Islam’s Invasion Ideology...

[Anne Bonney]

The highest court in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ruled that a husband can beat his wife and young children "as long as the beating leaves no physical marks." How's that for civility?

The decision by the Federal Supreme Court shows the strong influence of Islamic law (Sharia). . . The court made the ruling earlier this month in the case of a man who left cuts and bruises on his wife and adult daughter after a beating.

Our Federal Supreme Court?   And if so, what is the source for the statement that the decision was influenced by Islamic law?

[Froderik]

The ruling was reported on Monday in the Abu Dhabi-based newspaper The National.

[Anne Bonney]

Got a link? I'd be very interested in reading it.

[Froderik]

I got it from some link off of google news, not sure which one.

[BuzzKill]

Got a link? I'd be very interested in reading it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... ble_m.html

A quote:
Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, the head of Sharia Studies at UAE University and Baghdad University, told the National that beating one's wife is at times necessary to preserve family bonds.

"If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police," Dr al Kubaisi told the newspaper. "But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option."

[BuzzKill]

The only thing I seem to disagree with people is that I don't think it/they're taking over our country. That's really it.

I read your post about the fear of the RCC way back when. Your right that there was some concern a RC president would have the US answering to Rome as they did "back home" in Ireland. Your right that this was a bit silly. Your wrong however to think the present day concerns about Islam are comparable.

I don't worry that the USA will become an Islamic nation. The danger isn't that Obama will hoist an Islamic flag over the capital and the House and Senate will begin bowing to Allah 5 times a day. The danger is something like a thermonuclear bomb in New York, Chicago and LA; or small pox and anthrax - Because if they can get it they will use it.  And if we don't take this danger seriously, deal with it seriously, stop with the rose colored glasses and the dream-scape fantasy that they can be negotiated and reasoned with, they will get these deadly things - and we will suffer and die.

I worry about insane levels of PC that forbid facing facts and dealing with the facts as they are.  We ARE at war with Islam. Islam IS the problem. Moderate Muslims are responsible for not boldly standing up to the radicalized elements. Our "tolerance" and  their silent, sheepish ways in the face of their prophets demands for blood will make creeping Sharia, with the brutality, murder and terroristic mindset and action that follows, virtually inevitable.

[Stonewall]

The only thing I seem to disagree with people is that I don't think it/they're taking over our country. That's really it.

I read your post about the fear of the RCC way back when. Your right that there was some concern a RC president would have the US answering to Rome as they did "back home" in Ireland. Your right that this was a bit silly. Your wrong however to think the present day concerns about Islam are comparable.

I don't worry that the USA will become an Islamic nation. The danger isn't that Obama will hoist an Islamic flag over the capital and the House and Senate will begin bowing to Allah 5 times a day. The danger is something like a thermonuclear bomb in New York, Chicago and LA; or small pox and anthrax - Because if they can get it they will use it.  And if we don't take this danger seriously, deal with it seriously, stop with the rose colored glasses and the dream-scape fantasy that they can be negotiated and reasoned with, they will get these deadly things - and we will suffer and die.

I worry about insane levels of PC that forbid facing facts and dealing with the facts as they are.  We ARE at war with Islam. Islam IS the problem. Moderate Muslims are responsible for not boldly standing up to the radicalized elements. Our "tolerance" and  their silent, sheepish ways in the face of their prophets demands for blood will make creeping Sharia, with the brutality, murder and terroristic mindset and action that follows, virtually inevitable.

I agree.

There is no doubt that whatever mass atrocity Muslims can commit against the Western World, they will do so without blinking an eye about it.

Our government has failed utterly in regard to our foreign relations with the Islamic world. I would say that it began, the failure began with the Iranian Revolution. We failed to understand what the revolution meant and how the Sunni world would react to the Islamic Republic.

It radicalized the Middle East.

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan played a part. The Camp David Accords played a part.

It really was a perfect storm.

Our war against Saddam, the first Gulf War, was a major blunder. We ran into that situation with very little knowledge of Islam. What we have done since then has worsened our situation.

[Anne Bonney]

Got a link? I'd be very interested in reading it.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2 ... ble_m.html

A quote:
Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, the head of Sharia Studies at UAE University and Baghdad University, told the National that beating one's wife is at times necessary to preserve family bonds.

"If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police," Dr al Kubaisi told the newspaper. "But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option."

Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with our laws or our court.  That's what I thought Frod was saying.....that our Federal Supreme Court ruled that way.  My misunderstanding.  But thanks for the link.  

[Anne Bonney]

The only thing I seem to disagree with people is that I don't think it/they're taking over our country. That's really it.

