Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 91

Thread: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

  1. #81
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    WTF, that's like saying the "prejudicial use of the words Nuremberg Laws,"
    Not unless you repeatedly used "Nuremburg Laws" as a means to program people that Nuremburg laws were evil.


    lol those are a synopsis of what all five schools of Islamic Fiqh actually dictate, stating facts is now a logical fallacy.
    I think everyone on DP is more than aware of your repetitious demogogery interpretation of Sharia Law ad nauseum.


    Using the word "Sharia" is not a buzzword it's simply using the proper term when the person in question supports the implementation of Islamic law.
    It most certainly is a buzzword the way you are using it.

    The use of the word "terrorist" is not a buzzword fallacy when the organization in question is actually a terrorist organization or when there is actually a tenable association. The word terrorist could be used as a buzzword fallacy, for example that commercial that tries to associate terrorism with smoking marijuana as if there was actually a tenable association to be had.

    Using the word "Islamist" is not a buzzword fallacy when the person in question is actually an Islamist.

    Stating facts can never be a logical fallacy.

    It's only a fallacy when I attempt to associate these people or organizations with these words that have negative connotations when there is no association, I have stated quite clearly that this man is not a terrorist and yet you want to use me saying that he's not a terrorist as an example of trying to associate him with terrorism.

    Associating Islamism with Islamist terrorism is not a buzzword fallacy because the two actually have a causal relationship. There is in fact a tenable association.

    An actual example of this fallacy would be something like the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, I mean who can be against preserving freedom right? But wait the actual act restricts internet freedom, or how about the Patriot Act which would imply that opposition to the proposal would be unpatriotic. These are associating words with things in which there is no actual association, those are examples of buzzword fallacies.

    Some other examples of this type propaganda would be terms; such as, pro-life and pro-choice or man made global warming and climate change. Or deliberately switching one word with a negative connotation with a word with a positive or neutral connotation; such as, extermination to evacuation, or terrorist to freedom fighter, or the inverse by changing a word with a neutral connnotation to a negative connotation; such as, automatic weapon to assault rifle.

    I have not engaged in any of this type of thing. I have used the proper terms in the proper contexts. Quite frankly I don't think you even really know what the hell you're talking about.
    I'm not really interested in your lame excuses because the empirical evidence of fallacious buzzwords in your posts is there for all to see. Now it has a label, THE BUZZWORD FALLACY.

    "An insane person is someone who keeps asking the same question and expecting a different answer."

    Don't expect to get a different answer, Ferris.
    Last edited by Moot; 08-24-10 at 06:20 PM.

  2. #82
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Barbbtx View Post
    Oooh... interesting. Is there a list of guests somewhere? Obama always seems to have a few radicals or felons over when he is having a party. He seems to attract them like flies.
    **** does that...

    (sorry, resistance was futile)
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Not unless you repeatedly used "Nuremburg Laws" as a means to program people that Nuremburg laws were evil.
    Not when the topic of the conversation is someone who supports the Nuremberg Laws.

    I think everyone on this DP is more than aware of your repetitious demogogery interpretation of Sharia Law ad nauseum.
    Demogoery interpretation of Sharia Law? So there's a positive interpretation of Sharia Law? I have stated that this Imam is opposed to the Penal Code existence of Sharia Law but not the law itself, though the punishments would not be as stringent it would still involve the criminilzation of the apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, along with numerous religious and gender based discriminatory civil laws.

    It most certainly is a buzzword the way you are using it.
    How the **** is it a buzzword, the man supports Sharia law.

    I'm not really interested in your lame excuses because the empirical evidence of fallacious buzzwords in your posts is there for all to see. Now it has a label, THE BUZZWORD FALLACY.
    You don't even know what a ****ing buzzword is. Use of a buzzword is trying to associate someone with a word with a negative connotation when there is no tenable association present. Like trying to associate smoking marijuana with terrorism. Associating someone who supports Sharia law with the word Sharia is not use of a buzzword by any stretch of the imagination anymore than associating someone who supports the Nuremberg Laws with the words Nuremberg Laws.
    Last edited by Agent Ferris; 08-24-10 at 06:21 PM.

