Forgive my sloppiness, but it seemed useful to make a point, which is not that Christianity or Judaism are inherently violent but rather that the exercise of scanning ancient texts and pulling out passages depicting violence is of dubious value. Men and women of that earlier day were violent, and so was the God of their sacred book.
I am not saying Islam is a "religion of peace." That actually seems as unprovable as saying it is a religion of violence. What matters fundamentally is how the religion is practiced now. Modern Christians and Jews have proven capable of rising above the violence of the Bible and so have many modern Muslims. That doesn't mean they necessarily will in all cases, but if they choose a path of violence it is not because it is embedded in the Qur'an but rather because they, as individuals, are twisted.
Citations:
For a particularly nice summary of the Bible's violent elements see Gregg Easterbrook's wonderful book, "Beside Still Waters."
Remember that Muhammad is a military leader and as such is involved personally a great deal of brutality. In the course of one battle led by Muhammad, he raids a village and kills everyone "until their was not one survivor left." (This is actually from Numbers 21:35, the story of the taking of Bashan.) After another battle, Muhammad's troops have slain many men but the "prophet" is disturbed that male infants weren't killed--so he sends the troops back to finish the job. (This actually occurs in Numbers 31:14-17, when Israel takes vengeance on the Mid'ianites.)
They are shown to be not only brutal but treacherous (history worth remembering as we consider peace treaties). In one battle, the Muhammadans promised peace to a tribe nearby and then, when they were lulled into complacency, massacred "all the males." They kept the women as slaves. (This is a story from Genesis 34:25, when Simeon and Levi take vengeance on Shechem, who had defiled their sister Dinah.)
