The best we can say is that there are is a proportion of muslims who think so. They appear not to be in a position to eradicate those who disagree, nor do they have the inclination to do so.
Rather, it appears that a majority of Muslims support the ultimate objective of these mass murderers untrammeled by conscience. Rather, it appears that a large proportion support the reasons these mass murderers act, and that a large plurality support the means they choose.
With the attacks in Mumbai, including the seemingly offhand direct attack, largely unnoticed on the Chabad House, we have just another sad episode in a long long history beginning with the Banu Qurayza, and directed at all kufsr.
This, and by a very small extension, the Israel-arab dispute are not polticial issues.
This is a religious war, not of our choosing.
We cannot win it by armies alone, and we cannot win it at all unless we recgonize all means the enemy uses to carry it out, overt and more inchoate.
If muslims cannot act with force and nuance to rid the religion of these impulses, plans, and demands via the Quran and Hadiths, then others will have to out of self defense.
Having George Bush repeat that Islam is a religion of peace like some simpleton is not part of any solution.
Rather, he should have said, if Islam is a religion of peace, then WHY?
If Islam is a religion of peace, then what was all that in Spain in the 8th century?
If Islam is a religion of peace then what was that in 1683 in Austria, or 1453 at Constantinople?
The president of the USA owed it to us to question carefully, and lead to a purpose.
The answers to the questions of the cause of this war are not ina cave in Waziristan.
They are in history.
They are known.
This is what has never been.
This is a worldwide religious war in which one side believes they have the demands of god, and the other does not even know the nature of the war.