Bryan Fischer: "No More Mosques, Period"

[goldcatt]

Well, we're getting there, anyway. I wasn't talking about preaching. I drew the distinction between BELIEFS and ACTIONS. It MIGHT be, though, that certain preaching could cross the line from an expression of protected religious BELIEF into the realm of unprotected (and unworthy of protection) incitement to criminal behavior.

For instance, it is one thing for a Muslim cleric to state that Islam requires "jihad." That much is true. A pillar is a pillar, I guess. But it is another thing for that cleric to then "preach" that Jihad REQUIRES that infidels be slaughtered or to urge the "faithful" to take certain specific, direct and murderous actions against infidels or apostates.

Certain preaching could cross the line, of course. But you know the standard for removing inciting speech from First Amendment protection. It's not as simple as saying it, there has to be an imminent and highly credible threat that the action will occur because of it.

That's not impossible, which is why I say IF the preaching violates those standards it should be penalized. But it's a very high threshhold to reach.

Regardless, even if that were to happen the penalty only applies to the individual engaging in that nonprotected speech. Not the audience and not the entire religion to which he belongs. Ah, the wonders of the American justice system.

Nah, I think we more or less agree here. Bummer. I like arguing with you.

** Liability scratches top of his head **

I have discovered I kind of like you. Not just arguing, either.

I'm mystified.

Don't tell the kiddies. It'll spoil their fun.

 

[goldcatt]

Certain preaching could cross the line, of course. But you know the standard for removing inciting speech from First Amendment protection. It's not as simple as saying it, there has to be an imminent and highly credible threat that the action will occur because of it.

That's not impossible, which is why I say IF the preaching violates those standards it should be penalized. But it's a very high threshhold to reach.

Regardless, even if that were to happen the penalty only applies to the individual engaging in that nonprotected speech. Not the audience and not the entire religion to which he belongs. Ah, the wonders of the American justice system.

Nah, I think we more or less agree here. Bummer. I like arguing with you.

** Liability scratches top of his head **

I have discovered I kind of like you. Not just arguing, either.

I'm mystified.

Can everyone feel the homo love?

Now the kiddies will be REALLY confused.

 

[DiveCon]

Certain preaching could cross the line, of course. But you know the standard for removing inciting speech from First Amendment protection. It's not as simple as saying it, there has to be an imminent and highly credible threat that the action will occur because of it.

That's not impossible, which is why I say IF the preaching violates those standards it should be penalized. But it's a very high threshhold to reach.

Regardless, even if that were to happen the penalty only applies to the individual engaging in that nonprotected speech. Not the audience and not the entire religion to which he belongs. Ah, the wonders of the American justice system.

Nah, I think we more or less agree here. Bummer. I like arguing with you.

** Liability scratches top of his head **

I have discovered I kind of like you. Not just arguing, either.

I'm mystified.

Can everyone feel the homo love?

must only be you

 

[chanel]

I believe his idea is extreme. But no more extreme than the ACLU and other loony lefties who believe that terrorists have the right to enter our country illegally, blow shit up, and then be provided with taxpayer funded attorneys and special meals.

I'm sure you can provide a link indicating said belief? Maybe a direct quote or two?

There is no doubt in my mind that people on here would argue that the 1st amendment allows for anyone to fund, recruit, train, and assemble an army to kill innocent Americans. Price we pay for freedom and all.

And no I do not believe all Muslims want to do that. But many do, and I for one am grateful that people more knowledgable than us, are keeping tabs on them. For now...

Yup. Just like they did those untrustworthy Japanese in the 1940's....

How about this guy for starters?

Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post-9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups.

And that is why the 9/11 hijackers were able to carry out their devastating attack without any notice by our intelligence agencie

Samuel Blumenfeld -- How Barney Frank Helped the 9/11 Hijackers

I'm sure he's reversed his opinion on enforcing immigration, the KSM trial, and Gitmo by now, right. Oh wait...

 

[bodecea]

I believe his idea is extreme. But no more extreme than the ACLU and other loony lefties who believe that terrorists have the right to enter our country illegally, blow shit up, and then be provided with taxpayer funded attorneys and special meals.

I'm sure you can provide a link indicating said belief? Maybe a direct quote or two?



Yup. Just like they did those untrustworthy Japanese in the 1940's....

How about this guy for starters?

Congressman Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was a strong advocate of protecting civil liberties, led a successful effort to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act so that membership in a terrorist group was no longer sufficient to deny a visa. Under Frank's amendment, which seems unthinkable post-9/11, a visa could only be denied if the government could prove that the applicant had committed an act of terrorism. Rendered toothless by the Frank amendment, the Reagan administration had virtually no way to block entry visas even when there was information linking the individuals to terrorist groups.

