he's a representative of Islam. Sharon is the most visible representative of both the state of Israel, and, as a consequence, Jews worldwide. Osama does represent Islam for a lot of the world, he's probably the most visible, influential rep at the moment, especially for the fundamentalist variety. Those people who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, they did it because they believed they were doing what their faith told them to. The most influential leader doesn't mean the most pure, or the one who preaches all the tolerance given in the religion. My point is, religion, and religious leaders, have spurred up as much pointless atrocity as any other kind of leader. So what's really so great and moral about them? Islam may be a religion of peace, but some truly awful things have been done in its name. The same applies to Christianity, and, with the current state in Israel, Judaism (though in general, Jews have gotten it a lot worse than they've given, through history. But that's still no excuse).

That's great that you can have a disclaimer "there'll be false prophets, so don't blame us for the awful stuff that's committed in our name", but if you're gonna claim that, in retrospect, you can call anyone who history has shown to be wrong to be "a false prophet", how're you gonna trust spiritual leaders today to be 'morally right'? And if your leaders are untrustworthy, and don't live up to the moral standards set forth by your religion, that kinda undermines your whole claim that all morals are based on religion.

Now back to the other point I was making, point out where Buddhism and Jainism have caused suffering to be done in their name. You said there were books. Name them. Otherwise, recognize that Buddhism and Jainism have a better claim to moral superiority than your own religion (especially if you see peace as the goal), historically anyway.