My opinion is not one of anti-theism. I think religion has the potential and propensity to do good (the new Pope) as it does to good bad (Israel in general). I'm just stating an observation: religions can be quite problematic when people take them literally, and it's a problem that people who take them literally are called the "extremists". If taking a holy book literally is considered extremism, certainly that makes the religion extremist in nature?
My stance is that religious violence is often initiated by economic and political factors just as much as it is by opposing belief systems being in close proximity. Additionally, taking modern ethical standards and projecting them backwards into time is a problematic way of framing an argument, not that that makes religious conflicts throughout history any less tragic.
Secondly, I think it's imperative to differentiate ISLAM from the other "Abrahamic" religions (hate that term). Judaism and Christianity of course are both much older than Islam, and they have much more in common with each other. Now, if you think that violence is a part of Judaism and Christianity, I think that is a valid if not naive observation to make, but I can accept that notion. Islam, on the other hand, naturally lends itself to more extremism. It's very important to add that the violence found in the Koran, in addition to being of a more graphic nature, is not bound historically like it is in the OT. These are very specific calls to violence when engaging non-believers.
Judging a religion based on its Holy Book is totally valid imo, those who willingly subscribe to it should be held accountable for its content but like I said earlier doctrine is imagined and reimagined depending on what suits a group's interests. A common complaint I see with evangelical politics in the US is when individuals pick and choose Biblical passages and how that's inherently hypocritical. From my perspective, that's a rhetorical device whereby agendas are expressed in a language that holds immediate, implicit cultural capital. Sohh while I think it's completely legitimate to have beef with a belief system based on its document/text, I also think its reductive to view a religion squarely in terms of its Holy Book. Shit is way more fluid than that. I don't think we give syncretism and fragmentation of exegetical opinion within faiths enough credit.
Also, I'm not really seeing the temporal distinction you're making. Judaism as a strictly monotheistic cult didn't exist before Babylonian captivity, and polytheistic practice continued afterwards during the 6th century BCE. The Jewish Messianic cult that would eventually become something similar to what we consider Christianity coalesced in the late 1st century CE. The Arab conquests in the 630s-640s CE are the first major Islamic formative movement. All these occurred in unique circumstances and social contexts but they all, generally, consider themselves to be a part of the same tradition which is why the term Abrahamic comes up (I'm not a fan of it either, tbf).
