CAIR Director Claims Muslims Are “Above The Law Of The Land.”

[hadit]

Which ones?

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Dear hadit
One conflict I've run into with Christian Constitutionalists,
if they interpret Right to Life as including unborn persons legally,
then both sides believe the other is putting their own beliefs above the Law of the Land.

The prochoice see these prolife beliefs as faith based and not included in the law,
so it appears to be imposing beliefs on others through Government.
The prolife see this as INHERENT and not requiring further laws, so that
by judicial rulings or other laws VIOLATING this, THAT is pushing other beliefs
or policies against existing protections already included in the laws of the land.

This is similar to liberal beliefs in right to health care or right to marriage as "inherent."
Since believers in those principles already see this as rights that should ALREADY
be recognized and protected, they don't see how pushing laws violate any freedom or due process
because those AREN'T choices but should be mandatory by govt anyway as part of natural rights.
But people who DON'T believe "right to health care" or "right to marriage" are part of govt
but are BELIEFS that can't be established by imposing through govt, find these BELIEFS
to contradict Constitutional limits and laws.

In both cases, because of different beliefs that are supposed to be equally protected
from infringement or discrimination,
I find BOTH "right to life" AND "right to health care" beliefs being PUSHED THROUGH LEGISLATION
that violates Constitutional principles and process.

In order to CORRECT those violations, the laws should be written, passed and enforced
by CONSENSUS of the people so that all beliefs are included and represented equally.

The violations occur where laws are BIASED and leave out people of other beliefs still
protesting these biases in beliefs being incorporated and enforced by govt laws.

Those are two examples where beliefs are being pushed through Govt to violate the Law of the Land, by not representing the consent of ALL people, but discriminating by creed against opposing beliefs.

That is a very well thought out position, and difficult to fault.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Dictation From An Angel And Other Absurd Statements "

* Now What *

are YOU aware that Muslims are also called to follow the Bible as Holy Scriptures and prophets sent by God?

They are not following anti nomianism so the fictional ishmaelism adherents are not following the gospel .

Non Nomian Truth Or Consequences Constructed Qurayshism Crossed Logic

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Well, that question is nonsensical.

 

[longknife]

Which ones?

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Sharia, you twit!

 

[hadit]

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Well, that question is nonsensical.

Only if you don't have any examples...

 

[hadit]

Which ones?

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Sharia, you twit!

He probably believes that.

 

[MisterBeale]

MISSTATEMENT ALREADY CORRECTED:
CORRECTION: Muslim practice means going "above and beyond" not against the law

The goal of Islam is not in question. Nor are those organizations that follow it. At every level, their dedication to the Koran and the teachings of their religious leaders call for subjugating the US Constitution for Sharia.

According to Herman Mustafa Carroll, leader of CAIR in Dallas-Fort Worth, Muslims are not bound to US law because they are Muslims.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” he says.

Well, he’s not lying about what Muslims actually believe. Sure, there may be law-abiding, patriotic American Muslims, but plenty of adherents to the faith of Islam in this country feel exactly the same way as Carroll does.

And why wouldn’t they? They pledge allegiance to the political system of Sharia, which is fundamentally opposed to our American constitution.

Carroll made this statement at an Austin, Texas rally as part of an effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the website for the event, Muslims traveled to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

“We tried to downplay Sharia, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

Much more @ CAIR Director Claims Muslims Are “Above The Law Of The Land.” This Is Treason. - Tea Party News

Hi longknife
I happen to know Mustafaa personally, and called and asked him about this
when I first saw it publicized online.

He explained very clearly that his words and meanings were taken out of context.
I was relieved to hear this rational explanation because I know he couldn't have meant what it sounded like!

He explained that the context was that Muslims are called to higher standards
"above and beyond" what the law requires.

The example he gave: even though the law allows people to drink legally,
Muslims are not supposed to partake in alcohol and drunkenness.
So that is going BEYOND what the law requires. The Muslims have a stricter standard.

NOTE: I did tell him that the correct wording is "above and beyond"

So if he misstated it, I could see how that could miscommunicate his actual meaning.

Thank you for posting this but to be fair,
can you please amend your message to reflect this correction.

Thanks longknife
Mustafaa is a well honored community leader, who works with Christians and other Peace and Justice volunteers
with nonprofit outreach, including Christian Pastors among his own family members.

=============
PREVIOUS CORRECTION POSTED on USMB DEC 2016:

I saw clips and posts online, claiming that Mustafaa Carroll of CAIR
stated that "Muslims are above the law." Knowing him personally,
I KNEW that this had to be taken out of context. But what context?

In my greatest imagination, I could not think up what this could be.
My best guess was not even close!

I called him up and he answered me personally:

He explained the full context of his statement was
1. Muslim duty to Sharia or practice INCLUDES following the law of the land.
That's a given.

I already understand this concept because Muslims are to follow the same Bible as Christians which call for "civil obedience" to authority, so that they witness to what is right, while following civil authority standards and process of secular laws and govt. They respect that if they are truly faithful and obedient to God.

2. And his statement taken out of this context was that
if Muslims are faithful in practice, those standards go ABOVE what the law requires.
They will go ABOVE AND BEYOND.
so the laws will not affect them BECAUSE THEY ARE MEETING THEM
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE VIOLATING THEM AS THIS WAS MISCONSTRUED.

The problem I saw with his wording, is in his video he used the terms
"above the law" but THE SPIRIT of what he meant, and how he explained more clearly
over the phone, is that Muslims would go 'above and beyond' what the law requires.
He even gave me an example:
a. the law prohibits drinking while driving, but does not forbid drinking
b. by Islam, followers would not drink either!
So of course they will not break laws against drinking and driving, but go BEYOND that standard
and not drink to the point of drunkenness in the first place!

HERE IS THE VIDEO CLIP that Mustafaa sent me:

Mustafa_MediaResponse.mp4

The only argument I have with him, I sense the video still does not explain as clearly
as he did personally over the phone. Communication, especially with a topic that has
multiple levels of meaning as in this case, is much better one-on-one as a conversation
to CONFIRM the meaning is conveyed. It is VERY HARD to describe this concept
in "one blanket statement" linearly, and be sure that it is understand by different
audiences from different contexts and perspectives.

