> The "core of the religion" obviously supported greater knowledge for roughly 500 years.

No, what was before 750 years 1) was not what today's religious authorities recognize as the core and 2) was what doesn't exist in that form in the holy texts. In order to claim what you claim you'd have to demonstrate at least either 1 or 2. Because in fact the period existed is spite of the content of the texts and not because of them. The official religious core has the specific names: Sharia ("a body of moral and religious law derived from religious prophecy, as opposed to human legislation.") and Jihad ("the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and specialists in the hadith understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense.")

Fantastically, the confusion in the Western world about the "core" doesn't come from any rationally obtainable and provable fact about that religion, but only because of bad analogies. We all "know" the myth about Jesus, and the apparent "distortion" of the core faith by later church practices. The lazy mind concludes, using also completely false "common knowledge" like "every religion is the same" that ergo those born as members of that specific religion and the world would benefit from the return to the core. Which is unbelievably stupid. The same "sola scriptura" idea, that gave the Western world after enough wars and enough suffering enough deaths for religious beliefs, at least some hook to get free from some negative teachings and practices of the religion, if applied to the texts of this another religion (about which we worry now) uncovers immense hate, intolerance and the war until only one religion remains (everything written in the core)! That's the plainly visible truth for anybody who actually reads "the book."

> This is what 1.6 billion people believe. Are you condemning all of them?

What it "this" in that sentence of yours? Actually just the Western thought projects and supports both the "return to the core" (e.g. through being allies as you note) and the belief in "peacefulness" of "every religion" if the core is applied (which can't be farther from the truth). I claim that among these 1.6 billions you mention most of the people can understand that exactly these ideas ("return to the core good") can lead to more torture and suffering, and that they wouldn't want to be a part of it. It's we, the Western world, that should understand that simple truth. And stop using false analogies.

> If we were really concerned about Islamic terrorism, you'd think we'd be rather concerned about this relationship.

This argument is just "our leaders always know what they're doing, we don't have to worry or check if they lie and don't have to attempt to influence them democratically, and we can even blindly repeat their claims in our arguments without appearing uninformed." And it's completely false (war because of "Irag and WMD" and "to bring democracy for Iraq" is just one of the recent examples). Please read just the whole 5:32 and 5:33 and compare that with that part of 5:32 that the US president officially presented as the image of the religion and then tell me that you stay behind that. It's an insulting attempt of deception to anybody who knows even just these two verses (not to mention the book) in full (which includes enough believers).

Then read and think about the reforms of Ataturk, that's the only long-term direction for these parts of the world and these believers that we should support. He knew that the "return to the core" or even increasing that kind of religiosity there was plainly bad. It's surely bad for the whole humanity.