No, Muslims Should NOT Be Allowed To Serve In Public Office

[Rigby5]

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Notice to all posters. This guy is a Muslim jihadist, steeped in taqiyya (Islamic lying). Please don't believe a word of what he says. Simple as that.

He's here to propagandize for Islam. Let's let him tell us that it would be OK for Islam to be supreme in America, instead of the Constitution. I'm just waiting for that.

The whole point of the US is that religion has nothing to do with political decision making, and is a private personal thing.
One is supposed to keep your religion to yourself.

The problem is when someone in this country tries to illegal impose their religious views on others, by claiming people of one religion or another, should not be allowed to hold office.
That is a religious test, and strictly forbidden.

 

[Rigby5]

That is silly because Evangelical Christians did far worse.
For example, we illegally invaded Iraq for no reason at all, and murdered a least half a million innocent civilians.

ISIS murdered that number and more, with the help of America's only Muslim jihadist president, Barrack Obama.

First of all, ISIS has no clerical backing so likely is a US hoax.
But ISIS has no bombers, tanks, artillery, missiles, etc., so could not possibly have murdered as many innocents as the US military has.
We are much better at it.

 

[protectionist]

You seem confused.
Here is Article 6 of the Constitution, the supremacy clause.
And it definitely says that all religions must be equally treated and tolerated.
There can be no religious tests.

{...
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html

HA HA. You think I need YOU Mr Jihadist, to tell me about the US Constitution ? I've been posting the Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2) all through this thread, and YOU just posted it again.

Here's what YOU posted with the important part highlighted in red >>

Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That part highlighted in red, is what shows Islam to be in violation of the Constitution.

Game, set, match. You can go home now little boy.​

 

[protectionist]

First of all, ISIS has no clerical backing so likely is a US hoax.
But ISIS has no bombers, tanks, artillery, missiles, etc., so could not possibly have murdered as many innocents as the US military has.
We are much better at it.

First of all you are 100% full of shit, and by now anyone who hasn't caught on to you, is entitled to resign from the human race. One thing you need to learn about bullshitting. It can't be obvious.

 

[protectionist]

The whole point of the US is that religion has nothing to do with political decision making, and is a private personal thing.
One is supposed to keep your religion to yourself.

The problem is when someone in this country tries to illegal impose their religious views on others, by claiming people of one religion or another, should not be allowed to hold office.
That is a religious test, and strictly forbidden.

This thread has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, so you are totally >>

 

[emilynghiem]

That is silly because Evangelical Christians did far worse.
For example, we illegally invaded Iraq for no reason at all, and murdered a least half a million innocent civilians.

ISIS murdered that number and more, with the help of America's only Muslim jihadist president, Barrack Obama.

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

That's the problem, again, with POLITICAL RELIGIONS
that circumvent and violate Constitutional laws, limits and process.
In this case, with ACA, both principles, process and BELIEFS.
With Obama, it was a case of DEMOCRATIC PARTY BELIEFS
that justified the breaches.

That's why I would recommend a resolution that
addressed PARTIES and POLITICAL RELIGIONS.

We can PROVE it was a PARTY SYSTEM behind those breaches
because Obama, Pelosi and other Democrats have WRITTEN INTO
THEIR PLATFORMS their BELIEFS in health care as a right.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

 

[protectionist]

I agree that Islams attempt at maintaining fidelity to old ways has hampered possible improvements.

However, Christianity is still FAR worse.
For example, the US still used torture techniques at Guantanmo, lied about Iraq WMD, and illegally murdered half a million Iraqi civilians by attacking the civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe.
The US wrongly attacks innocents often.
Name one time a Muslim country attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years?

See Post # 868 for when a Muslim country, THE UMMAH, attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years.

 

[Rigby5]

You seem confused.
Here is Article 6 of the Constitution, the supremacy clause.
And it definitely says that all religions must be equally treated and tolerated.
There can be no religious tests.

{...
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
...}
https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A6.html

HA HA. You think I need YOU Mr Jihadist, to tell me about the US Constitution ? I've been posting the Supremacy Clause (Article 6 Section 2) all through this thread, and YOU just posted it again.

Here's what YOU posted with the important part highlighted in red >>

Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

That part highlighted in red, is what shows Islam to be in violation of the Constitution.

Game, set, match. You can go home now little boy.​

That is silly because of all the Muslim countries, every single one of them has a secular government and legal system.
The ONLY things they use Sharia for are family matters, like divorce, inheritance, custody, etc.

But the whole point of the Supremacy Clause, Article 6, as far as this thread goes, is the last line.

{... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. ...}

No Muslim has ever tried to replace the Constitution with anything, but this thread is about violating the Constitution by requiring a religious test.

 

[Lastamender]

Dude me and millions of muslims follow the teachings of Islam if it advocated violence, we would have thousands of acts of violent a day in the US. Think about it.

"If it advocated violence" ? You just posted these words. So you call yourself a Muslim, and you have absolutely NO CLUE of what is in the Koran, of what Islam advocates.