The term "above the law" means something very negative,
and my friend Mustafaa did better when explaining it as "going above and beyond"
what the law requires.

I told him I would post this correction.
=============================

cc: night_son Rambunctious Picaro

Ancient lion 's reply above making this same clarification is the correct meaning
of Musafaa Carroll's statement, not the OP which is incorrect. May I please request
that this be corrected so that it does not slander, defame or misrepresent what he said.
Thank you longknife if you can please make this correction!

It is pointless Emily.

Folks NEED an enemy.

The programing and propaganda of around the clock indoctrination is stronger than what you are trying to do.

It doesn't matter that reason and logic tell us that normal human beings want to have peace and tranquility. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, of billions of people do not seek conflict.

It is giant multinational corporations and governments that seek to keep folks afraid of one another.

Obviously.

Fear pushes us to blame someone for the few, very few incidents we see on our corporate TEE VEE. IN the past it would have been the Germans and the Japanese. Perhaps it would have been the Jew or the Chinese.

Now? The corporate media has focused on the immigrant and the Muslim. Folks that get the reality from the TEE VEE and the CFR press won't be reasoned with.

Folks that think this way, actually believe, that the small folks, and the poor that follow the Quran, all of them, there is no distinction, they are all the same, all 1.8 billion of them. They cannot conceive of Islam having as much variety as Christianity, which has a spectrum of difference between, say, a strict pious Amish practitioner, and someone who follows a Televangelist. Naturally, to folks associated with Christianity, the two couldn't be more different, and to claim the two are the same? Would be foolishness.

Yet, that is what we have to read from folks that are afraid of Islam. One Muslim is that same as the next. All 1.8 billion are the same.

IOW, GOD MAKES MISTAKES. These Christians think Jews are all right, but clearly, God is wrong when he allowed a religion to spread like Islam has . . . God didn't know what he was doing, and these Christian folks know better.

If that is the case, how can mankind be sure of the divinity of the bible, of the divinity of anything in creation after all?


. . . it must be hopeless. No wonder the nihilists and atheists are on the rise. Divinity and Faith is being squandered. The Lucifarians that are in control are playing them all like a fiddle to destroy the poor, powerless, homeless, and hungry of the world. Instead of warring with each other, these great repositories of faith should be finding common ground.


Because we play into their hands. . . someday in the future, the whole world will hate America and seek to destroy her as she keeps playing into this hatred.

 

[emilynghiem]

Which ones?

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Sharia, you twit!

Dear longknife
This is a trick answer you have given.

What SHARIA refers to is ALL practices in Islam, including
PRAYER
GIVING ALMS TO THE POOR
and even the aforementioned practice of
OBEDIENCE to Biblical Scripture, Civil laws/authority, along with Quran and Mohammad's teachings on the interpretations of them

Since the laws of the land do not require following the Bible,
then you can argue Christians, Muslims and others who adhere to this principle
are putting their Bibles first, and following the laws of the land as a requirement of following the Bible.

NOTE: Because of the Scriptural teaching on Civil Obedience to Civil Laws and Authority,
the Christians and Muslims who commit to this can thus be CHECKED by CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
similar to Constitutionalists who swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

So this would PREVENT either Christians or Muslims from violating Constitutional laws
by holding them to their own commitments to CIVIL OBEDIENCE.

Muslims, Christians or Constitutionalists -- just like any other human beings --
include in their populations community members who commit violations of Civil, Criminal or Constitutional laws as any other group of people will have its abusers and criminals.

If you want to get into CAUSES of criminal or abusive behavior,
the same causes apply to Muslims, Christians, Atheists or any other group or identity.

The problem with Muslims and Christians who MIX Government with their Religious beliefs
to start following or imposing POLITICAL RELIGIONS
is where they FAIL TO ENFORCE CIVIL OBEDIENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
CHECKS AND BALANCES, LIMITS, and SEPARATION OF POWERS ON GOVT AUTHORITY.

That's when you get abusive, oppressive or militant violent POLITICAL RELIGIONS.
This applies to both Muslims OR Christians who don't put Constitutional laws first (as even Obama was caught putting Partisan Beliefs over the Constitutional duty to represent ALL people of all creeds).

But as long as Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents
RESPECT Constitutional laws against establishing or imposing religious beliefs on others,
this part of CIVIL OBEDIENCE
CHECKS AND PREVENTS collective abuse of authority for oppressing individuals.

longknife We in America actually have a WORSE prevalent problems of
Democratic Party members and SOCIALIST Democrats violating
Constitutional principles of Limits, checks and balances, Separation of Powers
by imposing THEIR "political beliefs" through Govt especially depending on Judicial Rule to act as legislative or executive authority.

If you are going to call a group out on pushing a Political Religion through Govt
against the beliefs of other citizens and in violation of Constitutional laws,
I'd point to the DEMOCRATS for pushing
* ACA and its mandates without acknowledging Constitutional violations or taking responsibility for restitution or correction
* same sex marriage policies and transgender beliefs "above" the equal rights of others to their beliefs against these practices
* right to health care through federal govt without following Constitutional process of an AMENDMENT ratified by States
* and in general "taxation without representation" and "discrimination by creed"

As for Mustafaa Carroll's explanation of lawsuits attempting to ban SHARIA,
he explained since this term is too broad, and banning SHARIA would mean banning ALL the expressions of Muslim faith,
then it would essential BAN MUSLIMS from practicing their RELIGION, clearly against the First Amendment.

My clarification to this:
If the point is to ban the abuse of political religions that violate Constitutional laws, process,
beliefs, principles and protections for all citizens, that needs to be stated specifically
rather than use an overly broad terms such as SHARIA that "targets Muslims instead of applying to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS" and doesn't distinguish the RELIGIOUS ABUSE or the unconstitutional POLITICAL RELIGION from the Constitutional free exercise of religion of individuals or groups practicing LAWFULLY.

