The same argument can be made for the Apostles and the New Testament. Likewise, the books of the Old Testament are not written by God Himself.
In the old testament, there are multiple prophets, messengers, and historical/mythological authority figures. In the New Testament, there is Jesus, the four cannonic Gospels of four separate disciples, various epistles from various authors, etc... In the Koran and Sunnah, there is ONLY Mohammed. HUGE difference, bud.
Moreover, while both the Old and New Testaments contain unpleasant stuff, they contain NOT ONE equivalent to the ongoing present-tense commandments from On High to temporally fight, slaughter, murder, subjugate, deceive, subvert, and enslave non-believers to be found in the hundredfold throughout all Islamic Writ.
Islam and Judeo-Christianity are NOT equatable.
DEAL WITH IT.
Moreover, the Koran is a beautiful document.
Irrelevant. The denotation is ugly, vicious, violent, implacable, and immutable. That the poetry in which it is couched is pleasing to the aesthetics of some people is utterly irrelevant to the survival of civilization from the cancer that poetry bears.
DEAL WITH IT.
Claiming that the Islamofascists are the true bearers of Islam is like claiming that David Koresh or Jim Jones represented true Christianity.
You miss the point. MOHAMMED HIMSELF sets himself up as both the original islamofascist AND sole true torchbearer of Islam. The central credo of Islam is as follows:
"There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed IS his prophet."
Present tense, ongoing, eternal, infallible, EXCLUSIVE, and ABSOLUTE.
Throughout the Koran and Sunnah are requirements for all who call themselves Muslim to submit to EVERYTHING Mohammed says, to emulate him in ALL ways.
Islamofascists ARE the only "true" Muslims. DEAL WITH IT.
The problem is Islamic civilization's failure to adjust to modernity, which is the product of historical and cultural processes, not its theology as such.
See above: the single greatest factor which has stymied their civilization's advancement out of the seventh century is the THEOLOGICAL PRECEPT that Mohammed is INFALLIBLE IN ALL THINGS, including his many societal pronouncements.
DEAL WITH IT.
And this war is too important to base strategy on silly stereotypes
And what if the "stereotypes" bear a significant resemblance to reality, hrmn?
They DO.
DEAL WITH IT.
Once you deal with all of the above, you might be able to see what is going on with eyes that have shed the scales leftist uberegalitarian nonsense have placed upon them.
At the moment, however, you are blind.
DEAL WITH IT.
Rest assured, if you do not, Islam's true sons WILL ASSUREDLY DEAL WITH YOU.
1). Mohammed is bad and the Apostles are good because the Apostles out-number Mohammed. Ergo, if two or more people claim to be describing divine revelation, it must be true.
2). A document which contains exhortations to kill is bad, unless it is the Bible.
3). Mohammed is bad because he is Allah's prophet. Jesus is also considered to be a prophet to Islam, but one must ignore that fact and blame everything on Mohammed.
4). The failure of Islamic civilization comes from Mohammed's pronouncements in the 7th Century, A.D., even though Islamic civilization was one of the world's most progressive and modern until the 16th Century, A.D. It just took 900 years for the Muslims to actually obey Mohammed.
5). Stereotypes of Muslims are just fine, especially in the context of formulating national security policy (thinking takes effort, after all, so why waste energy?). Does your rule of stereotypes also apply to Jews and African-Americans?
6). Mohammed claiming infallibility is bad. The infallibility of the Pope is good.
7). People who have views somewhat different than yours are "blind".
Gee, I'm convinced.