And that is why the 9/11 hijackers were able to carry out their devastating attack without any notice by our intelligence agencie

Samuel Blumenfeld -- How Barney Frank Helped the 9/11 Hijackers

I'm sure he's reversed his opinion on enforcing immigration, the KSM trial, and Gitmo by now, right. Oh wait...

Well, his constituency is Boston...can't deny visas to the IRA can we?

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Care International was one small group within Islam that indulged in criminal behavior, which was proven in a court of law.

Criminal behavior should be and can be punished no matter who perpetrates it, of any religion. But again, actions are not beliefs. And the actions of the few cannot rationally or legally be projected onto the many who adhere to a similar belief system but do not engage in the same actions. Period.

If you cannot separate the two, or separate the individuals engaging in criminal actions from the whole who do not, you'll never understand either the fundamentals of American First Amendment liberties or why you're off base with your reasoning here.

Islam requires zakat (contributions) from all members
a portion of zakat goes to jihad( including terrorist acts)
Are all innocent for contributing to jihad providing material support for terrorism?

Now this is where some of your evidence would come in handy.

This concerns zakat as an obligation as to the purpose of jihad it is to make Islam superior to all ways of life including that of the Constitution .
If on Islam a muslims it means they support the jihad to make Islam and sharia the law of the land other wise there is no point in being a muslim.

[2:43] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and bow down with those who bow down.
[2:83] We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: "You shall not worship except GOD. You shall honor your parents and regard the relatives, the orphans, and the poor. You shall treat the people amicably. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat)." But you turned away, except a few of you, and you became averse.
[2:110] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat). Any good you send forth on behalf of your souls, you will find it at GOD. GOD is seer of everything you do.

Supporting acts of terror, the oppression of disbelievers
Spending Zakah Money on Jihad - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Noble Qur’an 2:190 Footnote: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”


The passage itself can be found in two places. It is on page 54 ( in my copy)of the Noble Qur’an
translation by Muhammad Khan and distributed by “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an—The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. It is a footnote to Qur’an 2.190 and is designed to explain Jihad according to Allah .


And it can be found on page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina’s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari’s Hadith. There it opens Bukhari’s Book of Jihad.


In both cases, the Islamic scholars are condensing Allah’s and Muhammad’s teachings on Jihad to a single paragraph.

Islam Question and Answer - Judging by that which Allaah has revealed
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/12390/judging
Islam Question and Answer - Should he turn to the human rights organizations to get his rights?
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/98301/judging
Islam Question and Answer - The kufr of one who rules according to other than what Allaah revealed
http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/974&ln/judging

Allaah has commanded us to refer matters to His judgement and to establish Sharee‘ah, and He has forbidden us to rule with anything else, as is clear from a number of aayaat in the Qur’aan, such as the aayaat in Soorat al-Maa’idah (5) which discuss ruling according to what Allaah has revealed, and mention the following topics:

The command to rule according to what Allaah has revealed: “And so judge between them by what Allaah has revealed . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against ruling by other than what Allaah has revealed: “. . . and follow not their vain desires . . .” [aayah 49]

Warning against compromising on any detail of Sharee‘ah, no matter how small: “. . . but beware of them lest they turn you far away from some of that which Allaah has sent down to you . . .” [aayah 49]

Forbidding seeking the ruling of jaahiliyyah, as is expressed in the rhetorical question “Do they then seek the judgement of (the Days of) Ignorance?” [aayah 50]

The statement that nobody is better than Allaah to judge: “. . . and who is better in judgement than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith?” [aayah 50]

The statement that whoever does not judge according to what Allaah revealed is a kaafir, a zaalim (oppressor or wrongdoer) and a faasiq (sinner), as Allaah says: “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed, such are the kaafiroon.” [aayah 44]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by that which Allaah has revealed, such are the zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers)” [aayah 45]; “. . . And whoever does not judge by what Allaah has revealed (then) such (people) are the faasiqoon (rebellious or disobedient).” [aayah 47].

The statement that it is obligatory for the Muslims to judge according to what Allaah has revealed, even if those who seek their judgement are not Muslim, as Allaah says: “. . . And if you judge, judge with justice between them. . .” [aayah 42]

 

[goldcatt]

Islam requires zakat (contributions) from all members
a portion of zakat goes to jihad( including terrorist acts)
Are all innocent for contributing to jihad providing material support for terrorism?

Now this is where some of your evidence would come in handy.

This concerns zakat as an obligation as to the purpose of jihad it is to make Islam superior to all ways of life including that of the Constitution .
If on Islam a muslims it means they support the jihad to make Islam and sharia the law of the land other wise there is no point in being a muslim.

