Comments on: Terrorism, Islam and Fort Hood

By: shaqesen

shaqesen — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 03:19:00 +0000

Religion should not be think as a source of terrorism. In particular, Islam, which mean ” Peace” should not be matched with the word” terrorism” If you look at the Qur’an you will see the verse” If you kill one innocent person, you will likley to kill every human being in the world” You can take a look at that web-site in order to understand how Islam views terrorism

http://fethullahgulenconference.org/dallas/read.php?p=islam-and-terror-from-perspective-of-fethullah-gulen

By: mike_b1

mike_b1 — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:23:10 +0000

Of course.

By: Dan Kennedy

Dan Kennedy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:45:33 +0000

[M]any leading Islamic scholars have for years insisted that the notion of jihad is inconsistent with the true teaching of the Torah.

You’re certainly correct about that. I think you mean the Koran, not the Torah.

By: mike_b1

mike_b1 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:12:06 +0000

jason, in fact, many leading Islamic scholars have for years insisted that the notion of jihad is inconsistent with the true teaching of the Torah. I think President Obama has attempted, through words and actions, to demonstrate that we are willing to reach out to the citizens of the major Muslim countries. Of course, the shoot-first, understand-later mentality of the loons on the right doesn’t help, but then again, that’s to be expected.

By: jason

jason — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:11:39 +0000

Imagine if the 6th foundational doctrine of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion was to wage violent Holy War against all non- believers.

Jihad is an accepted doctrine of Islam and is continuing to be preached boldly. So was Hasan just some diabolical nutjob living in a vacuum? Or was Hasan the fruit of a truly diabolical doctrine? The real elephant in the room is the way our culture legitimizes the 6th pillar of the religion of peace by failing to confront its inherrent immorality.

Instead of worrying about offending virtuous Muslims, why not use this incident to call all virtuous Muslims to renounce the doctrine of Jihad and separate themselves from it?

A Jihad-Free Islam? Sounds more like the religion of peace.

By: mike_b1

mike_b1 — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:59:33 +0000

Rick, yes, because the two topics are oh-so related!

My wife’s a doctor. She thinks the public option is a great idea. My mom’s a doctor. She agrees. My dad is a doctor. He agrees. Hell, the AARP agrees.

So I should care what you think, why?

By: Dunque

Dunque — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:38:54 +0000

Mullarkey, your name defines your opinions.

By: Lafcadio Mullarkey

Lafcadio Mullarkey — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:49:57 +0000

Dunque, non-combatants are civilians and those military personnel whose duties do not include fighting, such as chaplains and surgeons. Other than these exceptions, a soldier is not a non-combatant, whether armed at any particular moment or not. Google the term.

Beware “defining terrorism down”. Applying the term “terrorism” to more and more events dilutes its meaning. It should only be used sparingly.

By: Dunque

Dunque — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:36:55 +0000

Mullarkey, I hate to have to point out the obvious to you but unarmed individuals are non-combatants.

By: Rick in Duxbury

Rick in Duxbury — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 05:21:37 +0000

Thanks, Mike. I was afraid we would go a day without an ad hominem. Worry less about the guy’s religion and more about the fact that he was overseen by the same government that wants to handle our healthcare too. Gee, what could go wrong?