Maybe you could do some looking too, not at random internet apologism but at the scripture and history itself.
Quoting scripture to basically call a culture barbaric presents a problem - there is no correlation between scripture and the behaviour of the people that scripture relates to. There are Buddhists like Phra Kittiwuttho who have called for people to be killed merely for being communist. How could he, if Buddha specifically states no killing?
Well...
Religious texts and teachings are all alegorical, and have been since at least Augustine.
Citing history is useful. But then you could cite how, for example, most of the Islamic states that Mr Condell calls backward places that are stuck in the dark ages were actually secular democratic states during the 1940s. What was Europe doing at the time? And just why isn't Iran, for example, democratic anymore?
Ohhh right.
Have you seen Condells rant on Palestine? "Crybabies" over a "phoney Palestinian cause"? Look:
That hasn't happened in the middle ages. That didn't happen in 1850 or 1902. That has happened within the lifetime of people alive today, who can remember it and are still living under it. He's complaining about seeing Muslims on English streets even though they are almost all just minding their own business, but doesn't see the actual takeover of another nation and the "resettlement" of it's population as an issue. That's sheer hypocrisy.
And, if all else fails, you
could turn to science. One of the criticisms leveled at religious people is that they fail to adapt their thinking when empirical evidence is produced which counters a certain religious position (the age of the earth and evolution of life being an example). When Condell talks about "Islamic misogyny" when Bangladesh, the fourth biggest Muslim nation on the planet with 89.5% of the population being Muslims out of 150 million people, only had female contenders for its last election (Sheikh Hasina, Khaleda Zia, Rowshan Ershad), I only see an idiot who won't let facts get in the way of his opinion - the irony is painful here.
part of my point is that, although Islam is currently in the media for extremist acts, it is not necessarily a property exclusive to Islam.
:
To put it another way. Whilst it is valid to say "Islam has features that may lead to extremism", it would be wrong to say those features are unique to Islam.
:
Those features are inherent in all religions and exist even in non-religious belief systems such as separatist or independence groups (who view their actions as legitimate means to achieve their higher purpose).
:
Scientologists, whilst not committing mass shootings, are renowned for extremely ruthless behaviour, well outside societal and even legal norms, towards those their leadership deem are legitimate targets.
:
Bombings and shootings targeting clinics and their staff have long been a feature of US right wing Christianity.
:
In the UK, a small group of people believed it was legitimate to threaten, fire bomb and even car bomb people over animal rights.
You might find the link I posted above quite interesting.
Most terrorist acts in the past few decades haven't been Islamic but have been associated with a group whose members are mostly Hindu and atheist,
LTTE. They are actually the inventors of the belt bomb device. However, as their targets have not been white westerners there has been barely any news coverage of them at all. Islamic terrorism on the scale we're seeing now is an incredibly modern phenomena. According to
Robert Pape the seeds of it were sown in 1990 after the first gulf war. Saddam Husseins forces were removed from Kuwait, but the United States left behind 50,000 troops in Saudi Arabia as well as supplying the regime with over 22 billions worth of advanced weapons. This has been seen by many in the Arab world (already unhappy with our activities in supplying dictators, fighting proxy wars, supporting Israel, and organizing coup-detats) as an actual occupation. Our responses (more invasions, flying predator drones over their countries and more killing, as well as more backing to the Saudi government) are only making things worse.