Just your average day of "peaceful Islam"...

[Coyote]

There is no law that should supersede the civil law in any free democratic nation. The constitutions the law of the land and Shariah law is incompatible with not only the Constitution, but laws of all Western nations that are free, democratic, with equal rights for all.

Exactly. So why do we need a law banning a law that will never happen?

Again, are you arguing for Muslims to be able to live by a set of laws that are the direct opposite of the laws of the land?

Again: Why do you propose unnecessary discrimmination particularly when there is no support for Sharia in America's Muslim community

So again. You are okay for people, regardless of which group, to be able to live by a set of laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution of the US and in fact illegal if not criminal.

Geez, I wonder why people think you're an Islam defender? Gosh golly gee!

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

 

[Hoffstra]

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

I provide him with a valuable piece of history, an interview of Adolf Eichmann before he was captured.

and he rejects it.

he's just a pathetic troll.

 

[Coyote]

[As they say in sheep dogging, "that'll do" You can't find it so you're running in circles like a twit without a purpose trying to make something up.

Well, romantic liaisons and sheep are not my forte'... But the post I'm replying to is yet another example of your continued apologetics for Islamic extremism.

Yup.



Brilliant come back. You need to work on your creativity a bit though.

Well, we can't all be "brilliant" enough to call others "twit.."

ROFL

There is no hypocrisy like demopocrisy.....



I don't mind a bit of ad hom, but could you at least TRY to engage a bit of wit, corky?




Ah, more bullshitting.

{Sharia, literally the “path” or “way,” is the body of Islamic law developed to deal with all aspects of life for a Muslim. It spans everything from business and contract law to marriage and inheritance to sin and personal hygiene}

Sharia Law in the International Legal Sphere | Yale Undergraduate Law Review

Hmm, so despite your little exercise in prevarication, Sharia is in fact NOT specific to a state, tribe, or country, and is in FACT international and binding to Muslims regardless of nation.

It's okay, no one expects integrity from internet Jihadists..



That would be convincing - if suicide bombing were the only form of violence, but since IED's and so many other forms are present - your chicanery is irrelevant.



Your welcome, I deal in facts.



ROFL

Islam isn't abhorred simply because of the genocidal demands of the the Religion, but because of the underlying platform of ecumenical and cultural superiority. Islam is also a monolithic ideology who's membership numbered in the millions and who impose their views on others through the force of arms and the use of terror.

It's a dead nuts analogy - and you know it.



zatt rite?

This thread says different.



Old, tired, impotent..

But hey, you're desperate in defending the indefensible - so absurd contortions are expected...



The attacks of JOOOZZZZ come mostly from Muslims.

No. It's not a race. I have never said it was.

You attempt to paint opposition to a creed that is based on conquest, enslavement, and murder, in the same light as racial hatred. It's disingenuous - but what's a Muslim to do?

I just provide the fact M'am.

You are as short on fact as you are on perception.

I doubt any other poster on this board would assume me female...

Oh, did you ever answer? Are you Sunni?

blah blah blah blah

And in the end - what have you proved?

1. You never read your own source
2. You can't refute (with facts) what your own source said - your just spinning in place
3. Meh - this thread has become a cess for bigots.

 

[Hoffstra]

I'm gonna have to leave this thread.

Its become a den for Fascists and bigots.

 

[Kondor3]

I'm gonna have to leave this thread.

Its become a den for Fascists and bigots.

Your departure should clear that right up...

 

[Roudy]

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

I provide him with a valuable piece of history, an interview of Adolf Eichmann before he was captured.

and he rejects it.

he's just a pathetic troll.

Valuable piece of crap is what you provided.

 

[Roudy]

I'm gonna have to leave this thread.

Its become a den for Fascists and bigots.

...Said the Nazi boy as he slithered away in embarrassment.

 

[Roudy]

I'm gonna have to leave this thread.

Its become a den for Fascists and bigots.

Your departure should clear that right up...

 

[Roudy]

Exactly. So why do we need a law banning a law that will never happen?



