Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has told us that "Muslims are peaceful and tolerant and have nothing to do with terrorism."

Let me get the conventional qualifying statements out of the way.

I agree that we shouldn't wage war on a religion (though she says we're fighting an ideology, not people), and we should certainly not be unkind to our peaceful Muslim neighbors (the mosque close by my place seems peaceful enough).

However, if we misdiagnose the problem, we'll come up with the wrong "solutions."

As I read things, her misguided logic works out like this.

1. If you're a true Muslim, then you are always peaceful and tolerant.

2. The attackers on 11/13, who claim to be Muslims, were not peaceful or tolerant – they were violent and intolerant (to say the least).

3. Therefore, they were not really Muslim, but falsely claimed to be.

In a possible case of projection, she apparently has in the back of her mind this hidden comparison:

1. If you're a true Christian, then you're always peaceful and tolerant.

2. Joe (who usually does not claim Christianity, but let's say he does) shoots an abortion doctor.

3. Therefore, Joe is not really Christian, but falsely claims to be.

How do we sort out the complications?  It's not as hard as it first appears.

Let's go back to the sources – which terrorists do, to justify their violence.

Islam's institutional DNA is built on jihad or qital (only military war, not a "struggle").  For example, in an ironic twist, surah (chapter) 47 of the Quran can be named either "Muhammad" or "Qital."  In other words, the verses about warfare are clear and numerous.  Another example: Muhammad yelled, "Allahu akbar!" when he attacked a (Jewish) city like Khaybar.  Why wouldn't Muslims today follow his example and shout the same thing?

On the other side, there simply are no military war verses in the Christian Scriptures, as if the church as the church should raise an army and force people to submit to Christ by the sword.  Though Christians can join the secular military, they act in the name of the Constitution, not Christ.  They should never yell, "I kill in the name of Christ!"

Therefore, when ISIS sets up a caliphate, has imams, institutes shariah courts by which judges sentence captives to beheadings (which follows the Quran), and wages perpetual war against the infidel West (even by downing a Russian passenger jet), ISIS is following the Quran and Muhammad's example.  ISIS sees itself as a legitimate government that is true to original Islam, while other Islamic nations have compromised it.  (Incidentally, ISIS sees its caliphate as more legitimate in the eyes of Allah than any government in the West, including the USA's.  President Hollande was perceptive when he declared war on ISIS because they declared war on his country, including aiding and abetting militant hit squads on 11/13.  And this is why it is foolish of the president not to seek a war resolution in Congress or of Jen Psaki of the White House to say military might won't end the war against ISIS.  Wrong.  It is entirely possible to defeat a government or caliphate holed up in a territory.)

The bottom line: the problem with Islam is that it doesn't separate mosque from state.

Let's get back to the silly hidden comparison that Hillary has in mind.

When Joe shoots an abortion doctor and does not let a court decide, but takes the law into his own hands, then he is not following the teachings of the Christian Scriptures, but violates them.  According to these Scriptures, the fate of criminals is placed in the hands of the legal system, and those who refuse to convert are never threatened by the sword.

The biblical Scriptures separate the state, which can wield the sword, from the church, which may not institutionally wield the sword.

Mrs. Clinton, following the origins of the two religions, enables you to tell the difference between them.  Christianity is different in quality and kind.

James Arlandson’s website is Live as Free People, which is updated almost daily.