Neither do Sufis.
As I mentioned earlier, the Albigensian Crusade, which killed between 200,000 and a million French for being heretics, was initiated by a Pope and it was a Papal legate who, when asked by a Crusader how he could make sure he was only killing heretics, was told, "Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" - "Kill them [all]! Surely the Lord discerns which [ones] are his". Do you think the Crusader, following a Papal decree and asking for moral guidance from a Papal legate, wasn't fully embracing his religion? How about if he followed the Papal legate's advice?
It's a pretty fundamental difference.
OK. So let's go back to one of my original concerns which was Constitutional protection for religion. How does one distinguish a religion that promotes homicide or is a cult (and remember that the Old Testament includes quite a few calls for death) from a legitimate religion? Where do we draw a line between a legitimate religion worthy of Constitutional protection and a death cult?
You’re really bringing up events from 8 centuries ago, with respect to the Catholics, in a discussion about Jihad in the hear and now?
Really?
I live in the hear and now. Jihad is real. Crusades against Christian heretics, not so much.
When the Sufis manage to get their brethren under control, you be sure to let me know.