Again: Why do you propose unnecessary discrimmination particularly when there is no support for Sharia in America's Muslim community

So again. You are okay for people, regardless of which group, to be able to live by a set of laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution of the US and in fact illegal if not criminal.

Geez, I wonder why people think you're an Islam defender? Gosh golly gee!

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

What question is that? You believe Shariah should not be banned because Muslims will get upset. That's pretty clear, and evident as to who's side you're on. Most Americans however, disagree and think Shariah is backwards, barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant.

I thought we were done 10 pages ago.

 

[Peterf]

The great majority of Muslims are NOT Arabs - that is NOT semites if you want to think in racist terms.

I repeat: I do not 'hate' Muslims, I detest and despise Islam.

that's like saying: I don't hate Jews, I just hate Judaism.

EXACTLY! I think Judaism is absurd and divisive but I like and admire Jews.

Why can you not see the difference between people and ideology? Cannot you see that it was possible to hate Soviet Communism without needing to hate Russians?

 

[ScienceRocks]

A question: What percentage of islam wants peace?

 

[YWN666]

That's no confirmed, you angry, self-hater.

Iran has a nuclear weapon?

got any evidence?

or just Neo-Zionist lies.

Nobody knows what Iran has or doesn't have.

You can continue being a clueless bigot but PLEASE get rid of that stupid sig line. It's annoying.

 

[Peterf]

A question: What percentage of islam wants peace?

Answer: 100%. That's peace on their terms, which means total submission to Islam (which actually means submission).

 

[Pauli007001]

Salaam is Arabic for peace, Islam is a corruption of that word, the peace of Allah is the more accurate translation.

MU is salaam (Muslim), one who submits to the peace of Allah.

 

[Coyote]

So again. You are okay for people, regardless of which group, to be able to live by a set of laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution of the US and in fact illegal if not criminal.

Geez, I wonder why people think you're an Islam defender? Gosh golly gee!

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

What question is that? You believe Shariah should not be banned because Muslims will get upset. That's pretty clear, and evident as to who's side you're on. Most Americans however, disagree and think Shariah is backwards, barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant.

I thought we were done 10 pages ago.

Roudy, I don't give a **** if Muslims "get upset". I oppose religious discrimmination of ANY KIND. Is that really so hard to comprehend? I oppose legislation that singles out one religion. I oppose senseless legislation designed to address non-existant problems and designed only for one thing - to discrimminate against a particular religion.

If you think it's so "abundently clear" then consider this. Mosaic law - the law that Jews follow - is barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant and frankly ludicrious if followed to it's letter. Why aren't you supporting a ban on that? You realize Sharia also involves things as simple as Halal -so, you would make that illegal? Should Kosher be illegal?

The only argument you are able to make here is a default attack- "you support Sharia" which is an utter strawman. That's like saying a person supports the KKK because they support the right of the KKK to free speech.

I trust and support our system of government - it has withstood the test of time and tyrants and religion. Our people - of all religions - support the constitution and values enshrined. Many or our people have immigrated from countries that were overwelmingly oppressive and restrictive and hardly want a return to that.

We have a overwhelmingly Christian majority, including a sizeable politically active fundamentalist element that has for years tried to legislate religion into law and failed. What on earth makes you think an insignicantly small Muslim minority could force Sharia EVEN if they wanted to?

Clearly you do not trust our system and clearly you do not believe in our values of freedom of religion - constitutionally protected rights that enable YOU to practice your faith without discrimmination and ME to practice my faith without discrimmination. I stand behind those values 100% and I stand behind the rights and laws we have that prevent discrimmination based on race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Do you?

 

[Coyote]

But of course dipstick ignores the truth and spews whatever he feels like.