 

[justoffal]

The goal of Islam is not in question. Nor are those organizations that follow it. At every level, their dedication to the Koran and the teachings of their religious leaders call for subjugating the US Constitution for Sharia.

According to Herman Mustafa Carroll, leader of CAIR in Dallas-Fort Worth, Muslims are not bound to US law because they are Muslims.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” he says.

Well, he’s not lying about what Muslims actually believe. Sure, there may be law-abiding, patriotic American Muslims, but plenty of adherents to the faith of Islam in this country feel exactly the same way as Carroll does.

And why wouldn’t they? They pledge allegiance to the political system of Sharia, which is fundamentally opposed to our American constitution.

Carroll made this statement at an Austin, Texas rally as part of an effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the website for the event, Muslims traveled to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

“We tried to downplay Sharia, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

Much more @ CAIR Director Claims Muslims Are “Above The Law Of The Land.” This Is Treason. - Tea Party News

No country has ever survived who welcomed Muslims into their country and allowed them to become a large demographic.

You are posting nonsense Picaro.

Russia has around 10-15% of muslim citizens and is doing fine. ....

Yeah, by watching them like hawks and locking them up the moment they become active jihadists. Putin ain't messing with e'm.

Russia does not fuck around whatsoever.
You take hostages or perform a terror act,
You freaking die on the spot....end of story.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Which ones?

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Sharia, you twit!

Dear longknife
This is a trick answer you have given.

What SHARIA refers to is ALL practices in Islam, including
PRAYER
GIVING ALMS TO THE POOR
and even the aforementioned practice of
OBEDIENCE to Biblical Scripture, Civil laws/authority, along with Quran and Mohammad's teachings on the interpretations of them

Since the laws of the land do not require following the Bible,
then you can argue Christians, Muslims and others who adhere to this principle
are putting their Bibles first, and following the laws of the land as a requirement of following the Bible.

NOTE: Because of the Scriptural teaching on Civil Obedience to Civil Laws and Authority,
the Christians and Muslims who commit to this can thus be CHECKED by CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
similar to Constitutionalists who swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

So this would PREVENT either Christians or Muslims from violating Constitutional laws
by holding them to their own commitments to CIVIL OBEDIENCE.

Muslims, Christians or Constitutionalists -- just like any other human beings --
include in their populations community members who commit violations of Civil, Criminal or Constitutional laws as any other group of people will have its abusers and criminals.

If you want to get into CAUSES of criminal or abusive behavior,
the same causes apply to Muslims, Christians, Atheists or any other group or identity.

The problem with Muslims and Christians who MIX Government with their Religious beliefs
to start following or imposing POLITICAL RELIGIONS
is where they FAIL TO ENFORCE CIVIL OBEDIENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
CHECKS AND BALANCES, LIMITS, and SEPARATION OF POWERS ON GOVT AUTHORITY.

That's when you get abusive, oppressive or militant violent POLITICAL RELIGIONS.
This applies to both Muslims OR Christians who don't put Constitutional laws first (as even Obama was caught putting Partisan Beliefs over the Constitutional duty to represent ALL people of all creeds).

But as long as Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents
RESPECT Constitutional laws against establishing or imposing religious beliefs on others,
this part of CIVIL OBEDIENCE
CHECKS AND PREVENTS collective abuse of authority for oppressing individuals.

longknife We in America actually have a WORSE prevalent problems of
Democratic Party members and SOCIALIST Democrats violating
Constitutional principles of Limits, checks and balances, Separation of Powers
by imposing THEIR "political beliefs" through Govt especially depending on Judicial Rule to act as legislative or executive authority.

If you are going to call a group out on pushing a Political Religion through Govt
against the beliefs of other citizens and in violation of Constitutional laws,
I'd point to the DEMOCRATS for pushing
* ACA and its mandates without acknowledging Constitutional violations or taking responsibility for restitution or correction
* same sex marriage policies and transgender beliefs "above" the equal rights of others to their beliefs against these practices
* right to health care through federal govt without following Constitutional process of an AMENDMENT ratified by States
* and in general "taxation without representation" and "discrimination by creed"

As for Mustafaa Carroll's explanation of lawsuits attempting to ban SHARIA,
he explained since this term is too broad, and banning SHARIA would mean banning ALL the expressions of Muslim faith,
then it would essential BAN MUSLIMS from practicing their RELIGION, clearly against the First Amendment.

My clarification to this:
If the point is to ban the abuse of political religions that violate Constitutional laws, process,
beliefs, principles and protections for all citizens, that needs to be stated specifically
rather than use an overly broad terms such as SHARIA that "targets Muslims instead of applying to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS" and doesn't distinguish the RELIGIOUS ABUSE or the unconstitutional POLITICAL RELIGION from the Constitutional free exercise of religion of individuals or groups practicing LAWFULLY.

Let me help you reduce your verbaige a little.

If Mostafa takes exception to the American flag flying on my front porch and orders me to take it down I tell him to fuck off. If Mostafa sets foot on my lawn with the intentions of taking the flag down I break his legs. If Mostafa comes back with help in order to take the flag down and he's on crutches .... Well let's just say it's time for the undertaker to start measuring caskets.

Jo

 

[emilynghiem]

MISSTATEMENT ALREADY CORRECTED:
CORRECTION: Muslim practice means going "above and beyond" not against the law

The goal of Islam is not in question. Nor are those organizations that follow it. At every level, their dedication to the Koran and the teachings of their religious leaders call for subjugating the US Constitution for Sharia.

According to Herman Mustafa Carroll, leader of CAIR in Dallas-Fort Worth, Muslims are not bound to US law because they are Muslims.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” he says.

Well, he’s not lying about what Muslims actually believe. Sure, there may be law-abiding, patriotic American Muslims, but plenty of adherents to the faith of Islam in this country feel exactly the same way as Carroll does.

And why wouldn’t they? They pledge allegiance to the political system of Sharia, which is fundamentally opposed to our American constitution.

