John Derbyshire, diagnosing himself with "Islamophobophobia," advises that he is "inclined to cut Islam some slack. It's a religion, bringing the consolations of faith to multitudes. Most of its believers are decent people, who pay no attention to the fiercer verses of scripture."
His National Review commentary is mostly on point. The business of interpreting present and incipient conflicts as the fallout of religious ejecta defies evidence of the benign actions of most Muslims, as well as the historical record of religion or culture having been misappropriated for acts of brutal domination.
What people say and what they will actually risk are very different. This is especially so when opining in a public which has been warded, for decades, by an authoritarian government — like one seated in Cairo, Islamabad or Amman — that tolerates Islamic-sounding, fascistic speech. Is it less trouble if you aren't the only man in the coffeehouse who rejects jihad as combat? Yes, so you nod, in hopes no one makes a house call. A notable minority of declared Muslims in the United States and Britain approve of terrorism, according to surveys, but the same principle applies. How many ignorants, or even dabbler socialists, wearing a shirt featuring Che Guevara are waiting for the signal to grab a Kalashnikov and round up their peers to cull the anti-revolutionaries, or whatever?
The benefit of the doubt need not be given men who say the Prophet Mohammed impels them to kill. As written in this space before, Islamism, a set of relevant doctrines no older than the last century, is cursorily spiritual but decisively totalitarian. Islam is a medium only. Were the mosque to suddenly come to no use, the class of Third World criminals who broadcast from the minarets would abandon it. How quickly would Islamophobes then break off from their stalking of Muslims — in time?