Catholic canon law as legal system[edit source]
It is a fully developed legal system, with all the necessary elements: courts, lawyers, judges, a fully articulated legal code[10] principles of legal interpretation, and coercive penalties, though it lacks civilly-binding force in most secular jurisdictions. The academic degrees in canon law are the J.C.B. (Juris Canonici Baccalaureatus, Bachelor of Canon Law, normally taken as a graduate degree), J.C.L. (Juris Canonici Licentiatus, Licentiate of Canon Law) and the J.C.D. (Juris Canonici Doctor, Doctor of Canon Law). Because of its specialized nature, advanced degrees in civil law or theology are normal prerequisites for the study of canon law.
(Current Canon Law from Vatican Website)[11]
Much of the legislative style was adapted from the Roman Law Code of Justinian. As a result, Roman ecclesiastical courts tend to follow the Roman Law style of continental Europe with some variation, featuring collegiate panels of judges and an investigative form of proceeding, called "inquisitorial", from the Latin "inquirere", to enquire. This is in contrast to the adversarial form of proceeding found in the common law system of English and U.S. law, which features such things as juries and single judges.

Ha ha ha. Like I said, douche, you're dismissed.

Roman Catholics in the USA go to religious courts to deal with civil matters????

that's a lie and you know it.

but Jews and Muslims do.

..here's your flag, bro.

Jews don't dipstick. But you'd expect a neo Nazi Islamo terrorist worshiper to say they do. Because of course they are always trying to desperately compare Islam and Muslims to other faiths. That's an old, failed shtick.

Actually, Jews do use "religious courts" in this country, in much the same way Muslims and Roman Catholics do (and this is also the very limited way Sharia is used in the US).
It's a mutually agreed upon arbitration, only involving civil matters - it also can not work against state or federal laws.


Beth din - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A beth din is sometimes used within the Orthodox Jewish community to resolve civil disputes, with the Shulkhan Arukh[3] calling for civil cases being resolved by religious instead of secular courts (arka'oth). Modern Western societies increasingly permit civil disputes to be resolved by private arbitration, enabling religious Jews to enter into agreements providing for arbitration by a particular beth din in the event of a dispute. By this device, the rules, procedures, and judgment of the beth din are accepted and can be enforced by secular courts in the same manner as those of a secular arbitration association. However, the decisions of religious courts cannot be binding without the prior agreement of both parties, and will otherwise act only as mediation.

 

[Roudy]

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

What question is that? You believe Shariah should not be banned because Muslims will get upset. That's pretty clear, and evident as to who's side you're on. Most Americans however, disagree and think Shariah is backwards, barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant.

I thought we were done 10 pages ago.

Roudy, I don't give a **** if Muslims "get upset". I oppose religious discrimmination of ANY KIND. Is that really so hard to comprehend? I oppose legislation that singles out one religion. I oppose senseless legislation designed to address non-existant problems and designed only for one thing - to discrimminate against a particular religion.

If you think it's so "abundently clear" then consider this. Mosaic law - the law that Jews follow - is barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant and frankly ludicrious if followed to it's letter. Why aren't you supporting a ban on that? You realize Sharia also involves things as simple as Halal -so, you would make that illegal? Should Kosher be illegal?

The only argument you are able to make here is a default attack- "you support Sharia" which is an utter strawman. That's like saying a person supports the KKK because they support the right of the KKK to free speech.

I trust and support our system of government - it has withstood the test of time and tyrants and religion. Our people - of all religions - support the constitution and values enshrined. Many or our people have immigrated from countries that were overwelmingly oppressive and restrictive and hardly want a return to that.

We have a overwhelmingly Christian majority, including a sizeable politically active fundamentalist element that has for years tried to legislate religion into law and failed. What on earth makes you think an insignicantly small Muslim minority could force Sharia EVEN if they wanted to?

Clearly you do not trust our system and clearly you do not believe in our values of freedom of religion - constitutionally protected rights that enable YOU to practice your faith without discrimmination and ME to practice my faith without discrimmination. I stand behind those values 100% and I stand behind the rights and laws we have that prevent discrimmination based on race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Do you?

Ya sure, you don't give a ****. Yet you jump in threads as if you're the savior of of everything Islam. Jews do not follow any civil law other than the law of the land. Community or religious elders settling and resolving disputes does not not mean they are usurping civil law.