  4. #84
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    Front... Page... Mag...



    He didn't endorse it. He spoke on their constitutional rights. -1 point to front page mag



    Guess they can't prove this?

    The rest of it is speculation might I add. They weren't convicted of anything, and Obama has billions of people come to the White House, it's all politics, do you think he sits there scheming and plotting to have radical islamists come to the White House? I'm sure if he wanted to he'd do it a bit more secretively... I mean after all he is the president...

    So once again you use a non-mainstream source to paint people radical.


    Billions? I guess we can discount everything you say from this point on....
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  5. #85
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Not when the topic of the conversation is someone who supports the Nuremberg Laws.



    Demogoery interpretation of Sharia Law? So there's a positive interpretation of Sharia Law? I have stated that this Imam is opposed to the Penal Code existence of Sharia Law but not the law itself, though the punishments would not be as stringent it would still involve the criminilzation of the apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, along with numerous religious and gender based discriminatory civil laws.



    How the **** is it a buzzword, the man supports Sharia law.



    You don't even know what a ****ing buzzword is. Use of a buzzword is trying to associate someone with a word with a negative connotation when there is no tenable association present. Like trying to associate smoking marijuana with terrorism. Associating someone who supports Sharia law with the word Sharia is not use of a buzzword by any stretch of the imagination anymore than associating someone who supports the Nuremberg Laws with the words Nuremberg Laws.
    "An insane person is someone who keeps asking the same question and expecting a different answer."

    Don't expect to get a different answer, Ferris.

  6. #86
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    I just read the entire Washington Post article Agent Ferris linked to in his post #39, and I'd have to say he has taken what Imam Raul said completely out of context.

    For starters, the question was:

    How would you respond to radical Muslim clerics in northwest Pakistan -- now under Islamic law -- who are calling for expansion of Islamic law across the entire federal republic of Pakistan. Should any nation be governed by religious rules.
    He starts to address the issue this way:

    We hear a lot about "firebrand" Muslim clerics calling for the installation of Shariah law. It conjures images of women being stoned and forced into hiding behind burkas and denied educations. We think of beheadings and amputations as a form of justice. And we cringe.

    But it is important that we understand what is meant by Shariah law. Islamic law is about God's law, and it is not that far from what we read in the Declaration of Independence about "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God." The Declaration says "men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad.
    Imam Raul was providing a brief overview of how he views how Shariah Law can be applied in Pakistan in very similar ways that our laws in the U.S. provide fairness and equality to us here in the U.S. What he described isn't a strict adherence to Shariah Law, but a more toned down, modern verion of it that would apply to Pakistani citizens. He was not advocating its enactment here in the U.S., nor was he stating that same in absolutely, 100% comparable to our constitutional laws here.

    Now, if you've every studied the Bible, read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, then you know exactly what Imam Rauf is talking about. IMO based on my own studies, the Qu'ran is rooted very much in Old Testiment teachings. For example, there are rules in the Bible under the Old Testiment for carrying out punishments for things such stoning women who commit adultry or cutting off the hand of a theaf, rules that in most civilized societies today would be consider barbaric. But such things are in the Bible. We don't adhere to them in the U.S. (nor in most Christian nations for that matter) for two simple reasons:

    1) the are inhuman remedies for such punishments;

    2) modern day laws for such punishments have been found to be unjust - meaning the punishment simply does not fit the crime committed.

    We've found other just ways to deal with such things, i.e., amiable divorce (if there is truly such a thing ) and fines or short jail time which in some cases have proven to work.

    There may be some Muslims here in the U.S. who have advocated for Shariah Law to be applied here, but were this article is concerned that's not what Imam Raul was saying at all.

