Shadowseraph said:
... Do muslims even have a precedent for killing 'witches' or whatever? Serious question.
Certainly, this is more a matter of necessity. Ottoman holdings were pretty diverse, so some measure of tolerance had to be (and was) imposed. Thing is, yeah, they were pretty nice, better than the Eastern Roman Empire had been for sure. For a lot of their history, better than the European nations too (if you were an infidel you got to pay a special tax ... it wasn't 'convert or die' that seemed to dominate Western thinking for a very long time).
Things sort of started going downhill in WWI, when the British decided to stir up the Arabs with the intent of weakening the Ottomans. Didn't really work, of course, but their success was in installing the house of al-Saud in what would become Saudi Arabia ... and removing the Ottoman Sultan (well, to be fair, he did that to himself, Mustapha Kemal did offer a constitutional monarchy, but was refused as the Sultan didn't want to limit his powers, you see ... at which point Kemal went 'fine, I can do it without you' and he did).
This signified the ending of the more tolerant brand of Islam (espoused by the Ottomans and their clients) and the ascension of a rather harsher variant espoused by the house of al-Saud. Coupled with the typical colonial shenanigans of the Great Powers of the period, well, you can see the results today.
EDIT: I seem to have taken off on a tangent. To answer the question, certainly there were instances of mob rule (rather rarely, actually), but never anything organized, certainly not on the level Christian Europe instituted. This is, mind you, medieval and early modern Islam. I'm not enough of an expert to say anything about the situation post 1918.