" We are not talking about history,we are talking now. Read the New Testament and see what you find about "killing all the infidels". Many have died in the name of Christianity by commiting un-christian acts. But Islam is dedicated to destroy us,and they put in writing. Terrorists are not aberrations of Islam. They are not radicals. They are simply true believers. It is not an "interpretation" of the Quaran or a misunderstanding. It is what it is and it is here now,not lost in history. "

" I think that there is an exception to every rule. Obviously Mr. Muhummad isn't like the extreemists who take the readings of Islam as a literal order to exterminate the infidels. He is obviously a peaceful man. A little over sensetive with regard to his religion too. We, as Christians forget our own ethnic cleansing throughout history. Now, I am not making excuses for the death warrants issued by the Muslim community against those who choose to depict Allah in art, but, everyone in their own way is a little self righteous, don't you think? "

" Excellent piece,but I can't vouch for it all. One thing I do believe is that Muslim "terrorists" are actually people living by the faith. Those Muslims living peacefully with the rest of the world (I call them Musllim Light) are really not Orthodox (for lack of a better word) Muslims. Many non-muslims do it all the time. Knock off a few corners,cherry pick from scripture etc.,just to co-exist and get along. "

" Thankfully the Citizen did print it. It should be in the paper version as a rebuttal to all of the nonsense that Islam is the "Religion of Peace". For 1,500 years, including Battle at Tours (if the Moors had won it in 732, much of Europe might be Muslim today), the sieges of Vienna, and the Barbary Corsairs (the battle U.S. Marines refer to when they sing about "the shores of Tripoli"), Islam has been trying to dominate and subjagate civilzed people from its very beginnings. Islam is intolerant, period. Just ask Theo Van Gogh or the myriad of people murdered for "honor crimes" or making a simple cartoon. "

" Western civilization’s delinquent knowledge of the Islamic faith leaves us naïve to many of its tenets. Many among us would be hard pressed to explain the differences between the Sunni and the Shi’ite, let alone the reasons why they have remained in conflict for almost the entire existence of the Islamic faith. This delinquency in understanding Islamic culture and doctrine makes those they consider non-believers – or kafirs – vulnerable both individually and collectively. This is especially true when we examine the Islamic concept of taqiyya. Taqiyya is defined literally as: “Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." In essence, taqiyya can be generally defined as the legitimization of deception in times of danger. Taqiyya is alluded to in the following Quranic verse: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, (they) shall have no relation left with Allah except by way of precaution ("tat-taqooh"), that ye may guard yourselves ("tooqatan") from them...” [3:28]" In his book, al-Durr al-Manthoor Fi al-Tafsir al-Ma’athor, Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti conveys these words by one of Sunni Islam’s most respected voices, Ibn Abbas: "al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only; he who has been coerced into saying that which angers Allah (SWT), and his heart is comfortable (i.e., his true faith has not been shaken), then (saying that which he has been coerced to say) will not harm him (at all); (because) al-Taqiyya is with the tongue only, (not the heart)." There is just one historically relevant meaning of Jihad despite contemporary apologetics. Jahada, the root of the word Jihad, appears 40 times in the Koran – under a variety of grammatical forms. With four exceptions, all the other 36 usages (in specific Koranic verses) are variations of the third form of the verb, i.e. Jahida. Jahida in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic understanding to both Muslim luminaries – from the greatest jurists and scholars of classical Islam (including Abu Yusuf, Averroes, Ibn Khaldun, and Al Ghazzali), to ordinary people – meant and means “he fought, warred or waged war against unbelievers and the like,” as described by the seminal Arabic lexicographer E.W Lane. Indeed, Lane’s, “An Arabic English Lexicon” (6 volumes, London, 1865) is still used to this day by Muslim and non-Muslim scholars for definitive Arabic to English translation. Thus Lane, who studied both the etymology and usage of the term Jihad, observed, “Jihad came to be used by the Muslims to signify wag[ing] war, against unbelievers.” September 622 C.E. marks a defining event in Islam – the hijra. Muhammad and a coterie of followers persecuted by fellow Banu Quraysh tribesmen, fled from Mecca to Yathrib, later known as Medina. The Muslim sources described Yathrib as having been a Jewish city founded by a Palestinian diaspora population which had survived the revolt against the Romans. The Jews of the north Arabian Peninsula were highly productive oasis farmers. These Jews were eventually joined by itinerant Arab tribes from southern Arabia, who settled adjacent to them and transitioned to a sedentary existence. Following Muhammad's arrival, he re-ordered Medinan society. The Jewish tribes were isolated, some were then expelled, and the remainder attacked and exterminated. Muhammad distributed among his followers as "booty" the vanquished Jews’ property – plantations, fields, and houses – using this “booty” to establish a well-equipped Jihadist cavalry corps. For example, within a year after the massacre (in 627) of the Jewish tribe Banu Qurayzah, Muhammad, according to a summary of sacralized Muslim sources, . . . waited for some act of aggression on the part of the Jews of Khaybar, whose fertile lands and villages he had destined for his followers . . . to furnish an excuse for an attack. In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations. I bet you won't print this, its not PC "