So, with such similarities between the two, how can one claim the other is bad for religion. The panal ansers, that this is due to perception, or actually, misperception. They make the point that, a terroist who is Middle Eastern is not necessarily Muslim nor does he represent the entire religion. This too can be seen in the U.S., although members of Klu Klux Klan may claim to be Christian, their acts are not representative of the Christian belief. Just the same as the Jewish defense League is not Judaism.
Westerners claim that there is a paradox between the Islamic belief and it's actions.
But, panalist argue, that this same paradox can be seen in the U.S. as well, for example, the Spanish Inquisition. In other words, the panalists are arguing that many religions, not just Islam, have used religion as a means to validate war. Dr. Suleiman explains that many countries need some way to motivate it's citizens in the face of war. It is through the west misperception of Islam that Islam rages. This rage is not only based on misperception, but also the feeling of domination by non-Muslims.