Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions?

Internet culture has of late bandied the notion that Islam is a uniquely violent and insidious religion with new degrees of fervor and specificity. The approaching zeitgeist seems to be that the tenets and doctrines of Islam are themselves uniquely abhorrent when compared with their Christian counterparts, which is used as a causative explanation for the current prevalence of violence in many Muslim countries, their poor human rights track records, and the present frequency of terror attacks carried out in the name of Islam.

The problem I'm having in trying to assent to this position is that I can see similarities in the doctrines of all three religions which seem to equally condone (and condemn) abhorrent violence, and I can also see similarities between past and present behavior across all three religions. How can contemporary Islamic inspired violence be an innate function of Islam if there were periods of peace throughout its history? How can violence not be an innate part of Christianity if there are periods of violence throughout its history? Without getting into specifics, both Christianity and Islam contain peaceful and violent examples and doctrines to draw from, and have both done so in the past and present, so what is it about Islam that makes it so fundamentally and at it's core more violent and more oppressive?

The argument that seeks to establish Islam as uniquely violent and oppressive which relies on cherry-picking it's doctrines (something all religions tend to do) and cherry picking acts of extreme violence in the modern world as representative of Muslim behavior strikes me as too simplistic and just unpersuasive.

The idea that we must "fight back" against Islam because it is inherently violent seems to be cropping up more and more as the western perception and definition of Islam as the one true violent religion solidifies as a common denominator. The perception of Islam as a uniform and unified religion is foremost errant in that definition, and what lacks still are the historical, cultural, political, and economic contexts which are necessary to understand what impact religion has on human behavior. Christian barbarism can be judged in hindsight by westerners with the benefit of understanding the historical and cultural circumstances and external factors which contributed to certain periods of Christian violence and specific wars, and also with the benefit of understanding how Christianity and its role in society diverged and changed over time into the many diverse sects that now exist today. The existence of explicitly violent and abhorrent verses in the Bible threatens no cognitive dissonance for a westerner because it is well understood how modern Christian sects shift focus (cherry-pick) in order to metabolize such verses without inciting people to actually act on them (none the less, many of them continue to be acted upon to this day, although seldom in first world countries).

When western society decided to stop lynching and castrating homosexuals, and appealing to the Christian law which condones such violence fell out of popularity in (some) churches, was that an example of a fundamental and innate principle of Christianity yielding to secular pressure? Did Christianity reform and become something new? If a specific act of violence is innate to a religion because it can be found in the doctrine, and people have acted upon it, why is Christianity not also considered innately violent? If both Islam and Christianity are indeed equally and innately violent, what other factors must we use to explain the constantly fluctuating and diverse behavior of past and present religious adherents? In summation, how can we fully understand the scope and details of the impact that any religion has on human behavior without isolating or controlling for the plethora of other worldly factors which influence said behavior. The fact that Christianity can be both violent and not violent challenges the definition of religion as a set of ideas/beliefs which have necessary and specific ramifications on the broad behavior of it's adherents. The portrayal of Islam as the necessary source of evil in the Islamic world misses this fact entirely and ignores a greater understanding of the host of causative forces at play.