  7. #87
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Marilyn Monroe View Post
    How do we know when we're doing something wrong? Do we need to walk on eggshells? This is our country, our land, we have the right to be against something that is hurtful to our citizens.
    But as Star has pointed out - something that should be very obvious to anyone who thinks Shariah Law will subvert or trump our constitutional laws - ALL U.S. citizens are protected from "cruel and unusual punishment", punishments that would never be accepted even under Old Testiment standards. So, if we're not going to implement stoning, for example, from our own inherant religious teachings, how are we then to envoke Islamic laws? The two contridict each other even under one's 1st Amendment rights.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    I just read the entire Washington Post article Agent Ferris linked to in his post #39, and I'd have to say he has taken what Imam Raul said completely out of context.
    No you are a liar I have stated repeatedly that he is opposed to the penal system but promotes the law itself.

    For starters, the question was:

    He starts to address the issue this way:
    Yes he doesn't say that secularism is the answer he says that reforms on the penal code are the answer and that what Muslims want (are we not to include him with those Muslims?) is for secular laws not to contradict the Koran or the Hadiths.

    Imam Raul was providing a brief overview of how he views how Shariah Law can be applied in Pakistan in very similar ways that our laws in the U.S. provide fairness and equality to us here in the U.S. What he described isn't a strict adherence to Shariah Law, but a more toned down, modern verion of it that would apply to Pakistani citizens. He was not advocating its enactment here in the U.S., nor was he stating that same in absolutely, 100% comparable to our constitutional laws here.
    He stated that he does not want secular laws to contradict the Koran or the Hadiths his problem is not with Sharia Law itself it is with the penal code as I have stated many times this means that while the sentences would still be less strict it would still involve the criminilzation of homosexuality, adultery, premarital sex, apostasy, and would also include civil laws which discriminate based on religion and gender, don't tell me this man does not support Sharia law, this man is head of the Sharia Index Project, he unequivocably supports Sharia Law.

    Now, if you've every studied the Bible, read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, then you know exactly what Imam Rauf is talking about. IMO based on my own studies, the Qu'ran is rooted very much in Old Testiment teachings. For example, there are rules in the Bible under the Old Testiment for carrying out punishments for things such stoning women who commit adultry or cutting off the hand of a theaf, rules that in most civilized societies today would be consider barbaric. But such things are in the Bible. We don't adhere to them in the U.S. (nor in most Christian nations for that matter) for two simple reasons:

    1) the are inhuman remedies for such punishments;

    2) modern day laws for such punishments have been found to be unjust - meaning the punishment simply does not fit the crime committed.

    We've found other just ways to deal with such things, i.e., amiable divorce (if there is truly such a thing ) and fines or short jail time which in some cases have proven to work.

    There may be some Muslims here in the U.S. who have advocated for Shariah Law to be applied here, but were this article is concerned that's not what Imam Raul was saying at all.
    He said that he doesn't want secular laws to contradict the Koran or the Hadiths, his answer to Sharia law isn't secularism its laxation of the penal code. He is an Islamist in the strictest sense of the word.

  9. #89
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,763

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    C'mon, Ferris.

    First off, you've take the man's words here completely out of context and applied your own interpretation of how he stated Pakistanies might apply Sharia Law in their country. Furthermore, you've erroneously applied how such a legal system under Sharia Law might be applied here in the U.S. I got news for you...AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! Why?

    1st Amendment will never be trumped by the 8th Amendment!

    Therefore, the fears you and others who believe this absurdity and continue to spread it can stop! It's foolishness!!!

