I can't understand muslims

[Mudhammam]

The consequence of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI as a contributing factor is overstated. The Ottoman Empire peaked in the 16th/17th century and quickly lost its ability centrally control its inhabitants. Essentially, the Ottoman Empire would influence foreign affairs, but local tribes were in complete control of regional governance.

Even if this singular point is granted, it only demonstrates that instability in the region was profoundly compounded and exasperated by the other factors I included, the sum of which I maintain cannot be overstated and are oftentimes ignored. That's not to say religion hasn't played a role in the brutality displayed but that role is only presumed by "Islam" to the extent that conservative sects and traditional cultures find common cause with violent extremists who are more politically motivated. You provide an example and a pretext that isn't strictly religious:

Wahhabism developed in the 18th century. Its intolerance for other Muslims and use of violence for propagation was established long before WWI. The Ottoman Empire was able to limit its spread in the 19th century; however, the Wahhabist Sauds had reestablished themselves on the Arabian peninsula prior to WWI. The key thing to understand here is that the Wahhabis were enemies of the Ottoman Empire so the idea that their continued violence is somehow caused by the humiliation of a once proud empire is misplaced. If anything, post WWI partitioning of the Ottoman Empire served to solidify the regional claims of the Wahhabis.

You are right to point out our continued failures relative to human/civil rights, particularly if the point is to raise awareness, determine its causes, and propose solutions. I agree with your assessment; however, pouring them into this conversation comes across as a tu quoque argument.

Rather, my purpose is to demonstrate the error of linking the violence and sectarian disputes to an umbrella religion as though they were inseparable features. The issues are no more Islamic per se than they are regional, political, and socio-economical. One may rightly argue that Islam promotes credulity and that can easily be converted into ideological zeal, but that problem is not uniquely Islamic or limited to the Middle East.

The equivocation that attends the comparisons is also quite hideous. It won't be long before the LBGT community faces no marriage prohibitions anywhere in the U.S. Care to discuss the penalty for being homosexual in KSA? Another distressing aspect of the comparison is that the angst in the U.S. on the issue of LBGT rights is mostly driven by Christian religious sensibilities yet some seem hell bent on giving religion a pass when it comes to assessing motivation for intolerance and discrimination.

I have nothing to add except that transitions such as those we are presently observing in the West, with regards to human rights, take a long time, and where one specific issue witnesses progress, others can be seen to have regressed or remained stagnant. Christianity does not get a pass. Neither do secular religions that place their faith in the power and wisdom of the State.