Carroll made this statement at an Austin, Texas rally as part of an effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the website for the event, Muslims traveled to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

“We tried to downplay Sharia, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

Much more @ CAIR Director Claims Muslims Are “Above The Law Of The Land.” This Is Treason. - Tea Party News

Hi longknife
I happen to know Mustafaa personally, and called and asked him about this
when I first saw it publicized online.

He explained very clearly that his words and meanings were taken out of context.
I was relieved to hear this rational explanation because I know he couldn't have meant what it sounded like!

He explained that the context was that Muslims are called to higher standards
"above and beyond" what the law requires.

The example he gave: even though the law allows people to drink legally,
Muslims are not supposed to partake in alcohol and drunkenness.
So that is going BEYOND what the law requires. The Muslims have a stricter standard.

NOTE: I did tell him that the correct wording is "above and beyond"

So if he misstated it, I could see how that could miscommunicate his actual meaning.

Thank you for posting this but to be fair,
can you please amend your message to reflect this correction.

Thanks longknife
Mustafaa is a well honored community leader, who works with Christians and other Peace and Justice volunteers
with nonprofit outreach, including Christian Pastors among his own family members.

=============
PREVIOUS CORRECTION POSTED on USMB DEC 2016:

I saw clips and posts online, claiming that Mustafaa Carroll of CAIR
stated that "Muslims are above the law." Knowing him personally,
I KNEW that this had to be taken out of context. But what context?

In my greatest imagination, I could not think up what this could be.
My best guess was not even close!

I called him up and he answered me personally:

He explained the full context of his statement was
1. Muslim duty to Sharia or practice INCLUDES following the law of the land.
That's a given.

I already understand this concept because Muslims are to follow the same Bible as Christians which call for "civil obedience" to authority, so that they witness to what is right, while following civil authority standards and process of secular laws and govt. They respect that if they are truly faithful and obedient to God.

2. And his statement taken out of this context was that
if Muslims are faithful in practice, those standards go ABOVE what the law requires.
They will go ABOVE AND BEYOND.
so the laws will not affect them BECAUSE THEY ARE MEETING THEM
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE VIOLATING THEM AS THIS WAS MISCONSTRUED.

The problem I saw with his wording, is in his video he used the terms
"above the law" but THE SPIRIT of what he meant, and how he explained more clearly
over the phone, is that Muslims would go 'above and beyond' what the law requires.
He even gave me an example:
a. the law prohibits drinking while driving, but does not forbid drinking
b. by Islam, followers would not drink either!
So of course they will not break laws against drinking and driving, but go BEYOND that standard
and not drink to the point of drunkenness in the first place!

HERE IS THE VIDEO CLIP that Mustafaa sent me:

Mustafa_MediaResponse.mp4

The only argument I have with him, I sense the video still does not explain as clearly
as he did personally over the phone. Communication, especially with a topic that has
multiple levels of meaning as in this case, is much better one-on-one as a conversation
to CONFIRM the meaning is conveyed. It is VERY HARD to describe this concept
in "one blanket statement" linearly, and be sure that it is understand by different
audiences from different contexts and perspectives.

The term "above the law" means something very negative,
and my friend Mustafaa did better when explaining it as "going above and beyond"
what the law requires.

I told him I would post this correction.
=============================

cc: night_son Rambunctious Picaro

Ancient lion 's reply above making this same clarification is the correct meaning
of Musafaa Carroll's statement, not the OP which is incorrect. May I please request
that this be corrected so that it does not slander, defame or misrepresent what he said.
Thank you longknife if you can please make this correction!

It is pointless Emily.

Folks NEED an enemy.

The programing and propaganda of around the clock indoctrination is stronger than what you are trying to do.

It doesn't matter that reason and logic tell us that normal human beings want to have peace and tranquility. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, of billions of people do not seek conflict.

It is giant multinational corporations and governments that seek to keep folks afraid of one another.

Obviously.

Fear pushes us to blame someone for the few, very few incidents we see on our corporate TEE VEE. IN the past it would have been the Germans and the Japanese. Perhaps it would have been the Jew or the Chinese.

Now? The corporate media has focused on the immigrant and the Muslim. Folks that get the reality from the TEE VEE and the CFR press won't be reasoned with.

Folks that think this way, actually believe, that the small folks, and the poor that follow the Quran, all of them, there is no distinction, they are all the same, all 1.8 billion of them. They cannot conceive of Islam having as much variety as Christianity, which has a spectrum of difference between, say, a strict pious Amish practitioner, and someone who follows a Televangelist. Naturally, to folks associated with Christianity, the two couldn't be more different, and to claim the two are the same? Would be foolishness.

Yet, that is what we have to read from folks that are afraid of Islam. One Muslim is that same as the next. All 1.8 billion are the same.

IOW, GOD MAKES MISTAKES. These Christians think Jews are all right, but clearly, God is wrong when he allowed a religion to spread like Islam has . . . God didn't know what he was doing, and these Christian folks know better.

If that is the case, how can mankind be sure of the divinity of the bible, of the divinity of anything in creation after all?


. . . it must be hopeless. No wonder the nihilists and atheists are on the rise. Divinity and Faith is being squandered. The Lucifarians that are in control are playing them all like a fiddle to destroy the poor, powerless, homeless, and hungry of the world. Instead of warring with each other, these great repositories of faith should be finding common ground.


Because we play into their hands. . . someday in the future, the whole world will hate America and seek to destroy her as she keeps playing into this hatred.

Dear MisterBeale thank you for your honest assessment of the plight of humanity.
Yes and no, I agree we have these flaws, so that COLLECTIVELY when forming
CORPORATE groups, institutions, PARTIES and Govt (and also media conglomerates)
YES unfortunately the worst flaws of humanity are MULTIPLIED and become oppressive and abusive.

However, this is not to say it is hopeless.
By treating the people making up these Govts, parties and Corporate interests
as INDIVIDUALS, that's where we have every opportunity to connect
as you and I do here.

You and I could treat each other as just another member of an anonymous mob of mindsets on the internet.
But instead we hear each other as individuals.

When I address longknife, this isn't as a mindless group, but addressing
an individual who believes in Constitutional laws as I do, and we respect those principles.

