The author, Gabriele Marranci, maintains that Islam is peaceful, and "Many verses in the Qur'an forbid aggression, a few others if isolated from their context, sound aggressive against non-Muslims" (p.24). The author discusses the issue of verses in the Quran being changed or abrogated (nasikh vs. mansukh), "However, the Qur'an does not indicate which verses Allah might have replaced or changed" (p.23). The author said: "I agree with [P.L.] Heck when he observes `The Umayyad logic of state had profound and lasting effects on the Islamic conception of jihad: jihad as the tool of a state oriented towards expansion and became itself conceived as a tool in the service of territorial expansion, rather than a religious struggle at the level of devotion to God's cause'" (p.23). Regarding the early split between the Shia (Ali) and Sunni (A'isha), the author noted: "Muslims experienced what Islam had clearly forbidden: civil wars" (p.27). It's simply amazing how many of the Righteously Guided caliphs, the sahaba interlopers, and members of the Prophet's own family failed to understand Mohammad's Religion of Peace: so many of his early peaceniks grabbed swords to resolve their theological disputes - I'm sure they were wrong while author Marranci is correct. [To understand how the `Misunderstanders of Islamic Peace' got it wrong, one needs to consult Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam."] The author wrote: "My argument is that without reconsidering what human identity might be, we cannot discuss the meaning that jihad might have for my respondents.... [The 9/11 hijackers] martyred themselves and murdered innocent people because they [jihadists] felt they were Muslim" (p.31). But, they `felt' the wrong teachings of Islam, the author would argue. The author discusses `touchy feely' remarks from other philosophers, such as Hume and Locke, and interesting thoughts about `personhood' and ponders are we `products of nurture or nature?' in trying to find the `Muslim identity,' which may be impacted by the honour-shame complex felt by Arabs of not being able to defeat the Israelis. Essentially, the author argues that there can be `bad Muslims' engaging in aggressive warfare against infidels, but there is no `bad Islam' that would `justify' offensive attacks against a `non-threatening' dhimmi populace. Nonetheless, an interesting read from a `Lecturer' in the Anthropology of Religion, School of Divinity and Religious Studies, at the University of Aberdeen.