Are Jihadi Martyrs?

Brian Caulfield is probably correct in noting a significant link between the promoting of suicide bombing and an understanding of jihad more as an external than an internal spiritual struggle (“Militant Muslims: Martyrs or Murderers?” July 7–12). However, Amir Taheri, writing in the May 8 edition of the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com, demonstrates that Islamists are resorting to linguistic contortions to defend actions inconsistent with traditional Islamic teaching.

Taheri notes that, in Islamic ethics, suicide is one of five “unpardonable sins” — “deeds that cannot be undone.” Second, Taheri insists that, “In Islam, Allah himself is the first shahid [martyr], meaning ‘witness,’ to the unity of creation.” Islam traditionally recognizes only about a dozen shahids “who fell in loyal battle in defense of the faith,” thus bearing “testimony to the truth of God's message.” One doesn't decide to perform an act with a view to becoming a shahid/martyr, for that implies one may force Allah/God's hand. (This understanding seems close to that of T.S. Eliot's Thomas a Becket in “Murder in the Cathedral.”)

To get around the impossibility of justifying suicide bombing as legitimate shahada/martyrdom, Taheri says that a word sharing the root of shahada/shahid is being applied–etsesh'had, “which literally means ‘affidavit.’ As a neologism, it means conducting ‘martyrlike’ operations.”

The most profound reason for Islam to reject the identifying of suicide bombing with martyrdom, according to Taheri, is that “Islam forbids human sacrifice,” and a militant who detonates an explosive belt is, first of all, making a human sacrifice of himself. Taheri asserts that this rejection of human sacrifice is the heart of the Islamic interpretation of the biblical story of Abraham's offering Isaac, celebrated as Eid alAdha, “the greatest Islamic festival.” According to Taheri, “Islam also rejects the crucifixion of Christ because it cannot accept that God would claim human sacrifice in atonement of men's sins.” (Of course, a Christian would insist that Christ's death is the one sacrifice for which the intention and person of the One offered totally determines the character of the offering.)

If Amir Taheri is representative of Islam, we may hope his interpretation helps the faithful to submit to their true teaching.

JOHN R. TRAFFAS

Wichita, Kansas

Who's ‘Pro-Life’?

In “Diocese Bans Pro-Abortion Candidates” (July 14-20), Cliff Zarsky, a member of the Corpus Christi Diocese's Human Life Committee and the president of Corpus Christi Right to Life, referred to Texas' Republican governor, Rick Perry, as “supporting the right to life” — though Perry makes exceptions to this support in the cases of rape and incest or if it is deemed that the mother's life is in danger.

Mr. Zarsky commits a common error by stating that those who believe it is appropriate to terminate the life of an unborn child under certain circumstances are still to be considered pro-life. Now it more rightly might be explained that a vote for such a politician as Mr. Perry might be of an advantage to the pro-life cause as he may be more disposed to the pro-life agenda than his opponent, but it adds to the confusion apparent among the Catholic faithful when we state that such a politician is pro-life.

What the Church has failed to articulate is a consistent argument against abortion and a consistency of language when articulating that argument. What conclusion does a member of the Church come to when candidate A is said to be pro-life yet they read his official position that endorses abortion under this circumstance or that? Can we conclude that it is this inconsistency of argument and language that creates an environment where over half of all self-proclaimed Catholics vote for the candidate who believes in unrestricted abortions? And that allows for the continued abortion of 1.5 million unborn children each year?

PHILIP SMALDONE, MD Arvada, Colorado

The Real Hippocrates

Thank you for your rapid printing of my recent letter (“Hailing Hippocrates,” July 14–20). However, I would like to alert you to the fact that the Hippocratic oath printed next to my letter is not the one from the National Catholic Bioethics Center's Web site. (Theirs does not open with swearing before Apollo and other gods and goddesses!) The fact that my letter references the National Catholic Bioethics Center's one may lead readers to falsely believe that the oath printed next to my letter is the one to which I'm referring, which it is not.

That better version of the oath can be found at: www.ncbcenter.org.

