Radically Peaceful Muslims Or is it Peacefully Radical Muslims?

Detail from miniature painting:
The Prophet, Ali, and the Companions
at the Massacre of the Prisoners of the
Jewish Tribe of Beni Qurayzah
Illustration of a 19th century text
By Muhammad Rafi Bazil.
Manuscript now in the British Library.

The cover is also from Andrew Bostom's book
'The Legacy of Jihad. Islamic Holy War and the
Fate of Non-Muslims'

Bostom discusses the illustration
further down the page, here.
-------------------------------------------------

As usual, View From the Right (VFR) gets excellent correspondence. Here is one writing in on the "Koran burning Pastor" from Florida. The correspondent explains (or tears apart), in one succinct sentence, the false notions dividing moderate/peaceful Muslims and radical Muslims:

[T]he only thing that separates peaceful Moslems from radical Moslems is their actions, not their beliefs.

Of course, to get such clarity of thought, one has to accept the whole truth of Islam, something which our pundits and writers who purport to reject Islam in the West, seem unable to do.

Jihad Watch's Roland Shirk, who's article on Terry Jones is referenced by this correspondent to make his point, may have reappraised his position on Islam and the Koran book burning, but there is still that residual "only the weird do these things" mentality that persists. Shirk describes Jones's beard as "weird facial hair," implying that this is an isolated incident conducted by a slightly wacky (Christian fundamentalist?) man.

When things are more subtle than burning Korans in daylight, say I won't sit in the same bus as a hijabed/niqabed/burqad woman and tell others not to, or won't do business with Muslims, will Shirk condone that as crazy behavior, and find a myriad of attributes to "support" his statement?

Also, contemporary commentators have no traditional or historic references (or if they do, they ignore them) with which to base their sartorial commentary. Shirk's description of Jones's facial hair is rebutted by VFR's Auster: "Jones's mutton chops facial hair is unusual and old fashioned, not weird."

This is similar to what I posted on a writer who had no reference (or no imagination) for understanding Geert Wilders's hair style, who wrote here, and whom I quote below:

Wilders's hair has always made me suspicious of him, as there's just something not right about an originally dark-haired (I think) but now graying 50 year-old man wanting to be a blond. Now I think I understand.

I surmise:

Saigo has no capacity (or desire) to ask innocent and interested questions about Wilders's appearance. She simply jumps into a derogatory conclusion, aiming to tarnish and harm him: "That racist, politician who (look!) has a non-European ancestor. Imagine him refusing entry to immigrants from Indonesia, or any other part of the world for that matter. Isn't that where he's from, anyway? Who does he think he is!" Allow me to put words in Saigo's mouth. But, I'll bet that I am much more accurate about her thoughts than she is about Wilders's...

I always thought that Wilders was emulating those 18th century powdered wig wearers. George Washington wore one. I think it gives him (and Wilders) a distinguished air. Wilders has said nothing about his appearance. What man (and politician) would?

Perhaps it is also the tradition of wearing wigs in courts of law, although I don't think the Dutch follow that tradition. Still, one can ask intelligent questions about why a prominent anti-jihad Westerner decides to present himself as Wilders has. A similar curiosity would be useful for Terry Jones.