1) The penalty for leaving Islam is death. No conversion to any other religion is allowed. Once you are Muslim, you can’t leave. Death is a one-way street.
2) "For Islamists, democracy, expressing the will of the people, is the road to power, but it is a one-way road, on which there is no return, no rejection of the sovereignty of God, as exercised through His chosen representatives. Their electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man (Men only) One vote, once."" (B. Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, P111, C2003.)
This is why I am keeping a close eye on what is going on in Gaza. Hamas was elected, but it remains to be seen if they ever give up power. Islam does not share power well. Islamic governments have constant problems keeping Islamic ‘nationalism’ under control.
3) Land that was at any time Muslim controlled is always considered to be Muslim. If any other entity subsequently controls it, the land is considered to be ‘occupied’ land. In other words, in the eyes of Islam, all of Israel is ‘occupied’ land. This explains why we see so much resistance to acceptance of Israel in general.
4) Islamic law is a very autocratic system of governance. Discrimination goes hand in hand with any autocratic system. Discrimination is by definition a one sided view. Islamic law excels at this.
Generally, intolerance of just about anything that is not Islamic is the order of the day.
5) If your father was Muslim, in the eyes of Islam, that automatically makes you Muslim. If you chose another path, you are an Apostate. The penalty is death.
Intolerance is similar to discrimination, so I am not listing this separately. I would like to point out how the Muslim world is so sensitive to insult. It makes sense that on a cultural level, sensitivity to insult would result. Anger, frustration from all of the restrictions placed upon each member. Brutality, even when not enforced is always hanging over everyone. Extremely autocratic systems tend to be irritable and touchy. (Example: North Korea). Islam is no exception. The difference here is that Islam controls no government completely. When Islam is the basic law of the land, it is openly hostile to just about everything. (Example: Afghanistan under the Taliban. Iran is smarter about it. Iran uses other organizations to launch their attacks.)
With any general rule, you can find exceptions. One of the biggest arguments against fighting Islam openly is that it is not monolithic. Naturally, where Islam is a distinct minority, tolerance is forced upon them. Many will adapt to the environment, but many will not. As a rule, Islam tends to be VERY resistant to assimilation. Generally, extreme ideology would find everything else to be unacceptable, and in many ways, repulsive. Naturally, it would lash out from time to time.
True, Islam has various levels of implementation within the governments that have majority Muslim populations. These governments tend to be autocratic. One reason may be simply because it takes an autocratic system to keep Islamic ideology under control. Modern life has passed by many of the concepts within Islam, particularly its legal system, its foreign policy and its economic system. This helps explain why so few governments embrace Islam more completely. Being so hostile like the Tailban would encourage other government to eliminate the offender. I would hope that evolution would eliminate most of the objectionable parts of Islam, but this is far from being the case. Islam is still fielding an army, something that all other religions have dropped centuries ago. One way mentality does not change quickly, if at all. Islam is no exception.