The not-so-veiled threat to non-Muslims in Tennessee

[Kondor3]

"...BIK is American. As I recall, he is a convert. One of the many problems with the prison industrial complex in this nation is that the prisons are a breeding ground for Islam. Most American converts to Islam, convert in prison."

Interesting. And, of course, there's nothing more annoying than a newly-minted Convert, seeking to rationalize his abandonment of his own birthright and taking-up sides with outsiders rather than his own people, and intent upon proving himself to those born into the dogma...

 

[Osomir]

He seems under the impression that every single refugee that would be transplanted here from Syria would be a Muslim. Statistically speaking that doesn't make much sense.

What percent of Syrians are not Muslim, sparky?

You play fast and loose with the truth on every subject, doncha?

About 10% which is a fairly large number, and how is actually knowing the demographics of Syria 'playing fast and loose with the truth?"

 

[Osomir]

Christian.

Is there any special (Dhimmi) provision for (Jizya) these Christians?

LOL

Standard Disclaimer: You think that you're clever - but you're not the first liar for Allah around here.

I understand that you're embarrassed that you didn't know of Syria's demographics, but that's no reason to project.

 

[Kondor3]

So, please cite from one of the many versions of the Koran where the Kafirum are to be left in peace to rule their own lands as they please?

The Quran doesn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of all non-Muslims. Some people love to cite verses from say Sura 9, that say "slay the polythesists wherever you find them" but often ignore the fact that such verses refer to specific groups of persons (in sura 9 it is the Byzantine armies that are supposed to be near Tabuk). And almost always ignore the fact that at the same time Muhammad has alliances with non-believing tribes and towns and says that if you have understandings of non-aggression with them (we translate it as treaties) that believers are to honor them.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies and slaughtering nonbelievers and saying that God gives us permission to do so, and marriage-raping the widows of conquered cities and boffing little girls and such...

 

[Osomir]

Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies

Moses did.

Jesus had the luxury of being born within a stable empire. Muhammad along with a number of Biblical figures did not enjoy that luxury.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Quran doesn't advocate the wholesale slaughter of all non-Muslims.

That's nice - but the issue is Kafirum. IF you were actually an Atheist, you would be Kafir. And there are but two options from the Koran - despite your attempt at deceit.

Some people love to cite verses from say Sura 9, that say "slay the polythesists wherever you find them" but often ignore the fact that such verses refer to specific groups of persons (in sura 9 it is the Byzantine armies that are supposed to be near Tabuk). And almost always ignore the fact that at the same time Muhammad has alliances with non-believing tribes and towns and says that if you have understandings of non-aggression with them (we translate it as treaties) that believers are to honor them.

Well, the "Polytheists" were the Hindus, not the Byzantine Christians. I suspect you know this but have chosen to be less than honest about it.

You also chose to be less than honest about who is targeted; not JUST the Hindus, but also "those who deny Allah and the last days." Yep, Atheists are specifically named as Kafir, to be slaughtered - as you already know.

Excepted are those with whom you made a treaty among the polytheists and then they have not been deficient toward you in anything or supported anyone against you; so complete for them their treaty until their term [has ended]. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous [who fear Him].

It's nice that the Muslims waited until the treaty expired before slaughtering them all. What wonderful people.

 

[Kondor3]

Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies

Moses did.

Jesus had the luxury of being born within a stable empire. Muhammad along with a number of Biblical figures did not enjoy that luxury.

Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.

Muhammed was a Being of commoner clay than the likes of Jesus and Buddha (and even Ghandi), I'm afraid.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.

Muhammed was a Being of Commoner Clay than the likes of Jesus and Buddha (and even Ghandi), I'm afraid.

I don't think I would call Muhammad "Common."

Like Genghis Khan, Attila, Alexander, Hitler, et al., Muhammad was a brilliant strategist. His armies conquered the entire peninsula, slaughtering all before him. Muhammad paid his soldiers with plunder and the promise that they could rape the women of defeated peoples, so he had no capital expense for his army. He pushed into North India, and eventually (after his death) his armies did what Alexander failed at, subdued Northern India under the iron fist of and invading army.

Muhammad was one of the most brutal, murderous, and successful warlords in history. Nothing common about him.

 

[Osomir]

That's nice - but the issue is Kafirum. IF you were actually an Atheist, you would be Kafir. And there are but two options from the Koran - despite your attempt at deceit.

The Quranic position on me is that I will go to hell and reside in torture for my disbelief. Quite frankly since I don't believe it, I'm not that worried about it.

Well, the "Polytheists" were the Hindus, not the Byzantine Christians. I suspect you know this but have chosen to be less than honest about it.

The "polytheists" referenced in the Quran has nothing to do with the Hindus. Also, I feel obliged to point out that early Islam saw the Christian worship of the trinity as polytheistic. The reference of the term polytheists changes with the verse usually as well. In Sura 8 with the Battle of Badr it is a general term used for the Meccans.

It's nice that the Muslims waited until the treaty expired before slaughtering them all. What wonderful people.

Except that's not what Muhammad did. Nice try though.

 

[Pogo]

Ya know... that's funny... I don't remember Jesus of Nazareth leading armies

Moses did.

Jesus had the luxury of being born within a stable empire. Muhammad along with a number of Biblical figures did not enjoy that luxury.

Jesus had the luxury of being born under the heel of an oppressive conquering military occupation and STILL preached 'Love Thy Neighbor' and 'Turn the Other Cheek'.

-- or so we're told by biographers years later, through editors centuries later...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Islam hasn't changed much since "early" Islam...

this is where Europe is heading....due to its multiculturalism PC and welcoming immigration/welfare policies.....why the hell would America want to do the same....?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THrltK9cGo8]Europe in 2029 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Osomir]

Muhammed was a Being of commoner clay than the likes of Jesus and Buddha (and even Ghandi), I'm afraid.

That isn't really a counter to my response. There are plenty of Biblical figures that lead armies and engaged in large battles with the blessings of God. Hell compared to Moses and Joshua, Muhammad's campaigns were mild.

 

[Osomir]

He pushed into North India, and eventually (after his death) his armies did what Alexander failed at, subdued Northern India under the iron fist of and invading army.

Muhammad (the Islamic prophet) never fought a battle in northern India. He never expanded the early empire out of the Arabian Peninsula.

You seriously seem to be having a hard time here, first the mistake regarding the hadiths and Sunnis and Shiites, then the mistake regarding the jurisprudential sets within Islam, now a completely mistaken account of Muhammad's life and military conquests. I don't expect you to be an expert on the subject, but you don't even seem to have a very good understanding of the basics for someone with such strong opinions on the subject.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

is this supposed to be some sort of retort to any of the arguments I've made?

all you claim is that some muslims are good people....which i'm sure is basically true.....yet you have no position on the anti-American nature of Islam and sharia....the ideology by which they live....even here in the U.S....

the same ideology which was behind this meeting in TN....which was circling around the muslim push to make criticism of Islam a 'hate crime'...

The problem that we have here is that you keep referring to Islam as a singular thing, when it has already been established that it isn't.

The fundamental assumption of your model is incorrect.

But let's delve into the specifics of it: What exactly do you see in Islam itself that is incompatible with being an American, and what do you base that belief on (aka source it please)?

so let's look at a specific example....remember "the video".....?

But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in a statement demanded legal action against those behind the film.

"Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people's anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable," it said, calling for "assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions" to be criminalized.

"Otherwise, such acts will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA, for allowing their citizens to violate the sanctity of what they hold dear and holy. Hence, we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial."

This cannot happen in the U.S. Blasphemy against Islam is a crime in parts of the Muslim world, and some Western countries have established de facto bans via selective enforcement of "hate speech" laws.

But America takes free speech seriously. The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that even speech directly advocating violence may not be criminalized, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." A law against blasphemy would, in addition, violate the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.

Shariah vs. the Constitution - WSJ.com

 

[Osomir]

all you claim is that some muslims are good people....which i'm sure is basically true.....yet you have no position on the anti-American nature of Islam and sharia....the ideology by which they live....even here in the U.S....

the same ideology which was behind this meeting in TN....which was circling around the muslim push to make criticism of Islam a 'hate crime'...

The problem that we have here is that you keep referring to Islam as a singular thing, when it has already been established that it isn't.

The fundamental assumption of your model is incorrect.

But let's delve into the specifics of it: What exactly do you see in Islam itself that is incompatible with being an American, and what do you base that belief on (aka source it please)?

so let's look at a specific example....remember "the video".....?

But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood in a statement demanded legal action against those behind the film.

"Hurting the feelings of one and a half billion Muslims cannot be tolerated, and the people's anger and fury for their faith is invariably predictable, often unstoppable," it said, calling for "assaults on the sanctities of all heavenly religions" to be criminalized.

"Otherwise, such acts will continue to cause devout Muslims across the world to suspect and even loathe the West, especially the USA, for allowing their citizens to violate the sanctity of what they hold dear and holy. Hence, we demand that all those involved in such crimes be urgently brought to trial."

This cannot happen in the U.S. Blasphemy against Islam is a crime in parts of the Muslim world, and some Western countries have established de facto bans via selective enforcement of "hate speech" laws.

But America takes free speech seriously. The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that even speech directly advocating violence may not be criminalized, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." A law against blasphemy would, in addition, violate the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.

Shariah vs. the Constitution - WSJ.com

Even your own link disagrees with your uniform generalization of Muslims and Sharia, so I'm not sure why you would be posting it as a defense of your position.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Quranic position on me is that I will go to hell and reside in torture for my disbelief. Quite frankly since I don't believe it, I'm not that worried about it.

You know very well that isn't true.

The position of the Koran is that you must convert, or die.

The "polytheists" referenced in the Quran has nothing to do with the Hindus. Also, I feel obliged to point out that early Islam saw the Christian worship of the trinity as polytheistic. The reference of the term polytheists changes with the verse usually as well. In Sura 8 with the Battle of Badr it is a general term used for the Meccans.

The Meccans were not Christian. They were Jews and followers of the old gods - i.e. Hindus. The Kabba had 214 idols to various gods in it, at the time of Muhammad - these were not Christ, but animist deities. Muhammad destroyed all the idols except the Black Stone - which Muslims bow to 5 times each day. Oh, but Muslims have differing dogma - so you can point up sects of Muslims that don't bow to the Kabba and the Black Stone, right?

Except that's not what Muhammad did. Nice try though.

Which is why the Quraysh remain free and independent to this day...

 

[9thIDdoc]

And Christians utilized their religion as a justification to kill millions over the past 150 years (and millions more prior to that). That doesn't make Christianity an evil religion. Nor all Christians evil. You're logic is pretty juvenile.

There is very considerable difference between killing and murder. In the civilized parts of the world Christians are held as accountable for crimes as anyone else. And if a million people had been murdered in the name of Christianity I would indeed consider it an evil religion. Your knowledge of history sucks

Oh, they have been. You should read more. Something with more substance than Bonni Intall's Naked Islam comic books and David Barton's creative writing class.

Link? Other evidence? Anything other than bullshit fantasy?

 

[Osomir]

You know very well that isn't true.

The position of the Koran is that you must convert, or die.

Then you shouldn't have a hard time providing a Surah and verse to support that claim.

The Meccans were not Christian.

The byzantines were though, and Sura 9 with the Battle of Tabuk was a reference to them. Sura 8 was a reference to the Mecans. Both were called polytheists.

They were Jews and followers of the old gods - i.e. Hindus.

Paganism and Hinduism aren't the same thing. You made a mistake, just own up to it, attempting a work around just seems a little sad.

so you can point up sects of Muslims that don't bow to the Kabba and the Black Stone, right?

Sure, hell an Islamic sect once stole the black rock from the Kabba.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The problem that we have here is that you keep referring to Islam as a singular thing, when it has already been established that it isn't.

The fundamental assumption of your model is incorrect.

But let's delve into the specifics of it: What exactly do you see in Islam itself that is incompatible with being an American, and what do you base that belief on (aka source it please)?

so let's look at a specific example....remember "the video".....?

But although the video may indeed be insensitive, inflammatory, intolerant and insulting, that's not why the rioters are rioting. They are rioting because in their view it is blasphemous, and therefore forbidden under Shariah. And although the Muslim Brotherhood has cannily adopted the rhetoric of wounded feelings, it is calling for the criminalization of blasphemy world-wide, as CNSNews.com reports:



This cannot happen in the U.S. Blasphemy against Islam is a crime in parts of the Muslim world, and some Western countries have established de facto bans via selective enforcement of "hate speech" laws.

But America takes free speech seriously. The Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) that even speech directly advocating violence may not be criminalized, "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." A law against blasphemy would, in addition, violate the constitutional guarantee to freedom of religion and the prohibition on government establishment of religion.

Shariah vs. the Constitution - WSJ.com

Even your own link disagrees with your uniform generalization of Muslims and Sharia, so I'm not sure why you would be posting it as a defense of your position.

agreed.....there are variations......yet we are dealing with radical elements....who most muslims are meekly following worldwide....much like the good German people followed the Nazi elements....

that's why we have Muslims even in America calling for anti-American blasphemy laws....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Muhammad (the Islamic prophet) never fought a battle in northern India. He never expanded the early empire out of the Arabian Peninsula.

This is why I point out that you play fast and loose with the truth. There was no Pakistan in the 6th century. The Islamic foray through Persia went into what is now Pakistan, but was North India at the time.

Again, I suspect you know this and have as your goal to deceive.

In the Hadith, the Prophet (warlord) said: "There is no shame in deceiving the Kafir." This is what you are doing, yes?