[QUOTE=Hax;2531729]To be honest, the fact that it is forbidden to portray Muhammad (and certainly not just him, it's restricted to make images of any Prophet) is due to the fear that the image will become more important and thus people will fall into idolatry. It's comparable to the generally plain reformist churches. Here in the Netherlands, at least. As for his divine status; there is none. He was simply human, and that's it. He is not interchangable with God as Jesus is in most (!) Christian sects.[quote]

You are not understanding my use of language, "reverence", is not the same as "worship" in Christian thought. I said nothing about Muhammed having "divine" status but he is generally agreed to have divine sanction, he is seen as an effective conduit between Man and God for the passage of information. Jesus is a conduit for communion with God, he provides his followers effective direct access.

Kinda depends on the school, fell into my own trap there, heh. The oldest surviving school, Theravada, regards Siddharta Gautama as simply being human, with no supreme abilities or stuff. The newer school, Mahayana, regards some Buddha's (especially Mahavairocana Buddha) as possessing powers akin to that of the Judeo-Christian God. Generally, the historical Buddha is just revered as teacher. A great (subjectively the best) teacher at that, but still human and all people can become that teacher.
OK, not something I see as hugely relevant right now.

I don't think that the concept of Dar-al-Islam is pursued by the great majority of Muslims nowadays. Perhaps some of the fringe lunatics still harken back to Ye Olde Days, but I've seen no such desire within the Muslim community. If I'm mistaken, we're at a great loss, but Dar-al-Islam relied on the concept of the Muslim world being more civilised than the other worlds (during its time, perhaps was justified), but don't forget that the Muslims never (repeatedly) tried to invade China or western Europe. Edward Gibbon suggests some sort of proto-Clash of Civilisations after which all of western Europe would have been converted to Islam, but it's something of an unrealistic image, and unsustainable at that one (to the invaders). The invasion of France was never a war of annexation, it was a major raid.
Uh-hum. Every part of the House of Islam is conquered land, the push up through Spain, and the push past Canstantinople into the Balkans gives the lie to what you say. The borders of the Islamic world are mostly geographical-military choke points, and in every case they have been pushed back from their previous frontiers by Christian Armies. Roland, Pepin the Fat, Carlos Magnus and El Cid dissagree with you.

To suggest that the current Muslim world is the result of anything other than Sultan's loosing wars is historically inaccurate.

EDIT: You know, it's happening in South Korea right now. Religious violence is not restricted to Islam; both Christianity and Buddhism also have their problems, it depends on where you're looking.
As far as I am concerned, religious violence in the name of Christ is not a Christian trait.... not everyone agrees with me. It remains an unfortunate truth that Islam is built on militaristic expansion and cultural supremacy. In a world where Islamic nations have neither the religion clearly struggles to articulate itself.