Each person has their own language for the laws, and when we address
each other by common laws we commit to follow, we have this chance
to connect on common principles.

I do believe it is inherent in our human nature and process of development
to "break down" the mob mentality and work toward one-on-one connections.

Then apply that back to COLLECTIVELY influencing our media and corporate hierarchies in turn.

So the ripple effect, the law of attraction or laws of "cause and effect" play in our favor.

The same PROCESS
by which NEGATIVE perceptions and FEARS that bias individuals and create a whole MOB of people of that mindset
also works the OTHER WAY
when POSITIVE changes that expand our perception and ways of dealing with conflict
start with INDIVIDUALS and replicate to affect RELATIONS around us
(and that in turn multiples to affect INSTITUTIONS around us).

So bad news is YES the groups and individuals co-influence each other when it comes to NEGATIVE and FEAR BASED perceptions.
And GOOD NEWS is YES this dynamic also works with POSITIVE change and growth in relations and understanding to correct wrongs.

 

[emilynghiem]

Which ones?

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Sharia, you twit!

Dear longknife
This is a trick answer you have given.

What SHARIA refers to is ALL practices in Islam, including
PRAYER
GIVING ALMS TO THE POOR
and even the aforementioned practice of
OBEDIENCE to Biblical Scripture, Civil laws/authority, along with Quran and Mohammad's teachings on the interpretations of them

Since the laws of the land do not require following the Bible,
then you can argue Christians, Muslims and others who adhere to this principle
are putting their Bibles first, and following the laws of the land as a requirement of following the Bible.

NOTE: Because of the Scriptural teaching on Civil Obedience to Civil Laws and Authority,
the Christians and Muslims who commit to this can thus be CHECKED by CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
similar to Constitutionalists who swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

So this would PREVENT either Christians or Muslims from violating Constitutional laws
by holding them to their own commitments to CIVIL OBEDIENCE.

Muslims, Christians or Constitutionalists -- just like any other human beings --
include in their populations community members who commit violations of Civil, Criminal or Constitutional laws as any other group of people will have its abusers and criminals.

If you want to get into CAUSES of criminal or abusive behavior,
the same causes apply to Muslims, Christians, Atheists or any other group or identity.

The problem with Muslims and Christians who MIX Government with their Religious beliefs
to start following or imposing POLITICAL RELIGIONS
is where they FAIL TO ENFORCE CIVIL OBEDIENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
CHECKS AND BALANCES, LIMITS, and SEPARATION OF POWERS ON GOVT AUTHORITY.

That's when you get abusive, oppressive or militant violent POLITICAL RELIGIONS.
This applies to both Muslims OR Christians who don't put Constitutional laws first (as even Obama was caught putting Partisan Beliefs over the Constitutional duty to represent ALL people of all creeds).

But as long as Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents
RESPECT Constitutional laws against establishing or imposing religious beliefs on others,
this part of CIVIL OBEDIENCE
CHECKS AND PREVENTS collective abuse of authority for oppressing individuals.

longknife We in America actually have a WORSE prevalent problems of
Democratic Party members and SOCIALIST Democrats violating
Constitutional principles of Limits, checks and balances, Separation of Powers
by imposing THEIR "political beliefs" through Govt especially depending on Judicial Rule to act as legislative or executive authority.

If you are going to call a group out on pushing a Political Religion through Govt
against the beliefs of other citizens and in violation of Constitutional laws,
I'd point to the DEMOCRATS for pushing
* ACA and its mandates without acknowledging Constitutional violations or taking responsibility for restitution or correction
* same sex marriage policies and transgender beliefs "above" the equal rights of others to their beliefs against these practices
* right to health care through federal govt without following Constitutional process of an AMENDMENT ratified by States
* and in general "taxation without representation" and "discrimination by creed"

As for Mustafaa Carroll's explanation of lawsuits attempting to ban SHARIA,
he explained since this term is too broad, and banning SHARIA would mean banning ALL the expressions of Muslim faith,
then it would essential BAN MUSLIMS from practicing their RELIGION, clearly against the First Amendment.

My clarification to this:
If the point is to ban the abuse of political religions that violate Constitutional laws, process,
beliefs, principles and protections for all citizens, that needs to be stated specifically
rather than use an overly broad terms such as SHARIA that "targets Muslims instead of applying to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS" and doesn't distinguish the RELIGIOUS ABUSE or the unconstitutional POLITICAL RELIGION from the Constitutional free exercise of religion of individuals or groups practicing LAWFULLY.

Let me help you reduce your verbaige a little.

If Mustafa takes exception to the American flag flying on my front porch and orders me to take it down I tell him to fuck off. if Mustafa sets foot on my lawn with the intentions of taking the flag down I break his legs. If Mustafa comes back with help in order to take the flag down and he's on crutches .... Well let's just say it's time for the undertaker to start measuring caskets.

Jo

Dear justoffal
Then if Mustafaa would never do any of that you would never accuse or react to him as such.
And if ANYONE did those things to you against your Constitutional rights, beliefs and protections,
you would react in defense of the law REGARDLESS if such person were Muslim or not, or of any affiliation.

The issue is NOT whether Mustafaa is Muslim,
it's whether you are being forced by any person or group to compromise your rights, beliefs
and free exercise of religion or speech protected equally under law.

Before any of us "judges or condemns" Mustafaa or any other Muslim,
let us first prove that person GUILTY of abuse or other unlawful threat or action that
CALLS for depriving liberty according to the law. That's called DUE PROCESS of laws
before depriving a fellow citizen of liberty.

If someone is so abusive or oppressive they do not believe in respecting due process of laws and CANNOT COMPLY,
if they are so mentally disordered or criminally sick as to disrespect the laws and rights of others that they cause UNLAWFUL
breaches and threats to health and safety, then their mental and legal incompetence is the problem regardless which religion they are.

 

[Picaro]

Some people are just too stupid and sheltered to face up to real evil in the world, and think some false 'objectivity' makes them 'enlightened n stuff', as if all beliefs are of equal validity and end up with the same results or something, which of course is utter nonsense. these people are like those credulous idiot Burb Brats who go 'adventure touring' in Islamo-Vermin countries despite all warnings and get themselves killed, same with idiots raised on TV who will try and pet wild bears and other animals because they watched Grizzly Adams on TV and think they learned all about 'nature'.

