Rosie O'Donnell's religious acumen aside, I have come across a post on Hot Air that calmly and thoroughly asserts the obvious: Christianity and Islam, radical or otherwise, are not in any sense equivalent with respect to their stands on violence. I add, nor could they possibly arrive at equivalence without a complete and utter perversion of Christianity's major theme, which is has come to be called The Golden Rule by some, such is its dominance in Christian thought. For completeness, I state a form of it here.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

A frequent justification for equating violence in Christianity and Islam is to point to the violence in Leviticus. 

But as the Hot Air post amply demonstrates, The Golden Rule clearly and unequivocally supersedes the Law of Leviticus among practicing Christians (and therefore eliminates rape, throat-cutting and forced conversion from the Christian's tool box for honoring and spreading the faith). To argue otherwise, Rosie, would make one appear a fool.

from the post, by Bryan,

"...if you don't understand the principle of abrogation or the fact that not all scriptures hold equal weight in any faith, and it's clear those who don't hold to any faith at all probably don't since they keep quoting Old Testament civil Law to slam Christians, then you're ill-equipped to make the distinctions that mark Leviticus less authoritative on behavior than the Gospels for the Christian, and earlier verses less authoritative than later ones for the Muslim. The position of the violent Suras in the Koran is both a fact and a problem [emphasis mine], one Spencer [Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch] attempts to engage on its own terms, and one secularists consistently misunderstand because they don't understand how a given text relates to a given faith and to other texts within that faith."

Read the whole thing, follow the links, here. Bryan has done an excellent job.

Please also see this excellent supportive article by Robert Spencer who reaffirms what most of us already know empirically, the violence is in the book.

from the Spencer piece:

"In other words, Muhammad gave peace a chance, with the pacific suras, and then understood that jihad was the better course.

A modern-day Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh ‘Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, has taught that in the Qur'an, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the Suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)"