My pleasure, Vee.
At first I extrapolated from Christianity and assumed much about Islaam, choosing to err on the side of caution whenever possible.
Gradually along the years I learned, among other things, that the Qur'aan is simply not helpful on that regard. It keeps insisting that whether people adopt Islaam is a very big deal; that Muslims should not hesitate to side with other Muslims and refuse to trust non-Muslims quite as much; that it is all-out wrong and dangerous to refuse Abrahamic monotheism unless one did not have a "fair chance" of learning of it; that non-believers in Islaam should be either pitied or despised, with little in the way of alternatives.
In short, it relies entirely on a tribal mentality that divides people between those from within the tribe and those from without, and derives its directives from there. A rather primitive and unsuitable attempt at a moral structure, particularly given the current population levels and its demands.
Theologically, it is also rather fragile, leading to what often seems to be a deliberate failure to even attempt to understand religious postures that are not obsessively monotheistic and proselitist. It is rather dismaying. To the best of my understanding, Muslims seem to literally be incapable of understanding the differences among the concepts of idolatry, polytheism, trinitarianism, henotheism and even paganism, for instance - and worse, there is considerable reluctance to even admit that there is validity in attempting to understand those.
I have actually come to conclude that it is a mistake to even call Islaam a religion. A religion is supposed to take itself somewhat seriously (as opposed to obsessively), to have the courage to deal with the reality of the world as it is, and to encourage the development of personal religious courage and moral values. Islaam is either ill-prepared or outright inimical to all of those goals.