Perhaps best clarify my position, in which some appear to have found inconsistencies or 'terminological inexactitudes'.

Islam is a faith based on the preachings and writings of a self-proclaimed 'prophet', who urged that the world was not to be tolerated by his followers until it had universally accepted and embraced the faith he was promoting; which is one based on active hostility to and provocation of the remainder of humanity, strictness in observance, severe punishments for any who deviate from its teachings or obligations… many features, in short, inimical to and incompatible with our present modern and humane traditions, whatever might have been the developmental path of previous ages [I have often thought it oddly symbolically appropriate that the Muslim date should be 14-something!].   

IMO ∴ a mischievous, anti-humane system. It is of no advantage to any state where its teachings are not generally accepted to allow it to gain foothold within it, which has to far too great an extent been allowed to happen in the Western part of the world, Europe and the N Americas. Once that foothold has been established, although the majority of its adherents, who cannot of course help having been born to it any more than anyone can be held responsible for their birth, may be content to live their lives with day-to-day moderation like any one else, there is bound, by the proselytising nature and the incumbencies laid upon its adherents, to emerge a strong movement to make its tenets catch on in the host population, some of whom then may well, as converts, emerge as more determined in their life-approaches than most of the ur-adherents (which is what has happened unarguably in many recent outrages performed by the small but prominent offshoot called Islamists ~~ as, note well, in the present instance, the topic of this thread.)

It is for these reasons that I consider it highly injudicious for any national entity within which Islam has not previously been any sort of significant internal influence to allow it to become so. It is bound, to my mind, to end in tears for reasons I adduce here; and, as the very existence of this thread evidences, it has done so. The tears on this particular, but by no means unique [7/7! Danish cartoons!], occasion being for the unfortunate Fusilier Rigby and his family.

That is my position. It seems logical and reasonable to me. I know there are such as Bridge & Carroll & Wysiwyg who will purport to misinterpret it as an instance of the iniquitous R*C*SM word. Which it isn't.

~M~