I stand by what I said. That included a sentence after that single word. I son't think the woes of the first half of the 20th century were due to materialism or a lack of ethics. Religion wasn't the only belief that led people to commit atrocities. It, like others (communism for instance), was often abused internally more than externally.
As for Isabel, she didn't treat muslims and jews similarly. She sent jews away very early while initially she let muslims have freedom of religion. Only pressures led her to change her ways with regards to muslims, so I say she was more anti-jew than anti-muslim. I don't think this is depicted at all in Civ IV, because the game lacks purging a religion, forced conversions and inquisition (unless you play with some mods). In the game, she could only be fighting muslims outside her kingdom, not inside. The unmodded game can't represent what she did at all in my opinion.
. Also the fighting between faith issue could be resolved by the AP excommunicating a civ from the religion. This would automatically revert the attacking civ into a revolt to no state if the vote succeeds. Since your vote would still count you could turn the tables and make whoever you were attacking excommunicated. it would be like if you were rome and attacking greece it would be a resolution to excommunicate rome/greece/abstain. but this is all assuming similarities to civ4 mechanics.
400th POST!! 
! My point is that religious traits should come about due to ingame decisions, not inherent stereotypes!
