The other source would be any reputed book that elaborates on Islamic history and politics.

Then, you need to read about the Islamic Golden Age.

Then, you just need to buy a book that goes by a title like “Misconceptions about Islam”. However, you need to make sure you’re buying a good authors work, and not a sentimental nincompoop who’s too hurt and offended to even critically *****yse less poop from more poop.

If you want to scare yourself into a corner, then you can also see why this article is irrelevant by reading about what Islam is today as a political philosophy.

The world is your oyster.

Historically, Islam made contributions that were anachronistic for its time, making it a radically different and liberal religion. It’s laws were complex, far-reaching and had multiple layers to them. Islam in itself functioned the same way modern English grammar functions: 100 rules, 99 exceptions. With a brilliant marketing genius like Mohammad, countless spiffing Muslim leaders, a better record in religious tolerance (by medieval standards), and -the cherry topping- the Islamic Golden Age, people still think the beauty that was, still is. It was a community-based religion that focused on unity, peaceful co-existence and welfare for all. Like its older Semitic cousins, it also had universal aspirations, but it learnt enough from Christianity and Judaism to realise it needed new techniques and strategies to get masses converting.

With the advent of Islamic philosophy that borrowed from Hellenistic traditions, the religion became much more malleable and the notion of ‘a religion that keeps up with time’ was taken seriously. Eventually, the Mongols put an end to everything – fast-foward to the 1950s, and you have Wahabbism and the hijacking of the religion by political reformists from Saudi Arabia. Even now, Muslims rant about how the Qur’an allows religious evolution, but are too rigid to allow debate and discussion necessary for that evolution. Time and again Muslims utter the same phrase: To take Deen (religion) and Duniya (world) together. Do they practise this? No. They’d rather brainlessly emulate archaic Arabian culture thinking it is synonymous with Islam. “Islam is for all cultures”, but the Wahabbis are hell-bent on Saudification of Islam, and exporting this version of religion across Asia, Europe and the Americas. That is a danger. Whereas there existed a forum for debate and discussion during ancient and medieval Islamic periods, none exists today, and the dictatorial regimes would have it no other way. Muslims prefer to be silent, blind and deaf fools than challenge the Wahabbi giants. Why? “But, see the wonderful things they’ve done with Mecca. We must be grateful for that… How can they be wrong? It’s the birthplace of the Prophet! Surely, they know better!”

Mecca being their leverage, they essentially make thousands of people worldwide submit to their ideologies simply on the skewed logic that being Saudi’s they know Islam better. In that ways, Osama bin Laden’s know-it-all arrogance and uniquely Saudi superiority complex is no different from that of the Saudi Shura Councils arrogance.

Funny, I heard somewhere the same about America.

1. Muslims are Arabs: This is, by far, the biggest misconception, and going through any encyclopaedia will give you the real statistics.

2. Muslims and Jesus: People who believe in monotheism, Hell, Heaven, Satan, Adam & Eve (Islam rejects the concept of Original Sin, though), and all the prophets from Adam to Mohammad (including Biblical prophets) are considered People of the Book.

3. Children’s Right: Yes, children do have many rights in Islam, especially so because Muhammad was raised an orphan, and he’d presumably be sensitive about such issues. Islam is against corporeal punishment, but you hardly see this being practised.

4. Religious intolerance: This is much more complex. There are verses that order Muslims to ‘kill the enemy where he is found’, but these are within the context of a particular war that was being fought. You must understand that the Qur’an is not simply a book of codes, but also a story, whether or not you believe in its historical accuracy. There are many historical evidences to prove that the treatment meted out towards Jews by Muslims was ‘relatively’ more lenient than those of Christians towards Jews. In fact, before the collapse of the Islamic Golden Age, the Muslim record for religious tolerance was much better than Christianity. This, however, does not mean they espoused philosophies of secularism and religious freedom in the way modern Western democracies do, so they are superior in that nature. But, nevertheless, commendable for its age considering the rigidity and strictness of the religion, and the way it proclaims itself superior to other religious philosophies.

