With the average Muslim giving the impression of being more motivated by Islam than the average Christian by Christianity, we already have a first cause of concern for the Christians. If Christianity was supposed to be the superior religion, it should more effectively motivate than the other religions do. It clearly does not. Christianity is the largest factory of atheists on the planet.
The first qualm is therefore: jealousy. It is trivially easy to find Muslims willing to risk their lives and die for Islam, while it is almost impossible to find Christians willing to do the same for Christianity. That is worrisome. The strength of the Christian beliefs is really poor.
At a theological level, there is the Christian tragedy.
Well, that is how the Catholics call it: the tragedy. Martin Luther wanted an exclusively scriptural religion, based on the Bible, with no special powers for the clergy, and governed by Aristotelian logic (in which contradictions are not allowed). The Papacy wanted to keep the religion based on the privilege of the clergy to redefine the religion as and when needed. In April 1521, the Papacy clarified that the Bible was not to be considered a source of authority:
The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each evil heresiarch has drawn his deceptive arguments.
Only the Papacy was to rule the realm. But then again, it is impossible to keep the religion consistent if the clergy can modify it on a whim. Islam avoided this trap. There is no Pope or clergy that can modify anything on a whim. The Koran, written between 610 and 632, even warns for the problem of allowing something like a Pope to do that:
Al-Tawba Verse No:31. The Christians have taken their priests and their monks for lords besides God.
The result of this, is that Christian theology has insurmountable consistency problems.
Christianity can impossibly operate as an Aristotelian, axiomatic system. In mathematical terms: Christianity’s axiomatic base does not include the axioms of propositional logic. The very power to change things on the fly is exactly what destroys its consistency.
While arguments that emanate from Christianity, when governed by strict logic — this is usually not the case — could possibly still lead to a draw in a theological debate with Islam, arguments coming from western atheism could impossibly convince. For example, the canonical western-atheist argument of the equality between man and woman:
man = woman
According to the law of the identity of indiscernibles (Leibniz Law), this argument means that it would be impossible to distinguish between a man and a woman. This is obviously not true. You do not even need to undress men and women to clearly discern who is a man and who is a woman.
The proponents of this argument will say that they mean something else, but that does not matter. It is their responsibility to phrase their arguments in such a way that they cannot be misunderstood, and not our responsibility to try to understand what they actually meant to say. Furthermore, there is no way that we will lower the standards of propositional logic just to accommodate the inability of the adversary to abide by its rules.
Therefore, the argument of the equality between man and woman is just an invalid proposition. It does not convince, simply because it is wrong. There is no need for a more elaborate answer to an argument which fails the basic principles of logic. Furthermore, in my view, it is simply not possible to produce a phrasing for this argument without relying on a contradiction.
Western atheism is a weak ideology. It is no better than what you can read in the old manifest of the communist party. A reasoning that rests on contradictions is always intellectually inferior. Western atheism can also not really defend itself. The ones who believe in God, are willing to risk their lives and die for God, while the ones who believe in nothing, will have die for nothing.
Concerning terrorism and Islam, I find the alleged connection a bit ridiculous. Islam is an axiomatic system resting on the propositions in the Koran. What individual Muslims say or do, is not part of its definition.
So, am I a Christian or a Muslim?
To tell you the truth, I refrain from answering that question, even for myself. Being born into Christianity, while often flirting with Islamic theology, I do not want to partake in any possible conflict between Christians and Muslims. That risk is otherwise real. All I can say, is that I am certainly not afraid of Islam. There are no axiomatic systems of which I would be afraid. That kind of things simply does not exist.