On the other hand Shariah law clearly usurps the law of any land and it is Shariah law that singles out and oppresses women, minorities and is anti freedom, ant democracy, anti humanity etc, It is the law that most Muslim countries base their civil laws on, and is the reason for all the problems with the Muslim world.

It is Shariah law that dictates Muslims oppress and persecute non Muslim minorities living countries. <defender of American values, YOU'RE NOT>

Perhaps if you talked to a non Muslim who lived under Shariah you would understand the cancer that it is. Instead of spouting your ignorance all over the board.

Congratulations you and your sidekick Hoffstra managed to divert this thread into a discussion about Jews and Shariah law. Not that I care.

 

[High_Gravity]

So again. You are okay for people, regardless of which group, to be able to live by a set of laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution of the US and in fact illegal if not criminal.

Geez, I wonder why people think you're an Islam defender? Gosh golly gee!

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

What question is that? You believe Shariah should not be banned because Muslims will get upset. That's pretty clear, and evident as to who's side you're on. Most Americans however, disagree and think Shariah is backwards, barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant.

I thought we were done 10 pages ago.

If a Muslim wants to live by Sharia in his own personal life I could care less however I don't want Sharia ANYWHERE in American legislation, its incompatible with our way of life.

 

[TemplarKormac]

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

What question is that? You believe Shariah should not be banned because Muslims will get upset. That's pretty clear, and evident as to who's side you're on. Most Americans however, disagree and think Shariah is backwards, barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant.

I thought we were done 10 pages ago.

1. Roudy, I don't give a **** if Muslims "get upset". I oppose religious discrimination of ANY KIND. Is that really so hard to comprehend? I oppose legislation that singles out one religion. I oppose senseless legislation designed to address non-existent problems and designed only for one thing - to discriminate against a particular religion.

2. If you think it's so "abundantly clear" then consider this. Mosaic law - the law that Jews follow - is barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant and frankly ludicrous if followed to it's letter. Why aren't you supporting a ban on that? You realize Sharia also involves things as simple as Halal -so, you would make that illegal? Should Kosher be illegal?

3. The only argument you are able to make here is a default attack- "you support Sharia" which is an utter strawman. That's like saying a person supports the KKK because they support the right of the KKK to free speech.

4. I trust and support our system of government - it has withstood the test of time and tyrants and religion. Our people - of all religions - support the constitution and values enshrined. Many or our people have immigrated from countries that were overwhelmingly oppressive and restrictive and hardly want a return to that.

5. We have a overwhelmingly Christian majority, including a sizable politically active fundamentalist element that has for years tried to legislate religion into law and failed. What on earth makes you think an insignificantly small Muslim minority could force Sharia EVEN if they wanted to?

6. Clearly you do not trust our system and clearly you do not believe in our values of freedom of religion - constitutionally protected rights that enable YOU to practice your faith without discrimination and ME to practice my faith without discrimination. I stand behind those values 100% and I stand behind the rights and laws we have that prevent discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation.

Do you?

1. Sure, that would apply to this discussion in what way, exactly? Instead of answering him, you attack Christian teachings in the paragraph below...

2. Speaking of religious tolerance...

3. A red herring.

4. Such blind faith in the government is dangerous. People with similar faith in the government have been tragically let down. I dub them 'Liberals'

5. What good is a Christian majority in an overly secular government? Where have you been the past 5 years?

6. It's a no brainer why he doesn't trust the system. But then again, you claim we are a Christian majority, but would you stand to defend one if he chose to express his faith? Or is this defense of religious freedom a selective thing for you?

 

[Kondor3]

and again and again you dodge the question and utterly ignore the points being made.

meh.

I'm done wasting time on you.

What question is that? You believe Shariah should not be banned because Muslims will get upset. That's pretty clear, and evident as to who's side you're on. Most Americans however, disagree and think Shariah is backwards, barbaric, oppressive, bigoted, anti humanity, anti freedom, anti democracy, anti American, anti women, and intolerant.

I thought we were done 10 pages ago.

If a Muslim wants to live by Sharia in his own personal life I could care less however I don't want Sharia ANYWHERE in American legislation, its incompatible with our way of life.