5. Islamic Jihad: You’re spot on about this one. Another point, though: Jihad bis saif can only be waged by a leader who is accepted universally by the Muslim community (or a region, if it’s not on a global scale). The jihad we are familiar with becomes more complicated in an age where the Muslim community is divided into nations, whereas, it existed as a large caliphate before. So, now, the Head of State of a nation would be the likely person with the power to declare a Jihad. In an age of religious groups and organisations, each group leader may himself declare Jihad. Now, whether this is a contortion or short-sightedness on part of the religion is up for discussion. As far as the virgin gift to martyrs is concerned… the Qur’an promises women something of equal value. So, I suppose even God doesn’t know what women want…

6. Child Bride: By today’s standards, the marriage would essentially be deemed a child marriage, and understandably so. But, there’s nothing an apologist can say to defend Mohammad, except that it was norm in Arabian culture to marry a girl as she hit puberty. Life spans were shorter, and hence, it was simply tradition to marry girls as soon as they reached puberty (they would be considered women), and girls were simply raised with the notion of early marriage. Considering the other tradition in Arabic culture whereby the pride of a man lay in the number of children he could produce, it became even more imperative to marry girls who had just hit puberty. The marriage was one of the most celebrated, and Aisha was said to have loved Mohammad immensely, and was extremely proud of having to marry a prophet (the social importance of marrying a noted personality like him, considering her own noble birth, was immense- it was a perfect match, politically). The difference in age between Aisha and Mohammad seems disgusting to us, but if you were born in such an era, you’d find it commonplace. Before Mohammad, Aisha was actually engaged to another man. She was first betrothed to Mohammed after her first engagement broke, and then married 3 years later, when she was around 9-10 years of age. It is still a nasty truth to swallow, but that’s how the Arabian society functioned then. Early marriages were common throughout the Byzantine era and pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula, in Judaism, in South-East Asian cultures, and in Europe. The only difference is that they weren’t considered child marriages. As cultures change, so does the idea of how to define a ‘child’ and what constitutes as ‘ethical’ in matrimony. I’ve lived for 18 years in the Middle East, and though child marriages still do happen (mostly, to steal the bride child’s dowry – which, by the way, no one but the bride has a right to), it’s not common at all. Because child protection laws are weak in Middle Eastern countries, with the general sense of taboo regarding *****ual abuse, pedophiles do use this archaic tradition to their benefit. Most people in the Middle East would probably defend Mohammad’s decision based on a sensitivity towards their own Arabian culture, but would be grossed out if asked to marry a 9 year old. Also, individual consent is given the highest priority in an Islamic marriage – without the independent consent of the women or man, a marriage cannot be legal (a woman can annul a marriage by proclaiming she was forced into it).

7. Muslim Savages: There are a few examples of savages like Tamerlaine, but he didn’t necessarily represent Muslim rulers. Muslim conquerors, in fact, didn’t slay even half as many people as their European counterparts.

8. Women’s Rights: This I have a problem with. There are many legal and religious rights reserved for women that other religions don’t guarantee their female followers. Mothers are given a special importance in Islam much above fathers, and women are allowed to hold property, work and study. But, they are only allowed to inherit a smaller amount of their fathers assets as opposed to the sons. This has been a contentious issue. The reasons are that women then were lesser educated and more likely to get married early, and hence, the need to hold equal share in their fathers property was seen unnecessary. That logic, however, does not work nowadays, so, many people feel Islam needs to be revised according to the needs of Muslim communities now. The rights of wives and husbands are also complex because the Qur’an may say one thing but the Hadith (Prophetic Anecdotes and Traditions) may say another. This lead to the creation of a philosophical movement in Islam during the medieval ages called Mu’tazilah that deemed reason more important than tradition (hadith) when there arose a contradiction, or when reason clearly made more sense by Islamic principles. I’ll need to go really deep into Islamic jurisprudence and irritate those who bother reading this with obscure terminology to explain why the following things would be against Islamic religion (these are things not specifically mentioned in the Qur’an or Hadith, hence the Qur’anic standing is vague):

