Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting. And, of course, there's nothing more annoying than a newly-minted Convert, seeking to rationalize his abandonment of his own birthright and taking-up sides with outsiders rather than his own people, and intent upon proving himself to those born into the dogma..."...BIK is American. As I recall, he is a convert. One of the many problems with the prison industrial complex in this nation is that the prisons are a breeding ground for Islam. Most American converts to Islam, convert in prison."
He seems under the impression that every single refugee that would be transplanted here from Syria would be a Muslim. Statistically speaking that doesn't make much sense.
What percent of Syrians are not Muslim, sparky?
You play fast and loose with the truth on every subject, doncha?
Christian.
Is there any special (Dhimmi) provision for (Jizya) these Christians?
LOL
Standard Disclaimer: You think that you're clever - but you're not the first liar for Allah around here.
Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies and slaughtering nonbelievers and saying that God gives us permission to do so, and marriage-raping the widows of conquered cities and boffing little girls and such...So, please cite from one of the many versions of the Koran where the Kafirum are to be left in peace to rule their own lands as they please?
The Quran doesn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of all non-Muslims. Some people love to cite verses from say Sura 9, that say "slay the polythesists wherever you find them" but often ignore the fact that such verses refer to specific groups of persons (in sura 9 it is the Byzantine armies that are supposed to be near Tabuk). And almost always ignore the fact that at the same time Muhammad has alliances with non-believing tribes and towns and says that if you have understandings of non-aggression with them (we translate it as treaties) that believers are to honor them.
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies
The Quran doesn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of all non-Muslims.
Some people love to cite verses from say Sura 9, that say "slay the polythesists wherever you find them" but often ignore the fact that such verses refer to specific groups of persons (in sura 9 it is the Byzantine armies that are supposed to be near Tabuk). And almost always ignore the fact that at the same time Muhammad has alliances with non-believing tribes and towns and says that if you have understandings of non-aggression with them (we translate it as treaties) that believers are to honor them.
Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].
Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies
Moses did.
Jesus had the luxury of being born within a stable empire. Muhammad along with a number of Biblical figures did not enjoy that luxury.
Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.
Muhammed was a Being of Commoner Clay than the likes of Jesus and Buddha (and even Ghandi), I'm afraid.
That's nice - but the issue is Kafirum. IF you were actually an Atheist, you would be Kafir. And there are but two options from the Koran - despite your attempt at deceit.
Well, the "Polytheists" were the Hindus, not the Byzantine Christians. I suspect you know this but have chosen to be less than honest about it.
It's nice that the Muslims waited until the treaty expired before slaughtering them all. What wonderful people.
Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies
Moses did.
Jesus had the luxury of being born within a stable empire. Muhammad along with a number of Biblical figures did not enjoy that luxury.
Muhammed was a Being of commoner clay than the likes of Jesus and Buddha (and even Ghandi), I'm afraid.
He pushed into North India, and eventually (after his death) his armies did what Alexander failed at, subdued Northern India under the iron fist of and invading army.
is this supposed to be some sort of retort to any of the arguments I've made?
all you claim is that some muslims are good people....which i'm sure is basically true.....yet you have no position on the anti-American nature of Islam and sharia....the ideology by which they live....even here in the U.S....
the same ideology which was behind this meeting in TN....which was circling around the muslim push to make criticism of Islam a 'hate crime'...
The problem that we have here is that you keep referring to Islam as a singular thing, when it has already been established that it isn't.
The fundamental assumption of your model is incorrect.
But let's delve into the specifics of it: What exactly do you see in Islam itself that is incompatible with being an American, and what do you base that belief on (aka source it please)?
But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in a statement demanded legal action against those behind the film.
"Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people's anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable," it said, calling for "assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions" to be criminalized.
"Otherwise, such acts will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA, for allowing their citizens to violate the sanctity of what they hold dear and holy. Hence, we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial."
This cannot happen in the U.S. Blasphemy against Islam is a crime in parts of the Muslim world, and some Western countries have established de facto bans via selective enforcement of "hate speech" laws.
But America takes free speech seriously. The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that even speech directly advocating violence may not be criminalized, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." A law against blasphemy would, in addition, violate the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.
Shariah vs. the Constitution - WSJ.com
all you claim is that some muslims are good people....which i'm sure is basically true.....yet you have no position on the anti-American nature of Islam and sharia....the ideology by which they live....even here in the U.S....
the same ideology which was behind this meeting in TN....which was circling around the muslim push to make criticism of Islam a 'hate crime'...
The problem that we have here is that you keep referring to Islam as a singular thing, when it has already been established that it isn't.
The fundamental assumption of your model is incorrect.
But let's delve into the specifics of it: What exactly do you see in Islam itself that is incompatible with being an American, and what do you base that belief on (aka source it please)?
so let's look at a specific example....remember "the video".....?
But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in a statement demanded legal action against those behind the film.
"Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people's anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable," it said, calling for "assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions" to be criminalized.
"Otherwise, such acts will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA, for allowing their citizens to violate the sanctity of what they hold dear and holy. Hence, we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial."
This cannot happen in the U.S. Blasphemy against Islam is a crime in parts of the Muslim world, and some Western countries have established de facto bans via selective enforcement of "hate speech" laws.
But America takes free speech seriously. The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that even speech directly advocating violence may not be criminalized, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." A law against blasphemy would, in addition, violate the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.
Shariah vs. the Constitution - WSJ.com
The Quranic position on me is that I will go to hell and reside in torture for my disbelief. Quite frankly since I don't believe it, I'm not that worried about it.
The "polytheists" referenced in the Quran has nothing to do with the Hindus. Also, I feel obliged to point out that early Islam saw the Christian worship of the trinity as polytheistic. The reference of the term polytheists changes with the verse usually as well. In Sura 8 with the Battle of Badr it is a general term used for the Meccans.
Except that's not what Muhammad did. Nice try though.
And Christians utilized their religion as a justification to kill millions over the past 150 years (and millions more prior to that). That doesn't make Christianity an evil religion. Nor all Christians evil. You're logic is pretty juvenile.
There is very considerable difference between killing and murder. In the civilized parts of the world Christians are held as accountable for crimes as anyone else. And if a million people had been murdered in the name of Christianity I would indeed consider it an evil religion. Your knowledge of history sucks
Oh, they have been. You should read more. Something with more substance than Bonni Intall's Naked Islam comic books and David Barton's creative writing class.
You know very well that isn't true.
The position of the Koran is that you must convert, or die.
The Meccans were not Christian.
They were Jews and followers of the old gods - i.e. Hindus.
so you can point up sects of Muslims that don't bow to the Kabba and the Black Stone, right?
The problem that we have here is that you keep referring to Islam as a singular thing, when it has already been established that it isn't.
The fundamental assumption of your model is incorrect.
But let's delve into the specifics of it: What exactly do you see in Islam itself that is incompatible with being an American, and what do you base that belief on (aka source it please)?
so let's look at a specific example....remember "the video".....?
But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:
This cannot happen in the U.S. Blasphemy against Islam is a crime in parts of the Muslim world, and some Western countries have established de facto bans via selective enforcement of "hate speech" laws.
But America takes free speech seriously. The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that even speech directly advocating violence may not be criminalized, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." A law against blasphemy would, in addition, violate the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.
Shariah vs. the Constitution - WSJ.com
Even your own link disagrees with your uniform generalization of Muslims and Sharia, so I'm not sure why you would be posting it as a defense of your position.
Muhammad (the Islamic prophet) never fought a battle in northern India. He never expanded the early empire out of the Arabian Peninsula.
