I can't recommend Heretic by Ayaan Hirsi Ali enough.
The Qur'an is totally prescriptive. It contains direct legal commands, judicial rules and explicit government principles which are all binding and considered as direct divine speech.
I think Westernisation and an increase in the number of "casual" muslims is and will continue to be the moderating effect.
Think of what is happening in Europe (as the clearest example) with the influx of Muslim immigrants who raise increasingly more assimilated children as the blueprint.
However, the abandonment argument is only valid if one already accepts Western values as an axiom - which being an English-language book most of the readers would agree with. These readers will perceive the book to promote the reform of Islam into a religion that resembles a modern Christian denomination, just with different idols and prayers and holidays.
However those who do not come from the perspective of modern Christian values and as axiomic, will reject the argument outright. This is the Muslim population who might read it.
Do you value separation of state and religious authority? Women's rights? Minority rights? Human dignity? Equality before the law? Sanctity of life? Individual moral responsibility? Monogamous marriage? The objective study of history? Fair trial? Witnesses at trial? Tolerance of alternative viewpoints?
My point is that the so-called Christian values are nothing to do with the reported teachings of Jesus and instead are used to justify the exact opposite.
One thing that I can not stand about some modern fanatics is the representation of 1% of a population as if they represent the whole. Don't bring up Christo-fascists of the USA as representative of Christian values. That's highjacking the subject to your pet cause.
It's showing that we need to make some finer distinctions to meaningfully engage with each other on the topic.
It beats the heck out of each side assuming bad-faith.
Sorry, I thought you were pointing out the many issues with the current US administration and you were showing the difference between Christo-fascists and Christians who value the teachings of Jesus.
Language, cultural history, and geography tend to play a bigger role on society than the monotheistic religions do.
Radical Christians are no different from radical Muslims who are no different than radical Jews.
> Radical Christians are no different from radical Muslims who are no different than radical Jews.
Bashing one monotheistic religion while trying to contort logic around supporting the others is a fruitless endeavor.
Let's take your argument at face value - let's assume that Jewish radicals are as common among the Jews as Muslim radicals are among the Muslims. We disagree about the cause and the effect in the holy land, so let's disregard it. Please list for me all terror attacks that are plausibly attributed to Jews - worldwide. Then tell me how much larger the Muslim population is than the Jewish population. I'll use your own numbers to respond with an appropriate number of terror attacks plausibly attributed to Muslims.
If I can't beat the target number I'll rescind my stance.
We can go back and forth on this however many times you want. The issue I am raising is that all three religions are dangerous when used to justify murderous goals. You unfortunately are hung up on the idea that a religion is less bad or more bad than the others.
That is an irrational foundation for me to spend any more time debating against.
You can call it 'Western' values or 'Christian' values or whatever in order to make it seem chauvinistic all you want, but the simple truth is that these values are often shared by many other religions and places. As an example, look at the success of the Indian Hindus and the Chinese / East Asian Buddhists in the United States and across the globe. For a reverse example, contrary to popular belief, Christians, Sikhs, and Jains in Hindu-majority India are actually richer and more educated on average.
Time and time again, if you go look at the data, you'll find that Islam is almost always the odd one out.
The Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, etc can all be made to get along with Christians or 'the West'. There is really only one pretty much universally problematic religion, and that's Islam. You can argue this point all you want, but the entirety of Islamic history shows it to be true. You can again (correctly, in some cases) point out various bad actions from Christians (or Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, etc), but the simple truth is this: it's pretty easy today, in 2025, to imagine how to get along with these people. In places with diverse populations and migrants from these places, there is barely any violent religious conflict. At most you get some fundies in a tizzy over someone else doing their thing.
The only one that consistently performs violence is Islam. And that's something Muslims need to figure out. They don't need to abandon their religion. And they certainly do not need to be harmed for their beliefs. But, they do need to figure out how to integrate with the rest of the world in 2025 in a pluralistic global society.