[dennisw]

The notion that Muslims should be feared by virtue of their numbers and purported militancy is "quite inflammatory",

I guess if something is true, but inflammatory it's a bad thing.

To some, he had crossed the line between vigorous polemic and Islamophia.

Additonally, to be phobic about anything is also apparently wrong.

His accuser, a Calgary Muslim leader who cited the Koran in his complaint, said the publisher had spread hatred.

When did the Koran become the arbiter of what is right?

I have the right to violate all those Koranic precepts because we follow Queen Elizabeth's law, not Muhammad's law."

This is the point exactly, and it's a scary and sad commentary on our times when the legal system in Canada censors it's own citizens for what is effectively free speech. Can the Islamic situation be addressed without imflamantory comments? Probably not.

The main issue of this thread is "are we at war with Islam" and the question can be expanded to ask,"can a free society provide a haven to a religion which by it's own tenents would call for the society to become dramatically altered or changed".

Here in lies the resistance to any move which would give the Islamic movement any leeway in form or substance to changing our way of life, culture or government. If other religions use this arbritration process, then to prevent Islamic abritration, we should prevent all religions from using it.

Finally, if Islamic groups cannot coexist in America without trying to change the very fabric of our culture, then we are indeed are at war with Islam.

I guess the question then becomes, if a religion or popular segments of a religion calls for the dramatic change in our form of government, should it be tolerated. Is it legal or is it by it's nature seditious?