My primary complaint is agianst the claim that there are no good Muslims and every Muslim is a liar and secretly waiting to kill infidels. If you realize that's not the case, then you don't disagree with me on my main point of argument here.
The motive behind the terrorism is in fact Islam, and what is ordered in the Koran. Muhammad IS the example.
The overt motive behind the terrorism is several specific sects of Islam and the people promoting them. They do. in fact, use Muhammad as an example but other Muslims read those same texts and interpet them differently, as relating only to that time and place in history or within the context of the prevailing culture of the time, much as many Jews would not consider the acts of Bronze Age Israelites, from Solomons concubines to genocide against various Canaanite peoples, appropriate for today's Jews. Anti-Christian web sites make the exact same sorts of claims against Judaism and Christianity and, as I mentioned earlier, some of the anti-Islam websites even acknowledge anti-Christian atheist sites as part of their inspiration. My point here is that it's possible to practice Islam peacefully, even if everything the critics say about the tenents of the religion are true, and we should be rewarding Muslims who do, not telling them that we can't be bothered to sort them out from the terrorists.
Also, if you want to be critical of the life of Muhammed as written, or those to use it as a model for life in the 21st Century, by all means do so. I'm in full support of the right of people to debate and argue about religious matters and fully support the right of newpapers to publish those cartoons, most of which would offend only those looking to be offended by anything. But the fact that a few Muslim newspapers did publish the cartoons and more than a few Muslims shrug it off, expecially in the United States, suggest that there are plenty of Muslims who aren't fanatics. Are they bad Muslims? Osama bin Laden would likely think so. But they are good Muslims from a Western Civilization perspective and we shouldn't join bin Laden in condemning them.
By the way I suspect that many people also have ulterior motives for becomming terrorists since that sort of fanaticism often suggests other problems in a person's life. It wasn't so much the power of the Islamic message that sent John Walker Lindh to the Taliban but his personal problems and hang-ups. I suspect the same is true of many of the Middle Eastern Muslim fanatics. For example Atta's letter detailing the treatment of his body after his death suggests he had lost touch with reality. He had more problems than Islamic theology.
Most Muslims, fortunately do not behave like Muhammad, in spite of his example.
That is a big part of what I'm trying to say. I don't mind people being critical of Muhammed, Islam, or the behavior of Islamofascists. I do mind good Muslims being tossed in the same bucket as the Islamofascists because someone can't be bothered to sort out the good Muslims from the bad Muslims.
Anyone who kills or maims in the name of Jesus is not doing His will.
Yet plenty of Christians have done so, reading the same Bible that you or I read, who thought that they were doing His will. If every religious text were unambiguous and had only a single clear orthodoxy, there wouldn't be sects, yet there are. There are sects of Christianity and sects of Judaism and sects of Islam because things are not really that clear, espeically when run through the filter of what people want the texts to say for other reasons.
Anyone who kills infidels or maims in the name of Allah, is doing exactly what Muhammad did, and in fact he ordered others to do.
Perhaps you or I might agree on which sect of Christianity, Judaism, or even Islam is the most true to the text but there will still be plenty of people to disagree. There are Muslim sects that represent a very different perspective and tradition than al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iranian mullahs, or the Wahabbists in Saudi Arabia. While Muhammad killed infidels, there were also times when he didn't. It's quite possible to read some of those events and passages as applying to a particular historical situation rather than as a general guild for all situations. Muslims can (and many do) do this. I don't think those Muslims who don't seek to live life like 7th Century Arabs should be grouped with those who do. Maybe they really are bad Muslims. There are plenty of Christian sects that many other Christians would agree are bad Christians, but what most people really care about is whether they make good neighbors or not. I don't see the evidence that some in this thread claim that Muslims are inherently bad neighbors.
Jesus never hurt anyone, He healed people, with His touch.
He attacked the tables of the money changers in the temple and drove them away with whips. In Luke 12, he says, "I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division." [NIV] There have been so many Christians who interpreted the statement, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" as an excuse to kill Jews that Mel Gibson removed the line, clearly present in the Bible, from his movie because Jews were so upset about it. And while I'm sure that you'll dismiss all the examples of God smiting people in the Old Testament as being pre-Jesus, what about Ananias and Sapphira dropping dead in Acts simply for being greedy?
Muhammad killed and maimed many, with his own hands.
So did plenty of Old Testament heroes. You can't really compare Muhammed to Jesus because that's not what he is to Muslims. He's a prophet, not God on Earth. If Muslims do take his 7th Century behavior as a model for 21st Century living, that's a problem. If they can make the distinction between Muhammed the man and Islam the religion, and at least some Muslims seem to be able to, that's not a problem.
If you can't understand the importance of that basic distinction, then Jesus warning about false prophets will mean nothing to you: "You shall know them by their fruits."
I think the distinction matters, but not in the way it's being expressed. Are Islam and Christianity different? Yes. Are there some important cultural differences between the two? Aboslutely. But it's a long road from there to "All Muslims area bad because Islam tells them to be bad and they all obey without question." The truth lies in the middle that so often gets excluded in debates like this.