A couple of points, now that we've established how there is a basic layer of Islam that can stand fairly solidly in spite of extremely negative interpretations:
- It is important not to confuse native culture with Islamic culture. Islam started on the Arabian peninsula in the early 7th century/late 6th century CE.
By 750 CE the Islamic Empire stretched from Spain to the Indus river. This encompasses a huge range of peoples, cultures, and prior traditions, and gives an enormous amount of time for local distortion, integration with indigenous belief, etc. As in any situation where one culture encounters another (or conquers another; although early Islamic empires were remarkably good to the conquered states. It's an interesting history), practices and traditions were traded in both directions, and, over time, spread geographically to some degree. There are "Islamic" nations all over Africa, but a sub-Saharan version of Islam is probably quite different from your average Muslim in Cairo. If you're going to pick apart a particular habit or tradition of a culture, and use it as evidence against their stated or practiced religion, it is important to distinguish if it is a cultural practice or a religious practice; or, at least, to delve somewhat into where it comes from. Post hoc ergo propter hoc: not everything done by a Muslim is an Islamic practice.
- A lot of the conflict between Islam and Western Society comes from two worldviews that, at best, exist in separate paradigms, and, at worst, conflict: in general, a Muslim society is one built entirely around God; in general, a Western society is secular post-Enlightenment. The premise behind Ramadan and Salat (daily prayers) is to keep in mind God throughout the day; not to only remember when something goes particularly well or particularly poorly. The version of Islam I am familiar with calls for
living in surrender to God, less '
practicing Islam.' It's a concept almost foreign to me. I imagine the reverse is true.