conclusion

Submitted by zuraima (Malaysia), Oct 25, 2009 at 01:29

Thank you for the informative article. I haven't read the book but I decided to respond in general about Muslims and ethics in criticizing. I believe this is an effort to criticize negatively the Muslims rationally. I seems an unbeatable fact. Personally, argumentation by fact is acceptable. So, why can't the author stay rational until the conclusion? Being ethical is general and every religion teaches ethics. Even if this article treats Buddhism, or Christians unfairly, it is still unethical. In this case, it is unethical to jump into the conclusion by saying that CAIR is a dirty institution, founded by Islamic terrorists. Blaming the individues of this institution, and not linking them with the muslim terrorists is much better. This is an act of labelling the general. Reader, not only muslims really appreciate if it won't happen again.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".