I have long believed that Islam is, like most religions, built on a foundation of peace. And that the people blowing themselves up on street corners are a narrow group of extremists. I look at the Muslim world and believe that most are simply other human beings — like me — who want to get up and go to work every day, go to the market and fill their baskets, and get home to their families in one piece.

But the latest explosion of violence in the Muslim world over the cartoon mess, taken with similar past explosions over similarly trivial (and, yes, no so trivial) events, makes me wonder whether there isn’t some deeper flaw here.

Why does violence always seem to be the answer? Why does it seem that Muslims are so quick to run to the sword (or the C4), when an exchange of nasty op/eds would better suit the situation?

I realy don’t want to think that Islam, as an institution, somehow spurs violent behavior, but, increasingly, I have my doubts.

Cam: I know the feeling, Marshall. You want to give a religion with a billion followers the benefit of the doubt, but when all we see from said religion is “Kill the infidels” you begin to have second thoughts. I understand a group of moderate European Muslims have condemned the violence, and bloggers like Iraq the Model and others have spoken out against the mobs, but where are the imams and others in charge?

Jim: A lengthier take here. On 9/10, I would have probably said that most Muslims were just like us. Then a few years back I probably would have said some nasty things about the faith. Then I moved here, and witnessed a largely-functioning, stable Islamic society (and also checked out Jordan’s), and thought that Islam can work, so long as the government is strictly secular like Turkey’s, or if it reaches out to the West like Jordan. Now I think there are enough Muslims and Westerners eager to see a clash of civilizations.

Marshall: Cam, I know there are some Muslims who have spoken out against the violence, and I commend them for it. And I don’t know what to think about the Immans. Refusing to condemn stuff like this seems like standard practice for too many of them.

But I was really thinking about average folks when I was writing above. Why is it that in capitals around the world, there are enough angry Muslims (a few hundred or more in each case, it seems) to burn down the Dutch embassy? The point I was trying to make it that it’s beginning to appear to me that average, every day Muslims are somehow more given to violence than others. Again, I don’t want to believe this, but there is precious little evidence on the other side.

To Jim’s point, it strikes me that Turkey is increasingly the exception that proves the rule.

Cam: Tell that to Father Santoro, Marshall. I know, I know, the actions of one nut cannot be attributed to an entire country. Yet the fact that Jim (see below) is a little concerned about posting the cartoons here because of fear of violence tells me that perhaps Turkey isn’t the epitome of reason we might want it to be.

Cam again: I noticed Instapundit linked to a column by Amir Taheri telling people to chill, basically.

Islamic ethics is based on “limits and proportions,” which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

While I appreciate Taheri’s history lessons, we need some current events instead. Where are the Muslims laughing about these cartoons now? Taheri doesn’t say.