California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews[W:118]

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

That still doesn't support your claim. Man, you are really flailing about here spastically.

Sure it does, but you were prepared to dismiss anything I said from the start, because that's your nature.

Saudi Arabia endorses beating women for any reason, public executions, and the spread of radical Wahhabi Salafist Islam. They should be barred from having any influence in the United States.

Newp. I'm not OK with any terrorism.

Why do you support violent jihadi extremists?

Oh is this where you claim that any critique of Islam will drive Muslims over the edge into fits of murder? You might want to reevaluate your beliefs about this issue if you think Muslims are going to murder people because of some comments on an internet political forum.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Sure it does, but you were prepared to dismiss anything I said from the start, because that's your nature.

Newp. I only dismiss claims that haven't been supported. Like yours. It's what you do. Make a claim, run away.

Saudi Arabia endorses beating women for any reason, public executions, and the spread of radical Wahhabi Salafist Islam. They should be barred from having any influence in the United States.

Irrelevant to your claim about 'many' CA mosques.

Oh is this where you claim that any critique of Islam will drive Muslims over the edge into fits of murder? You might want to reevaluate your beliefs about this issue if you think Muslims are going to murder people because of some comments on an internet political forum.

And now you're just brayiing.

I accept your admission that you cannot support your claim.

Nice!

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Newp. I only dismiss claims that haven't been supported. Like yours. It's what you do. Make a claim, run away.

Irrelevant to your claim about 'many' CA mosques.

And now you're just brayiing.

I accept your admission that you cannot support your claim.

Nice!

Back up your claim that I 'support jihadi extremism'. You're one of the biggest bull**** artists on this site.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Back up your claim that I 'support jihadi extremism'. You're one of the biggest bull**** artists on this site.

Sorry you forced to run from your claim about 'many' CA mosques, but it's sort of funny to watch you sputter and wheeze trying to distract from that fact.

Why do you have intellectual honesty and rationality?

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Sorry you forced to run from your claim about 'many' CA mosques, but it's sort of funny to watch you sputter and wheeze trying to distract from that fact.

Why do you have intellectual honesty and rationality?

Because I'm truthstallcost, not Tanngrisnir.

Back up your claim or back out.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Because I'm truthstallcost, not Tanngrisnir.

Back up your claim or back out.

I accept your admission that you lied about 'many CA mosques and your surrender.

Well done!

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

I accept your admission that you lied about 'many CA mosques and your surrender.

Well done!

You fail so hard.

I've proven my claim- the biggest promoter of terrorism is who's behind most mosques in America.

Now prove your claim hypocrite.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

You fail so hard.

I've proven my claim- the biggest promoter of terrorism is who's behind most mosques in America.

Now prove your claim hypocrite.

No, you simply babbled it out and have run from it ever since.

I hereby accept your 2nd surrender.

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

No, you simply babbled it out and have run from it ever since.

I hereby accept your 2nd surrender.

Hahaha, I've explained this probably a dozen times already to you on this thread. You're simply never able to admit when you're wrong.

So we've established that

-a state sponsor of terror is behind most American mosques
- you're comfortable with that fact because you luvvv freeedumb
- you have cowardly run from your claim since I called you out

We're pretty well done here. Later.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Hahaha, I've explained this probably a dozen times already to you on this thread. You're simply never able to admit when you're wrong.

So we've established that

-a state sponsor of terror is behind most American mosques
- you're comfortable with that fact because you luvvv freeedumb
- you have cowardly run from your claim since I called you out

We're pretty well done here. Later.

And there it is: I accept your 3rd surrender and admission that you lied.

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

And there it is: I accept your 3rd surrender and admission that you lied.

Go away.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Go away.

And there it is: I accept your 4th surrender.

You're really good at that!

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

And there it is: I accept your 4th surrender.

You're really good at that!

Welcome to the Go Away feature. You can keep failing here without my help. I'm not going to babysit trolls.

 

[VanceMack]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

"I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. ... Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism."

