My follow up answer(s)...

1) Yes.

2) Yes.

You misunderstood my post. I don't have a problem with comparing the relative freedoms found inherently within societies of a Christian versus a Muslim background... until that comparison makes the assumption that, since they are both "religions" they are equal from the start. The comparison is false if it is made on the understanding that we're looking at "apples and apples".

Both Christianity and Islam base their faiths on the Revelation of God to Man, and both feel this revelation was finite in its form... meaning it is NOT an ongoing process. Christ was God's final revelation to Man for Christians, and Muhammad was Allah's final revelation for Muslims. Both faiths have holy books which detail the revelation in question, form and process. Both faiths have a sort of "sacred tradition" that is part of the revelation, but might not be completely contained within the scripture. Both faiths are plagued (in the past as well as now) with divisions and inter-nicene fighting that has brought great pain and suffering to the faithful.

Christianity, in its most practiced forms, holds that while divine revelation stopped with Christ's ascension into heaven... our understanding of that revelation continues to grow and expand with each and every day that passes until Christ's return in glory. It is NOT the Christian faith that is "evolving" since early in the 1st Century, but our understanding of that faith and the manner in which we live the precepts of that faith changes as we grow and develop.

The "trend" now in Islam seems to be that, what was understood, practiced and lived in the late 9th Century by the most historically relevant Muslim authors, commentators and leaders that we still know of, is what they think they should be striving for again. No thought is given to the possibility that, since the human mind is finite and weak, those that put pen to paper early in the faith's history could have used terms, phrases or views that might lend a narrow view of a much broader understanding... because the fear of revision or "modernization" is so terrifying to them.

For centuries, the scriptural phrase "an eye for an eye" was taken literally by Christian authorities... while today, we understand that the phrase was an early form of a "statue of limitation" so that no punishment could exceed the crime committed. If, in a drunken brawl, a man injures another's eye, he shouldn't have his injured in return... but he could be made to pay a fine equivalent to the "value" of an eye to the man he injured. This is a basic tenant of law that we still recognize today... but Christ told us to look past it. He called on us to forgive the "due punishment" such an injury required, by "turning the other cheek". Our understanding of Christ's words have taken centuries to grow to what they are today... not that we are called to absolute pacifism in all situations, but when the "evil" done to us effects only "myself" and then, only to a slap, a trivial suit, an unfair labor requirement... we are called to overlook the "evil" and return it with charity and kindness. Part and parcel with the "Golden Rule"... which is found in BOTH the Old Testament (the Jewish Bible) and throughout the New Testament (the Christian Bible)... but is not codified in any way, shape of form within the Qu'ran. It is mentioned by the Imam An-Nawawi in the 13th Century commentary he is remembered for, but no earlier, and his words are not considered a "remembrance" of Mohammed's.

This is but one example that I feel we can hold up to say that Christianity and Islam are not two, separate religions with equal weight and dignity... because they do not hold the same fundamental truths to be absolute. Both faiths should have the same rights and freedoms under secular law, that is absolutely true... but both DO NOT recognize the authority of secular law equally at all, either. Christianity has a long and storied history of thriving under secular authority (and Judaism puts even Christianity to shame in this light)... while Islam (in general) has utterly refused to recognize any authority but that stemming from Islam itself.

Modern, liberal terms and concepts that seek to tie the three great faiths of the Levant together are academically accurate... but no more than that. Yes, all three faiths (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) can all find common ground with the Faith of Abraham, and all have ties with the Five Books of Moses (and can thus be called the Faiths of the Book)... but the comparison dies quickly.

Judaism and Christianity share a beginning in a past that goes back at least 5,000 years. There is no single, historical person or point where one can point and say "Here is where it all began" because the faiths are based on centuries of revelation and understanding of God's plan for Man. Islam is based entirely on the sayings, actions and beliefs of one man, the 6th Century Meccan named Mohammed ibn Abdullah, as the last and ultimate "mouthpiece" of God's will on Earth.

We could spend decades talking about the theological differences between the faiths... but it is the faiths themselves and the manner in which they are lived and propagated that I feel give the best evidence of their merit and truth.

So, to sum up my point...

Societies where the most basic and fundamental assumptions are made on false premises are doomed from the start. Communism is based on a false assumption (many of them, actually) and thus, communism died a slow and costly death over the last century. Fascism did the same (just quicker). Theocracies have a long and storied tradition of dying as quickly as their leadership... with one very real exception. The Papacy. While I can't point to the papacy as a "secular power" throughout its history... it has always had an authority and influence that is undeniable, and while it has been abused by bad men, it has never failed or corrupted the "faith" at its heart. No Muslim leadership institution can claim the same, can it?