Today being the day our thoughts are brought to it, I've been thinking about Islam. And wondering if the following historical critique might have some validity. In summary, nothing in Islam calls for the terrorism, misogyny, or primitivism associated with it. No, Islam calls followers toward the Sublime. But, could it be said that Islam, while not calling for those things, does a poorer job in quelling them than does Christianity?

In other words, the primitive behaviors ignorantly attributed to Islam are merely human nature. The value to civilization of religion is religion's civilizing influence--when that outweighs religion's exclusivity, bigotry and persecution. A historical critique would give more credit to Christianity than to Islam in providing more uplift than evil. Christianity has done more to lift us a cat's whisker from our killer-ape instincts than has Islam. Both religions have a lamentable history of violence, oppression and exclusion. Both have moral codes that, mostly, are nothing more than religious gloss on older property codes: women are the property of their fathers, brothers, then husbands. But a review of the history of each would rate Christianity over Islam in civilizing the killer-apes.

I exclude Judaism from this discussion for two reasons: It is not a proselytizing religion, and it has not had sufficient history in governing large numbers of people. The civilizing influence of Christianity has come from combining the force of government with the aspirations of its better teachings. Judaism hasn't enough history of doing that. And not being proselytizing, it hasn't a history of changing the behaviors of benighted peoples still governed by animist expressions of our killer-ape proclivities. 

The best historical example is slavery. Christian-inspired lobbyists and legislators outlawed slavery throughout the British Empire in the 1830's. British ships then destroyed the embarkation facilities of slavers in Africa. Meanwhile in the Ottoman Empire, it is estimated that ten times as many Africans were  enslaved and transported as the number taken by Europeans. Because these were marched overland, the mortality rate was much higher than the rate among those taken by Europeans. The Koran prohibits slavery. But it was the British and their warships that forced the Muslims to stop much of their slave trade--and its concomitant horrors. Has any Muslim government actually outlawed enslavement of non-Muslims? 

Female genital mutilation is not called for nor encouraged by the Koran. And yet, in the thousand years Islam has governed the countries that practice it, it persists, unobstructed. It is Christian-dominated governments that have condemned it and criminalized the transportation of girls from their countries back to home countries where the mutilation can be performed. Has any Muslim government outlawed such transportation?

Polygamy has been outlawed and its practice is prosecuted in Christian-dominated governments. Polygamy is permitted in Muslim countries. In India, where birth control is strongly "encouraged" only Muslims may practice polygamy--and have no birth control restrictions.

The examples go on, but the next question would be, "What in Islam or Christianity would produce this difference in civilizing influence on governments?" One guess would be the difference in hierarchy. Most of Christianity has a "papa", Pope, Prophet, or Metropolitan at the top to tell the faithful how to think. I am unaware of any example where one of these papas provided the lead in more civilized behavior and values. But when one of the civilizing movements gained enough constituency, the papas often incorporated the movement to prevent schism.  Most of Islam has no such hierarchy.

Another possibility is that Christianity from an early date established a quasi-governmental force in opposition or in tension with secular government. The ability of a Pope to excommunicate a King, and with him all his subjects, may be the primary source of our civil rights today. Instead of this opposition, Muslims have always striven for a government of the Ummah. If religious aspirations are not held in tension against civil government, then they are buried and ignored.

A question I don't have a guess for: Each religion's holy book has a mix of primitive or violent teachings with sublime, civilizing teachings. St. Paul had a chance to condemn slavery, and instead sent a runaway slave back to his master with an exhortation that the enslaved person not be punished, but with no authority to prevent it. Jesus never mentioned slavery. But, abolitionists, Christians all, found inspiration in the teachings of Christ and Paul to persist for decades until they succeeded. Why has Christianity been more successful than has Islam in attracting movements to protest our innate proclivities to abuse, misuse and oppress each other?