Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islam - Jihad - GWOT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

    Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). It treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

    These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hellbent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.
    Actually they are up for debate......

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lims-entering/


    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan...b_7688204.html


    Online Poll based on 600 'Muslims' polled (and they could be anybody because the pollster cannot verify their identity)

    And it seems that the article has overlooked a few results in the poll it cites. For example

    60% “shariah as interpreted by Islamic authorities is compatible with the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and other rights,”

    This poll isn't reliable, anybody that states that it is conclusive or wholly accurate is full of crap......

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
      Actually they are up for debate......

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lims-entering/


      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan...b_7688204.html


      Online Poll based on 600 'Muslims' polled (and they could be anybody because the pollster cannot verify their identity)

      And it seems that the article has overlooked a few results in the poll it cites. For example




      This poll isn't reliable, anybody that states that it is conclusive or wholly accurate is full of crap......
      Anyone whom upon examining the full body of Sharia thinks it is compatible with the USA Constitution and Bill Of Rights is either ignorant, an idiot, or just another useful fool/tool.

      You happen to be the trifecta ...
      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

      Comment


      • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
        Anyone whom upon examining the full body of Sharia thinks it is compatible with the USA Constitution and Bill Of Rights is either ignorant, an idiot, or just another useful fool/tool.

        You happen to be the trifecta ...
        I never stated that it was, the study from the article you quoted stated that those polled did....... so you are proving my point......

        Cheers
        Last edited by Paddybhoy; 22 Jul 16, 06:04.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
          I never stated that it was, the study from the article you quoted stated that those polled did....... so you are proving my point......

          Cheers
          Which would be the author of that article, Matt Barber.

          Meanwhile you found one poll figure out of several you consider disputable, therefore you imply the whole article is disputable ???

          That sort of non-logic will get you far in the real world.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            Which would be the author of that article, Matt Barber.

            Meanwhile you found one poll figure out of several you consider disputable, therefore you imply the whole article is disputable ???

            That sort of non-logic will get you far in the real world.

            Which is why I wrote "the study from the article you quoted stated that those polled did......"

            Honestly I haven't looked at the other 'stats' you quoted, I just don't have the time. But that one I did look at is clearly junk that is taken as fact by junk minds like Bill O'Reilly....

            And I do alright for myself in the real world Mr Bock

            Comment


            • Of course, I should remember that liberals and Jihad enablers will debate anything and as you show, provide left/liberal leaning sources to support their arguments.

              So tit for tat ...
              Gingrich Outrageous, but Shariah is Worse
              EXCERPT:
              ...
              The reaction to Gingrich's outrageous and unworkable proposal was swift. "Wrong, wrong, wrong," tweeted Bob Rae, former interim leader of Canada's Liberal Party.

              I agree with Rae. But when I asked him, in a tweet, "pray tell me who will stop a jihadi truck in Canada? Who will protect my family and me?" there was no response.

              Gingrich's ridiculous suggestion was a godsend to Islamism apologists. They used the occasion to defend Islamic Shariah and portray it as a benign concept that posed no danger to America or the West.
              ...
              I can only imagine jihadis and Islamists howling in laughter at the gullibility of Islamism's liberal apologists in the West.

              For the inexhaustible supply of Western liberals, described by Lenin as "useful Idiots," allow me to share a sample of just two Shariah laws, from among the tens of thousands that have sustained ruthless, unelected caliphates for centuries.

              "If the husband's body is covered with pus and blood, and if the wife licks and drinks it, her obligations to her husband will still not be fulfilled."

              "Wives enter into their husband's slavery after marriage."

              Even if one should consider those two examples an internal matter for Muslims, here are two more illustrations of Shariah law as expounded by the founder of 20th century Islamism, the Indian-born Syed Mawdudi, in his book Call to Jihad.

              1. "Islamic 'Jihad' does not recognize their (non-Muslims') right to administer State affairs according to a system, which in the view of Islam, is evil."

              2, "If the Muslim Party commands adequate resources it will eliminate un-Islamic governments and establish the power of Islamic governments in their stead."

              It is not Gingrich who needs to weed out man-made Shariah laws from the mindset of many Western Muslims. That responsibility is ours, we Muslims who call Western civilization our home.

