With so much at stake & everything going on in the world...
The problem with that logic is that Islam wasn't written to be a pacifist or anti-terrorist organization. *If* Islam had been conceived of as being a religion that specifically excluded those who would engage in military action in its name, then you would be correct that it was being "twisted" by terrorists in order to justify their position. But the Quran specifically calls on Muslims to spread Islam via force (in multiple locations throughout the book), including calling for unbelievers to be forcibly converted or, if they resist, killed. Here's part of one of the passages in question (it's a long and overly windy book, like all religious texts):
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
It also specifically mentions things like... (paraphrased for brevity) "Any Muslim who leaves Islam *must* be executed. Any Muslim who does not execute them is as guilty as they are." It's an intrinsically violent religion, even when you ignore the made up (recently added) bits from Sharia Law. If you read those things in your holy book (and you actually believed in the whole God thing, heh), wouldn't you feel justified in attacking non-believers?
I occasionally hear a liberal Imam in a western country claim that people who engage in military action in support of Islam are "twisting the words of Muhammad", but I've read enough of the Quran to know that that is not the case. Just like the literal Christians aren't "twisting the words of God" by actually attempting to adhere to their Bible rather than imagining what they'd like it to say, following that, and still calling themselves Christian.
One thing that I will add: the Quran specifically disallows any form of suicide, regardless of the situation. Therefore anyone who straps explosives to themselves and blows themselves up (for any reason) won't get their 72 virgins. Various Sunni organizations have attempted to interpret the bits of the Quran that speak of "dying in the name of Allah (and being rewarded for such action)" as giving a blanket justification for *any* death in the service of God, but they don't. That's one of the few instances of the "twisting" of Islam in order to allow banned military actions that I've seen.
It's also interesting how most of the major (and minor) terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.
I certainly get what you're saying; but, as an outsider, I view religions as essentially untangible and undefinable. Partly, of course, exact definitions shouldn't be any of my business unless it harms people who did/do not sign up for such...
Really, the article was not clear enough apparently. The issue was the US constitutional right of free speech. The specific instance in this case was a pastor who wanted to demonstrate against a particular religion and was being required to post a bond for police protection in order to do so. The issue of religion seems to distract people from the fundamental right of free speech whether it be about religion or any other topic.
I'm curious as to why that was directed as a reply to me, since the conversation was already on a tangent by the time I entered. Indeed, it was the tangent I was keen to comment on.
It wasn't directed at you. I am sorry if it seemed so, and I apologize. (I just now clicked on the message thingie at the top of the page (I have been wondering what on earth it referred to) so I am answering here. Again, I apologize if the effect was such that it seemed directed at you.