    Now, as to those aspects under Islam you've pointed out that apparently are in conflict w/Sharia Law, ALL of those issues (except apostasy) are also sins in Christianity. Our very legal system is rooted in Old Testiment laws. I don't think anyone who has read the Bible and has also studied law in this country can deny that. I stop short of saying our faith dictates our morality because then we get back into the debate, towit: "Is America a Christian country?," all over again, and I don't wish to hijack this thread. But I think most who have read the Bible would agree with me here. In that sense, why should Muslim countries think any less in the application of their moral laws based in large part on their religious tennants than we do of how our own laws were derived from our Christian tennants? I mean, clearly we've done the same thing here only we're more..."civilized" about it. And have not our laws been "modified" over time...scaled back or re-enforced to some degree over time as immoralities in society have dictated? Why should such it be any different for Muslim countries? For as we have seen in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and to a degree even in Pakistan not all aspects of Sharia Law are heavily enforced to the fullest extent. Ask a Turkish woman when was the last time a Muslim woman was stoned for committing adultry? Physical abuse may still take place among married Muslim women in Turkey, but I don't know of any report in recent years if not my lifetime where a Turkish Muslim woman was stoned to death. Don't think it has happened in a long time. (I may be wrong, but I doubt it.) Why? Probably because they've modernized Sharia Law to such a degree that most of the 15th century Old Testiment aspects of the Mosaic law (laws originally outlined in the days of Moses and rekindled after Muhammad as Sharia Law) have been removed which was the exact same argument another prominate American Muslim in Congress said last year during a Congressional hearing concerning Sharia Law and the U.S. Constitution:

    A similar reaction took place in a recent US Congressional hearing on the dangers posed by political Islam. Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, one of the most prominent Muslim reformers in the United States, testified, “I think if Muslims want credibility and we want to be respected equally, we need to stand for reform within our faith of [Sharia] laws that are still in the 15th and 16th Century.” He explained that the jihadists will not be defeated until Muslims start to recognize that their ideology is on a slippery slope toward radicalism.
    The above quote was taken from a website I recently came across (a blog really) called "Islam in Action" that does a very good comparison between our constitutional laws and Sharia law. It's quite interesting. Still, I want to be absolutely clear on this:

    I AM NOT ADVOCATING ACCEPTING SHARIA LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

    I AM saying, however, that in other Middle-Eastern countries unless they adopt to the changing world around them, other non-Muslim countries will continue to see them as backwards and dangerous.

    Oh, and by the way, according to the historical information contained on this website, Sharia Law isn't rooted in the teachings of the Qu'ron. It comes from the Hadith w/varied fringe elements of other belief systems including Biblical asepcts from Old Testment law:

    A year before his death and before the Koran was compiled, Prophet Muhammad made his last pilgrimage from Medina to Mecca. There He made a great sermon to his people. The sermon breathed a spirit of generosity. The Muslims created a society more free from widespread cruelty and social oppression than any society had ever been in the world before.

    But that was then - the prophetic Islam. Today, Islam encompasses numerous fragments, interpretations and the dreadful echoes of Sharia Laws. The Sharia Laws are much heavier on one side. It is the side that is not the Koran but the Hadith. It might surprize the readers that "stoning to death" cannot be traced anywhere in the Koran, but it is profusely enshrined

    in the pages of the Hadith. Obviously the Hadith narrators borrowed it from a famous story in the Christian Bible - the New Testament, and passed it in the name of Prophet Muhammad.

    The story (John: 8) tells us that some Jewish crowd brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. They made her stand before Jesus, and then said to him: "Now, master, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. According to the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women to death. Now, what do you say about it?' After they persisted in their questioning, Jesus finally straightened up and said simply, "Let the one among you who has never sinned throw the first stone at her."

    The Hadith literature is imposingly believed to be the words of Prophet Muhammad, transmitted through his companions. A number of these sayings, purportedly made in the name of the Prophet, can actually be traced to Zoroastrian culture, the Christian Bible and even the laws and rituals of the Byzantine.
    I'd suggest you give both linked sites a read if for no other reason than to broaden your knowledge and tolerance of the belief systems of others. You don't have to agree with it, but in America you'll certainly have to deal with it, and violence isn't the answer. Otherwise, we're no better off than those who commit the stonings or use commercial planes to destroy buildings. Hate is hate no matter how large or small the scale or reason attributed to it.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 09-01-10 at 12:53 PM.

  10. #90
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Last Seen
    05-13-11 @ 09:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,075
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Rush, Beck & Obama Muslim Poll

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant Noodle View Post
    Tell me you know 100% that he is NOT a muslim. Anyone that believes he is really has been brainwashed.
    Anyone can believe anything of any other person, to suggest that a person must have been brainwashed simply because their own personal beliefs is aginst what you personally believe is, to put it simply asinine.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •