The difference is still one of motivation. When most Arab terrorists were not Islamists, but Arab socialists or assorted nationalists, they were not called Muslim Radical Extremists. They were called the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine or whatever. Now that most terror is caused by people who think they are good Muslims, it is sensible to describe their motivation. Are you denying that the motivation for, say, the 7-7 bombs was a form of radical Islam? If someone who happens to be a Muslim commits a crime, no one says it is Islam. But if he does so because he think that Islam tells him to, then it is called Islamic. Has Christianity ever told anyone to kill 12 boys in a school shooting? Timothy McVey is an excellent example - it was a mixture of White Supremacy and minimal government that made him do what he did. Not Christianity. Why describe it as Christian?
If this was an Issue of motivation then that would mean that it is Islam which is motivating them or in other words telling them to do these things. Islam does not preach the killing of innocent people nor does it support terrorism as a means of accomplishing objectives. The Prophet (s) himself said once,
"If you see your brother opressed help him, and when you see your brother opressing help him"
One of the companions asked, "O Prophet we can understand how to help him when he is opressed but how will we help him when he is opressing?"
The Prophet replied, "Stop him from opressing"
But with the messages the media gives out to the people gives a general feeling that in fact it is Islam and Muslims whose way of life is violence and bloodshed. In my opinion media should be more responsible in their statements. So the same argument you are giving in defence of Christianity also applies to Islam. Does Islam tell people to go around killing people? NO!
So the blame rather than be pinned on Islam should be pinned on the individuals.
Which depends on what you mean by that.
As we know in the past the western world was predominantly overshadowed by Christian/Church doctrine. As Europe started to Emerge as a power over time, one cannot deny the fact that the idea which was, and to some extent still is, propogated was that Islam was spread by the sword.
History now becomes more accurate over time as we see secular sources doing the research. One example I will give you is of General Custers Last stand.
Previously it was believed it was avaliant and brave last stand. Archeological digs have actually revealed that it was nothing more than a cowardly retreat where Americans even shot other Americans in confusion and in chaos. Has the Us changed this in its History? No, why? The statement in reply to this reseacrh was, "A nation needs its heroes" - I ask, even if they were fake?
Same way is the case of Islam being misportrayed through history, only now do we see the emergence of movies like "Islam: Empre of Faith" which shows the reality of Islam and Muslim Empire. Yet these are very few out of many which are against Islam.
This is flatly not true. Western media producers have produced many documentaries that are full of praise for Islam. One example would be Bloom, Jonathan M. and Blair, Sheila, Islam: a thousand years of faith and power, New York: TV Books, 2000. ISBN 157500092X. There was also a favorable chapter on Islam in Attenborough, David, The first Eden: the Mediterranean world and man, London: Collins, 1987 ISBN 0002198274.
Now compare this with the Muslim world - where is there a single book produced in the Muslim world that is even fair, much less supportive of, Byzantium? That does not insult Christianity and Judaism much less Animism?
There is a blatant double standard here and it is not the West's problem.
On the contorary - this is once again an assumption that you make due to the influence of the misconceptions spread about Islam. If you do get the chance please do watch the movie called Islam, Empire of Faith - it has many references to Islamic scholars and historians who paid much tribute to the works of their non Muslim counter parts. Also please have a look at the website I gave you "Muslim Heritage" you will see that the Muslims scholars nor historians denied their non muslim counterparts the glory they deserved. Yet do we see the same in the Christian world? I think not...
The destruction of Jeuresulem under Christan rule and its Thriving under Muslim rule...what is portrayed? Christians as liberators and Muslims as supressors.
The enlightnment of Spain under Muslims and the decay of Spain under Christian rule (prior to occupation) - What is portrayed? Muslims were savages and Christians were cultured.
Europe was still using Parchment and churches were LUCKY to have to the most 3 or 4 books. While Muslim households contained more books written on PAPER (great tech of the times). Yet what do we see in media/movies? West was so so advanced in the middle ages and the Arabs lived in tents.
Paper Industry - started by Muslims using Chinese Tech - Attributed to the west in general.
Mass Production - started by Muslims but attributed to Henry Ford
Electricity - Discovered by Ancient Persians - attributed to (Forgot his name, sorry)_- Edison I think
Modern Science (seperating science from religion) started by Muslims - attributed to the Rennisance
Windmills - Invented by Egyptians - Attributed to Holland
And there are various such examples.
And then ofcourse my example of General Custer...
History is written by victors - a famous quote by someone.
Indeed it does seem this way to me, a biased history written to glorify the west a bit too much.