Which do you think is greater,
the probability of 'Muslims Killing Buddhists' or "Buddhists Killing Muslims"
based on the direct teachings of their respective founder?
The fact is there is an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. be compassionate to all sentient beings and living things within Buddhism-proper. As such there is no way a Buddhist can give any excuse to kill any other human in the name of Buddha or was commanded by the Buddha.
There is no imperative a Buddhist must enter into a contract with Buddha to comply with any contractual terms to exchange for eternal life within Buddhism-proper.
There are 'Buddhists' who had killed Muslims and others, but there is no way they did the killings as obligated by Buddhism-proper which has no commands to kill non-Buddhists.
These Buddhist who killed did it wearing the "human hat" not the "Buddhist hat."
Averroes deceptively tried to bring in the "Myth of the Icchantika" but such claims are easily debunked.
viewtopic.php?p=476923#p476923
viewtopic.php?p=477043#p477043
On the other hand, a Muslim is one who had entered into a contract with Allah -imperatively - to comply with all the terms of the contract within the Quran which include the obligation to kill non-Muslim [Quran 5:33] upon the slightest threats [fasadin] to Islam.
This is so evident with the following;
the above incidents of killing by Muslims include the threats from the drawings of cartoons.
e.g.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=30042
Your views??