A Foreign Policy piece claims (falsely, foolishly) that because Khizr Khan's son was an American soldier who was killed in action, "Islam Is (Also) a Religion of Peace."
Wrong. Islam is a religion of conquest via holy war. And "peace" in the Islamic sense can only occur once Islam has successfully compelled infidels to acknowledge its supremacy.
That said, not every single Muslim subscribes to that theology, and many are quite content to ignore it. For others, however, including Major Nidal Hasan, late of Fort Hood, the theology is too compelling, and cannot be ignored.
Instead of telling fibs about what Islam is and isn't, why can't we differentiate between what Islam calls for (and it most decidedly does not call for peace as we in the West understand it) and what individual Muslims choose--or choose not to--do with it?