Hmmm, I don't know, sapper83. No stones thrown your way, your tin hat is safe from me, but I favour a different interpretation, that says:

I am willing to accept that Islam as a religion is basically pacifist, as indeed is Christianity. Nevertheless, neither religion (or any other religion that I can think of) has managed historically to prevent atrocities and wars to take place in the religion's name. You cite the early days of Christianity being propagated by peaceful means - I would say that this was so simply because they were in no position to do otherwise. They were the underdogs of society, until the first "christian" states came into existence. But when the Christians came into power, Jews were persecuted, Christians of other dogmas were hunted down etc etc. Look at the Protestant/Catholic divide in Northern Europe and the 100-years war, for example. How come the pacifist Christians turned to the monsters that burned and tortured - think Inquisition. It was not their religion that was driving them, is my answer; the motives were different, and religion became the dressing for mass consumption.

I believe it is societies and cultures that breed violence, not religions. Sure, religion can play a formative role in any culture, but more often than not, it is an external trapping only, as far as that culture's drives are concerned. I am thinking behaviour of the masses, here. There is also the question of what drives an individual "religious leader" to advocating violence - but once more, I would argue that it is not religion that bred the hatred, but rather the concept of perceived wrongs (and in some cases even blatant greed). Religion (and you can extend that to cover also "political beliefs") is then used to dress the message, because it provides an easy vehicle for infecting the masses.

Especially when you consider the history of religions, and the geographies where they were first created and spread, you find that more often than not, it was the local culture and geography that shaped the religion, rather than the other way round.

For example, English society has inherent violence, going back as far as you will; it was not religion that bred this, but circumstances - the need to protect one's own possessions, or grab the neighbour's, tribal wars etc etc. The violent undercurrents are strong and manifest themselves often mildly as an urge to "put down" others out of the blue (unheard of in southern european cultures). I don't pretend to know the origins of it, but I know they are older than any religion. And I know that it goes beyond the appearance of hooliganism or the superiority of empire-building in the past; that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Similarly, Middle Eastern cultures have values bred in that existed before any religion made its appearance. The position of women in their society reflects some of these older-than-religion values. Lack of tolerance towards opposing beliefs or criticism is another - and is the REAL cause of many of the "fatwas" issued and "jihads" proclaimed (I use the quotes to indicate the falsity of purpose).

In the end there are always going to be differences between people and between cultures, that are not caused by religion, but are instead couched and explained in religious terms. As it is unlikely that these differences will ever disappear, in the end the only possible route towards the nirvana of global peace can be tolerance of such differences and fair treatment of each other (to minimise new grievances coming to the fore to foster new hatred to be dressed up as religious difference).

Now, how likely is that? Not very, I have to admit. Which is not a good reason for being intolerant, however. I cannot create peace everywhere, but perhaps I can help create some peace in my immediate surroundings. And even then, in today's world of global communication and travel, the peace in my immediate surroundings can be disturbed. But if the opposite to trying for tolerance is breeding more hatred through intolerance, I choose the former.