EARTH TO ISSA: The Koran is violence cover to cover. You don't know ? I can't believe the ignorance that is bursting out of the pages of this thread. Here's an education for you Issa >>

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Koran 4:34

Arberry translation: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Pickthall translation: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

In case anyone doesn't know the meaning of the word "scourge", it meant to beat with a whip.

Here's a few more Koran delicasees >>

Koran 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”

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

If a Muslim lived in my apartment complex and he followed Koran 9:123, he would be fighting against every person in the apartment complex. And if he followed Koran 9:5, he would behead all these people, and cut off their fingers.

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Just look at the evidence.

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

 

[Rigby5]

The whole point of the US is that religion has nothing to do with political decision making, and is a private personal thing.
One is supposed to keep your religion to yourself.

The problem is when someone in this country tries to illegal impose their religious views on others, by claiming people of one religion or another, should not be allowed to hold office.
That is a religious test, and strictly forbidden.

This thread has absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION, so you are totally >>

That is just a lie.
This thread is clearly about attempting to impose a religious test that would ban Muslims from taking office.
That is the stated opening point of the whole thread.

 

[Rigby5]

I agree that Islams attempt at maintaining fidelity to old ways has hampered possible improvements.

However, Christianity is still FAR worse.
For example, the US still used torture techniques at Guantanmo, lied about Iraq WMD, and illegally murdered half a million Iraqi civilians by attacking the civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe.
The US wrongly attacks innocents often.
Name one time a Muslim country attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years?

See Post # 868 for when a Muslim country, THE UMMAH, attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years.

Wrong!

The WTC was attacked by about 20 private citizens, guided by Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion. No one sponsored or approved of the attack.

 

[Rigby5]

Dude me and millions of muslims follow the teachings of Islam if it advocated violence, we would have thousands of acts of violent a day in the US. Think about it.

"If it advocated violence" ? You just posted these words. So you call yourself a Muslim, and you have absolutely NO CLUE of what is in the Koran, of what Islam advocates.

EARTH TO ISSA: The Koran is violence cover to cover. You don't know ? I can't believe the ignorance that is bursting out of the pages of this thread. Here's an education for you Issa >>

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Koran 4:34

Arberry translation: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Pickthall translation: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

In case anyone doesn't know the meaning of the word "scourge", it meant to beat with a whip.

Here's a few more Koran delicasees >>

Koran 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”

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

If a Muslim lived in my apartment complex and he followed Koran 9:123, he would be fighting against every person in the apartment complex. And if he followed Koran 9:5, he would behead all these people, and cut off their fingers.

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Just look at the evidence.

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

 

[Lastamender]

I agree that Islams attempt at maintaining fidelity to old ways has hampered possible improvements.

However, Christianity is still FAR worse.
For example, the US still used torture techniques at Guantanmo, lied about Iraq WMD, and illegally murdered half a million Iraqi civilians by attacking the civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe.
The US wrongly attacks innocents often.
Name one time a Muslim country attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years?

See Post # 868 for when a Muslim country, THE UMMAH, attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years.

Wrong!

The WTC was attacked by about 20 private citizens, guided by Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion. No one sponsored or approved of the attack.

Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion.

Then why did Bin Laden consult with leading clerics to find out how many he could kill? I believe they told him 4 million would be fine, and that was just children.

 

[protectionist]

protectionist
Barack Obama was not a Jihadist.
His problem was that he didn't believe in upholding the Constitutional
limits and process, but put his partisan beliefs above the law of the land.
by Democratic Party beliefs, it's acceptable to pass laws that breach
Constitutional limits and process on federal govt, and just let the COURTS
address the breach afterwards. That's not Constitutional by most Constitutionalist
standards. So Obama did not respect Constitutional principles or BELIEFS,
and violated those.

We cannot prove any legal argument that Obama was Jihadist.
But we can prove a Political Religion and tie it to Partisan BELIEFS IN WRITING.

That Obama was a jihadist is proven by his actions. He hired Muslim Brotherhood operatives into the White House. Not just the most obvious one, Huma Abedin, but quite a few others, also.

In addition, he colluded with al Badhdadi (ISIS) by first pulling US troops out of Iraq in 2011 - opening the vacuum for ISIS to move in, Then, as US ex-generals were screaming for airstrikes on ISIS convoys, traveling on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for airstrikes), the convoys were allowed to move, as Obama authorized only a miniscule few token "pinprick" airstrikes, jut so he could say he did something. We saw the result.

Obama even supplied ISIS with weapons.

How ISIS got weapons from U.S. and used them to take Iraq and Syria

Here's a list of what Obama accomplished for Jihad, mostly administered by Huma Abedin, in the state department, while Hillary Clinton was traveling around the world getting drunk.

