Well, the latter is slighty more defendable than the former, but if one parses the hermenuetics carefully (and not much careful casuistry is required) one can make a case for Just War, a la Aquinas in the case of the IRA (and the later behavior; off announcing bombs, well in advance of detonation helps this interpretation) which would allow them to be devout Catholics.

In the second case, since there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic.

Shiite islam, with it's ayatollahs, is in a better position to declare issues of orthodoxy, but that is part, and parcel, of the hostilities between the sects.

As for his making the world more dangerous, I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at him from a purely religious perspective, in that I see him as both damaging the Church's image (and so her ability to affect change) and the opinion of the faithful, in such a way as to drive them to other faiths.

It was a purely Roman Cathilocentric opinion.

TK