              My question to Rae still stands: Who will stop the next jihadi truck? Or will we wake up only when a boat explodes on our waterfront?
              ...
              Tarek Fatah, a founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and columnist at the Toronto Sun, is a Robert J. and Abby B. Levine Fellow at the Middle East Forum.
              http://www.meforum.org/6126/shariah-newt-gingrich
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • Hmmn, a poll in the dar al-Harb, mostly conducted by/for Infidels? Hasn't anybody heard that telling 'porkies' in the 'cause of Allah' is actually encouraged in Islam? Allah/Muhammad encouraged/encourages the employment of ALL means, including deception, to 'advance' the dar al-Islam.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
                  Hmmn, a poll in the dar al-Harb, mostly conducted by/for Infidels? Hasn't anybody heard that telling 'porkies' in the 'cause of Allah' is actually encouraged in Islam? Allah/Muhammad encouraged/encourages the employment of ALL means, including deception, to 'advance' the dar al-Islam.
                  Agreed, this is a factor to consider. Point of the earlier post and the numbers/percentages reported was to illustrate that we aren't dealing with a small, small percentage of Muslims, in either the "secular" Western nations or in the psuedo-Western Dar-al Islam. This isn't a 2 or 5 or 11% of Muslims whom are or might become Jihadis, or give the Jihadis support, rather upwards of a quarter to half of Muslims could be active to highly supportive of physical Jihad.

                  The Shariah question/issue is significant because the Law of Sharia is where the dogma of the Koran and the example of living by Muhammad in the Hadith become expressed in an actual code of living and interacting with others of the faith and not of the faith. Sharia is Islam applied and any reasonable intelligent and HONEST mind examining it should see it is not compatible with full free will, freedom of expression, freedom of diversity which some like the USA Bill of Rights assures.

                  The numerous Islamic founded attacks in the West via Muslims living in the Dar-al-Haram should be clear evidence here. The recent attack in Nice is looking to have been long planned and the "sole" attacker may have had the support of a few to several others of the Faith.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • The Crisis of Political Islam
                    First Egypt and now Turkey show the perils of ideological religious parties (and strongman rule), but other Muslim countries are faring better with democracy
                    ...
                    For decades, in much of the Middle East, Islamist politicians like Mr. Erdogan weren’t able to speak out—and, when they did, they frequently faced a prison cell or a hangman’s noose. From Algeria to Egypt to Turkey, the apparatus of the state repeatedly unleashed repression—of varying degrees of harshness—to marginalize political Islam, crushing democratic freedoms while offering the excuse of preserving secular values. The West, preferring the autocratic devils it knew over the Islamists it didn’t, often concurred.

                    In response, many of the Islamist movements that sprang up under the influence of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood—groups that include Mr. Erdogan’s party—have gradually embraced the language of pluralism and the idea of democratic politics and elections. Crucially, however, these modern Islamists have often viewed democracy not as a value in itself but merely as a tactic to bring about a “true” Islamic order. To them, the voting booth was simply the most feasible way to dismantle the postcolonial, secular systems that, in the eyes of their followers, had failed to bring justice or development to ordinary Muslims.

                    In 2005, Mr. Erdogan—then serving as Turkey’s prime minister and acclaimed for improving the country’s human-rights record and pushing forward its bid for membership in the European Union—let slip on a trip to Australia that he viewed democracy just as “a vehicle.”
                    ...
                    This democracy problem is linked not so much with Islam, an ancient religion, as with political Islam—a modern ideology developed in 20th-century Egypt, in part, to redress the Middle East’s backwardness compared with the West. Its founding fathers in the Muslim Brotherhood met violent deaths— Hassan al-Banna was gunned down in 1949, Sayyid Qutb was hanged by the Egyptian government in 1966—but their ideas took root throughout the Middle East after the repeated failures of autocratic regimes that preached the rival ideas of socialism and Arab nationalism. Offshoots of the Brotherhood now represent the dominant political movements from Morocco to Turkey to the Gaza Strip.
                    ...
                    Arguments about the role of religion—and divinely inspired morality—in public life are hardly unique to Muslim societies, of course. Established Western democracies have grappled with these issues too, and not always gracefully. During the lifetimes of many older Americans, after all, it has been a felony to sell alcohol or to engage in adultery or homosexual sex.

