Sorry Ritter
Can you explain please.
Perhaps I have to expand my argument.
To decide whether or not a religion or ideology does more to predispose one to violence, it is not enough to look at historical events hundreds of years after the death or departure of the religions founder for a couple of reasons.
1. Overriding political concerns of the era may obfuscate the theology. How often do people claiming to be Christians fall to the allure of a zeitgeist? Too often.
2. The people of that particular time period may be blind to that theology out of their own will. Many on this site would claim that all who participated in the Crusades were Roman Catholic and, by definition, either seriously flawed in their theology or not Christian altogether.
My claim is simple: If one is to follow the methodology of the founders of their religion (which doesn't always happen), then the Muslim is more likely to be violent than the Christian. Why? Muhammad spread Islam via the sword as did his followers shortly after his death. Jesus and his apostles did not. They sought to capture the hearts and minds of men.
Does this mean a Muslim always be more violent than a man redeemed by Christ? No. See above. The zeitgeist and impure theology can, indeed, pacify a man. What it does mean is that there is a factor moving in favor of violent action within his system of belief and likely his heart as well.