The religious strife in that area of the world has gone on for a long time. Read some history regarding the creation of Pakistan, and Bangladesh, and you'll start to understand that the problems aren't viscious Muslims, or passive, peaceful Hindus. It's a bit like Palestine and Israel - there's enough blame to go around, and to try to say "retribution for" is to wildly over-simplify matters.

But "unabated"? Isn't that inflamatory? And for what reason? It sounds as if it's an effort to bash all of Islam.

Islam ain't my religion. It's a relatively new religion, born into an area of the world known for violence and difficulties. It reflects it's origins, just as does Christianity.

To use the "ya, but you do it too" argument, reflecting it's origins, Christianity tolerates slavery. That was ended politically, not because of doctrinal religious objections. I know that a lot of Christians were opposed to it, and worked against it, notably Quakers, but Christianity itself, and St. Paul, and the Gospels tolerated it.

Christianity has tolerated massacres of "infidels", witness the Crusades, and more recently the passive response which didn't block or mitigate the Jewish Holocaust.

All that's to say it's not just the Muslims. And there is no "we" which is blameless, or all good, or all bad. That includes Christianity, Hindus, Islam, and all political entities.

Arf