I read your post about the fear of the RCC way back when. Your right that there was some concern a RC president would have the US answering to Rome as they did "back home" in Ireland. Your right that this was a bit silly. Your wrong however to think the present day concerns about Islam are comparable.

I think they're quite comparable.  The fear is the same....the religions might not be, but there was the same palpable fear.  People freaked out when Kennedy was elected.  It was a HUGE deal that a Catholic was in office.

I don't worry that the USA will become an Islamic nation. The danger isn't that Obama will hoist an Islamic flag over the capital and the House and Senate will begin bowing to Allah 5 times a day. The danger is something like a thermonuclear bomb in New York, Chicago and LA; or small pox and anthrax - Because if they can get it they will use it.  And if we don't take this danger seriously, deal with it seriously, stop with the rose colored glasses and the dream-scape fantasy that they can be negotiated and reasoned with, they will get these deadly things - and we will suffer and die.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I worry about insane levels of PC that forbid facing facts and dealing with the facts as they are.  We ARE at war with Islam. Islam IS the problem. Moderate Muslims are responsible for not boldly standing up to the radicalized elements.

Yes, just as I believe that some of the radical elements in our own political system are.

Our "tolerance" and  their silent, sheepish ways in the face of their prophets demands for blood will make creeping Sharia, with the brutality, murder and terroristic mindset and action that follows, virtually inevitable.

And you don't see any similarities in the Christian Bible's demands for blood, stoning etc.?  Or the Orthodox Jewish Torah?  Do you really believe that every single Muslim is that extreme or radical?  That's like saying that every single Christian is like Fred Phelps.

[Anne Bonney]

Our government has failed utterly in regard to our foreign relations with the Islamic world. I would say that it began, the failure began with the Iranian Revolution. We failed to understand what the revolution meant and how the Sunni world would react to the Islamic Republic.

It radicalized the Middle East.

The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan played a part. The Camp David Accords played a part.

It really was a perfect storm.

Our war against Saddam, the first Gulf War, was a major blunder. We ran into that situation with very little knowledge of Islam. What we have done since then has worsened our situation.

 :nods:  :tup:  :tup:

[BuzzKill]

And you don't see any similarities in the Christian Bible's demands for blood, stoning etc.? Or the Orthodox Jewish Torah? Do you really believe that every single Muslim is that extreme or radical? That's like saying that every single Christian is like Fred Phelps.

There are some similarities with the Livitical law and Sharia - but the differences are many and very significant.

Where did I say every single Muslim is a radical? I said the moderates beir the responsibility of allowing the radicals to flourish and function.  I also say I recognize why they find it so difficult to do otherwise. I'll add I do think most privately condone the radical actions even if they personally have no desire to take part; quite unlike 99.9% of Christians who find Mr. Phelps and his congregation an appalling abomination.

[Anne Bonney]

And you don't see any similarities in the Christian Bible's demands for blood, stoning etc.? Or the Orthodox Jewish Torah? Do you really believe that every single Muslim is that extreme or radical? That's like saying that every single Christian is like Fred Phelps.

There are some similarities with the Livitical law and Sharia - but the differences are many and very significant.

I'd disagree there.  The Bible (moreso the Old Testament, but even the 'new and improved' version) is incredibly violent.

Where did I say every single Muslim is a radical?

Ok, maybe you hadn't said it yet, but your comment below (bolded) pretty much says it.

I said the moderates beir the responsibility of allowing the radicals to flourish and function.  I also say I recognize why they find it so difficult to do otherwise. I'll add I do think most privately condone the radical actions even if they personally have no desire to take part;

What is the basis for that belief?

quite unlike 99.9% of Christians who find Mr. Phelps and his congregation an appalling abomination.

How 'bout Timothy McVeigh?  There's a large number of the "militiamen" (all extreme right-wingers) that openly condone what he did and even more that aren't open about it.  Are we to judge Christians by his actions?

[BuzzKill]

There are some similarities with the Livitical law and Sharia - but the differences are many and very significant.

I'd disagree there.  The Bible (moreso the Old Testament, but even the 'new and improved' version) is incredibly violent.

All I can do is repeat myself here - the differences are many and significant. If this were not so, you'd have Jews and Christians acting like the jihadist.

Where did I say every single Muslim is a radical?

Ok, maybe you hadn't said it yet, but your comment below (bolded) pretty much says it.

 I said the moderates beir the responsibility of allowing the radicals to flourish and function.  I also say I recognize why they find it so difficult to do otherwise. I'll add I do think most privately condone the radical actions even if they personally have no desire to take part;

What is the basis for that belief?

The basis is personal experience with a moderate muslim from Jordan, combined with the fact that moderate muslims living in the US, where they are relatively safe from Sharia law, still refuse to speak out against it, or Jihad. I believe this is for the reason I stated. Still - saying I think most silently condone the terror isn't the same as saying I think all would commit such terror.

