Maybe more subtlety: "the best way of life" for them
and of course it can't be 'completely different"
I think I detect what your basis is: You are saying that the LOGOS, the belief in the rationality of God , Creation, and humans should be the cornerstone of public life. Well , THERE you do have a difference. One cannot attack the freedom of another's person's religous choice but you can point out irrationality. I go with the Pope Benedict take on this
spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not actng reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contraryto God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats...To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, orany other means of threatening a person with death..."
Hence the importance of Aayan Hirshi Ali. ( you are talking about the Western rejection of all moral equivalence)
"“My observation is yes, Christianity is different from Islam…The worst thing that a Christian has ever said to me, the rudest thing that a Christian has ever said to me, the thing that made me most uncomfortable that a Christian said to me was ‘I’m going to pray for you. I hope you will be safe. I hope you will be redeemed.’ But within my own family and my own community, when I say I’m in doubt about the Koran and Muhammad and life after death and all that, it is ‘well, you are to die.’ So I just want to point out the differences between the religions…What makes me angry is the moral equivalence.”"