-Female circumcision isn’t allowed. It’s a largely African practice (Muslims are ordained to follow the Faith of Abraham, so male circumcision becomes the only kind given importance)
-There is no mention in the Qur’an of burqas and abayas. These cloaks are actually modern inventions, and women in those days wore similar clothes as men, but more elaborate and feminine. The interpretation of hijab is very diverse depending on which school or sect you belong to. Technically, the Qur’an asks women to show only what is natural to them whilst hiding the rest (which traditionally includes the region from chest to knees). The additions come with Hadith and local culture, so it’s really up to a Muslim woman to decide what interpretation she chooses (Qur’an does allow people freedom of choice, but you deal with it yourself). But, it definitely does not allow halters, low-rise jeans that shows your navel, bikinis and thongs. Sorry, guys…
-Marital rape is not allowed. It’s a contentious issue because some traditional scholars will say anything is permitted within a marriage, but others constitute it as bodily harm and a loss of right of body. It’s not complicated, just time-consuming to explain.
-There is no such verse in the Qur’an that disallows women from being jurists and interpretors. You can learn about women jurists in Islam through books and online, but that freedom has been taken away thanks to Wahabbism.
-Men can’t beat their wives. I am familiar with the verses (4:34) in the Qur’an that are amongst the most famous. However, the classical Arabic meaning of the particular word used to mean ‘beat’ is diverse- from ‘beat’ to ‘to go away’ or ‘leave’. It has been translated as ‘beat’ for over centuries, but scholars have raised an objection to it by pointing out simply to the nature of Mohammad – he never used any kind of physical or verbal attacks on any of his wives, and he had quite a handful. Even when Aisha was accused of adultery and went into a ‘silent strike’ (she didn’t speak to Mohammad until ‘the truth came out’) refusing to defend herself from such dangerous accusations, he didn’t beat her. Divorce laws in Islam are also surprising lenient, but quite complicated, so every nation has its own rendition, and South Asian nations triumph all others in turning them into the most pervert kind. When the relationship is that bad where the man is unable to get through to his wife, it’s not ‘beating’, but divorce that is ruefully encouraged, so the wife can leave with dignity, and the man can choose a better spouse.

9. By the Sword: Yea, that’s just a really stupid misconception to have, and only shows you of the shamelessly biased and convoluted teaching of history.

10. Islamic terrorism: The only threatening kind of Islam is Wahabbi Islam, and even I, as a Muslim, can’t guarantee if the world can breathe peacefully while it exists. Its spread through Saudi-funded madrasas in India, Bangaldesh, Pakistan, the Balkans, Russia, China, Africa and South-East Asia is scary. I’ve seen the way it manages to manipulate dozens of people, and it’s easy for them to do it: They have Mecca, so Muslims around the world, being as stupid as they are, will kneel down to their supposed superiority in Islamic matters. It’s Saudi Arabia… a country where clerics once proposed women to breastfeed men (so, they’d technically be their mothers) so they can work with them side-by-side in the office or the legalisation of misyar marriage – marriage for ***** without financial responsibilities on the husbands part (which goes against a gazillion laws set out in the Qur’an, invalidating the marriage itself).

There’s also stoning that people have a problem with. First, stoning has his history in Semitic religions. Second, stoning is hardly used as a punishment simply because the legal criteria to be convicted of adultery is lengthy and difficult. No one best elaborates on stoning as Sabria Jawaher, an internationally renowned Saudi journalist:

“The Qur’an never mentions stoning as a punishment and there are conflicting interpretations of the Prophet’s involvement in implementing it. The most common interpretation is of a woman consumed with guilt over an adulterous affair that resulted in a child. She pestered the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) literally for years for him to wash away her sins with a death sentence. He refused, but when he could no longer find an excuse to send her away, he reluctantly agreed to punish her. What non-Muslim Sharia “experts” fail to mention is that stoning a person who commits adultery requires four eyewitnesses to the actual act of *****ual intercourse. This fantastical burden of proof is almost impossible to fulfill. And rightly so. It’s designed as prevention, not an actual punishment. Allegations of adultery are easy to make but virtually impossible to prove. Sharia makes stoning extremely unlikely to carry out.”

There are, however, other punishments (amputation) that are clearly mentioned. Maybe, Arabian society was just that barbaric in the way it committed crimes that a punishment of equal barbarism needed to instil a fear in people alongside reforming the society through Islamic principles. Safe to say, these are completely outdated in this day and age. In fact, it’s quite disrespectful to assume that even Arabs are uncivilised enough to warrant such archaic and brutal punishments for crimes. Rest assured, I have yet to see an armless thug in Saudi Arabia, though.

I realise there are no references, but I’m assuming no one will read this. For the few that do, I’ll be likely to share sources if you’re actually interested in living a life not consumed with hatred for Islam, but rather, have pity for the stupidly ignorant and imbecilic Muslim guy out there. Hey! Nothing *****es a Muslim than a ‘non-Muslim’ schooling him about his own religion.

So… yea. There are pros and cons to every religion, and most of the ‘cons’ come not because of an inherent flaw in the religion or simply due to its so-called barbaric philosophies, but out of its quality of being so precise that it doesn’t factor in cultural evolution and trends that irreversibly change a society. So, you’re left with archaisms that are incongruous with living conditions and lifestyles now, even if you practise orthodoxy. As more cultures got exposed to Islam, so did the different kinds of interpretations. With different political climates, meanings changed to cater to political needs. Islamic religion in its time has anachronistic qualities that did make it superior to other faiths being practised, because it was radical, and it was marketed brilliantly by accepting most Biblical stories but toning them down to make them more credible (like Noah’s story).