[2:43] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and bow down with those who bow down.
[2:83] We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: "You shall not worship except GOD. You shall honor your parents and regard the relatives, the orphans, and the poor. You shall treat the people amicably. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat)." But you turned away, except a few of you, and you became averse.
[2:110] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat). Any good you send forth on behalf of your souls, you will find it at GOD. GOD is seer of everything you do.

Supporting acts of terror, the oppression of disbelievers
Spending Zakah Money on Jihad - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Once again, you're not separating the words, the speech, from proof of criminal conduct.

Let's view what you're saying about the speech in the most favorable light and assume it's true for the sake of argument. Where is your proof of conduct to support your allegation that, first of all, all American Muslims in fact engage in zakat (if it's like Christian tithing I'm betting many do not), and second, that all charities to which this money is donated unlawfully contribute to terrorism.

Remember, if your goal is to remove the entire religion from First Amendment protections you must prove conduct or conspiracy in the entire religion, since only individual behavior can be punished under the law in this country.

You must learn to separate your issues, Mr. F. Until you can do that you can't really understand your own argument let alone somebody else's.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Now this is where some of your evidence would come in handy.

This concerns zakat as an obligation as to the purpose of jihad it is to make Islam superior to all ways of life including that of the Constitution .
If on Islam a muslims it means they support the jihad to make Islam and sharia the law of the land other wise there is no point in being a muslim.

[2:43] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and bow down with those who bow down.
[2:83] We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: "You shall not worship except GOD. You shall honor your parents and regard the relatives, the orphans, and the poor. You shall treat the people amicably. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat)." But you turned away, except a few of you, and you became averse.
[2:110] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat). Any good you send forth on behalf of your souls, you will find it at GOD. GOD is seer of everything you do.

Supporting acts of terror, the oppression of disbelievers
Spending Zakah Money on Jihad - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Once again, you're not separating the words, the speech, from proof of criminal conduct.

Let's view what you're saying about the speech in the most favorable light and assume it's true for the sake of argument. Where is your proof of conduct to support your allegation that, first of all, all American Muslims in fact engage in zakat (if it's like Christian tithing I'm betting many do not), and second, that all charities to which this money is donated unlawfully contribute to terrorism.

Remember, if your goal is to remove the entire religion from First Amendment protections you must prove conduct or conspiracy in the entire religion, since only individual behavior can be punished under the law in this country.

You must learn to separate your issues, Mr. F. Until you can do that you can't really understand your own argument let alone somebody else's.

You dont eat an elephant all at once, Islam will have to be dismantled one mosque at a time .
There is no Islam that does not subscribe to the subjugation and eradication of all non muslims according to its founding documents,

 

[Liability]

This concerns zakat as an obligation as to the purpose of jihad it is to make Islam superior to all ways of life including that of the Constitution .
If on Islam a muslims it means they support the jihad to make Islam and sharia the law of the land other wise there is no point in being a muslim.

[2:43] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat), and bow down with those who bow down.
[2:83] We made a covenant with the Children of Israel: "You shall not worship except GOD. You shall honor your parents and regard the relatives, the orphans, and the poor. You shall treat the people amicably. You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat)." But you turned away, except a few of you, and you became averse.
[2:110] You shall observe the Contact Prayers (Salat) and give the obligatory charity (Zakat). Any good you send forth on behalf of your souls, you will find it at GOD. GOD is seer of everything you do.

Supporting acts of terror, the oppression of disbelievers
Spending Zakah Money on Jihad - IslamonLine.net - Ask The Scholar

Once again, you're not separating the words, the speech, from proof of criminal conduct.

Let's view what you're saying about the speech in the most favorable light and assume it's true for the sake of argument. Where is your proof of conduct to support your allegation that, first of all, all American Muslims in fact engage in zakat (if it's like Christian tithing I'm betting many do not), and second, that all charities to which this money is donated unlawfully contribute to terrorism.

Remember, if your goal is to remove the entire religion from First Amendment protections you must prove conduct or conspiracy in the entire religion, since only individual behavior can be punished under the law in this country.

You must learn to separate your issues, Mr. F. Until you can do that you can't really understand your own argument let alone somebody else's.

You dont eat an elephant all at once, Islam will have to be dismantled one mosque at a time .
There is no Islam that does not subscribe to the subjugation and eradication of all non muslims according to its founding documents,

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

EDIT: A God Who Hates, by Wafa Sultan.

 

[DiveCon]

Once again, you're not separating the words, the speech, from proof of criminal conduct.

