have you seen this video? (an islamic preching in Palestine)

[Zenith]

Point being is that all of your 'Holy books' are nothing more than political statements that are 2000 years old and out of date

hmm... the qur'an is about 1300 years old, not 2000 years old. taking into consideration that Muhammud lived in the 7th century AD.

[KichigaiNeko]

Point being is that all of your 'Holy books' are nothing more than political statements that are 2000 years old and out of date

hmm... the qur'an is about 1300 years old, not 2000 years old. taking into consideration that Muhammud lived in the 7th century AD.

And we all know that islam is a late comer to the political way of "ruling the masses"

Your point is noted but the relevance??? It is still no different to judaism nor christianity. Still does not detract that the format is just a political methodology to supervise mass thinking and rule.

[Zenith]

Point being is that all of your 'Holy books' are nothing more than political statements that are 2000 years old and out of date

hmm... the qur'an is about 1300 years old, not 2000 years old. taking into consideration that Muhammud lived in the 7th century AD.

And we all know that islam is a late comer to the political way of "ruling the masses"

Your point is noted but the relevance??? It is still no different to judaism nor christianity. Still does not detract that the format is just a political methodology to supervise mass thinking and rule.

the relevance: the topic was Islam (since about 1300 years ago) not christianity (since about 2000 years ago) and not Judaism (since about 3300 years ago). I was not very sure what you were talking about.

Anyway, as I see, Islam is currently worse than both the others: you see no christians bombing themselves in the name of Jesus Christ (as kamikaze) nor Jews bombing themselves in the name of Yahweh (as kamikaze). Secondly, I believe Islam has more and worse violence teachings, and stuff like child molestation clearly allowed (Muhammud was sleeping with a 9 years old girl).
Third is the "conquering the world" issue:

- In Judaism, the knowing of God and serving Him was only meant for the jewish people, not for the rest. And they were allowed to conquer only the promised land. There is no "conquering the world" objective.
- Christianity was born as a heresy of Judaism, a minority that was hated by the mainstream Judaism, from which it separated from. Then it was hated by the pagan Roman Empire because it declared all their gods as false (which is a kind of, go to a muslim country and tell them that all they believe is bullshit, then see what happens) and the christians separated themselves from the pagans. The point is: it could have not started as a "conquering the world" religion, because they started as the hated minority, nor as a political religion, because it was unofficial (it became accepted as an official religion a few centuries later), that is, a kind of sect, without any official or formal organization, and without any political power. It became a political religion once it was accepted as the only true faith in the Roman Empire, when the aim of the people became "One state, one law, and one church (i.e. one faith)"
- Islam was born when Christianity was already political (and has been very influenced by Christianity). As I remember, it is said that the Qur'an was written after Muhammud died, by his disciples. The fact is that Muhammud was spreading his beliefs by conquest, and not long after he died, his followers, the Arabs, have been conquering north Africa, and all middle-east, from christians and from pagans. In other words, Islam was born with the weapons it its hands, being taught to fight the infidels and conquer the world.

So, regarding violence, I think that Islam is worse than the other two. As about "religion" in general, a priest/imam/pastor/whatever can convert even a peaceful verse into an instigation to violence, so that's bad too.
Regarding politics, I guess the Holy Books of Islam are in top. The Jewish Scriptures follow, with the restriction that these are more close to nationality, to "their own blood" (it's a law of the state, and a state for the Jewish people). The Holy Scriptures of Christianity (except the ones belonging to Judaism) seem to have nothing to do with politics (there is no "christian state for the christians" in their holy books).

as about "Still does not detract that the format is just a political methodology to supervise mass thinking and rule.":
I guess you're right: official religions are political everywhere. But mostly, they're ok with you as long as you act as if they're right :))

Anyway, it seems that the supervising of the mass thinking is always done by somebody/something (either religion, or a philosophy, or fashion, etc. that most people follow blindly). So as long as they don't kill you for being different or something, I guess it's ok. I don't know a better solution that would allow and also force people to think and choose independently.