While i appriciate authors efoort in coolecting facts, i totallty disagree with the inference and the innate misconception that his Last line brings froth. What does her mean by "bring back Islam to a more tolerant human face"? i thought this was about Aurangazeb and not islam. He pas poured out a lot of emotions. It is his freedom of expression, true, but is he willing to own up to how it can be perceived by people, who are divided already? i dont think so. He talks about Hitler, does he dare to attirbute hitler's curelty to all Germans? Does he think it makes sense? They y conclude that Islam doesnt have a tolerant human face.
while i agree with him that there has been pretty twisted history, facts hidden and skewed, it is done for a purpose. It is not always sensible to speak the truth. It is only important to speak that which makes sense in a given context. i will support him in his campaign to remove the ame of the emperor assigned to any governmental unit or property. But i aslo wish, the author was more secular in writing his feelings on the facts.
