(Original post by Elipsis)
1. Islam doesn't have to claim you can live solely off of Quaranic knowledge, but in my eyes that is what is necessary to be able to claim that the Quaran is a miracle which shows Mohammed is a true prophet. Otherwise the book is totally unfit for purpose, which makes it not a mircale, and Mohammed a fraud. Christians have about the same consensus as Muslims, they just choose to worship seperately over rather small and trivial issues. There is very little consensus on quite a few issues in Islam, as any thread on Islamic issues on TSR will show you - I mean you can't even agree among yourselves whether apostates should be put to death still. Christians do not point to their bible as any sort of proof that Jesus was a prophet either, and they also don't claim that the bible is absolutely perfect, just that it gets the appropriate messages and the way to live across without referring to another book. Jesus had the lineage, and performed true miracles, whereas Mohammed performed no miracles and was not even prophesised to come.
2. I had a feeling you might take the route of "their violence is justified" line. There are millions of Christians being persecuted right now by Muslims (South Sudan springs to mind), why aren't they strapping on vests and walking into crowded markets filled with their own people? The fact is that in every single country that has a percentage of Muslims about 5% there have been suicide attacks. I don't see the justification for the UK having it's own suicide attacks, and there have been many attempts both successful and not considering the amount of Muslims here.
I really love that you've dragged up that report because it shows just how ridiculously biased you are - and that you don't come to this with an open and academic mind seeking truth. That report conviniently doesn't look into the amount of casualties, does it? If it did it would see that Islam has killed thousands more people than any other terrorist operation in the US. The report also includes environmental activists who burned down empty buildings as terrorists. In any case, America is only about 2% Muslim. When the UK was 2% Muslim, they were still pretending the religion was peaceful. Wait until their numbers increase by a few more percent and we'll see some more bombing. I notice none of these reports bother to look at the wider world or Muslim countries, because if they did they would see that over 20,000 terrorist attacks have been carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam since 2001.
3. I don't really care if you bring the Catholic church into this, because i'm not a Catholic and I will happily say that Catholocisim drew an awful lot of Christians down the wrong path (like Mohammed) for their own personal power. Jesus was the final prophet until the end of times, and his is the only teaching Christians should unquestioningly follow. I believe that in Islam you are bound to have to follow some scholars no matter what, because it is written within their holy books that Islam and the state must be fused. This means that if a scholar says you should be executed for homosexuality like in Saudi Arabia, then you will be executed. You can disagree with the ruling all you like, but you won't win. Your life is governed by Islam and scholars.
4. You know what I was getting at with the Afghan mountains comment
Once again you are fully illustrating my point that you are totally biased and not coming at this from an academically rigorous angle. Mohammed went to all the effort of categorically getting every single war he waged written down for you to read. You've seen the graph further up, he tried peace, then he switched to Jihad and hey presto Islam boomed and spread. Let me guess what you're going to say next: "He never waged an offensive war, they all attacked him and deserved what they had coming to them". Well if you only go to one source for your history you might beleive that. But it is well worth looking at some other non-Islamic historical sources, which will show you that Mohammed waged war across Arabia relentlessly, and it was not simply his word that convinced people to hand everything over to him.
You can bring the crusades into this all you like, because I know Jesus wouldn't have stood at the head of the crusades. And what always puzzles me about people bringing up the crusades to criticise Christians, is that they were carried out to push back an Islamic empire that was steadily waging war and using violence to expand into Europe.
All this crap about conversion is laughable, because the playing field is in no way equal. In many Islamic countries (almost all in fact) trying to convert a Muslim will get you killed pretty quickly. In some the bible is even banned and Christians aren't permitted to meet. Furthermore Islam pretty much states that people who convert away from Islam should be killed -
although Muslims generally settle for outcasting that person and never speaking to them again. Furthermore Islam stipulates that if you want to marry a Muslim you must pretty much convert, so there are an awful lot of pretenders for love out there too. You will see in places where people have the freedom to choose their religion Christianity and atheism are winning time and again. The final icing on the cake of your conversion argument is that many Christians convert to Islam to avoid paying a higher rate of tax LOL.
Even then I still doubt that Islam is gaining converts quicker than Christianity. I think you are basing this argument largely on third world births, and the general Muslim aversion to birth control world wide. If you actually ignore birth rates I believe the statistics show that Christianity is gaining more converts, despite the fact that the 'competition' isn't anywhere near free and fair.