Abi Talib, son—in—law and cousin to Muhammad, who married the prophet's daughter Fatima through his first wife Khadija, is set up as Caliph.
656 Battle of the Camel, in which Aisha, Muhammad's wife, leads a rebellion against Ali for not avenging Uthman's assassination. Ali's partisans win.
657 Battle of Siffin between Ali and Muslim governor of Jerusalem, arbitration goes against Ali
661 Murder of Ali by an extremist; Ali's supporters acclaim his son Hasan as next Caliph, but he comes to an agreement with Muawiyyah I and retires to Medina.
661—680 the Caliphate of Muawiyyah I. He founds Umayyid dynasty and moves capital from Medina to Damascus
673—678 Arabs besiege Constantinople, capital of Byzantine Empire
680 Massacre of Hussein (Muhammad's grandson), his family, and his supporters in Karbala, Iraq.
691 Dome of the Rock is completed in Jerusalem, only six decades after Muhammad's death.
705 Abd al—Malik restores Umayyad rule.
710—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer the lower Indus Valley.
711—713 Muslim Crusaders conquer Spain and impose the kingdom of Andalus. This article recounts how Muslims today still grieve over their expulsion 700 years later. They seem to believe that the land belonged to them in the first place.
719 Cordova, Spain, becomes seat of Arab governor
732 The Muslim Crusaders stopped at the Battle of Poitiers; that is, Franks (France) halt Arab advance
749 The Abbasids conquer Kufah and overthrow Umayyids
756 Foundation of Umayyid amirate in Cordova, Spain, setting up an independent kingdom from Abbasids
762 Foundation of Baghdad
785 Foundation of the Great Mosque of Cordova
789 Rise of Idrisid amirs (Muslim Crusaders) in Morocco; foundation of Fez; Christoforos, a Muslim who converted to Christianity, is executed.
800 Autonomous Aghlabid dynasty (Muslim Crusaders) in Tunisia
807 Caliph Harun al—Rashid orders the destruction of non—Muslim prayer houses and of the church of Mary Magdalene in Jerusalem
809 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sardinia, Italy
813 Christians in Palestine are attacked; many flee the country
831 Muslim Crusaders capture Palermo, Italy; raids in Southern Italy
850 Caliph al—Matawakkil orders the destruction of non—Muslim houses of prayer
855 Revolt of the Christians of Hims (Syria)
837—901 Aghlabids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Sicily, raid Corsica, Italy, France
869—883 Revolt of black slaves in Iraq
909 Rise of the Fatimid Caliphate in Tunisia; these Muslim Crusaders occupy Sicily, Sardinia
928—969 Byzantine military revival, they retake old territories, such as Cyprus (964) and Tarsus (969)
937 The Ikhshid, a particularly harsh Muslim ruler, writes to Emperor Romanus, boasting of his control over the holy places
937 The Church of the Resurrection (known as Church of Holy Sepulcher in Latin West) is burned down by Muslims; more churches in Jerusalem are attacked
960 Conversion of Qarakhanid Turks to Islam
966 Anti—Christian riots in Jerusalem
969 Fatimids (Muslim Crusaders) conquer Egypt and found Cairo
c. 970 Seljuks enter conquered Islamic territories from the East
973 Israel and southern Syria are again conquered by the Fatimids
1003 First persecutions by al—Hakim; the Church of St. Mark in Fustat, Egypt, is destroyed
1009 Destruction of the Church of the Resurrection by al—Hakim (see 937)
1012 Beginning of al—Hakim's oppressive decrees against Jews and Christians
1015 Earthquake in Palestine; the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapses
1031 Collapse of Umayyid Caliphate and establishment of 15 minor independent dynasties throughout Muslim Andalus
1048 Reconstruction of the Church of the Resurrection completed
1050 Creation of Almoravid (Muslim Crusaders) movement in Mauretania; Almoravids (aka Murabitun) are coalition of western Saharan Berbers; followers of Islam, focusing on the Quran, the hadith, and Maliki law.
