I take exception to Chan Kheng Hoe's rather flimsy apologetics in justifying the actions of so-called 'Islamic' terrorists. There is no such justification in any religion, let alone Islam.

He argues that Muslims are a group 'historically marginalised and who continue to bear the marks of the Crusades'. While I agree that the Crusades were a historical tragedy, it was equally tragic that the Golden Era or the Caliphate was achieved by the same bloodshed and violence.

Andalucia in Spain was not taken over by winning over the hearts of the locals it was done by the sword. Neither was the conquest of Constantinople (the former seat of the Eastern Christian empire) by the Ottoman Turks and which was duly renamed Istanbul. Not by any stretch of the imagination can one term these earlier Muslims as 'marginalised'. They were a conquering empire, no different than the Crusaders.

Chan conveniently forgets to mention that there have been equally many insults on Christians: the forced conversion of Christians in Turkey and the Middle East, conversions of churches into mosques and 'amphitheater entertainment killing' that Christians have faced ever since Roman times.

Even today, Middle Eastern Christians are severely marginalised in their Muslim-dominated homelands where their faith was born. How different is this from the Palestinian issue? Why don't these marginalised Christians resort to suicide bombing to terrorise their persecutors?

Secondly, we cannot move forward by having our view firmly focussed on the rear view mirror. Those who are trying to precipitate a 'clash of civilisations' keep focussing on the past grievances and the extraction of revenge for these past 'humiliations'. We must firmly keep our gaze on where we want to be in the future if we are to make the right decisions today.

Choosing to be Muslim first is not the issue it is the interpretation we give to our scriptures that really counts. The key difference that divides the radicals and moderates in any religious group is how literally they choose to interpret their scriptures. The more literal the interpretation, the more radical they become. It becomes 'us' the true believers against 'them' the infidels.

In their radicalised minds, only their (yes, they believe they own the exclusive rights) literal translation can guarantee the road to heaven and any other interpretation is erroneous and blasphemous and will lead to hell.

It is pitiful and downright dangerous when literalist 'religious leaders' and 'theologians' try to force a Middle Age mindset on modern society. These scriptures were written in the context of and for people living in the Middle Ages. They are not universally applicable to people living today without adequate reasoning and interpretation.

What these religious bigots and zealots are really saying is: 'Let's get back to the Middle Ages at all costs'. They insult their Creator who gave them a brain to think and to reason. We don't need such people to get that viewpoint. It is not rocket science. Anyone can take literal reading of the scriptures for themselves.

The real challenge is for theologians to interpret the spirit or intent of our scriptures which were written in the context of the Middle Ages but in light of present-day circumstances. We cannot expect antiquated scriptures to given us any direct guidance, for example, on the morality of nuclear weapons.

However, we can infer the intent of the scriptures and apply the scriptural principle to the question of nuclear weapons. That's what God gave us brains for. If our Creator wanted us to make literal interpretations, then God did not need to give us a capacity to reason.

Chan should also concede that the fact that so many Muslims have chosen to reside in Europe is also proof that their Muslim-dominated homelands have failed to cater for what they seek 'a stable family, a growing economy, a healthy environment, peace, opportunity to advance, good education, freedom from harassment and bigotry, etc.', in his own words.

Secular Western societies, despite their Judeo-Christian origins, have managed to provide these basic necessities for their citizens. If only the same could be said about the so-called 'Muslim' countries from which Muslims are fleeing from even at the risk of death through illegal human trafficking. If these homelands were such oases of human development, why aren't the Europeans and the rest of the world beating on their doors to be allowed in?

A truly Islamic nation does not need to label or declare itself so - it will be self-evident from the way it extends justice, compassion and development to all its citizens and neighbours (Muslims and non-Muslims alike). And vice-versa.