Hi Ibrahim
By the bleeding obvious I meant the difference between islam as a faith, and the relatively recent ideology of islamofascism. And it is recent, you can trace its roots back to a handful of 20th century egyptians like sayyed al kutb and ayman al zawahiri (yes, THAT ayman al zawahiri). But I had to mention this because it appears to me that more than a few people in this thread equate the two, thinking that all muslims are terrorists (either actually terrorists or potentially terrorists).
If all muslims in the world (all 1+ billion of them) were terrorists, the world would look very different to how it looks today.
That's not to say that islam, the faith, isn't aggressive in pushing itself on 'infidels', I'm only saying that this doesn't universally happen through violence. And I think the distinction is not only an honest one, but a useful one.
For instance when I oppose sharia courts in my country (or in america on in canada) I don't do that because i think it's a slippery slope to terrorism, I oppose sharia courts on their own merit. My fellow countrymen, and women, deserve better than the kind of medieval caprice that the sharia courts can call justice.
I think this is more honest, and also more fair, than to brand people terrorists.
Where the distinction between the faith and terrorism starts to fail however is in places like egypt. Look at the events in abu fana monastery and the way that authorities either let crime happen or just refuse to do anything about it and the difference between plain old islam, and islamoascism becomes less clear.
But this isn't really the case in the west.