1055 Seljuk Prince Tughrul enters Baghdad, consolidation of the Seljuk Sultanate
1055 Confiscation of property of Church of the Resurrection
1071 Battle of Manzikert, Seljuk Turks (Muslim Crusaders) defeat Byzantines and occupy much of Anatolia
1071 Turks (Muslim Crusaders) invade Palestine
1073 Conquest of Jerusalem by Turks (Muslim Crusaders)
1075 Seljuks (Muslim Crusaders) capture Nicea (Iznik) and make it their capital in Anatolia
1076 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) conquer western Ghana
1085 Toledo is taken back by Christian armies
1086 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) (see 1050) send help to Andalus, Battle of Zallaca
1090—1091 Almoravids (Muslim Crusaders) occupy all of Andalus except Saragossa and Balearic Islands
1094 Byzantine emperor Alexius Comnenus I asks western Christendom for help against Seljuk invasions of his territory; Seljuks are Muslim Turkish family of eastern origins; see 970
1095 Pope Urban II preaches first Crusade; they capture Jerusalem in 1099
So it is only after all of the Islamic aggressive invasions that Western Christendom launches its first Crusades. By the time the Crusades began, Muslim armies had conquered about two-thirds of the Christian world.
It could be argued that sometimes the Byzantine and Western European leaders did not behave exemplarily, so a timeline on that subject could be developed. However, the goal of this timeline is to balance out the picture more clearly. Many people regard Islam as an innocent victim, and the Byzantines and Europeans as bullies. This was hardly the case. For example, Muhammad’s followers conquered and occupied Sicily in the ninth century. That occupation lasted almost a century and was punctuated by massacres, such as that at the town of Castrogiovanni, in which 8,000 Christians were put to death. In 1084, ten years before the first crusade, Muslims staged another devastating Sicilian raid, burning churches in Reggio, enslaving monks and raping an abbey of nuns before carrying them into captivity.
Islam moved aggressively during the Caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar in the seventh century, with other Caliphs continuing well beyond that; only then did the Western Europeans react (see 1094).
Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comneus began begging the pope in Rome in 1095 for help in turning back the Muslim armies which were overrunning what is now Turkey and turning churches into mosques. Several hundred thousand Christians had been killed in Anatolia alone in the decades following 1050 by Seljuk invaders interested in 'converting' the survivors to Islam.
Not only were Christians losing their lives in their own lands to the Muslim advance but pilgrims to the Holy Land from other parts of Europe were being harassed, kidnapped, molested, forcibly converted to Islam and occasionally murdered. (Compare this to Islam’s justification for slaughter on the basis of Muslims being denied access to the Meccan pilgrimage in Muhammad’s time).
The Crusaders only invaded lands that were Christian. They did not attack Saudi Arabia (other than a half-hearted expedition by a minor figure) or sack Mecca as the Muslims had done (and continued doing) to Italy and Constantinople. Their primary goal was the recapture of Jerusalem and the security of safe passage for pilgrims. The toppling of the Muslim empire was not on the agenda.
The period of Crusader “occupation” (of its own former land) was stretched over less than two centuries.
It must be noted that Islamic expansion continues until well into the seventeenth century. For example, the Muslims Crusaders conquer Constantinople in 1453 and unsuccessfully besiege Vienna for the second time in 1683 (earlier in 1529). By the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the Islamic Crusades receded, due to Western resistance. Since that time until the present, Islamic civilization has not advanced very far.
Despite popular depiction, the Crusades were not a titanic battle between Christianity and Islam. Although originally dispatched by papal decree, the "occupiers" quickly became part of the political and economic fabric of the Middle East without much regard for religious differences. Their arrival was largely accepted by the local population as simply another change in authority. Muslim radicals even lamented the fact that many of their co-religionists preferred to live under Frankish (Christian) rule than migrate to Muslim lands.
The Islamic world was split into warring factions, many of which allied themselves with the Frankish princes against each other at one time or another. For its part, the Byzantine (Eastern Christian) Empire preferred to have little to do with the Crusaders and went so far as to sign treaties with their rivals. Even the Muslim armies that eventually pushed out the Christian rulers spent far more energy fighting each other, both before and after the various re-takings of Jerusalem.
