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.
gee, you aren't confused - you are just not paying attention.
oh, joy: yet another round of the moral-equivalency tango.
in answer to 1, 2, 3:
Christianity and Islam are not significantly different in their holy texts, eh?
OK, try this on for size:
You tried to equate Christianity with Islam. This is why I ask you to find even one passage, relating to religion and treatment of others, which fulfills the following requirements:
1. in the "catholic" post-Nicaea Christian testament (but I'll gladly throw it open to the Jewish book)
2. a literal...
3. plain-text...
4. indisputable...
5. ongoing present-tense (as opposed to a one-shot past-tense record of history/folklore - ie: Joshua)...
6. commandment from God (not a pope or a bishop or some >a-hem!< televangelist)...
7. as a directive to the believer to take literally and actively in the temporal realm
8. to do any or all of the following:
-a. to slay the heretic and non-believer,
-b. to forcibly convert the heretic and non-believer,
-c. to enslave the heretic and non-believer,
-d. to persecute the heretic and non-believer,
-e. to wage holy war upon the heretic and non-believer
9. Directly analogous to the dozens thereof in the Koran.
(so you know, things like II Thessalonians 1:8,9 don't count - that is God kicking ass, not his faithful doing so for him. An important distinction equivocators seem to like to sweep under the rug.)
Now, turnabout:
Find JUST ONE passage in either the Koran or the Sunnah which is the direct analogue of the Parable of the Samaritan, or the directive to the witness to leave an unbeliever in peace - to "knock the dust of his home from their soles as they leave" - rather than butcher him in zealous fury, or to the believer contained in I Cor 7:12-17, or I Cor 10:32, or II Cor 6:14-18, or Ephesians 6:10-12, or... do you get the point?
Find JUST ONE comparable passage in the Koran or the Sunnah.
Good luck - I have been looking for over a year and have not found any such analogues.
Mohammed, and the death-cult he let loose in the world, is bad because he and his cult are murderously psychopathic.
4. Oh, boy, you bought the party line, didn't you? Think about what you said very carefully. Examine actual history as you do so. You will discover that Islamic civilization PRODUCED nothing at all on its own, made almost no PROGRESS at all on its own (save for one man's development of algebra), and in all other ways caused DECLINE in civilization throughout its demense. It's tax code was stolen from Khusrau the Just - a Persian Emperor. It's famed "arabic numerals" were swiped from India. It's non-Islamic philosophy and science was inherited from the Byzantines and other earlier or muslim-conquered peoples. Avarroes was an aberration whose great thinking was never incorporated into Islamic thinking, philosophy, or religion.
5. If a stereotype fits reality, use it
6. Mohammed claimed absolute infallability in all things, and is credited with absolute infallability by all muslim theology and jurisprudence throughout history. By contrast, the catholic doctrine of Papal infallability was not established until 1869, and IIRC has been invoked exactly twice: once concerning Mary's "Immaculate Conception" and one other time, the matter of which I cannot recall. Large difference between Mohammedian and Papal "infallability", which I know you can see, but do not expect you to be solid enough to admit.
7. People who repeatedly demonstrate the fact that they cannot see are blind.
You are blind.
Where are the exhortations to kill in the New Testament?
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.
Did you read Koran and New Testament? Do you see any difference? Do you see a difference between the life example Christ and Muhammad have to their disciples?
Islamic civilization was one of the world's most progressive and modern until the 16th Century, A.D.
What was so progressive and modern? Living off the sweat and blood of enslaved Christians?