Globally, I have no idea, but we've been talking about the US and to a lesser extent European situation, and I can't think of any reported incidents against abortion doctors/patients or homosexuals perpetrated by Muslims, although I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were some, as many Islamic texts and teachers are vehemently against those as well. I suspect that it's a lower proportion of these by Muslims though, if only because they're going to be facing greater pressures to keep their heads down, stay out of trouble and try to prove how nice and non-extremist they are, possibly pushing them further away from conservative Islam even. Or perhaps you don't hear of it because perceived oppression is the chief focus for extremists at the moment. However that's just speculation.2.) What issues which are more likely to evoke threats or acts of violence by Christians (on an explicitly religious basis) are unlikely to evoke (proportionately)the same or greater amount of acts/threats of violence by Muslims?
How much the answer to that matters depends entirely on what positions we're actually debating right now. I confess I'm not sure what your underlying message is with all the to-ing and fro-ing, so I'll define mine:
I began posting because despite preferring that all the Abrahamic religions would just go away as soon as possible, I don't want Muslims to be treated with suspicion of their character and good intentions any more than I want people who identify with the other major religions to be, and some posts early in the thread seemed to be suggesting that such suspicion would be justified. The implications included that unlike Christians and Jews, Muslims are choosing to believe in a book which has some horrible things in it. I don't believe that is fair as I explained, because there's no reason to assume that they know what's in their book or how it's more accurately interpreted. Most religious people are extremely ignorant about their religion's history and literature. Another implication was that they can't be trusted because not enough of them condemn Islamic terrorism. I also disagree with this analysis and explained why.
My argument was never that Islam is not a bad influence on the world, or that it's not as bad as Christianity or only as bad as Christianity (my guess is that in our time, it's probably causing more suffering than Christianity, but that's extremely difficult to quantify). My driving position is that individual Muslims are not more deserving of suspicion than individual Christians, and that therefore any kind of discrimination against someone soley because of what religion they identify with is wrong. Even if statistically Muslims are more likely to be extremists than Christians are, and again I guess that they're not, reject assertions that they clearly are, but am not certain, I don't think this would justify regarding Muslims with increased suspicion that could result in them being treated less favourably, as the others are still very regular people and not some kind of tacitly West-hating hybrid creatures, to be placed somewhere between extremism and normality, they're just plain normal. It doesn't matter how large a dangerous subset of people is, it shouldn't be allowed to contaminate people's view of the people outside of that subset.
I suspect we actually share more common ground than we've thought.