These are different goalposts. I responding to the claim that Christianity has historically been a more tolerant religion than Islam; this specific claim is bul

These are different goalposts. I responding to the claim that Christianity has historically been a more tolerant religion than Islam; this specific claim is bullshit. The fact that religious minorities in Islamic-majority countries even exist -- in stark contrast to European Christendom, where all religious minorities were ruthlessly exterminated -- is proof of this. But that's history. If we're talking about the present day, that's another matter entirely. The Islamic State is, today, roughly as ruthless and intolerant as Christianity used to be. This is not a defence of the Islamic State: what they do is evil and abhorrent and deserves to be stopped. And ISIS is in many ways a "natural" extremity of Wahhabi fundamentalism, which is deeply problematic wherever it is found. I'm not bringing up Christianity's appalling history in Europe for the sake of exculpatory whataboutism, but rather to make the point that no religion is a monolith, and that the same broad umbrella can contain both tolerant sects and theocratic genocidal ones. So my contention is that Wahhabiism and its even worse offshoots should not be conflated with Islam as a whole, which both historically and continuing into the present day has been a largely (if unevenly) tolerant religion. Those tolerant elements should be acknowledged and accepted. When people condemn Islam as a whole, this diminishes the standing of tolerant Muslims (who can then be attacked as some kind of fifth column), and increasing the standing of extremists (who can then position themselves as stalwart defenders of the faith). So not only is the "Islam has always been intolerant, and therefore must be opposed" argument simply wrong on a factual basis, it's also bad tactics. Unless you want to be in league with the extremists.