(Not so much direct at you Hodar, just using your quite for reference)
Well, I have not really weighed in on my own thread (was working and got busy) I thought this a good place to start.
Your right of course, taking any one sentence someone says from anywhere can be totally misleading. Though on the flip side we also often describe or sum up someone using a sentence (eg clinton blows worse then monica).
Religion is no different in many ways then any other idea or philosophy - they are all based in something a little less then tangible. Take God out of all equations and you will still have people who want communism, facism, democracy, etc, and all will argue their points. Not to mention the constitution which has probably been interpreted as many different ways as the bible.
I do know muslims myself who would be considered 'liberal' in their faith, but I also know their view on Jesus, Mary, et. al. is not always what I consider flattering. Not to mention their views on christians. It is a war of ideas, much like those held by people who have no religion yet have different philosophies (again, we have many godless societies in the world that would fight based on principals of government).
Logic can be a slippery thing, even in math there are competing views and as has religion, science has grown and changed as a better understanding of things has unfolded. As we examine, in these modern times, the scriptures of the world we do so with a new light. To some they are simply a philosophy like any other, giving insights into the minds of men during a time. To others they speak a truth which, while timeless, can be better understood with time and the wisdom once misunderstood becomes more clear (admonitions against incest for example are better understood now with science. The gene pool can have problems with it, although no one in Kentucky seems have noticed ;)
In the works I read from the 1700-1800's science was a revelation of God, not an enemy to him. Newton understood this as did many scientists of his time and those later. Much like an AI program learning how it was made. It could come to the conclusion that it was just a logical progression of electronics and not see all the planning that went into it, or it could learn to appreciate the maker and better understand the error trapping routines he made.
Mankind has perverted the words given him, mankind has used what he wanted and discarded the rest - much like Adam did. Mankind still does this with everything, including science. Which brings to mind the question, what does anyone base their morals, ideals, etc on? The concept of right and wrong will forever be something gray. If science determined that abortion was bad for the human race, it would still go on as those who claim personal freedom is more important then science. Philosophy will always battle science - but they can work together for a better end (to borrow from Nash, the best result comes from doing what is best for yourself and for others).
How does all this lead up to the sign? The fundamental message Jesus gave to his followers was to spread the word that God had heard all those people in the world, of all faiths, and had come down to conquer death. He redeemed the world from it's sin and fall (and one could go into a whole dissertation on the peculiar nature of this and what it means on a deeper level, even so much as to get into a 'science' if you will of why a salvation was even necessary in the first place and what it means. Not to mention some interesting throw ins regarding the nature of light, God's power being limited, etc. It is a fascinating topic the deeper one goes).
Now, Jesus did not tell his followers to go out and overthrow Rome. He did not say to go off and dispose of anyone. His message was that he would do that himself when the time came. His followers, instead of trying to take down Rome, used the very roads (and other great things of the Roman empire, such as writing, etc) to spread the message (which explains more why Jesus came at the time he did, the world was open enough to hear the message and it was, for many other reasons, an excellent time overall given historical and philosophical items of the day. But that is another story).
Islam does not have the flow in this regards, this evolution from one period to another. Their faith believes the world must come under their rule before the time of the end - that it is an important part of the scheme. Whether by force or otherwise the khalifah (et al) must come about. The christian is to be in the world, but not of it. Without Christ ruling the world can never acheive the peace it desires (mankind is inherently evil, no matter what philosophy is running about, the sheer number of people gurantees things will never be settled). SOME muslims want this to be a peaceful conversion - but many do not, and those are the ones for whom the message tolls. (more later, gotta run, bedtime for the baby and such!)