Meeting short take #4: Andrew Mathis tells it like it is
You state that "Islam is compatible with modern secular society." I would counter that, at least in its fundamentalist form, it is not. Nor is any religion, but I will explain that shortly. The problem with Islam in secular societies is that, like Judaism before it, Islam is not merely a religion; it imposes a social system on its followers. In its fundamentalist form, therefore, it is completely incompatible with secular society. Just because (using your examples) the Prince of Wales points out (correctly) that European civilization owes much to Islam for its advancement beyond the Dark Ages or because one Muslim Emperor in India (where, incidentally, he ruled as a minority religious leader over a majority of Hindus) is said to have "laid the foundations of a secular state" does not mean that Islam as a whole is fundamentally compatible with secular society. Arguably, decades before the reign of Akbar in India, Martin Luther, by defying the authority of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, laid the foundation of secular society in Europe. You note that Christian Europe, during this time, was entering the Reformation, but you conflate this statement with the expulsion (fifty years earlier) of Jews and Muslims from Europe (really only from Spain and Portugal), when, in fact, the Reformation ushered in a period of religious tolerance in Europe not seen beforehand.
Read the rest.