Richard Dawkins

The weird left's need to defend a foundation and people that are overtly opposed to every tenet and value liberals espouse is seen as an illness. Leftists are so invested in their hatred of the right that they will take an opposition position on anything...regardless of how inane and personally destructive it is.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Welcome to the Go Away feature. You can keep failing here without my help. I'm not going to babysit trolls.

Look, I understand that you're hyper-sensitive about getting called out on your bull**** and having to run away from it. You have every right to be.

Oh, and did I mention that I accept your 5th surrender?

 

[truthatallcost]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

"I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. ... Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism."

Richard Dawkins

The weird left's need to defend a foundation and people that are overtly opposed to every tenet and value liberals espouse is seen as an illness. Leftists are so invested in their hatred of the right that they will take an opposition position on anything...regardless of how inane and personally destructive it is.

Well said Vance. It's refreshing to read some intelligent comments on this thread.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Again, wrong.

In accordance with California laws he can be charged with making criminal threats, with inciting a riot and with committing a hate crime.

In order for criminal threats to apply the guy has to actually make threats with the believable intent to carry them out himself, in order for such a law to hold is if there was an imminent threat of harm. And its been how long since he made this speech/prayer with nothing happening? Sorry, this law isn't going to apply.

In order for inciting a riot to apply then a riot must happen.

And hate crimes only apply to actual assault. Speech alone, without any assault, is not enough. In point of fact it is only speech DURING or JUST BEFORE an assault that determines whether a hate crime has been committed or not.

As for the video, while disgusting he did not call for anyone to actually attack Jews during that prayer. He called upon Allah to destroy the Jews (completely contradicting what he said during the speech btw). He also said, during the speech, that Muslims were the ones that were going to do the fighting against the Jews just before the apocalypse, or "Judgement Day". Last I looked no apocalypse is happening nor are we even close to one. Nothing in it is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

I understand why you and others are upset about what he said. But fact of the matter is that nothing he said was against any law.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Moderator's Warning:

Both of you need to quite the sniping at each other right now because if you, or anyone else, continues then consequences will be dished out. Stick to the topic and nothing BUT the topic. Go away. And there it is: I accept your 4th surrender. You're really good at that!

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

In order for criminal threats to apply the guy has to actually make threats with the believable intent to carry them out himself, in order for such a law to hold is if there was an imminent threat of harm. And its been how long since he made this speech/prayer with nothing happening? Sorry, this law isn't going to apply.

In order for inciting a riot to apply then a riot must happen.

And hate crimes only apply to actual assault. Speech alone, without any assault, is not enough. In point of fact it is only speech DURING or JUST BEFORE an assault that determines whether a hate crime has been committed or not.

As for the video, while disgusting he did not call for anyone to actually attack Jews during that prayer. He called upon Allah to destroy the Jews (completely contradicting what he said during the speech btw). He also said, during the speech, that Muslims were the ones that were going to do the fighting against the Jews just before the apocalypse, or "Judgement Day". Last I looked no apocalypse is happening nor are we even close to one. Nothing in it is not covered by the 1st Amendment.

I understand why you and others are upset about what he said. But fact of the matter is that nothing he said was against any law.

Let's start with the fact that he called on a Muslim crowd, as an Imam and from that position of influence, to commit violence against Jews.
He said all Muslims must kill Jews (he's a Muslim too so that's self-including) so to bring the apocalypse/DoJ/whatever. Let's call it "to please Allah" or "the usual".
He didn't simply call on his God to do so, he called on Muslims to do so themselves. He called on one group of human beings to kill another based on religion.
You don't need to wait and see if the day of judgement does come after someone murders Jews for this to be a threat.

Now that we've made it clear, a criminal threat is threatening to harm someone.
He did threaten, verbally, to harm Jews. He's a Muslim and he called on Muslims to murder Jews. That's a clear threat.
A hate crime is doing the above because of the victim's identity. That too has happened in this case.

