This is a historical feature, even more so, of Catholicism. But it is not now attended to by any more that a lunatic fringe of Catholics.
That is the point. I live quite happily and undisturbed in the middle of the main area of residence of Muslims in Glasgow. These are perfectly peaceful members of society - because Scottish society nowadays is a mainly peaceable secular one - not true in the past, of course. In a disordered religion-based society Muslims might well be dangerous, but so would Christians. It has next to nothing to do with the tenets of the faith. Consider former Yugoslavia. There were innumerable atrocities involving religious communities during the disintegration of that state. Were the Muslims better or worse behaved than the Christians? Neither one nor the other probably.
doing what?
What am I to do? Go to my neighbour across the landing and say, your religion poses the greatest risk to civil society, I'm here to sort this by .... eh, I'll need some advice on that, but anyway you're a big risk, though I haven't noticed you doing anything untoward.
And so, if I, a living person, were interested in busying myself to inhibit that kind of behavior, then I would be wasting my time being concerned with a billion or so living Catholics, but perhaps not wasting my time being concerned with a billion or so living Mulsims.
Actually, Christopher Hitchens (no shill for Islam) thought that Muslims' behavior was generally better than their rivals' in that context. You can googlebing that easily enough, and in doing so, will probably stumble upon the history of Muslims in the region protecting Jews during WW II.
That rather curiously avoids a discussion of what I actually wrote. My point is that the behaviour of these Catholics was not really a matter of religious tenet, but of the nature of the society in which they found themselves. I have no problem with the Muslims I encounter in large numbers daily who drive me into town in buses, sell me onions in shops and sit on the city council. They are more or less like any other people. I asked in response to a previous post: if "Islam", and not the social disorders and bigotries of much of the world, are the problem, then what am I to do about my neighbours or fellow citizens? What special provisions in regard (not to their personal behaviour) to their religion are required to deal with the danger they embody and propagate. If they were indeed going about torturing non-Muslims to death (as ghetto Jews in the nineteenth century were required by their religion to torture virgin Christian children and drain their blood, or so people were then told!) then there would be no problem about what to do. But the Muslims I see are doing no such thing, and if they want to do it, are successfully concealing this predisposition.
Yes, readers are the curse of a writer's life; forever discussing what they've read instead of what the writer wanted them to read.
Odd, then, that their behavior took the form of, say, forced baptism, rather than forced circumcision, or perhaps forced ritual tatooing with the Eye of Horus. I sense, therefore, a strong dependence of behavior upon specific religious tenet.
See? There you have it. Sam Harris was quoted in the OP identifying specific tenets as (your words) "the problem," not "Islam." Perhaps A'isha will get back to us sometime about who it was she had in mind who does think "Islam" is some special threat.
I haven't described anybody, here or elsewhere, as an Islamic shill. I said Hitchens wasn't one; I am insufficiently familiar with Dawkins' views on these specific matters to comment on him.
I was referring to the most recent formulation of this kind.
From Octavo # 83
Indeed so, my point being that I encounter Muslims in the pursuit of these innocuous activities which nobody could perceive as dangerous. What then am I to do to follow Octavo's prescription for making the world a safer place?
Others have so described contributors, and I am seeking enlightenment on this point. Thank you for correcting me about Hitchens and Dawkins. Pure slip on my part.
I don't accept that at all. Even if it were true, it would simply mean that most people are inconsistent in this matter, and tend to make the best of situations in which they find themselves. But so what? We know that anyway.
Nicely constructed strawman there. 
A society which encourages insulting behavior may be 'civil', but it isn't civilized.
The media thrives on fear and controversy, while politicians are regularly cowed in fear by the thought of losing votes. Neither are particularly worried about what retribution a few religious nutcases might be capable of delivering - but there's lots of hay to be made from the outrage.
It isn't even sensible! How can "specific Islamic tenets" be a danger to anything, unless people give effect to them in action? Nobody has ever been harmed by a tenet. Now, who is presumably going to apply these tenets, if not Muslims? To say, the tenets are the problem, not the Muslims, is ridiculous.
In that case, and you're right, I simply exercise my freedom of expression, which doesn't include, at least in the UK, the freedom to engage in provocative propagation of hate, or incitement to violence against people. And if in exercising my freedom I say something as stupid as that there is no such thing as Islamophobia, I may expect to be taken to task for it.
It is clear that speech which offends nobody needs no protection. The question then arises, what about speech which does offend somebody?