Another misconception is that the Crusader era was a time of constant war. In fact, very little of this overall period included significant hostilities. In response to Muslim expansion or aggression, there were only about 20 years of actual military campaigning, much of which was spent on organization and travel. (They were from 1098-1099, 1146-1148, 1188-1192, 1201-1204, 1218-1221, 1228-1229, and 1248-1250). By comparison, the Muslim Jihad against the island of Sicily alone lasted 75 grinding years.
Unlike Jihad, the Crusades were never justified on the basis of New Testament teachings. This is why they are an anomaly, the brief interruption of centuries of relentless Jihad against the Western world that began long before the Crusades and continued well after they were over.
Though European Crusaders may have been sincere, they wandered off from the origins of Christianity when they slashed and burned and forced conversions. Jesus never used violence; neither did he call his disciples to use it.
In contrast, Muslims who slashed and burned and forced conversions did not wander off from the origins of Islam, but followed it closely. It is a plain and unpleasant historical fact that in the ten years that Muhammad lived in Medina (622—632), he either sent out or went out on seventy—four raids, expeditions, or full—scale wars, which range from small assassination hit squads to the Tabuk Crusade, described above (see 630). Sometimes the expeditions did not result in violence, but a Muslim army always lurked in the background. Muhammad could exact a terrible vengeance on an individual or tribe that double—crossed him. These ten years did not know long stretches of peace.
It is only natural that the Quran would be filled with references to jihad and qital, the latter word meaning only fighting, killing, warring, and slaughtering. Textual reality matches historical reality in the time of Muhammad. And after.
The greatest crime of the Crusaders was the sacking of Jerusalem, in which 30,000 people were said to have been massacred. But by any objective measure, this number is dwarfed by the number of Jihad victims.
In terms of ideology, the Crusades are seen as an aberration against the teachings of Jesus. Whereas the Muslim Jihad (Crusades) are supported and justified by the teachings of Muhammad.
In conclusion, the idea that Christianity has been historically just as bad as Islam is a modern myth.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Goebbels
Since Islam is not just a religion but a but a political ideology as well as in too many countries, the de-facto law of the land, its most ardent followers have a vested interest in promoting the "big lie" that Islam is and always has been the victim of Christian and Western forces. Since it's become "politically incorrect" in America and other western countries to call this narrative into question, it takes a little more than casual digging to get at the truth of the matter. It's not surprising that many people (even highly intelligent people who should know better) buy into the equivalency argument.
----
Ah... but what about Northern Ireland, you say? That's the next usual comparison.
Was the Northern Ireland conflict really a sectarian war, in the same way that Sunnis and Shiites violently bump heads for no other reason? Or was religion largely incidental to differences that were predominantly economic and political?
Northern Ireland has been a point of contention between England and the Republic of Ireland since it was provisioned as a separate territory in 1922. The confrontation turned habitually violent in 1969 with the formation of the IRA (Irish Republican Army), a terror group that was considered to be the armed wing of the Sinn Fein political party, which supports Irish nationalism and Marxist ideology. The violence largely abated in the mid-1990's with an agreement between the sides.
Although many people think of the conflict as Catholic versus Protestant, this is simplistic and misleading. Historians and political scientists prefer to describe the two sides with words like Nationalist, Republican, Ulster, Loyalist and Unionist. Sectarian divisions often did not hold up. Protestants were found on both sides of the conflict, for example, and there were notable Catholics who remained loyal to England.
The IRA did not have a Biblical charter. In fact, they were a Marxist-atheist organization. Neither the British government nor any of the other major groups have religious motives. There were some smaller, radical groups that used the language of religious purity, but they were relatively obscure. The issue for the "Catholic" factions was Irish nationalism, and for the "Protestants" it was self-preservation and an end to the violence. Only a very small minority of the citizens in Northern Ireland actually participated in the conflict, although there was surely enough grief to spread around to everyone.
Some victims were killed around churches, but these were targeted assassinations that were incidental to the location. There appears to be no concerted campaign against rival churches or cathedrals, and few (if any) deadly bombings actually occurred in a house of worship. Church leaders on both sides routinely condemned the violence, and the claims of responsibility for the bombings and assassinations did not typically quote from the Bible or make reference to God. (Muslim terrorists quote liberally from the Qur'an in their statements, and are very explicit about their intentions to fight "holy war" for the cause of Islam).