"In order for inciting a riot to apply then a riot must happen" - Not really, not according to the law in California. That's just wrong.
He incites a riot by speaking to a Muslim crowd and calling for violence to happen.
There's even a high level of threat in doing so that would convince any judge to convict him because he's speaking to a religious crowd telling them that this is what God requires of them and as we know there are more than enough examples in our world that show this is dangerous and that Muslims can act based on that incitement.

All three are crimes, even if he can be charged with just one (and I insist he can be charged with all three) then that's still illegal.
Everyone can be wrong from time to time Kal, no shame in admitting that, it's not like you want it to be legal or anything I'm sure.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Let's start with the fact that he called on a Muslim crowd, as an Imam and from that position of influence, to commit violence against Jews.
He said all Muslims must kill Jews (he's a Muslim too so that's self-including) so to bring the apocalypse/DoJ/whatever. Let's call it "to please Allah" or "the usual".
He didn't simply call on his God to do so, he called on Muslims to do so themselves. He called on one group of human beings to kill another based on religion.
You don't need to wait and see if the day of judgement does come after someone murders Jews for this to be a threat.

Now that we've made it clear, a criminal threat is threatening to harm someone.
He did threaten, verbally, to harm Jews. He's a Muslim and he called on Muslims to murder Jews. That's a clear threat.
A hate crime is doing the above because of the victim's identity. That too has happened in this case.

"In order for inciting a riot to apply then a riot must happen" - Not really, not according to the law in California. That's just wrong.
He incites a riot by speaking to a Muslim crowd and calling for violence to happen.
There's even a high level of threat in doing so that would convince any judge to convict him because he's speaking to a religious crowd telling them that this is what God requires of them and as we know there are more than enough examples in our world that show this is dangerous and that Muslims can act based on that incitement.

All three are crimes, even if he can be charged with just one (and I insist he can be charged with all three) then that's still illegal.
Everyone can be wrong from time to time Kal, no shame in admitting that, it's not like you want it to be legal or anything I'm sure.

Are you ready to admit that you're wrong? If so here's the full sermon and prayer. Along with an explanation of what the guy was talking about.



From their website:

MEMRI’s video included an edited segment about a Prophetic tradition dealing with the apocalyptic battle between Jesus and the Antichrist. Prophetic traditions addressing the end of times are not meant to address modern conflicts, the Imam was using the tradition to address unity and coming back to the faith.

Islamic Center of Davis

Context matters.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Are you ready to admit that you're wrong? If so here's the full sermon and prayer. Along with an explanation of what the guy was talking about.



From their website:



Islamic Center of Davis

Context matters.

Context matters as do facts.
The fact that he has made the calling for Jews to be killed as part of a 'prophetic tradition' doesn't change a thing regarding what the law says and what he can be charged with.
It's just a pathetic excuse from the center as one would expect from a place that is granting a stage to radical Islam.
If your argument now is that he didn't even say the things that he is being saying in the video then you're evidently wrong.
If your argument now is that he was misunderstood and didn't mean what he was saying then you're evidently wrong as well.

You've made no further arguments explaining why you claim that such behavior which is in violation of several California state laws is actually legal.
I take it that you weren't able to contradict what I was saying regarding the laws on criminal threats, hate crime and inciting a riot, and you admit to being wrong.
Good.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Context matters as do facts.
The fact that he has made the calling for Jews to be killed as part of a 'prophetic tradition' doesn't change a thing regarding what the law says and what he can be charged with.
It's just a pathetic excuse from the center as one would expect from a place that is granting a stage to radical Islam.
If your argument now is that he didn't even say the things that he is being saying in the video then you're evidently wrong.
If your argument now is that he was misunderstood and didn't mean what he was saying then you're evidently wrong as well.

You've made no further arguments explaining why you claim that such behavior which is in violation of several California state laws is actually legal.
I take it that you weren't able to contradict what I was saying regarding the laws on criminal threats, hate crime and inciting a riot, and you admit to being wrong.
Good.