Save the arrogant clueless infantile narcissism for the rubes in grade school.

 

[Desperado]

No one is above the law... Neither muslims or politicians

 

[justoffal]

All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.

Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?

Sharia, you twit!

Dear longknife
This is a trick answer you have given.

What SHARIA refers to is ALL practices in Islam, including
PRAYER
GIVING ALMS TO THE POOR
and even the aforementioned practice of
OBEDIENCE to Biblical Scripture, Civil laws/authority, along with Quran and Mohammad's teachings on the interpretations of them

Since the laws of the land do not require following the Bible,
then you can argue Christians, Muslims and others who adhere to this principle
are putting their Bibles first, and following the laws of the land as a requirement of following the Bible.

NOTE: Because of the Scriptural teaching on Civil Obedience to Civil Laws and Authority,
the Christians and Muslims who commit to this can thus be CHECKED by CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS
similar to Constitutionalists who swear allegiance to uphold the Constitution.

So this would PREVENT either Christians or Muslims from violating Constitutional laws
by holding them to their own commitments to CIVIL OBEDIENCE.

Muslims, Christians or Constitutionalists -- just like any other human beings --
include in their populations community members who commit violations of Civil, Criminal or Constitutional laws as any other group of people will have its abusers and criminals.

If you want to get into CAUSES of criminal or abusive behavior,
the same causes apply to Muslims, Christians, Atheists or any other group or identity.

The problem with Muslims and Christians who MIX Government with their Religious beliefs
to start following or imposing POLITICAL RELIGIONS
is where they FAIL TO ENFORCE CIVIL OBEDIENCE TO CONSTITUTIONAL
CHECKS AND BALANCES, LIMITS, and SEPARATION OF POWERS ON GOVT AUTHORITY.

That's when you get abusive, oppressive or militant violent POLITICAL RELIGIONS.
This applies to both Muslims OR Christians who don't put Constitutional laws first (as even Obama was caught putting Partisan Beliefs over the Constitutional duty to represent ALL people of all creeds).

But as long as Christians, Muslims and other religious adherents
RESPECT Constitutional laws against establishing or imposing religious beliefs on others,
this part of CIVIL OBEDIENCE
CHECKS AND PREVENTS collective abuse of authority for oppressing individuals.

longknife We in America actually have a WORSE prevalent problems of
Democratic Party members and SOCIALIST Democrats violating
Constitutional principles of Limits, checks and balances, Separation of Powers
by imposing THEIR "political beliefs" through Govt especially depending on Judicial Rule to act as legislative or executive authority.

If you are going to call a group out on pushing a Political Religion through Govt
against the beliefs of other citizens and in violation of Constitutional laws,
I'd point to the DEMOCRATS for pushing
* ACA and its mandates without acknowledging Constitutional violations or taking responsibility for restitution or correction
* same sex marriage policies and transgender beliefs "above" the equal rights of others to their beliefs against these practices
* right to health care through federal govt without following Constitutional process of an AMENDMENT ratified by States
* and in general "taxation without representation" and "discrimination by creed"

As for Mustafaa Carroll's explanation of lawsuits attempting to ban SHARIA,
he explained since this term is too broad, and banning SHARIA would mean banning ALL the expressions of Muslim faith,
then it would essential BAN MUSLIMS from practicing their RELIGION, clearly against the First Amendment.

My clarification to this:
If the point is to ban the abuse of political religions that violate Constitutional laws, process,
beliefs, principles and protections for all citizens, that needs to be stated specifically
rather than use an overly broad terms such as SHARIA that "targets Muslims instead of applying to ALL POLITICAL RELIGIONS" and doesn't distinguish the RELIGIOUS ABUSE or the unconstitutional POLITICAL RELIGION from the Constitutional free exercise of religion of individuals or groups practicing LAWFULLY.

Let me help you reduce your verbaige a little.

If Mustafa takes exception to the American flag flying on my front porch and orders me to take it down I tell him to fuck off. if Mustafa sets foot on my lawn with the intentions of taking the flag down I break his legs. If Mustafa comes back with help in order to take the flag down and he's on crutches .... Well let's just say it's time for the undertaker to start measuring caskets.

Jo

Dear justoffal
Then if Mustafaa would never do any of that you would never accuse or react to him as such.
And if ANYONE did those things to you against your Constitutional rights, beliefs and protections,
you would react in defense of the law REGARDLESS if such person were Muslim or not, or of any affiliation.

The issue is NOT whether Mustafaa is Muslim,
it's whether you are being forced by any person or group to compromise your rights, beliefs
and free exercise of religion or speech protected equally under law.

Before any of us "judges or condemns" Mustafaa or any other Muslim,
let us first prove that person GUILTY of abuse or other unlawful threat or action that
CALLS for depriving liberty according to the law. That's called DUE PROCESS of laws
before depriving a fellow citizen of liberty.

If someone is so abusive or oppressive they do not believe in respecting due process of laws and CANNOT COMPLY,
if they are so mentally disordered or criminally sick as to disrespect the laws and rights of others that they cause UNLAWFUL
breaches and threats to health and safety, then their mental and legal incompetence is the problem regardless which religion they are.

You are quite correct.
The same holds for Mostafa, leeroy, Mr. Chang, Pablo or Johnny the next door neighbor..... They all have breakable legs;
Equally and without prejudice.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

Some people are just too stupid and sheltered to face up to real evil in the world, and think some false 'objectivity' makes them 'enlightened n stuff', as if all beliefs are of equal validity and end up with the same results or something, which of course is utter nonsense. these people are like those credulous idiot Burb Brats who go 'adventure touring' in Islamo-Vermin countries despite all warnings and get themselves killed, same with idiots raised on TV who will try and pet wild bears and other animals because they watched Grizzly Adams on TV and think they learned all about 'nature'.

Save the arrogant clueless infantile narcissism for the rubes in grade school.

