Preface of, I am not a Muslim...

First, The actual age of Aisha at the time of her marriage to Muhammad is disputed, but, the marriage could not have been consummated until she reached puberty. In many cultures, women are or were married years before a marriage is consummated. The custom of early betrothal and marriage continued until the late 19th and early 20th century in much of the world, including Europe and North America, where there are still many states that allow for underage marriage. Second, Mary was 13 when she gave birth to Jesus...

"command to convert"
The Qur’an explicitly forbids hatred towards, subjugation of, or forcible imposition of religion on any person or people when it states “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) and describes religious pluralism. If you actually read the Quaran, you would know that.

"kill infidels"
The Quran addressed fighting for the first time, permitting Muslims to fight in self-defence. The permission given in Quran 22:40-41 to fight was only given to “those against whom war is waged.” And fighting wasn’t just to defend Muslims from persecution – but to defend Christians, Jews, and people of all faiths. All subsequent verses addressing fighting are pre-conditioned on these clearly outlined rules of self-defense. Additionally, Quran 2:193-194 declares that Muslims may only fight active combatants. Meaning, even if during battle an enemy combatant asks for amnesty, you must grant it. In Islam, there’s no such thing as “collateral damage,” mutilation, or torture. All this notwithstanding, fact three issues the death blow to Daesh and Islamophobe ideology.

The English word “infidel” means “a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one’s own.” (Meaning it is not an Arabic word at all). The Arabic word kafir (plural kuffar) is can be translated as “infidel”. A more common translation of the word is “disbeliever” or “unbeliever”. In the Qur’an, kafir usually refers to a person who not only rejects the beliefs of Islam but also takes a hostile stance toward Muslims and their religion.

Citation to Quranic verses on chattel slavery at first blush seems to make this point because the Quran, like other religious texts, accepted the existence of chattel slavery as a fact of life at the time of its revelation.

It is also true, however, that the Quran established an entirely new ethic on the issue of slavery and ISIS’s selective use of certain Quranic texts to justify contemporary chattel slavery ignores this fact.

First, consistent with the new ethic, the emphasis in all of the revelations on slavery is on the emancipation of slaves, not on their capture or the continuation of the institution of slavery. (See, for example, verses 2:177, 4:25, 4:92, 5:89, 14:31, 24:33, 58:3, 90:1-12.)

There is not one single verse suggesting that the practice should continue. Further, the Quran makes no mention of slave-markets or slave-trading and it repeatedly exhorts believers to free their slaves as an exemplification of their piety and belief in God.

Perhaps the best example of this emancipatory ethic is chapter 90, which is explicitly addressed to the Prophet Muhammad. It posits that there are two roads one can take in life and that the “high road” is the one that leads the righteous human being to free slaves.

The Prophet followed this exhortation, exhibiting a great solicitude for the material and spiritual condition of the slaves in the society around him. His example inspired his companions to emancipate thousands of slaves and, in an oft-quoted statement, he remarked that he would meet the man who “sells a free man as a slave and devours his price” on Judgment Day.

This is an explicit condemnation of trafficking in free human beings.

It is true that there are reported examples from the Prophet’s life that describe him as giving and receiving slaves and he even used slavery as a tool of conquest in war.

He freed all of his individually owned slaves and the wartime circumstances in those reports were very unique, involving specific people who engaged in war or treachery against him.

There is only one Quranic verse, 47:4, that authorizes capture of prisoners of war and it does not permit slavery, ordering military commanders to either free the prisoners gratis or hold them for ransom.

Enslaving a prisoner of war is therefore arguably illegal and certainly enslaving a non-combatant is likewise an Islamic crime.

There is another verse in the Quran, 3:64, that interpreters have argued may actually be explicit authority for abolition.

It condemns any “person of the book” who seeks lordship over another human being. Sayyid Qutb, the Sunni theologian and commentator on the Quran who is widely admired by literalists and traditionalists like the ISIS ideologues, offered extensive commentary on this verse in his masterful work, Fi Zilal al-Quran ("In the Shade of the Quran").

Commenting on the verse, he observed that enslaving human beings, like Pharaoh enslaved the Hebrews, is the “worst type of corruption.”

He argued that the verse aims to make sure that “none is elevated above another,” that “none enslaves another,” and that human beings “do not enslave one another.”

"As more and more barbarians appear..."
A Roman word for country dweller...

"rabid, open anti-Semites."
Don't know about Rabid... also, the right has been anti-semedic for a LONG time, and not once have they apologized... smell the hypocrisy...