I'm not a muslim, or a religionist in any meaningful sense.
 
Nonetheless I have issues with your post.
It's grounded in a lot of ignorance of what Islam is about.
I would never embrace Islam, but I at least saw a point in learning about it from the perspective of intellectual followers.  Any religion forged in war (which Islam was) is dangerous in my opinion.
 
How many fanatics would you assume are in the world, or those that want to kill infidels as you say?  Estimates are that 5% of the faithful are militant (not meaning that all would commit suicide bombings).
 
So you're willing to paint 95% of the rest of those people with the same brush?
 
"Jihad" as declared by Osama and his ilk are not within Islam.  Osama had to get a certain cleric to try to make the argument that it was OK.  This position has not been embraced by the vast majority of clerics, and is still seen as an aberration.  
 
I think if you even just read the Koran's rules of Jihad you'd understand how obvious it is that Osama is not representative.  Also, suicide is NOT allowed in Islam.  
 
One more thing: People will always point out  (inaccurately) that the Koran says Muslims should kill infidels, without reading context.  Even then, how is this any different than Christianity saying that God will kill the vast majority of non-Christians, before judging them and throwing them in the lake of fire?
 
 
 
I don't judge a man by his religion, but by the way he represents himself.
Jah Melku

Every "evil" in this world today is simply a reflection of how enslaved our own minds are; when we truly become free, we can then take responsibility for every life.

some may consider capitalism a greater evil

I'll try to answer them up here as the quoting will take too long.
 
Islam is dangerous because it's created in a time of war.  A lot of the advice Mohammed gave dealt with an environment in which they were constantly at war.  Just like Judaism and Christianity, too many modern followers can't realize that the context in which those decrees are made may no longer apply.  One common example being Paul's admonition that women should never cut their hair.  Fortunately, a lot of people don't follow that (a lot of Pentecostals do though).
 
No, suicide at all, regardless of reason, is NOT rewarded.  Being a martyr is though, and that is being killed in DEFENCE of God or Islam.  So the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, they get rewarded (I think they would actually qualify, and I think there's a valid argument that that's justified)
 
You're not allowed to fight against the people of the book simply because they are not of your religion, even Pagans are allowed to live within Islamic territories if they pay tribute.  During the crusades that is Jihad, and a VALID use of Jihad, as they were the ones being attacked (again, like in Afghanistan now).
 
Islam ordains spreading the religion yes, but so does Christianity, so they are both bad in that context. A lot of the wars that spread Islam were not religious, but political.  For example, Mohammed didn't take Arabia because they weren't Muslim, he thought they would be stronger if united under a common leader.
 
Osama might be muslim, but it's not fair to judge Islam by him. That's like udging all Christians by the actions of the KKK (which is a very Christian organization).
 
 
Again, I think they are all delusional (fundamental Christianity/Islam, orthodox Judaism).  I would never subscribe to any of them.  I just think if we're going to argue with them, we should do it in an honest fashion and not pick and choose examples that fit our arguments and then paint all believers as if they are a monolithic group.
 
Islam has actually been more progressive than Christianity in some respects.  Examples include science, math, women's rights. It's more lately that Islam has appeared to be more and more a backwards religion.
 
Quote from britannia on Nov 16^th, 2009, 2:22pm:

Quote from frankster on Nov 17^th, 2009, 6:40am:

 
pretty much... not necessarily the institution but how is used.