The Timothy Treadwell syndrome.

Jo

 

[emilynghiem]

Some people are just too stupid and sheltered to face up to real evil in the world, and think some false 'objectivity' makes them 'enlightened n stuff', as if all beliefs are of equal validity and end up with the same results or something, which of course is utter nonsense. these people are like those credulous idiot Burb Brats who go 'adventure touring' in Islamo-Vermin countries despite all warnings and get themselves killed, same with idiots raised on TV who will try and pet wild bears and other animals because they watched Grizzly Adams on TV and think they learned all about 'nature'.

Save the arrogant clueless infantile narcissism for the rubes in grade school.

Dear Picaro

If you go back and re-read my msgs:
I DID specify that Muslims like any other group can include people who are criminally ill or legally/mentally incompetent
to comply with laws. Please read my last msg to justoffal that spells this out more specifically.

That's fine to introduce laws requiring advance screening for dangerous mental or criminal illness to catch
the ones who pose threats to health and safety. But it has to be applied EQUALLY to all people and not target or profile
in a discriminatory fashion. So it could apply to ALL immigrants applying for citizenship,
or apply to ALL citizens upon turning 18 and first claiming rights and privileges as legally responsible adults.

If ALL citizens, born here or not, were required to take the SAME oath, training and MENTAL HEALTH screening as police and military
to uphold Constitutional laws and follow legal procedures BEFORE granting rights and privileges of CITIZENSHIP, that would be fair.

 

[MisterBeale]

MISSTATEMENT ALREADY CORRECTED:
CORRECTION: Muslim practice means going "above and beyond" not against the law

The goal of Islam is not in question. Nor are those organizations that follow it. At every level, their dedication to the Koran and the teachings of their religious leaders call for subjugating the US Constitution for Sharia.

According to Herman Mustafa Carroll, leader of CAIR in Dallas-Fort Worth, Muslims are not bound to US law because they are Muslims.

“If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” he says.

Well, he’s not lying about what Muslims actually believe. Sure, there may be law-abiding, patriotic American Muslims, but plenty of adherents to the faith of Islam in this country feel exactly the same way as Carroll does.

And why wouldn’t they? They pledge allegiance to the political system of Sharia, which is fundamentally opposed to our American constitution.

Carroll made this statement at an Austin, Texas rally as part of an effort to hold “Muslim Capitol Day” events. According to the website for the event, Muslims traveled to the Texas capitol to “promote civic and political activism throughout the wider Muslim community.”

“We tried to downplay Sharia, because we didn’t want to give the other side any excitement for being here,” he said.

Much more @ CAIR Director Claims Muslims Are “Above The Law Of The Land.” This Is Treason. - Tea Party News

Hi longknife
I happen to know Mustafaa personally, and called and asked him about this
when I first saw it publicized online.

He explained very clearly that his words and meanings were taken out of context.
I was relieved to hear this rational explanation because I know he couldn't have meant what it sounded like!

He explained that the context was that Muslims are called to higher standards
"above and beyond" what the law requires.

The example he gave: even though the law allows people to drink legally,
Muslims are not supposed to partake in alcohol and drunkenness.
So that is going BEYOND what the law requires. The Muslims have a stricter standard.

NOTE: I did tell him that the correct wording is "above and beyond"

So if he misstated it, I could see how that could miscommunicate his actual meaning.

Thank you for posting this but to be fair,
can you please amend your message to reflect this correction.

Thanks longknife
Mustafaa is a well honored community leader, who works with Christians and other Peace and Justice volunteers
with nonprofit outreach, including Christian Pastors among his own family members.

=============
PREVIOUS CORRECTION POSTED on USMB DEC 2016:

I saw clips and posts online, claiming that Mustafaa Carroll of CAIR
stated that "Muslims are above the law." Knowing him personally,
I KNEW that this had to be taken out of context. But what context?

In my greatest imagination, I could not think up what this could be.
My best guess was not even close!

I called him up and he answered me personally:

He explained the full context of his statement was
1. Muslim duty to Sharia or practice INCLUDES following the law of the land.
That's a given.

I already understand this concept because Muslims are to follow the same Bible as Christians which call for "civil obedience" to authority, so that they witness to what is right, while following civil authority standards and process of secular laws and govt. They respect that if they are truly faithful and obedient to God.

2. And his statement taken out of this context was that
if Muslims are faithful in practice, those standards go ABOVE what the law requires.
They will go ABOVE AND BEYOND.
so the laws will not affect them BECAUSE THEY ARE MEETING THEM
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE VIOLATING THEM AS THIS WAS MISCONSTRUED.

The problem I saw with his wording, is in his video he used the terms
"above the law" but THE SPIRIT of what he meant, and how he explained more clearly
over the phone, is that Muslims would go 'above and beyond' what the law requires.
He even gave me an example:
a. the law prohibits drinking while driving, but does not forbid drinking
b. by Islam, followers would not drink either!
So of course they will not break laws against drinking and driving, but go BEYOND that standard
and not drink to the point of drunkenness in the first place!

HERE IS THE VIDEO CLIP that Mustafaa sent me:

Mustafa_MediaResponse.mp4

The only argument I have with him, I sense the video still does not explain as clearly
as he did personally over the phone. Communication, especially with a topic that has
multiple levels of meaning as in this case, is much better one-on-one as a conversation
to CONFIRM the meaning is conveyed. It is VERY HARD to describe this concept
in "one blanket statement" linearly, and be sure that it is understand by different
audiences from different contexts and perspectives.

The term "above the law" means something very negative,
and my friend Mustafaa did better when explaining it as "going above and beyond"
what the law requires.

I told him I would post this correction.
=============================

cc: night_son Rambunctious Picaro

Ancient lion 's reply above making this same clarification is the correct meaning
of Musafaa Carroll's statement, not the OP which is incorrect. May I please request
that this be corrected so that it does not slander, defame or misrepresent what he said.
Thank you longknife if you can please make this correction!

It is pointless Emily.

Folks NEED an enemy.

The programing and propaganda of around the clock indoctrination is stronger than what you are trying to do.