KAREN D. POEHAILOS, MD Charlottesville, Virginia

Pro-Priesthood

Thank you for your requests for examples of how to promote the priesthood (“Going on Offense,” May 26-June 1, and currently posted on www.ncregister.com). Our Serra Club of Reno ran three one-quarter-page ads containing this attached letter in the Reno Gazette-Journal and we mailed it personally to each of the priests in our Diocese of Reno (Nevada).

On Aug. 2 we will host our annual seminarian barbeque at Bishop's Staling's residence and we have invited all our priests, sisters, brothers and seminarians to a wonderful Mass and dinner.

Our Serra Club received three new members as a result of our ad in the newspaper. I agree with your editorial. No institution does more good work in the world than the Catholic Church. What we need now is an incessant campaign to put the great charitable works of the Church in the news media. Thanks for the positive reinforcement.

ROSS BARKER

Reno, Nevada

The writer is a past president of the Serra Club of Reno.

Pro-Choice Violence Unveiled

As a pro-life physician, I am pleased to hear about a new Web site exposing pro-abortion violence (“Web Site Seeks to Give Pro-Life Advocates a 'Level Playing Field,” July 21–27). The site publicizes the work of Life Dynamics, an aggressive pro-life organization, that recently had a 13–year old girl call over 800 abortion clinics nationwide. She admitted to the clinic worker that she was impregnated by her 22–year-old boyfriend. In almost all the conversations, the clinic worker reassured her that they would keep her secret or advised her to keep it a secret when she came in for her abortion.

This is illegal! Failure to report statutory rape is a crime! The proof is rock solid, the conversations were legally recorded. Now the litigation will begin. I pray that the abortion industry and Planned Parenthood will be exposed for what they are — harborers of child predators.

When someone covers up for men who sexually abuse children, they not only become accessories to those crimes, but they also leave the perpetrators free to pursue future victims.

Hopefully this new information will convince school districts to kick

Planned Parenthood out of our schools where they continue to lie and spread their message of “safe sex” to our children.

THOMAS MESSE, MD Groton, Connecticut

Eco-Theology

Several statements in the article “Rethinking Environmentalism” (July 7-13) struck me as defying logic. While it is logical to recognize that fires are a natural and healthy aspect of forest ecology, as many environmentalists have come to realize, I don't see how that proves that human interaction with forests (in the form of logging, etc.) are necessary for a healthy forest ecosystem, as several individuals stated or implied.

Gordon Durnil implied directly that forests left alone without human interaction are “unnatural and the consequences can be catastrophic.” Jerry Taylor states that “human interaction with forests … is essential for environmental health.” To believe this is to suggest that at the time of creation, and for many years to follow, the only healthy ecosystem was the Garden of Eden (as Adam and Eve were there to “dress it and keep it”) and that the rest of the earth's forest systems were created grossly out of balance and desperately in need of human interaction.

While it is possible for humans to interact with and extract resources from forests in responsible and sustainable ways it defies logic and common sense to insist forest ecosystems require human interaction to be healthy. The preeminent Christian environmentalist Wendell Berry believes that human communities can and should act in a “continuous harmony” with the rest of creation and that some places in the natural world should be left without human interaction or resource use precisely because we need models of natural harmonies from which we can learn how to interact with creation in the most sustainable ways, as well as to marvel at the handiwork of the creator.

Finally, Mr. Taylor's statement that “the earth contains more trees and vegetation today than at any time in the past 100 years” needs some explanation. Even assuming that his research is true, the salient question is “how many acres of healthy forest, and other ecosystems, do we have today compared with the past?”

GREG WOOD Ojai, California

In Her Eyes

Regarding “In the Eye of the Beheld: Science and Our Lady of Guadalupe” (July 14–20):

The lovely image of La Guadalupana certainly has been subjected to a lot of wishful thinking. If Juan Diego is presenting the tilma to the bishop, how can he be simultaneously reflected in the Virgin's eyes? And what's an Indian doing with a beard and mustache? In my opinion the blobs interpreted as faces are those seen in clouds.

It's worth noting that the sun, moon, angel, stars and flowers on the image were later additions by human hands to make Mary look like European representations of the Immaculata. (There used to be a silly little crown, too, but it was removed in the 19th century.) Moreover, the original figure is costumed like a European Madonna — not, as sometimes claimed, an Aztec princess. Aztec women wore calf-length