Let's view what you're saying about the speech in the most favorable light and assume it's true for the sake of argument. Where is your proof of conduct to support your allegation that, first of all, all American Muslims in fact engage in zakat (if it's like Christian tithing I'm betting many do not), and second, that all charities to which this money is donated unlawfully contribute to terrorism.

Remember, if your goal is to remove the entire religion from First Amendment protections you must prove conduct or conspiracy in the entire religion, since only individual behavior can be punished under the law in this country.

You must learn to separate your issues, Mr. F. Until you can do that you can't really understand your own argument let alone somebody else's.

You dont eat an elephant all at once, Islam will have to be dismantled one mosque at a time .
There is no Islam that does not subscribe to the subjugation and eradication of all non muslims according to its founding documents,

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

well, ask Kalam, the radicals are not Muslim, they are apostate

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

All muslims support the US constitution.

The Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic sharee’ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic sharee’ah, and they should unite in helping the party which is known will rule in accordance with Islamic sharee’ah. As for supporting one who calls for non-implementation of Islamic sharee’ah, that is not permissible

Islam Question and Answer - Ruling on democracy and elections and participating in that system

 

[goldcatt]

Once again, you're not separating the words, the speech, from proof of criminal conduct.

Let's view what you're saying about the speech in the most favorable light and assume it's true for the sake of argument. Where is your proof of conduct to support your allegation that, first of all, all American Muslims in fact engage in zakat (if it's like Christian tithing I'm betting many do not), and second, that all charities to which this money is donated unlawfully contribute to terrorism.

Remember, if your goal is to remove the entire religion from First Amendment protections you must prove conduct or conspiracy in the entire religion, since only individual behavior can be punished under the law in this country.

You must learn to separate your issues, Mr. F. Until you can do that you can't really understand your own argument let alone somebody else's.

You dont eat an elephant all at once, Islam will have to be dismantled one mosque at a time .
There is no Islam that does not subscribe to the subjugation and eradication of all non muslims according to its founding documents,

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

Interesting.

I haven't read that book, although I've heard a little bit about it. Might be worth a read.

 

[logical4u]

If you don't want this here, pay attention.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojBrzUil0Ig&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - The Canvas Prison[/ame]

 

[bodecea]

You dont eat an elephant all at once, Islam will have to be dismantled one mosque at a time .
There is no Islam that does not subscribe to the subjugation and eradication of all non muslims according to its founding documents,

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

Interesting.

I haven't read that book, although I've heard a little bit about it. Might be worth a read.

I wonder what people would think if I wrote a book about how there was no "radical" Christianity vs. "moderate" Christianity....

 

[DiveCon]

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

Interesting.

I haven't read that book, although I've heard a little bit about it. Might be worth a read.

I wonder what people would think if I wrote a book about how there was no "radical" Christianity vs. "moderate" Christianity....

are you a christian?

 

[Liability]

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

Interesting.

I haven't read that book, although I've heard a little bit about it. Might be worth a read.

I wonder what people would think if I wrote a book about how there was no "radical" Christianity vs. "moderate" Christianity....

Probably that as per your SOP you are merely once again mouthing off in your abundant ignorance.

 

[Liability]

** Liability scratches top of his head **

I have discovered I kind of like you. Not just arguing, either.

I'm mystified.

Can everyone feel the homo love?

Now the kiddies will be REALLY confused.

Me too!

 

[Liability]

You dont eat an elephant all at once, Islam will have to be dismantled one mosque at a time .
There is no Islam that does not subscribe to the subjugation and eradication of all non muslims according to its founding documents,

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

well, ask Kalam, the radicals are not Muslim, they are apostate

But there are no radicals islamists. There is but one Islam. All who disagree (presumably including Kalam, therefore) are the ones who are actually guilty of apostasy.

Unless Daniel Pipes is right and there is a division. Of course, that would mean that Wafa Sultan (the author of the the book, A God Who Hates) who is herself Muslim born and raised is the one who is mistaken, misguided and wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

A truly astounding thought. I heard an author the other day (she wrote the book about the angry god). She is Muslim and considered "apostate." She lives under a constant threat of death, accordingly. She too said that there is no "radical" Islam versus "moderate" Islam. There is but one Islam.

well, ask Kalam, the radicals are not Muslim, they are apostate

But there are no radicals islamists. There is but one Islam. All who disagree (presumably including Kalam, therefore) are the ones who are actually guilty of apostasy.

Unless Daniel Pipes is right and there is a division. Of course, that would mean that Wafa Sultan (the author of the the book, A God Who Hates) who is herself Muslim born and raised is the one who is mistaken, misguided and wrong.

quite a conundrum
no?