[Angelus Errare]

I would reply, but vbmoneyspender seems to have basically said what I was going to say, except on this point:

"The very circumstances of the publication is a clue that islam is NOT what he says it is- a religion of peace hijacked by a few extremists."

80% of the mosques in the West hardly strikes me as a few. He recognizes the problem, says that it isn't his brand of Islam (which, not surprisingly, he believes is the true one), and says that the Wahhabis have to be fought. Anything with that position in particular that you disagree with?

[Dialup Llama]

>Anything with that position in particular that you disagree with?

To start with, The author writes:"Purpose: Qur’anic verses permitting military jihad (22:39-40) indicate that it is not a vehicle to expand Islam but to defend the rights of those who are persecuted because of their religion."

Total fantasy and an utter revision of history.

What is author is really proposing is creating a generic monotheism, influenced by western liberal traditions and Christianity while still preserving some outward, cultural practices- its not islam, never was. I'm not disagreeing with his goal. I hope its successful. Its just that what he is saying is not in the book and not in the history. Some muslims do say that jihad is spiritual struggle. Some of those muslim groups have institutionalized that view. They are the muslims who don't follow the Koran.