                    But Islam is a religion whose founder established a successful empire instead of dying on the cross. As a result, it offers a far more detailed prescription than Christianity of how government and society should be run. “The Quran is our constitution,” runs the Muslim Brotherhood’s historic slogan.

                    As such, politicians and voters who believe in the primacy of Islamic law inevitably find themselves in conflict with the principle of democracy whenever a majority favors a different path. This, after all, is why more radical groups, such as Islamic State, have rejected democracy outright as an infidel heresy.
                    ...
                    That prescription has proven especially hard to apply in countries such as Syria and Iraq. With borders carved on the map by European colonialists, they have been run for much of their modern histories by dictatorial regimes that masked minority rule with a secular facade. Sunni-majority Syria has long been run by the Alawite-dominated Assad tyranny, and Shiite-majority Iraq was held under the boot of Saddam Hussein’s Sunni dictatorship.

                    After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 introduced majority rule, the country quickly fell into Shiite sectarian dominance—especially under former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose refusal to heed Sunni concerns pushed many of them into Islamic State’s embrace. In Syria, Alawites and other minorities continue backing President Bashar al-Assad despite his brutality, fearing that the advent of Sunni majority rule wouldn’t just disempower them but perhaps lead to their extermination.
                    ...
                    http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cris...lam-1469223880
                    Last edited by G David Bock; 24 Jul 16, 20:45. Reason: additional excerpts
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

                      Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). It treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

                      These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution.
                      Entirely true, as long as you expect all, or most, or even a significant proportion of Muslims to actually comply with the tenets of their religion and want to force everyone else to do so.

                      By that standard - complete 100% compliance with the official tenets - the Jewish religion also is non-compatible with freedom, democracy and the constitution of most Western states.
                      Christianity would, just to make one example, at the very least have those convenient convenience stores just round the corner closed on Sundays. And gas stations.
                      Yet I don't see many worried posts about the tenet that one should not let a witch live. I don't see US posters fearing that one day every restaurant shall be kosher only and they won't be able to eat a paella with rice, shrimps, chicken and pork.

                      So the question isn't at all whether Muslims say they want the Sharia law. The question is, do they, today, comply with it? Because if they themselves, in the first place, don't, it's difficult to argue that's a threat to the state or to non-Muslims in a hypothetical future.
                      Do US Muslims observe the Ramadan, do the Haji, pay tithes, pray five times a day? Do US Muslim women behave as slaves to their husbands and wear a veil? 100% of them? Or what percentage of them?

                      Actual behavior rather than lofty statements, are what counts if you ask me.

                      After all, I've seen a poll made among Catholic youths from all over the world. They claimed to be practicing Catholics. Then when asked a few further questions, it soon turned out that a majority of them did not comply with the Church's teachings on several issues.

                      And it's not as if we know that Muslims are and have always been consistent in their stated beliefs with their actual behavior. We know that poets in Baghdad used to drink wine and that artists in Istanbul portrayed the likenesses of men and women.

                      So it's entirely possible that when asked whether it would be a good idea that, say, Friday be made the national week's holiday, most Muslims in any Western country would answer yes - it makes one feel good. Then if you asked the same sample, "then do you go to the Mosque every Friday?"... let's say not 100% could truthfully answer "yes".
                      Michele

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                        Entirely true, as long as you expect all, or most, or even a significant proportion of Muslims to actually comply with the tenets of their religion and want to force everyone else to do so.

                        By that standard - complete 100% compliance with the official tenets - the Jewish religion also is non-compatible with freedom, democracy and the constitution of most Western states.
                        Christianity would, just to make one example, at the very least have those convenient convenience stores just round the corner closed on Sundays. And gas stations.
                        Yet I don't see many worried posts about the tenet that one should not let a witch live. I don't see US posters fearing that one day every restaurant shall be kosher only and they won't be able to eat a paella with rice, shrimps, chicken and pork.

                        So the question isn't at all whether Muslims say they want the Sharia law. The question is, do they, today, comply with it? Because if they themselves, in the first place, don't, it's difficult to argue that's a threat to the state or to non-Muslims in a hypothetical future.
                        Do US Muslims observe the Ramadan, do the Haji, pay tithes, pray five times a day? Do US Muslim women behave as slaves to their husbands and wear a veil? 100% of them? Or what percentage of them?

