Idiotic leftist responses to Charlie Hebdo #2

For some reason, former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has taken it upon himself to declare that the Koran does not sanction violence.  This is so profoundly ignorant and counterfactual that it suggests he has never read the Koran before speaking out on its contents.  

See for yourself:

Andrew McCarthy, who has read the Koran, offers just a few citations that refute Dean:

... one who studied Islamic doctrine might point out that the scriptures invoke the word “terror” in explicitly endorsing wars of conquest against non-Muslims (see, e.g., the Koran’s Sura 3:151: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers …”; Sura 8:12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”; Bukhari Hadith 52:220: “Allah’s Apostle said … ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”) But why study the ideology of Islamic supremacists? After all, we’ve got the feel-good dogma of Western progressives, who insist that terrorism is not only unrelated to Islam but is, in fact, “anti-Islamic activity,” as former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith maintained.

Dean compounded his idiocy with gun control claptrap, as pointed out by Mark Finkelstein of Newsbusters:

Dean goes on to decry the fact that the shooters had Kalashnikovs despite France's "tremendous" gun control laws.  Does "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" ring a bell, Howard?  

Thanks to France’s gun control, the Muslims were able to methodically execute their targets.  If the editors had been armed, it would have played out very differently.

For some reason, former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has taken it upon himself to declare that the Koran does not sanction violence.  This is so profoundly ignorant and counterfactual that it suggests he has never read the Koran before speaking out on its contents.  

See for yourself:

Andrew McCarthy, who has read the Koran, offers just a few citations that refute Dean:

... one who studied Islamic doctrine might point out that the scriptures invoke the word “terror” in explicitly endorsing wars of conquest against non-Muslims (see, e.g., the Koran’s Sura 3:151: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers …”; Sura 8:12: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”; Bukhari Hadith 52:220: “Allah’s Apostle said … ‘I have been made victorious with terror.’”) But why study the ideology of Islamic supremacists? After all, we’ve got the feel-good dogma of Western progressives, who insist that terrorism is not only unrelated to Islam but is, in fact, “anti-Islamic activity,” as former British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith maintained.

Dean compounded his idiocy with gun control claptrap, as pointed out by Mark Finkelstein of Newsbusters:

Dean goes on to decry the fact that the shooters had Kalashnikovs despite France's "tremendous" gun control laws.  Does "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" ring a bell, Howard?  

Thanks to France’s gun control, the Muslims were able to methodically execute their targets.  If the editors had been armed, it would have played out very differently.