While other monotheistic religions leave divine punishment up to their diety, the Qu'ran preaches of literally striking terror into the unbelievers (3:151)...
"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." (17.16)
"Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth. I did not come to send peace, but a sword. I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Mathew 10:34-35).
If you're going to take verses out of context, Christianity is just as guilty as Islam.
However if you care to look at the context, you'll see that Mohammed was given those verses while he was being attacked by non-Muslims, so Allah was effectively giving him permission to defend his people.
"Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except for a just cause"...
". . Do not take life, which Allah has made sacred, except through justice and the law. He orders this so that you may acquire wisdom"
That said, you may be interested in this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html
*edit* Also Jitterbug, where do you live?
I disagree wholeheartedly.
It does not matter what verses you take out of context of the teachings of Judaism or Christianity; divine punishment and judgement is left up for God. This is a fundamental difference between these religions; punishment of the heretics, of the disbelievers is done by "We" and not God.
Christianity and Judaism both have their brutal parts, but matters of divine weight are not left up to man. They each recognize the fallacy of man and its inability to conceive the consequences of such actions of weight.
I have long believed that the islamic heresy is so different from Orthodox Christian doctrine that it is not a corrupter of Orthodoxy to the extent that more subtle heresies from the west are like roman catholicism or the modern ecumenical movement.
I can agree on this to an extent.
The popes endorsed the crusades and spanish, portuguese, french, and italian colonialism including their slave trading. The pope gave his endorsement to the italian invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 and wanted to colonize the entire Mediterranean in WWII with fascist roman catholic armies (including Greece and the muslim countries), yet muslim lands have been on a continual retreat to an intrusive western advance for well over two centuries.
In these cases, religion is twisted by a figurehead. I used to think Islam was the same, but I now know that Islam does not have to be twisted in any way for something such as a Jihad to be a reasonable action for its practitioners. Again, Qu'ran refers to the delivering of punishment to be done by "We" and not Allah. This effectively gives humans the unnatural power of divine judgement which of itself is more dangerous than a corrupt figurehead. For all we know, due to the odd structure of the Qu'ran (Muhammad goes from describing the balance of goodness and justice, the structures of heaven and Earth to verses of war and cleansing the unbelievers) Muhammad could have very well been inspired by demons if you believe such. This was after he became a general and took up the sword to war. Of course, this may mean little to others since I cannot very well say that other religions would not, by the same terms, be able to be immune from the deceit of the devil. You can curse me for a fruitless generalization in which case.
Another thing is that the Qu'ran, the basis of the religion, has remained just that: the practice of Islam remains similar to its original form and has not been ever taken to scrutiny and intense interpretation as the other religions of today have been. There have been major reformations of Christianity (which is, of course, how we got to a refined form of Orthodox Christian doctrine, and conversely the, in my opinion, corrupt form of Western Protestantism), and the same can be said of other traditions held up for modern questions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism to an extent. Though they have largely remained the same, they still were able to scrutinze the teachings they were given and able to return to the context of how the word was written and disreguard things that cannot be understood in its prior context or due to the non-existant social moores and norms of that time period.
I claim that Islam in its current state of the Middle-East has been under no or very little of such scrutiny in which the word can be properly translated into our modern perspectives. I say this because there is no modern perspective in the practice of that form of Islam; anything related to modernization (and thus, ease/comfort in life) is condemned. The context of what the Earth is like is shown as a miserable place; a place closer to Hell than Heaven. Yet I speak exclusively of Islam practiced in that area of the world; in countries such as Turkey, America, and parts of Europe, Islam is making certain headway. Yet I still do not know enough about how much headway and it would be appreciated if someone with a more practical knowledge of Islam could do the favors and explain how the religion translates into our time period.
I do not see islam as a political threat at all.
It is not a political threat. It is a threat for those who do not believe in Islam. While Jesus of the Bible preached of tolerance towards the Gentiles, Muhammad literally exclaims that they will strike terror into the hearts of unbelievers. In a religion in which divine punishment falls to the hands of the corruptable humans, I very much so believe that this is a problem. In Western Christianity, it may seem like it is coming towards that; I believe that is what you're referring to. Whether or not certain groups would advocate "religious superiority", that is twisting the words of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus (which I suspect you take more heart of than the other passages?). They are dangerous as well, but thankfully they can easily be passed off as radical due to the blunt nature of the "Ten Commandments" which usually belong to the cornerstone of worship in most Christians (even if they were twisted by the Popes to call war).
Even now, Christian leaders are against war and speak very loudly in opposition to it. The "Christian Warmongers" are a minority in actuality and have only been popularized thanks to mass media and the propaganda machines in the West, now unfortunately spreading to Europe. "Christian Warmongers" can be every bit as dangerous as Islam, but the fundamental difference is that the cornerstone of each religion is vastly different: the bible requires tolerance and peace (whether or not certain passages suggest otherwise in context) while the Qu'ran demands acceptance though rewarding those who accept its teachings with peace. This thinking is dangerous and inhabits many more minds than it is admitted.
I would also like to point out that though I say such things, anything I don't say cannot be interpreted as a disagreement. For example, I do not disagree that the Western interpretation of Christianity can be fundamentally flawed. What I am doing by pointing this out is going somewhere where many people fear to tread. Many people fear to question the Qu'ran because they feel that it would be hypocritical and, of course, "politically incorrect" (the bastardization of modern society). I question it because those who would condemn Islam do not know anything about it.