Strewth CarolC, you are no historian. And you have picked the wrong person to expose your ignorance to, as 18th century Indian history is a passion of mine; I have travelled there 10 times, twice to gather material for a possible book. My main problem is that your ignorance is so invincible that to answer it I need to wriute half a book online.
(1) If you think that the resistance of 18th century Indians to British incursons is in any was comparable to modern terrorism you have already lost the agument. Was King Harold at Hastings a terrorist?
(2)The main initial resistance to the British was led by the Indian princes you accuse of selling out their people, including Muslims. Neither were they, or the Afghans motivated by any lofty patriotic ideas, as the country was a chaotic mis-mash of warring states due to the collapse of the Mughal Empire; they were often more aggressive in their expansionist plans than the British themselves. The British successively took on and defeated the French-backed ruler of Arcot (Muslim), then Siraj-ud Daula of Bengal (Muslim), then Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan of Mysore (Muslim), then the five Maratha kingdoms (several times), the Sikhs under the Khalsa, the Sindhis (Muslim) and the Gurkhas, along with large numbers of less notable rulers, (many Muslim), all struggling to carve out their independent feifdoms in the fluid political and military mess.
(3) I will not attempt to match the unbelievable facility with which you pin down the vexed issue of 'what won India for the British' - historian you clearly aint. However the common people were so exhausted and harried by endless invasions, forced levies, looting, massacres, raids, abductions for forced labour etc associated with the hideous anarchy following the death of Aurangzeb (does the word 'Pindari' mean anything to you? Didn't think so!) that the peace and stability which total British rule finally brought to India was at first seen a blessing. When Gandhi and the INC activated the people against the British there was negligible terrorism against them - except in Bengal, most of which is now Bangladesh, which is a M_______ country (fill in the blank).
(4)The Muslims of Afghanistan were not motivated by 'integrity' (unbelievable ignorance!) They were motivated by precisely the fanaticism which made it death for a non-Muslim to live in Afghanistan (do you know what the name of the Hindu Kush mountain range means - 'killer of Hindus'), which destroyed the Buddhas of Bamiyan, all Hindu temples and Buddhist monastaries and which made it death for a non-Muslim to visit Mecca for centuries (read Richard Burton, John Masters, Eric Newby, or, for that matter, anyone).
(5) the Hindu upper classes of India were precisely the people who founded the INC, being the most educated and self-aware. To suggest they sold out their people to the British is a monstrous untruth, and betrays a simple, black and white, paper-cut out understanding of history characteristic of all too many Americans.

It is neccessary to bring all this back to the thread. To summarise: Islam IS more prone to fanaticism than other religions; this was true before stupid US and British actions fuelled the flames. The more I become aware of your patchy knowledge of history, the more I realise how it is possible for you to deny this uncomfortable truth.