I appreciate your hnest effort at a fair-minded dialogue.
Although it's certainly true that Mohammed only got so far, for his time that "so far" was a fairly significant amount of empire building. Bear in mind too, that he didn't really get going on that until mid life (about 40?), when he had built armies. At that point, he went from being a lone voice to a virtual imperialist king, acquiring land through relentless war. That, BTW, expalins why the later verses of the Koran are so different than the earlier ones. That explains the War Verses (although the verses are not presented in chronological order).
Assuredly, the "lust for conquest" is not exclusively Arab. Most peoples have conquered. But I disagree about the source. Few, if any other, faiths call for imperialism. Islam, very arguably does.
al Qaeda's principle sponsors are the wahabbis. It is a Wahabbi organization, as is the Egyptian Brotherhood. Not only is it global, but the iranian Islamists also sponsor terrorist organizations, like, and maybe principly, Hezbullah.
Islam is a faith of over one billion. Even though it is true, as I have also said, that a minority of Muslims are Islamists (although a larger minority of Arab Muslims), that minority is still in the many millions. That is how the Islamist movement is global, to the point where even British born and raised Muslims, some from moderate families, are exposed to Islamist teachings in local mosques - the results of which we've seen in recent weeks.
I read Jazzn's reply. His argument is the one side of the theological civil war in Islam, and one I've read many times. The other side is the Islamists' take on the War Verses - one that says there is a killing rule. While jazzn's comments may or may not offer evidence against killing the "other peoples of the book," (i.e., Jews and Christians, and that is contentious if they reject Islam, and at a minimum they're still expected to live in subjugated status), it does not deny the duty to "kill the unbeliebers wherever you find them," (i.e., non Jews and Christians) if they reject Islam. I posted some links to Islamist thinking. (the Islamists also rule out democracy as an evil.)
The Islamists are angry that the US stands between them and their march to takeover the Islamic world - with the intent of then going after the rest of the world. Bear in mind that they kill far, far more Muslims, for now, (aside from in Sudan) than non Muslims. They had taken over Afghanistan and ran it precisely according to sharia law (as they interpret it). Women were made virtual slaves. Music was not allowed. There and in Iraq the majority of insurgents are foreigners. They are killing Iraqis in a wave of suicide bombings in the hope of derailing democracy. Meanwhile, the majority of Iraqis (and Afghanis) want the Americans to stay until they are strong enough themselves to defeat the Islamists (and in Iraq, Hussein loyalists who are, for now, working together). The people support America, whom they see is on their side. That is the often not understood dynamic. Moreover, the US was very careful to limit casualties. The number is in the thousands, of whom a great many were Islamists or Saddamites.
Because Islamism is a global movement, there is no simple solution, such as catching a nominal number of them. As pointed out, they're even in the west. The Wahabbis have even taken control of the vast majority of western mosques and islamic organizations. They have cells in many places. There is good reason to believe that even CAIR is an Islamist front group. It's founder, and several other key people, have been sent to jail for terrorist related activities.
Many will agree with you that the Koran cannot be changed, not one word. My hope - and maybe it is unrealistic - is that it could be edited unde the guise of being updated to modern vernacular. In other words, it would not be said to be altered, merely put in modern language to be more mroer easily understood.
I think if you go back and re-read any of my past posts, you will see that they are nothing other than dispassionate efforts at reason. I was in no way hostile, or even impolite. the real issue is the assumption in this moral realtivist and moral equivalence age that to even suggest that there is a flaw in the faith of another civilization is defacto bigotry. That many Muslims themselves, being victims of the Islamists more than ourselves for now, are wondering the same is not understood.
™ Version 4.2