It doesn't matter that reason and logic tell us that normal human beings want to have peace and tranquility. Mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, of billions of people do not seek conflict.

It is giant multinational corporations and governments that seek to keep folks afraid of one another.

Obviously.

Fear pushes us to blame someone for the few, very few incidents we see on our corporate TEE VEE. IN the past it would have been the Germans and the Japanese. Perhaps it would have been the Jew or the Chinese.

Now? The corporate media has focused on the immigrant and the Muslim. Folks that get the reality from the TEE VEE and the CFR press won't be reasoned with.

Folks that think this way, actually believe, that the small folks, and the poor that follow the Quran, all of them, there is no distinction, they are all the same, all 1.8 billion of them. They cannot conceive of Islam having as much variety as Christianity, which has a spectrum of difference between, say, a strict pious Amish practitioner, and someone who follows a Televangelist. Naturally, to folks associated with Christianity, the two couldn't be more different, and to claim the two are the same? Would be foolishness.

Yet, that is what we have to read from folks that are afraid of Islam. One Muslim is that same as the next. All 1.8 billion are the same.

IOW, GOD MAKES MISTAKES. These Christians think Jews are all right, but clearly, God is wrong when he allowed a religion to spread like Islam has . . . God didn't know what he was doing, and these Christian folks know better.

If that is the case, how can mankind be sure of the divinity of the bible, of the divinity of anything in creation after all?


. . . it must be hopeless. No wonder the nihilists and atheists are on the rise. Divinity and Faith is being squandered. The Lucifarians that are in control are playing them all like a fiddle to destroy the poor, powerless, homeless, and hungry of the world. Instead of warring with each other, these great repositories of faith should be finding common ground.


Because we play into their hands. . . someday in the future, the whole world will hate America and seek to destroy her as she keeps playing into this hatred.

Dear MisterBeale thank you for your honest assessment of the plight of humanity.
Yes and no, I agree we have these flaws, so that COLLECTIVELY when forming
CORPORATE groups, institutions, PARTIES and Govt (and also media conglomerates)
YES unfortunately the worst flaws of humanity are MULTIPLIED and become oppressive and abusive.

However, this is not to say it is hopeless.
By treating the people making up these Govts, parties and Corporate interests
as INDIVIDUALS, that's where we have every opportunity to connect
as you and I do here.

You and I could treat each other as just another member of an anonymous mob of mindsets on the internet.
But instead we hear each other as individuals.

When I address longknife, this isn't as a mindless group, but addressing
an individual who believes in Constitutional laws as I do, and we respect those principles.

Each person has their own language for the laws, and when we address
each other by common laws we commit to follow, we have this chance
to connect on common principles.

I do believe it is inherent in our human nature and process of development
to "break down" the mob mentality and work toward one-on-one connections.

Then apply that back to COLLECTIVELY influencing our media and corporate hierarchies in turn.

So the ripple effect, the law of attraction or laws of "cause and effect" play in our favor.

The same PROCESS
by which NEGATIVE perceptions and FEARS that bias individuals and create a whole MOB of people of that mindset
also works the OTHER WAY
when POSITIVE changes that expand our perception and ways of dealing with conflict
start with INDIVIDUALS and replicate to affect RELATIONS around us
(and that in turn multiples to affect INSTITUTIONS around us).

So bad news is YES the groups and individuals co-influence each other when it comes to NEGATIVE and FEAR BASED perceptions.
And GOOD NEWS is YES this dynamic also works with POSITIVE change and growth in relations and understanding to correct wrongs.

. . . but the government indoctrination of these individuals, and the corporate propaganda all say "such and such" about the topic at hand.

With the caveat that; "you may hear otherwise out there, but that is an intentional strategy to lie to you by 1.8 million evil people," and anyone that would use rational, logical thought.. . . .

IOW, the bogeyman is much more compelling.

Thus, what is the point?

P.S., I find your boundless optimism for solutions and cooperative change against oppressive forces that oppose all people refreshing.

I think the good news is, well meaning people of the world, be they Jew, Christian, or Muslim, never initiate force or violence.

So the entire conversation is sort of moot. It is the nefarious forces we need to be concerned about, and these, more often than not, are associated with the very same institutions that are warning us about the enemy we should be concerned about.

 

[boedicca]

The quotation, however, comes at the end of a longer passage that places it in full context, and indicates that Carroll’s intent was to express the opposite of what [was] alleged.

“Following the law of the land is part of Sharia,” Carroll said, according to the video. “And we follow the law of the land. In fact, Muslims, if we’re practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land. The law doesn’t affect us at all.”

Speaking on Monday, Carroll said he could understand why his words may have been misconstrued. But "it's definitely not intended to mean we don't have to follow the law," he said. By saying Muslims were "above the law," he said, he meant that true, practicing Muslims should behave in a way that would put them above any possibility of breaking the law. "If you're a practicing Muslim, then you should be above all of that," he said.

Rep. White Explains Her Views on Muslims

Is female genital mutilation the law of the land in the U.S.? How about marrying of 10 year old girls? How about honor killings? How about slaughtering Jews as dogs?

 

[justoffal]

The quotation, however, comes at the end of a longer passage that places it in full context,8 and indicates that Carroll’s intent was to express the opposite of what [was] alleged.

“Following the law of the land is part of Sharia,” Carroll said, according to the video. “And we follow the law of the land. In fact, Muslims, if we’re practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land. The law doesn’t affect us at all.”

Speaking on Monday, Carroll said he could understand why his words may have been misconstrued. But "it's definitely not intended to mean we don't have to follow the law," he said. By saying Muslims were "above the law," he said, he meant that true, practicing Muslims should behave in a way that would put them above any possibility of breaking the law. "If you're a practicing Muslim, then you should be above all of that," he said.

Rep. White Explains Her Views on Muslims

Is female genital mutilation the law of the land in the U.S.? How about marrying of 10 year old girls? How about honor killings? How about slaughtering Jews as dogs?

Uh-oh....nowwwwwww you've gone and done it! Stated the obvious! Tsk tsk tsk ...

Jo