The article wasn't too bad until it got to here and started lying. If "no one in the world" wanted the Caliphate, then we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place.
Finally, the men urge Westerners to translate Allah into God.
Because if you say something long enough and convince everyone else to adopt your error that makes it true?
Using Allah to refer to God would be like using Jehovah to refer to a Hebrew God.
Using Allah to refer to God would be like using the word margarine to refer to butter.
In fact, Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the God of Abraham
I've never met a Christian who would deny that Jehovah was a name for his God (maybe there are some; I've just never met or heard of them). So if Muslims really do worship the same God, why don't we all just switch to calling Him Jehovah? No? The Muslims don't think Jehovah is His Name? Then maybe the premise that they're all the same God is invalid.
The fact is that the Christians have a God who has an "only begotten Son", and the Muslims have a god that "begets not nor is begotten". If I have a friend named Dave who has a son, and you claim that you know Dave but he is childless, then it is pretty clear that we're not talking about the same guy or one of us really doesn't know Dave very well at all. Simple logic says that the assertion that all the religions worship the same god cannot possibly be true.
The idea that we should adopt Islamic terms might be politically expedient, but there is a price to pay. When we use the term jihad or islamic or whatever only in a positive context, it validates the concept. If we remove any negative connotations to the words, it gives them a purity they do not deserve. The bigger issue that people don't seem to grasp is that this is not a simple localized conflict; Islam is a religious and political ideology that must either be destroyed or be supreme. Coexistence means conflict, and the lack of conflict means that Islam will dominate. If you want to peacefully co-exist with Islam, then you must submit to it.
Thus far Christianity, Judaism, and Islam agree on their conception of God. Is this enough for all three to refer to 'God' and mean the same thing? I think that it would be safe to say that all three share a similar conception that crystalizes in the word 'God,' in a way that is radically different from, say, a Hindu or Buddhist's conception of deity (or lack of such a conception). If a Hindu speaks of 'God' I can be sure he has nothing close to classical monotheism in mind. But if a Muslim or Jew speaks to me of 'God' I can be pretty sure that we share many basic conceptions.
Yet there are still massive differences between our conceptions. I believe, and the Christian faith orthodoxly recieved, says of God that yes He is One, but He is God in Trinity, and that the Second Person of the Trinity has become man. For a Jew or Muslim this is extremely problematic to say the least. But can we still share the term 'God' and imagine ourselves having some common ground in using it?
That goes not only for Muslims, but for Jews and non-Trinitarian Christians: if I speak of God to them are we talking about the same thing? I think the answer is yes and no. It cannot be an unqualified yes, for the non-Christian (yet still monotheist) conception of God is non-Trinitarian, and Trinitarianism is at the very core of the Christian faith and understanding of God. It cannot be sacrificed whatever Episcopelian bishops say. Yet I do not think that I must speak of 'god' when I am refering to Jewish, Islamic, or otherwise non-Trinitarian monotheists: there is enough common ground for us to all speak of God even though we do not mean the exact same thing, when in fact we have very serious and important divergences.
Insightful post: your #10.