It seems that not many people who're not followers of the religious extremists (causing all the trouble in Africa and the Middle East) have looked in to the whole issue of what drives them.

Now depending on who you listen to, one faction says it's a religion of peace and tolerance and another says that what they say goes and all those who don't share their view should suffer one way or another. They both claim to be of the same beliefs but they can't both be right?

What's the reason for the difference?

Well, the difference is that at one time the chap spouting all this stuff was very, very poor and had very, very few followers and was looking for converts and his er, spoutings from that time had a ring of reason in them.

He was driven out of the city where (at that time) he didn't go down too well so he set up elsewhere. Then, because he had little or nothing and relied on hand-outs, he started stealing/robbing people and also kidnapping people and held them for ransom under threat of being killed if their families didn't pay up.

After many years, he became rich and powerful and his spoutings took a totally different line, often the complete opposite of what he'd said before.

If you look, you'll find the differences and you can cross-check to ensure no-one's altered what was said or taken it out of context.