Dieseldick
Don't confuse “Muslims” with “Islam”. Almost everyone does at one time or another. I have fallen into that particular linguistic/ideological trap myself. The intolerant, cruel and murderous doctrine of Islam does not mean that every Muslim believes such utter tripe. I know many Christians who are good and decent people who regularly attend church and who disavow violence in all its forms. Yet they venerate and worship a book that unequivocally states:
“... If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place. And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die..” [Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (King James Version)]
QED.
Most Muslims haven't even read the Koran and those that have only read some selective verses that make them feel good about themselves. I suspect that a great many who have read it haven't truly understood it due to the way it is published – arranged roughly by the longest chapters first down to the shortest chapters last. This assembly destroys any semblance of chronology; therein lies much confusion.
The chronologically disjointed way the Koran is presented to the reader obfuscates concepts such as abrogation and hence leads many casual Muslim readers to believe that criticism of the Koran is unfounded. The truth is entirely opposite. If read in the correct chronological order, the Koran reveals itself to be a thoroughly nasty piece of work.
And that's putting it mildly.