1- reversed the policy against formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood;

2- funded Hamas;

3- continued funding Egypt even after the Brotherhood won the elections;

4- dropped an investigation of Brotherhood organizations in the U.S. that were previously identified as co-conspirators in the case of the Holy Land Foundation financing Hamas;

5- hosted Brotherhood delegations in the United States;

6- issued a visa to a member of the Islamic Group (a designated terrorist organization) and hosted him in Washington, because he was part of the Brotherhood’s parliamentary coalition in Egypt;

7- announced that Israel should go back to its indefensible 1967 borders;

8- excluded Israel, the world’s leading target of terrorism, from a counterterrorism forum in which the State Department sought to “partner” with Islamist governments that do not regard attacks on Israel as terrorism;

9- pressured Egypt’s pro-American military government (Mubarek) to surrender power to the anti-American Muslim Brotherhood parliament and president (Morsi), just elected by Egypt’s predominantly anti-American population.

Makes us wonder >>> Hypothetically, if Obama and his Lieutenant, Huma Abedin, did have a bias in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, and if she were actually acting on that bias to try to tilt American policy in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood, what exactly would the State Department have done differently?

 

[Lastamender]

Dude me and millions of muslims follow the teachings of Islam if it advocated violence, we would have thousands of acts of violent a day in the US. Think about it.

"If it advocated violence" ? You just posted these words. So you call yourself a Muslim, and you have absolutely NO CLUE of what is in the Koran, of what Islam advocates.

EARTH TO ISSA: The Koran is violence cover to cover. You don't know ? I can't believe the ignorance that is bursting out of the pages of this thread. Here's an education for you Issa >>

The Koran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Koran 4:34

Arberry translation: "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God's guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them; God is All-high, All-great."

Pickthall translation: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

In case anyone doesn't know the meaning of the word "scourge", it meant to beat with a whip.

Here's a few more Koran delicasees >>

Koran 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”

Koran 9:5 - "“So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

Koran 9:123 - “O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.”

If a Muslim lived in my apartment complex and he followed Koran 9:123, he would be fighting against every person in the apartment complex. And if he followed Koran 9:5, he would behead all these people, and cut off their fingers.

Wrong.
Islam is one of the few religions that says to never use any violence unless necessary in defense.
When it talks about beheading or cutting off fingers, that is after a trial and done under orders of a judge.
It is not to be done arbitrarily by just anyone.

Just look at the evidence.
No Muslim country is invading anyone else.
All the violence is being done by the US, for profits, not defense.
Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iran, etc., attacked no one.
Yet the US is, was, or will be attacking all of them.

Just look at the evidence.

That is what we are doing. The evidence is in the Koran and Hadith, The evidence is Western Europe and failure to assimilate as obligated by Islam. The evidence is the dead Christians in Nigeria. The evidence says Islam is a hate-filled violent religion that should be called out and soundly rejected. It has no positives for non-Muslims and they kill their own with gay abandon.

Remember this hate is taught to children all over the world.

Wrong!.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation, and in fact specifically says that Christianity and Judaism are Brothers of the Book, equal Sons of Abraham, and that peace treaties should be negotiated as allies.
There are no attacks by Muslms on Europeans.
The conflict in Nigeria has nothing to do with religion, but over power and money.
Otherwise other nations of the involved religions would then also get involved.

There is ZERO evidence that there is anything wrong with Islam, and clearly it is Christianity and Judaism that is attacking and harming innocent civilians.

Islam implies absolutely NOTHING about assimilation

It sure does. Have you heard of hijra? And Islam does not consider non-Muslims innocents. That is why they claim they do not kill innocents. All of this can be proven with Islams own words. You do not know shit about Islam, do you?

 

[WEATHER53]

Freedom from religion kinda bites when it’s not workin for ya.

 

[protectionist]

 

[bodecea]

So......how's this kicking muslim Americans out of office working for the OP? How is his trying to convince everyone that a religion is not a religion working out for him?

 

[protectionist]

So......how's this kicking muslim Americans out of office working for the OP? How is his trying to convince everyone that a religion is not a religion working out for him?

Great and Great, Just read the thread.

 

[Rigby5]

I agree that Islams attempt at maintaining fidelity to old ways has hampered possible improvements.

However, Christianity is still FAR worse.
For example, the US still used torture techniques at Guantanmo, lied about Iraq WMD, and illegally murdered half a million Iraqi civilians by attacking the civilian infrastructure with Shock and Awe.
The US wrongly attacks innocents often.
Name one time a Muslim country attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years?

See Post # 868 for when a Muslim country, THE UMMAH, attacked anyone without cause in the last 100 years.

Wrong!

The WTC was attacked by about 20 private citizens, guided by Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion. No one sponsored or approved of the attack.

Osama bin Laden, none of which represented a country or a religion.

Then why did Bin Laden consult with leading clerics to find out how many he could kill? I believe they told him 4 million would be fine, and that was just children.

That is just a lie.
They did not even know who was responsible for the WTC attack for sure, until after the invasion of Iraq, when they found a video tape of Osama bin Laden admitting it.
But there is no evidence of any Muslim cleric being involved.
Even Osama could have killed far more.
He could have targeted stadiums or other larger gatherings.
But it was clear he was attacking symbols, not people.