Accidental Hero?

In my previous post regarding the Pakistani politician Salman Taseer who was killed by his own bodyguard, a comment made by fellow blogger Baconeater seemed to resonate with relevance. To paraphrase, he said we shouldn't judge all Muslims by the actions of a few.
Further developments have only managed to reinforce my opinion about Muslims. This is because, allowing for the fact that it is very hard to gauge public opinion, it nevertheless is becoming clear that what is considered the actions of a few is in fact supported by many.

 Islamabad, Jan 05: Hundreds of Facebook users welcomed the killing of liberal Pakistani politician Salman Taseer as a strike against reformers of the country's tight blasphemy laws. The Punjab governor was shot on Tuesday by one of his guards, 26-year-old Mumtaz Qadri, who confessed to the murder because of Taseer's vocal opposition to the law that was recently used to sentence a Christian woman to death.

So whilst it might be wise to be cautious when talking about Muslims, in the face of such news items I must uphold my original premise that Islam is founded on bloodlust.

Nearly 2,000 Facebook users joined one group on the social networking site praising Qadri, and dozens of "fans" joined other pages set up in Qadri's honour in the hours after the shooting. 

All the pages had been removed by Wednesday. Facebook was not immediately reachable for comment. But other private account holders used their Facebook status updates to make comments such as: "We salute you Mumtaz Qadri," "thank God he (Taseer) is not alive (any) more" and praise for the attacker as "a soldier of Islam".

Now I know there are Muslims who are appalled and disgusted by the killing of Salman Taseer, I've seen their comments on the web. I wouldn't go so far as to assume they would be in the majority.
It is interesting to note that there is a division of thought amongst Muslims as to whether their interests are best served by violence or a passive approach. And there certainly are Muslims who are western educated and who present a rational, logical, non-emotional and non-threatening approach to arguing for the cause of Islam.
My belief is that these kind of Muslims don't have much of a following and are only prominent because their persona and words are comforting to western observers as opposed to the threats of violence as seen in the jihadist movement.
Islam once established by Mohammed, spread itself by violence of war and conquest. Maybe it is a kind of nostalgia for the glory days of conquest that contemporary Muslims cling to when they think of their terrorist actions as war in the name of Islam.
Let's remember that Islam did not spread by having intellectuals stand on podiums giving lectures (See post on Tariq Modood) so convincing and overwhelming that people would fall over themselves to convert.
Islam has a history of violence and this violence is glamorized, idealized and looked upon with fond memories by those who crave for a return to the glory days of the Caliphate.