Sure there is!

One had just to read some parts of Koran.

Paul Belien made an intelligent observation, by pointing out that "islamist-appeasing authorities" in Europe are (usually implicitly) making a direct link between islam and terrorism.  Just as much as the general public does.  This only underscores the arbitrariness of much of so-called "anti-hate or anti-racism" legislation, which should really be called "democracy-undermining" legislation.  

By contrast, Amsterdamsky engages in his usual shallow (and, of course, very selective) actual hate-speech by talking about "third world animals".  Are terrorism and islam synonyms for "third world"?   Many of the terrorists are 'born and bred' in the First World, either as second-generation 'immigrants' or as 'converts' (who go for 'training' to the 3rd world). In addition, most people in the 3rd world are obviously not terrorists, nor "animals".   On top of that, a large segment of the western (First World!)  so-called 'intelligentsia' has for many decades been preaching 'understanding' and even sympathy for many types of terrorism, and even for existing forms of political totalitarianism in the world.  Should we call them "First World animals", following Amsterdamsky's logic?  Of course not.

I think even without Islam these third world animals would hate us. I think Islam just gives them an organizational framework and a place to meet.