I don't think there's a philosophical framework within which we can really assess which of two world religions is "more harmful". It sounds to me like you're picking the most salient examples to you personally, and choosing to generalise from them.
The character of a religion is not merely shaped by the principles of the religion but by the society in which that religion is present. The Islam of early medieval Spain is different to the Islam of 19th century Saudi Arabia, which is in turn different to the Islam of 17th century India or 21st century Sudan. The Christianity of the Inquisition is different to the Christianity of William Wilberforce, which in turn differs from the Christianity of Constantine and so on.
In reality, we can only really judge people by their actions, rather than their professed religion. Religion of any kind is no excuse for bad behaviour, nor should a person's religion detract from the good that they do.
The character of a religion is not merely shaped by the principles of the religion but by the society in which that religion is present. The Islam of early medieval Spain is different to the Islam of 19th century Saudi Arabia, which is in turn different to the Islam of 17th century India or 21st century Sudan. The Christianity of the Inquisition is different to the Christianity of William Wilberforce, which in turn differs from the Christianity of Constantine and so on.
In reality, we can only really judge people by their actions, rather than their professed religion. Religion of any kind is no excuse for bad behaviour, nor should a person's religion detract from the good that they do.