Writing for Hurriyet, Muslim columnist Mustafa Akyol expresses anger and frustration with the terrorist attack last week in Mumbai, India, carried out by Muslim extremists.

As Akyol points out, these individuals kill in the name of Islam. By doing so, they disgrace this religion. The far majority of Muslims oppose terrorism and extremism, even fundamentalism (not all the same things), strongly. Akyol is no different.

Yet, his column is important for three reasons:

1. It once again rebuffs those who claim that “moderate Muslims never condemn Islamic terrorism.” They (we) do. Constantly. When moderate Muslims speak out against extremism in general and terrorism specifically they are often ignored, however. I am one of the few who link to Akyol’s piece, while Akyol is a prominent Muslim political commentator, writing for a prominent Turkish newspaper (in English).

2. Akyol explains the role ‘wars’ played in Islamic history. He is honest to admit that in the ‘history of Islam’ wars were fought. As he writes, Islam “is not pacifist.” “Turn the other cheek” is a command from Jesus, not Mohammed. Rather, Mohammed taught his followers they should turn the other cheek unless fighting was necessary in order to remain free (to worship and live as they saw fit) and defend ‘the faith.’ When the Arab elite tried to destroy Islam and the early Muslim community, Mohammed and his followers first turned the other cheek, then fled (emigrated) and, finally, fought back.

Nonetheless, as Akyol points out, Islamic intellectuals have spent much time and attention to concepts of ‘just war.’ Unjust wars should never be fought. Just wars are… just. Just wars means that fighting is necessary (the Koran says for instance that peace should be made between the Muslim community and non-Muslims if the latter are so inclined) and that only soldiers (fighters) should be attacked. Muslim scholars hotly debated the use of catapults during the dark ages because many considered using them illegal: catapults could hit and kill civilians, women, children, the elderly, the physically disabled, andsoforth.

Akyol explains that the manner of ‘fighting’ of terrorists is completely and utterly in breach with the principles of a ‘just war.’ They are purposefully targeting civilians and they are not fighting in an effort to defend themselves but, instead, out of aggression and extremism.

3. Finally, the article is interesting because Akyol represents what I prefer to call “moderate Islamists.” He believes in more religious influence in the politics of his country, Turkey. His column displays his religious and political views quite clearly: he does not even think of arguing that these Muslim terrorists were wrong because they mixed religion with politics and, of course, military force. A Turkish Muslim who is politically a secularist nonetheless would criticize the terrorists for the same reasons Akyol did and he would add that these terrorists repeat the mistakes of the past by thinking that religion and politics mix just fine. Akyol does not. Instead, he thinks of wars strictly in religious not political terms.

What does this mean? Well, that Akyol is far less dangerous than his extremist counterparts for one. The other side of the story, however, is that he is not innocent. In a way, he may even be more dangerous because he sounds reasonable, sympathetic and intelligent. This while his goal is, in the end, to abolish the secular system of Turkey.