Aaah. I mentioned quite clearly that Jesus and Muhammad were the creators of their movements. Not the Bible and not the Qur'an. Jesus wrote nothing of the Bible. And Muhammad was an illiterate. What we have is their legendary examples in life. Both books were written later. The Islamic Hadiths were written by caliphs (and their scholars) to interpret the Qur'an in order to create law.
There is no concrete evidence that either existed except in allegory.
The source of both religions go directly to the inventors. And today's pacifist reflect on Jesus as much as today's Islamic extremists reflect on Muhammad. Are either wrong in accordance to their religious movements?
That's not what we're debating though. I'm confronting you on the fact that you seem to think that the actions of extremism are a reflection of the majority's unwillingness to protest their own religion. And I'm telling you that people relate to religion in many different ways and so you can't hold the entire world of Islam responsible for what a few sections of the Quran say about violence and infidels.
The vast majority of Muslims in the modern world are peaceful and civil, and the violent past of the Quran is obsolete to them, just like the violent parts in the Bible are obsolete to most Christians.
Depends on what Gospel you read. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all report on the events of Jesus from four different perspectives. But a mention of homosexuals in the Bible as reported by a "witness" is a very far cry from the examples of violence by Muhammad.
Oh right, so it depends on the reading? Which means it depends on who is reading it? Which means it depends on modern relevance? This is exactly what I'm talking about.
There are peaceful parts and damning parts, just like there are in the Quran. It is not the responsibility of Muslims to protest against their own religion (which, frankly, is a ridiculous notion), but to relate to their faith in the way that they think is true. Most people choose to do so in a peaceful way.
The whole world of Islam is not responsible for the actions of a minority that are using the faith for political purposes.
Flipping over banker tables in a temple and a reported remark about homosexuals in no way leads civilizations into violence. Muhammad's examples of leading armies and establishing himself as his own Ceaser does.
Now you are equivocating. The fact that you think Islam is somehow more inherently violent than Christianity just goes to show you don't really have an objective view of either. There has been plenty of bloodshed in the past in the name of Christianity, or are you going to get upset because I'm mentioning the Crusades, like so many do?
Christianity's violence in the West simply became tempered by the rise of the rational institutions. The same was happening in the Middle East before the Cold War powers decided to play chess with the governments and put radicals in power who endorsed violent ideas about religion. If some power were to come into the U.S., destroy it, and then place the minority of radical Christians in power, you would get the same result. Places like Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq were flourishing, modernist cultures before sponsored coups.
The reason why it appears that radicals have the bigger audience is only because they have the louder voice at the moment, and that is because they have the military behind them, and that in turn is because of meddling from imperalist powers.
Human example is the source. Namely....Muhammad and Jesus. Scripture is a source that came after the fact. But the Qur'an reflects Muhammad's example in life. The vast majority of the Bible does not reflect on the Christian movement.
No, politics is the source. You haven't learned to separate religion from politics and see how the former is used and abused by the latter. Even if you take the bloodiest epics in history caused by either Christianity or Islam, you will only be finding minority cases caused by minority radicals, while the rest of the religious world was going about their daily business.
The radicals use the violent context of either faith to carry out their deeds; in which case, maybe the violent parts should be edited out for the sake of peace within these faiths? But upon whose authority is that supposed to happen if the Quran is the "word of God"?