Neither was there any expressed interest on the part of either side in the Northern Ireland conflict to convert infidels or spread sectarian beliefs beyond the disputed area. Protestant clerics in Ireland weren't targeted by Irish Catholics and neither were priests in England by English Protestants. Religious affiliation was a loose marker of identity, but there were no glaring theological differences between Protestants and Catholics on which the conflict was specifically based. Rather it was political in nature.
The toll from over 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland is 3,323 total lives - a ridiculously small number by comparison. Only a little over half of these were non-combatants. Yet the length of the conflict and its status as an anomaly has exaggerated our perception of it.
----
As far as the Oklahoma City Bombing goes, let's remember that Timothy McVeigh wasn't a religious man (in fact, he was an atheist). He never credited his deeds to religion, quoted Bible verses, or claimed that he killed "for God".
The “members of other faiths” referred to by Muslims are almost always just nominal members who have no active involvement. They aren't inspired by or credit religion as Muslim terrorists do - and this is what makes it a very different matter.
Islam is associated with Islamic terrorism because that is the association that the terrorists themselves choose to make.
Muslims who compare crime committed by people who happen to be nominal members of other religions to religious terror committed explicitly in the name of Islam are comparing apples to oranges.
Yes, some of the abortion clinic bombers were religious (as Muslims enjoy pointing out), but consider the scope of the problem. There have been six deadly attacks over a 36 year period in the U.S. Eight people died. This is an average of one death every 4.5 years.
By contrast, Islamic terrorists staged nearly ten thousand deadly attacks in just the six years following September 11th, 2001. If one goes back to 1971, when Muslim armies in Bangladesh began the mass slaughter of Hindus, through the years of Jihad in the Sudan, Kashmir and Algeria, and the present-day Sunni-Shia violence in Iraq, the number of innocents killed in the name of Islam probably
exceeds five million over this same period.
In the last six years, there have been maybe a dozen or so religiously-inspired killings by people of all other faiths combined. No other religion produces the killing sprees that Islam does nearly every day of the year. Neither do they have verses in their holy texts that arguably support it. Nor do they have large groups across the globe dedicated to the mass murder of people who worship a different god, as the broader community of average, non-violent Muslims struggles with ambivalence and tolerance for a radical clergy that supports the terror.
Islamists may like to pretend that other religions are just as subject to "misinterpretation" as is their “perfect” one, but the reality speaks of something far worse.

    My point is that, from what I can tell, you are pointing at the Islamic equivalent of Lutherans and screaming that they're violent radicals whose only excuse for building their sanctuary is so they can loom over Ground Zero and cackle maniacally while rubbing their hands together in a properly villainous fashion. But you're embracing a fallacy -- that Islam is a monolithic single religion whose every follower believes exactly the same thing and has exactly the same attitudes/goals/methods as every other member.

Let's take your last point first here.
One of the things I want to make sure people understand is that I don't hate Muslims or want to paint every single one of them with a broad brush. Let me make this distinction PERFECTLY CLEAR:
Islam is an ideology.  No ideology is above critique, particularly one that explicitly seeks political and social dominance over every person on the planet.
Muslims are individuals.  No Muslim should be harmed, harassed, stereotyped or treated any differently anywhere in the world solely on account of their status as a Muslim.
One should NOT draw conclusions about individual Muslims based on the true nature of Islam.  Like any other group, not all Muslims think alike.  Even if there is no such thing as moderate Islam, it does  NOT mean that there are no moderate Muslims.
Prejudging an individual by their group identity (or presumed group identity) is not only unethical, it is blatantly irrational, since group identity reveals absolutely nothing about a person.  Every individual should be judged only on the basis of their own words and deeds.
You shouldn't judge Islam by the Muslims that you know, and don't judge the Muslims that you know by Islam. (Same thing applies to Christians, BTW)

As for your first point - I've noted in my research that there are some Muslims who think that building that Mosque is a bad idea. But they appear to be a minority. (Or they're just afraid to speak up.)
