Moses is a semi-mythological figure, probably based upon some historical person.
The same applies to Mohammed.
To argue about the personality and ethics of either figure makes about as much sense
as to discuss the virtues and failings of Spider Man or Batman.
There is a story, so I discuss the story with what it provides, and, like it or not, conclusions can be drawn. The story of Moses is one of fleeing man lead oppression from within the tribe and from without the tribe and finding the proselytism by G_d instead. Muhammad is clearly a man who had visions, not a man who lead people to relate to their G_d directly, avoiding the horrors of man lead unappologetic proselytism.
In any event, the stories we have of Moses date from much later than the events they purport to describe, as even the bible makes clear - the law was "lost" until recovered in the temple in the time of king Hezekiah, as related in Kings. Moreover, the people were determinately idolatrous at the time, and "recovery" of the law led to wholesale persecutions of polytheists. Which waxed and waned with particular kings, some of whom followed Yahweh-ist policies and some of whom did not. The institution of monotheism as the sole state cult dates only to the time of the return from the Babylonian, not the Egyptian, captivity - under Persian protection.
The same is not true of Mohammad, who is a known historical figure who conquered much of Arabia - though the great conquests really came under his second successor, Omar, who was the military genius of the affair. Certainly episodes of Muhammad's life are stylized legends, dating from a couple of hundred years after his actual life and rule. But that a single man organized a new state centered on Medina and from it conquered Mecca, and imposed a monotheism on the pagans of Arabia, is not disputed by any serious historian. The sequel (conquest of the near east by Arab armies under Omar), and the chronicles of Bzyantium and Persia about it, make enough of it clear.
More to the point, however, the original quibble that there is nothing pacifist about the old testament is entirely true. It describes a monarchy exercising full military force, invading countries, and punishing apostacy with death. Kings who slaughtered idolatrous priests on their own altars are singled out for praise. The old testament's line on pacifism is succinct - "false prophets cry 'peace, peace', but there is no peace". It is, moreover, full of injunctions to exterminate enemies, reports of massive slaughters, prisoners of war thrown from cliffs, savage revenge fantasies, denunciation of whole nations, religions, and time periods, and also (to the knowing) abounding in political agitation.
Jewish religion has not historically been oppressive because the Jews lost their state in 70 AD and didn't get one back until 1947. Not because tolerance is part of their written doctrines. It also undoubtedly helps that it was meant as a law for a single people - though one prophesied to rule mankind - rather than as a law directly meant for everyone. In the main, however, the simple cause of the relative benign nature of Jewish religion is that they have had no power to do mischief for thousands of years. In that period, generations of rabbis covered the existing ancient text with layer upon layer of commentary, keeping it up to date with justice around them.
If Jews were literalists and fundamentalists, they would be dangerous, but few are. The same is true but to a lesser extent of Christianity, for incorporating the old testament into its canon. There you get two possible sources of injustice - excessive literalism about archaic barbarisms, in the old testament in particular, or when departing from literalism in favor of some historical human authority, that authority engaging in persecutions of its own. Because as a matter of human political history, real tolerance is only about 250 years old, anywhere, and has been less than general even within living memory (when half the world was ruled by intolerant communists, etc).
Anyone trying to get their principles of justice from ancient books faces the problem that injustice was all over the place for most of the long term past. Certainly there are better principles in ancient books, notably in the Sermon on the Mount, which is as good a statement of true morality as you will find anywhere, at any time. But distortion by selection, the motives of a commentator, old injustices that have to be ignored not emulated - these pitfalls are inseperable from the whole idea of learning morality from old books.
In the end, there is no substitute for an awake, living moral sense. One that does not rest on authorities in the last analysis, but on direct seeing and direct understanding of what is moral and good, from the heart. There is no innovation in saying so. "Is there a man among you who, when his son asks for bread, would give him a stone?" Evidentally, yes - alas. Plenty of pretended moral teachers are asked for moral bread by their followers, and hand out stones - orders to hate so and so - instead.
Morality is morality. There is no finessing it, and identity politics, allegiance to this or that doctrinal code, is not any substitute for it. To its credit, Christian theology acknowledges as much, refusing to regard all Christians as saints in a world of non-Christian sinners, and instead insisting rather more honestly that all men are sinners, Christians included. That honesty, and the clear justice of things like the Sermon on the Mount, are what can be regarded as better about the Christian tradition, compared to others. Always remembering that it rests on the practical moral humility of its adherents, not on any pretended self-righteousness.
As for the problem of the islamicists, it is much easier to state and not at all complicated. It does not depend on old books or on how they read them, or which they read. Anybody who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar. It is not complicated, they are hypocrites. The leading cause of terrorism is terrorists. Evil men we always have with us. Whether they have power over juster men, or vice versa, that we can change.
The long discussion following #71 might be of interest to you.