Then, too, this is not what they thought about it 1,000 years ago. In fact, they could make a good case for their having "saved" Western Civilization at that time.
It's at this point I'd like to get into a discussion of how you can take the First, Second and Third Amendments to the US Constitution and derive the intention of the Founding Fathers to establish an aggressively armed Protestant State in America.
Which, of course, they did. So, there's no need for that discussion in this thread. Similarly, Mo's pique as indicated in the various of his sermons which were not "revealed" to him by the Angel, don't always have anything to do with religion or morality. Many Moslems are unaware of the differences in the two kinds of texts. The Wahabis know the differences but chose to ignore them. A good many folks knowledgeable in Islam who post in FreeRepublic also know the differences, but they likewise chose to ignore them.
We probably ought to have a standard that requires anyone citing the Koran to tell us whether the text referenced is from God or from Mo.
When you consider someone a prophet, the distinction is meaningless. For the Christian and Jew, if it is in the Bible, it is God's word, period. We may know when God is speaking directly, but we also believe it is ALL God's word.
Therefore, it is no small step to see how many Muslims believe it is ALL Allah's word, and is to be obeyed.