Many religions and their sects have had problems with extremism at one time or another.
1) To me it would seem to be best to read the founding books and judge if they are being lived up to.
2) Are the tenets of the region in line with what your own heart feel is true?
3) If there is a division of thought in your religion, are you supporting what you feel is correct.

4) Now the hard part, question your religion, why does it exist and why does the denomination or sect you are a member of exist.

5) and of course there is the an understanding on my part at least that one may change the religion they follow, though this is contrary to some of these religions.

I will not say on this format where I stand on these questions, but looking for the answers to the above sure leads to some interesting reading.

with a profound sense of dismay - Gwendolyn.

I have never said much to you, out of respect for anything that might
bring you a measure of peace. I did, not because of you but for other
reasons, spend several weeks reading about Islam. To educate myself.

Now I find much that I can not respect in many religions, and I have to
say that Islam is near the bottom of the list. Like many before me, I
consider it to be more of a political system, than a religion anyway, because
the central tenet there in, after personal faith and obligations, is not
to spread Islam. It is to spread the control of Islam. It is to enforce
control over all peoples, allowing only those with demo status to live, if
they pay taxes and adhere to the law of Islam. Anyone else, well Islam
is better off without them. It is a political system, much more than most
people in our western world really understand.

Or, at least until you run into the problem as the Netherlands did.
Hence the problems when they fond out that their immigrant and indigenous
Islamic population wanted to supersede the laws of the Netherlands with
sharia law. France, and England are not far behind them either.

There is also, an even more profound issue here.

I think that the fundamental problem, as my admittedly limited knowledge
will allow is this. A Muslim, just as with anyone else, must decide every
moment of every day how he may best serve God. But Islam has a catch. The
believer can not be allowed to make such decisions, because the path to god
was revealed by the Muhammad. As such he is the standard by which all actions
must be judged. The Believer can not decide in faith to take, or eschew any
given action, because if it is in contest with the actions of Muhammad, it is
wrong. It is not just a fault, it is a sin.

Thus, when a Muslim feels that some of the things that are done in the name
of Islam, beheading or terrorist attacks against non-believers, etc., are are
really not allowed in a peaceful religion, he is wrong. Muhammad cut off peoples
heads, for no other reason than they were in his eyes infidels. It's in the
book, and the standard is, if Muhammad did it, that is what is correct, and faithful.
Muslims who don't believe that, seem to my mind at least, to be good and decent
people. However, they don't seem to actually be Muslims.

Sadly, what I found to be most disturbing were a series of lies that I was told.
You yourself, Gwendolyn, might remember that I wanted you to ask your Imam a question
about Houri. For those who don't know, these are black-eye'd beauties, Nymphs who
were never earthly women, who serve and make life 'entertaining' for the martyrs who
go to heaven. Your Imam, said that he had never heard of them. I can only see the
equivalent as an automobile mechanic who has never heard of a steering wheel. To my
mind, there is only one conclusion there.

Do you remember that? I hope so.

It's the same one you make when an Imam goes on the Today show, and touts that suicide
bombers are prohibited under Islamic law, when there are any number of clarifications
stating that the death of the Bomber, is incidental to the killing of the non-believers,
for which the martyr instantly is rewarded. There are many examples, but in the end
the book says that a believer can not befriend or make piece with an infidel. That if
pressed for military necessity, they may lie, and create a false piece, but only until
they are capable of striking once more. This is the basis that many historians now use
to string the history of Islam together, in that when they could be the aggressor, they
were.

That's what the book says.

I'm sorry for you Gwen, because several times when I asked questions, there were things
in your responses that indicated to me that you had not heard much of what is in the book.
It made me sad, that in Islam, only one who can quote the Qur'an, in the original Arabic,
may be allowed into heaven. (I'm honestly not sure if someone who is illiterate in Arabic,
but who Martyr's himself for the cause, goes or not. It's a question I get no rational
answer to from the Imam at the Mosque near me, no matter how respectfully I ask.)

I've followed your posts for many years, and I know you are searching for something.
I can only hope you will find it, soon if possible, but find it never-the-less. Even if,
as a woman, you can find it in the teachings of The Prophet, Alla's blessings and praise
be upon him... for whatever good that might do.

Hang in there, Gwen. I'm pulling for Ya.

Sarah Lynn