Literalism has been in the Christian mainstream since the sola scriptura movement of Protestantism.
His influence is comparable to what Aquinas is to the Catholic Church, or St. Augustine to Christianity.
And what do Aquinas and St. Augustine say about infidels and war?
And as I indicated previously, the "radicals" of Islam like Qutb and Taymiyya took the already extreme premise of literalism, as found well inside the islamic "mainstream" of Ghazali, even further.
And the radicals of the South African National Party took the already extreme premise of biologially ordering humanity even further. Does that discredit the Western Civilization they claimed to be serving? Does it discredit Linnaeus?
And yet you'd be hard pressed to find a mainstream protestant theologian who espouses Levitical law public executions. Not so with the Mahometan faith, whose adherents not only espouse but carry out Quranic punishments in the same manner as Mahomet did back in the dark ages.
And what do Aquinas and St. Augustine say about infidels and war?
Augustine and Aquinas were two of the foremost proponents of a meticulously developed theory "Just War" that proscribes conditions of ethical conduct associated with military action. The "Just War" theory that emerges from their writings is in fact highly restrictive and attempts to limit its conduct rather than encourage it. Aquinas basically says that war is impermissible unless it meets three conditions, those being (1) legitimate sovereignty of the warring party, (2) justice in cause, such as defense against an unprovoked attack, and (3) rightful intention.
This contrasts significantly from the Mahometan faith, including its "moderate" adherents. Augustine and Aquinas built their theological examination of war around its deterrence and prevention by deeming its exercise in most cases to be fundamentally unjust. Mahometan thought, by contrasts, tends to treat warfare as a tool among many to be used for a dutied and coerced expansion of its theological and political domains.
And the radicals of the South African National Party took the already extreme premise of biologially ordering humanity even further.
Is that your answer to everything? You respond to every valid criticism of mahometan excesses perpetrated well within the mainstream of mahometan theology by digging up a completely unrelated sin by somebody else who is completely irrelevant to the present conversation, and then treat the original mahometan abuse is if it were magically negated by some sort of equal and opposite wrongdoing elsewhere.
Let islam stand on its own two feet, and when it can't do so we must condemn it in itself - not in relation to somebody else or some other perceived wrong from a different time or geography, but in itself and in its own right.
If something mahometan theology teaches is evil, then it is evil. Period. It is not rendered any less evil by some unrelated offense that South Africa or Pat Robertson or the KKK did, your recurring protestations otherwise notwithstanding.