It has as its core the worship of a mass murderer. The author isn't honest enough to seperate this from the core of Christian worship. Jesus was a man of peace.

While there is some truth to the textual differences of Jesus and Mo in the works written about them, and in the apparent actions of each man (the historicity of both men are in question), there are great similarities in how the followers used them and violence to spread the word.  So simply based on the people that wrote down supposedly what each man was about, I agree with you.  But not on how each was followed from that point on.

So he loses all credibility. He can't see the difference between people that have used Christianity for evil and the teachings of Christ. Just another backdoor slap at Christianity.

What is the difference?

I'm sick of hearing about Islam as the religion of peace. It never has been and never will be. A bunch of savages declared their leader a prophet and humanity has suffered since.

Many would claim the same of Xtianity.  

Beheading was one of the favorite pastimes of their so called called prophet.

That is apparently worse than the rack, burning at the stake and all the other methods used by xtians in the name of God.

 Another blunder in the article is his tying the culture of the mid-east to Islam. I would argue that whatever culture is left predominately preceded Islam. In other words, the greatest contributions of their societies pre-date Islam.

This is simply not true.  Much of western science, math, philosophy, etc were saved by the Islamic scholars from being lost.  Christians scholars then traveled to the ME to be taught and to bring back these works.  During this time WE were the barbarians and they were the intellectual power house.  Perhaps the "greatest" contributions of the region predate Islam, since archeology suggests that most of the significant advances in human history happened there, but what you mean by "societies" I don't know.