Florida doctor Rafiq Abdus Sabir, on trial for terrorism-related charges, decided to take the stand and testify, to make his case and show that he was a true Man of Peace™. You know, just get up there and tell the truth and give it his best shot, and trust in his inherent peacefulness to carry the day.

It didn’t go well.

When he began testifying at his own trial this week, a Florida doctor accused of pledging to support al-Qaida hoped to convince a jury that the FBI had it all wrong: He was a man of peace.

If that was the plan, then Rafiq Abdus Sabir had a disastrous day on the witness stand Friday.

Under cross examination, the Columbia University-trained physician was forced to acknowledge a history of family violence, a fascination with weapons and a belief that good Muslims should engage in armed jihad, or holy war.

U.S. Attorney Victor Hou asked Sabir about an audio tape, found at his house, in which a religious lecturer said God would “destroy the disbelievers.”

“That’s God’s word. I have to believe in it,” Sabir said.

They also discussed passages from religious books. One said Jews should be expelled from the Arabian peninsula. Another said Muslims are obligated to obey an imam who declares war against nonbelievers. Hou asked Sabir whether he agreed with both passages, and he said yes but added that Muslims are only required to follow such instructions from a legitimate religious authority.

Hou pressed him further: “You believe that you must participate in armed jihad, if you get a chance to?”

“Yes,” Sabir answered, but said only in a legitimate conflict.

Rhetorical exit question: I wonder if his definition of “legitimate conflict” is as flexible as his definition of “peace?”