 I'll add, I'll never forget as long as I live watching the film of people dancing in the streets shrilling praises to Allah after 9/11 - which also supports my POV that even those who refrain from taking such action themselves often condone it. There are enough to fill a cities streets who go so far as to celebrate it.

quite unlike 99.9% of Christians who find Mr. Phelps and his congregation an appalling abomination.

How 'bout Timothy McVeigh?  There's a large number of the "militiamen" (all extreme right-wingers) that openly condone what he did and even more that aren't open about it.  Are we to judge Christians by his actions?

I'm pretty far to the right myself and I have never, not once from anyone, ever heard McVeigh or his actions condoned. I don't claim to have personal knowledge of what faith - if any - McVeigh followed, but I have read repeatedly that he was not a Christian. It is often written that he was an atheist. I did read once that he followed a kind of Christianity that is similar to what the modern Klan teaches - which is so drastically warped and bastardized it bears no resemblance to Scriptural Christianity. But in any case, his actions were not a result of any religious belief, but rather a hate of the US government. And even if this were not so - He is one man who was part of one very small group - acting alone and against all accepted morals, ethics and beliefs of the society he lived in and attacked - Quite unlike the Islamic terrorist who is acting according to strict application of his societies very foundation and laws. There is no valid comparison what-so-ever.

[Anne Bonney]

All I can do is repeat myself here - the differences are many and significant. If this were not so, you'd have Jews and Christians acting like the jihadist.

And I think that's due to the beauty of living in a secular society.  We're not beholden to a religious text that is out-dated with the world and it's realities.  You're comparing apples to oranges.  The Middle East is a third world country whose political leaders rely on religion to keep the population "in check".  If people like Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and the like had their way, we'd be living under the "law" of the Christian Bible and would end up, after time, being much like the Middle East.

The basis is personal experience with a moderate muslim from Jordan, combined with the fact that moderate muslims living in the US, where they are relatively safe from Sharia law, still refuse to speak out against it, or Jihad. I believe this is for the reason I stated. Still - saying I think most silently condone the terror isn't the same as saying I think all would commit such terror.

So, you're basing that belief on your experience with one person.

I'll add, I'll never forget as long as I live watching the film of people dancing in the streets shrilling praises to Allah after 9/11 - which also supports my POV that even those who refrain from taking such action themselves often condone it. There are enough to fill a cities streets who go so far as to celebrate it.

I don't recall any Muslims in America rejoicing.  In fact, I remember seeing clips of devastated family members of Muslims that were killed when the Towers came down.  Again, I think that's the beauty of living in a secular society.  You can't realistically compare America to the Middle East.

I'm pretty far to the right myself and I have never, not once from anyone, ever heard McVeigh or his actions condoned. I don't claim to have personal knowledge of what faith - if any - McVeigh followed, but I have read repeatedly that he was not a Christian.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=98


 

It is often written that he was an atheist.

I've never seen that anywhere.

I did read once that he followed a kind of Christianity that is similar to what the modern Klan teaches - which is so drastically warped and bastardized it bears no resemblance to Scriptural Christianity.

First, I completely disagree that it bears no resemblance to "Scriptual Christianity".  As I said earlier, the Christian Bible and the Jewish Torah/ Tanakh are filled with extreme violence and horrible hatred.  

Second, how is that any different than Muslims claiming that the extremists in their religion have "drastically warped and bastardized" Islam?

But in any case, his actions were not a result of any religious belief, but rather a hate of the US government. And even if this were not so - He is one man who was part of one very small group - acting alone and against all accepted morals, ethics and beliefs of the society he lived in and attacked - Quite unlike the Islamic terrorist who is acting according to strict application of his societies very foundation and laws. There is no valid comparison what-so-ever.

Because we live in a secular society.  If we lived in a nation that adhered to the Bible as strictly as Muslim nations adhere to Islam, we'd have similar situations here.  But, thankfully, the FF knew that a theocracy was dangerous.

The regular people in the Middle East are virtually in a cult BECAUSE it's a theocracy and therefore subject to the whims of the extremists who end up in power.  America is a free society, for the moment at least, and has access to reality.

[Anne Bonney]

The basis is personal experience with a moderate muslim from Jordan, combined with the fact that moderate muslims living in the US, where they are relatively safe from Sharia law, still refuse to speak out against it, or Jihad. I believe this is for the reason I stated. Still - saying I think most silently condone the terror isn't the same as saying I think all would commit such terror.

One more thought on this aspect......most of the moderate Muslims living in the U.S. still have family that are in the Middle East and are very much afraid that what they say here will effect their family members still living over there.