Rather than Professor of Peace Studies, Mr Jackson would be better described as an Apologist for Islamic Terror. He is active in many organizations dedicated to discredit the absurd idea that terror may be driven by religion (www.radicalisationresearch.org and others). He informs us that a “growing number of studies have concluded that there is no causal link between Islam and terrorism”. No casual link? Bad choice of words.

The fact that so many terrorists explicitly state that what they do, they do because of Islam, is lost on Mr. Jackson. He says: “from a scholarly perspective (that would be Mr. Jackson, of course) it can be demonstrated that many of the core assumptions and assertions of the ‘Islamic terrorism’ literature lack an empirical basis and draw dubious conclusions based on popular media and official sources rather than ethnographic field research or in-depth knowledge of specific societies”. Of course he is right…. How many of us have walked among the dead or mutilated bodies in Karachi, Baghdad, Madrid, London, or NYC? How many of Islam’s critics have stood in front of a row of decapitated heads in Syria? How are we to know if this is terror – after all we are not experts like Mr. Jackson?

Our good professor is not just an illustrious professor, but a writer, too. His novel “Confessions of a terrorist” aims to “break taboo by giving terrorists a voice”. Yes, he speaks for terrorists!

When not bringing peace on earth to the less enlightened, Mr. Jackson is working on behalf of the downtrodden. He has signed a public letter, along with many Imams and Islamic organizations, called “Inquiry into the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK”, condemning any investigation of that organization. Yeah, the Brotherhood’s charter advocates conquest, Islamic domination and Sharia, and it has a history of violence, but to Mr. Jackson they are innocent victims. His name is also on another letter (about Moazzam Begg) that protests investigations into Muslim charities that funnel money to terrorists. How unfair is that? Terrorists are people, too. They need money to eat, pay rent and buy explosives.

Dear Kactuz,

I mostly agree, but you wrote a paragraph ending with "Bad choice of words", which also contained "He is active in many organizations dedicated to discredit the absurd idea that terror may be driven by religion".

Terror is not and cannot be driven by religion: this idea is indeed absurd - however, terror can and is driven by the Islamic creed. One bad choice of a word can make the whole difference in the world, so please make your attacks sharp, use "creed" instead of "religion", then you get it right and not bluntly attack innocent people too.

Thank you.

Could you please explain the difference between a "creed" and a "religion", Yuyutsu?

I get the impression that you are so determined to live forever in the afterlife that you are covering all the bases by defending every religion (or creed).

Dear LEGO,

Religion is the internal/personal process, methods or path by which one comes closer to God. Creed is the summary of a belief-system (or dogma), or the group of people and their organisations who believe in that summary.

The Muslim creed ('shahada') for example is that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.

Religion is universal and doesn't require an adherence to a creed.
Some creeds support religion to varying degrees, others once used to but no longer.

The term "the Muslim religion" is thus inaccurate and actually refers to a mix of people with varying degrees of religiosity along with varying degrees of adherence to the Muslim creed.

I only defend religion and have no interest in defending creeds.