Considering that the video is an hour long and you replied in less than that you obviously did not watch the video I gave. Context matters for laws. And it does not matter what California law is. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are both Constitutional Rights which no State law can supersede. Since the content of the video which contains the full sermon explains what was being talked about contextually the 1st Amendment applies and no state law can change that.

Re: Criminal Threat. According to SCOTUS in Watts v. United States people actually do have a Right to threaten people. So long as they do not intend to actually carry out the threat. IE: Only True Threats are considered outside the purview of the 1st Amendment. As such California's criminal threats law may only apply to threats which can be proven to have had intent to carry out. Also look to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. in which SCOTUS agreed that while what was said at the time may have been considered as calling for unlawful actions or at the least could induce fear the fact that nothing actually happened means that the 1st Amendment applied and as such no crime happened.

Something you should read: Threats of Violence Against Individuals

Re: Hate Crime: Again, hate crime ONLY applies to assaults. It does not apply to words only. Such would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. If you think that California's laws on hate crime applies to words only then please cite the law and section of the law that you think supports this notion.

Re: Inciting a riot. Again, only applies when a riot happens. If you think California law applies then please cite the law and section of the law that you think supports the notion that words without a riot can actually be used as someone breaking the law on incitement to riot.

I have given links and information which you can look up in order to support my argument. Please do me the courtesy of providing links and/or information which I can look up to support yours.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Considering that the video is an hour long and you replied in less than that you obviously did not watch the video I gave. Context matters for laws. And it does not matter what California law is. Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech are both Constitutional Rights which no State law can supersede. Since the content of the video which contains the full sermon explains what was being talked about contextually the 1st Amendment applies and no state law can change that.

Re: Criminal Threat. According to SCOTUS in Watts v. United States people actually do have a Right to threaten people. So long as they do not intend to actually carry out the threat. IE: Only True Threats are considered outside the purview of the 1st Amendment. As such California's criminal threats law may only apply to threats which can be proven to have had intent to carry out. Also look to NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. in which SCOTUS agreed that while what was said at the time may have been considered as calling for unlawful actions or at the least could induce fear the fact that nothing actually happened means that the 1st Amendment applied and as such no crime happened.

Something you should read: Threats of Violence Against Individuals

Re: Hate Crime: Again, hate crime ONLY applies to assaults. It does not apply to words only. Such would be a violation of the 1st Amendment. If you think that California's laws on hate crime applies to words only then please cite the law and section of the law that you think supports this notion.

Re: Inciting a riot. Again, only applies when a riot happens. If you think California law applies then please cite the law and section of the law that you think supports the notion that words without a riot can actually be used as someone breaking the law on incitement to riot.

I have given links and information which you can look up in order to support my argument. Please do me the courtesy of providing links and/or information which I can look up to support yours.

I haven't watched the video as did you. Neither of us have an hour to spend on such nonsense.
However since you decided to use the extended video as a supporting argument you are thus required to show what grants a new prespective on the issue from the eyes of the law in that video.
You simply insisted that it does give a new prespective without referring to anything in it.
In addition to that you have quoted the reply of the center, that this is merely part of a "prophetic tradition". Which, as I said, doesn't change anything.

Regarding criminal threat:

California laws on "Criminal Threats" | Penal Code 422 PC

Criminal threats is the crime of putting someone in fear.

California Penal Code 422 PC defines the crime of "criminal threats" (formerly known as terrorist threats).

A "criminal threat" is when you threaten to kill or physically harm someone and

1. that person is thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family,
2. the threat is specific and unequivocal and
3. you communicate the threat verbally, in writing, or via an electronically transmitted device.1

Criminal threats can be charged whether or not you have the ability to carry out the threat...and even if you don't actually intend to execute the threat.2

Did he say Muslims need to kill Jews? He did. Is he a Muslim? He is. ("Muslims need to fight the Jews to bring the day of judgement", "Please Allah let it be by our hands".)
Is there a reason to fear for the targeted public? There is, as radical Islam does target Jews for murder, and this is a radical Muslim.