                        Actual behavior rather than lofty statements, are what counts if you ask me.

                        After all, I've seen a poll made among Catholic youths from all over the world. They claimed to be practicing Catholics. Then when asked a few further questions, it soon turned out that a majority of them did not comply with the Church's teachings on several issues.

                        And it's not as if we know that Muslims are and have always been consistent in their stated beliefs with their actual behavior. We know that poets in Baghdad used to drink wine and that artists in Istanbul portrayed the likenesses of men and women.

                        So it's entirely possible that when asked whether it would be a good idea that, say, Friday be made the national week's holiday, most Muslims in any Western country would answer yes - it makes one feel good. Then if you asked the same sample, "then do you go to the Mosque every Friday?"... let's say not 100% could truthfully answer "yes".
                        The fundamental difference is that other religions aren't committing terrorist acts of deliberately killing innocent men, women, and children as Islam does. Whereever you find Muslims, you will find suicide bomers and the like.

                        While the overwhelming number of Muslims aren't violent, there is not an insignificant number who are. Even if only 1% of the Muslims are potential suicide bombers, that still translates into 10 million would be terrorist and suicide bombers. Success of the 911 terrorist was due to the support they were getting from Muslims around the world. Without the money from Muslisms worldwide, the terrorist wouldn't have been able to carryout their plans as well.

                        Also, the principles of Sharia law are fundamentally intolerant, and the fact that many so called moderate Muslims support Sharia law demonstrates that many Muslims don't even realize how intolerant they are - despite the actual evidence of Muslim socieities they truly believe that they are really tolerant. Isis supporters come from moderate Muslim families, and it is not due to poverty. Ben Ladin was from a very wealthy family.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bart dale View Post
                          The fundamental difference is that other religions aren't committing terrorist acts of deliberately killing innocent men, women, and children as Islam does. Whereever you find Muslims, you will find suicide bomers and the like.
                          Today. That is because no other religion plays such an important part anymore. Islam is still a power structure, and as a power structure it is no different from any other power structure.
                          Wisdom is personal

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Karri View Post
                            Today. That is because no other religion plays such an important part anymore. Islam is still a power structure, and as a power structure it is no different from any other power structure.
                            Bollocks!

                            What other religion is conducting killings, torture, bombings, and enslaving on the scale of Islamic Fundamentalists ????

                            How many terror attacks and mass bombings are members of the "power structure" of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party conducting ?

                            "Power Structures" vary greatly in composition, organization, and agendas. Should be obvious to anyone whom has studied history on more than a shallow level.
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                              Bollocks!

                              What other religion is conducting killings, torture, bombings, and enslaving on the scale of Islamic Fundamentalists ????

                              How many terror attacks and mass bombings are members of the "power structure" of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party conducting ?

                              "Power Structures" vary greatly in composition, organization, and agendas. Should be obvious to anyone whom has studied history on more than a shallow level.
                              Are you asking who is doing it at this exact moment, or who has done it previously? I posted in another thread as well, but if you want to see ISIS scale killings, torture and enslaving then look no further than the conquest of the New World. Perhaps you might look into the Nazis as well. Or really, anything if you know history at all. In fact Islamic Fundamentalism is still pretty small scale terror...my ancestors were converted by the sword, into three different Christian religions. Of course if your attention span for history is 24 hours then this is quite a pointless discussion.
                              Wisdom is personal

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Karri View Post
                                Are you asking who is doing it at this exact moment, or who has done it previously?
                                This is a current events forum. The subject of historical religious violence belongs elsewhere.


                                I posted in another thread as well, but if you want to see ISIS scale killings, torture and enslaving then look no further than the conquest of the New World. Perhaps you might look into the Nazis as well. Or really, anything if you know history at all. In fact Islamic Fundamentalism is still pretty small scale terror...my ancestors were converted by the sword, into three different Christian religions. Of course if your attention span for history is 24 hours then this is quite a pointless discussion.
                                It's not a pointless discussion. However the above statement is pointless in a current events forum.

                                Edit: Maybe your ancestors thought it was just a nuisance.
                                Last edited by Gixxer86g; 03 Aug 16, 04:56.
                                ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                                BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                                BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X