Islam has a history of building Mosques over the holy sites of conquered peoples and religions as well as in places where a great victory was achieved. (see the timeline above) I see the building of this mosque as part of the overall pattern. This isn't being organized by part of some extreme sect that is repudiated by the majority of Islam. This is an expression of mainstream global Islam. That it's purpose was relatively well hidden until now doesn't change that. If New York allows that Mosque to be built it will be a signal to the devout Islamic world that we are "the weak horse". It will be an overt symbol to both the Islamists and to us.
All you have to do is note the name of the proposed Mosque. Cordoba House. Muslims like to refer to Spain and especially the city of Cordoba as a place where their rule reached a glorious peak. Contrary to the myth of a Golden Age of equality during the Muslim occupation of Spain (and in particular in Cordoba), Spain and Cordoba were places where Christians and Jews suffered as social inferiors under Islamic oppression. Equal civil rights never existed for non-Muslims under Sharia, or Islamic law. The main organizer and sponsor of Cordoba House, Faisal Abdul Rauf, even admits as much when he writes, "Jews and Christians living under Muslim rule simply had to pay a tax to finance their protection by their Muslim overlords." This is not equality! Americans do not demand a special tax to protect Muslims from ourselves. That would be extortion, not "protection."

I suppose I should point out that before the 19th Century, Islam was not
a radicalized religion -- at least no more so than Christianity. It
had its expansionist periods, it had its equivalents to the Crusades,
but it also was the shining light of scholarship preserved during a
period when in Europe knowledge was lost, learning suppressed and
education at least partially demonized. It really was the
"Religion of Peace", inasfar as any religion can manage it -- certainly
it had at least as good a claim to the name as Christianity did.

I think there's enough evidence to call into question whether Islam was ever a religion of peace. But lets move on.
As for the achievements of Islam during it's "golden age"? Well... maybe not so much.
Algebra - Various,
but the modern mostly from Hindu
India
Magnetic Compass
-China
Tools of
Navigation, Various.. [although the concept an name of Azimuth is
Middle Easter/Islamic.]
Marine
Chronometer - British
Mariner's
astrolabe- Majorcan or German
Sextant - British

Pens
- Egyptians
[waaaaay pre-Muslim] but if you want to quibble about the fountain pen,
then yea Muslim.. then ball point.. American.
Printing -Chinese
and Europeans independently, unless you're talking block print,
then it's all about China.
Medicine- Now here's a good choice for your argument
[because everything else was everyone else] but you would be right about this
one.
Aches/Spires- Egyptian,
Babylonian, Greek and Assyrian.. and whoever was living in neolithic
Jericho? But I will say some to the Islamic variations are pretty nice!
More to the point, like the advances of science
around the world, little of it has to do with religion. Most of the time
science has advanced in the indifference or out right opposition of
faith. While men of God or Allah have also been men of science, it's
always because they had the time and education to do so. This is
because powerful members of any religion generally enjoy a lot more time
to learn and experiment.
To be fair, 'cults of the state' have
often railed against inconvenient science but it's far less common for
science to threaten a statist dogma. Faiths on the other hand frequently
take a dim view of facts that upset the preached world view. So, it's
just as silly to ascribe any advanced in the Muslim world to Islam as it
would be to credit Christianity with Astronomy.

In any case, I wanted to note that Islamic Fundamentalism is not so much
a religious movement as a political movement taking advantage
of religion for its own benefit -- like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
with Christianity in the United States. As is frequently the case, it
isn't the religion we need to worry about -- it's what cynical leaders
who cloak themselves in that religion can do with the true believers
that follow them.

Now here is where we have a point of agreement! As I noted above, Islam is not just a religion, it is indeed a political force. That's why the phrase Islamo-Fascism has come into use among conservatives. Because we see distinct parallels between the worst excesses of Islam and that of Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.  I disagree with you when you say it isn't the religion we need to worry about, though. In Islam, the religious and the political are so thoroughly entwined that it's almost impossible to separate them.
Anyway, I apologize for the lengthy nature of this post. But I felt that some historical background was necessary. (Thus also my delay in posting.)