Point made.

Regarding hate crime:

California "Hate Crime" Laws | Penal Code 422.55 422.6 422.7 422.75 PC

Example:

A woman threatens violence against her neighbors, a homosexual male couple. The woman may be charged under California's criminal
threats law . . . and she may face several additional years in prison if the prosecutor can prove that she made the threats because of the couple's sexual orientation.

Point made. Please admit that you can be charged with a hate crime even if you don't engage in actual violence. (or any other form of assault)

Regarding inciting a riot:

Inciting a Riot | California Penal Code 404.6 PC

To commit this crime, the defendant himself does not actually need to engage in rioting or violence. Urging others to do so is sufficient. Nor is it necessary that the "incitement" actually cause these other people to riot, commit violence or burn or destroy. All that's necessary is that the accused was trying to instigate these things.

Point made. Please admit that in order to be charged with inciting a riot there is no actual need for a riot to take place.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

I haven't watched the video as did you. Neither of us have an hour to spend on such nonsense.
However since you decided to use the extended video as a supporting argument you are thus required to show what grants a new prespective on the issue from the eyes of the law in that video.
You simply insisted that it does give a new prespective without referring to anything in it.
In addition to that you have quoted the reply of the center, that this is merely part of a "prophetic tradition". Which, as I said, doesn't change anything.

Do not attempt to tell me what I have or have not done. And no, I'm not required to show what grants a new perspective. The video alone does that if you watch it. I do not have to quote from it. That is simply laziness on your part considering you have spent an hour here at DP you have had ample time to watch the video.

Regarding criminal threat:

California laws on "Criminal Threats" | Penal Code 422 PC



Did he say Muslims need to kill Jews? He did. Is he a Muslim? He is. ("Muslims need to fight the Jews to bring the day of judgement", "Please Allah let it be by our hands".)
Is there a reason to fear for the targeted public? There is, as radical Islam does target Jews for murder, and this is a radical Muslim.

Point made.

I have already shown there are SCOTUS cases which over rule this law. Also just because there are radical Islamists in the world does not mean that this person, or Center of Davis are radical Islamists.

Regarding hate crime:

California "Hate Crime" Laws | Penal Code 422.55 422.6 422.7 422.75 PC



Point made. Please admit that you can be charged with a hate crime even if you don't engage in actual violence. (or any other form of assault)

The example that you give via your link is wrong as I have shown in the link that I gave you. Watts v United States and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. show this to be a fact. SCOTUS over rules state laws. The rest of the examples that your link gives for this are correct as they have to do with assault and interference in voting process. I will admit that a hate crime can include things other than assault. I will amend what I said as I had forgotten some things which the examples reminded me of. A person can only be charged with a hate crime if another crime was committed. The hate crime law is essentially an addendum for extra punishment based on someone committing a crime due to hatred of a protected class. Since no crime has happened, a hate crime charge can not be brought forth.

Regarding inciting a riot:

Inciting a Riot | California Penal Code 404.6 PC



Point made. Please admit that in order to be charged with inciting a riot there is no actual need for a riot to take place.

From your link:

However, it's only incitement to riot if a person acts where there is a "clear and present and immediate danger" of these acts of rioting, violence or burning actually happening. Examples would include:

Each of the examples given shows that it is happening at an event where a riot is likely to occur and in a public space. Doubt very seriously that a church filled with only Muslims on private property would be considered under this law.

Even then I have doubts that this would pass a Supreme Court challenge.

 

[Apocalypse]

Re: California imam calls on Muslims to ‘annihilate’ the Jews

Do not attempt to tell me what I have or have not done. And no, I'm not required to show what grants a new perspective. The video alone does that if you watch it. I do not have to quote from it. That is simply laziness on your part considering you have spent an hour here at DP you have had ample time to watch the video.

Is this your way of escaping this discussion without admitting that you were wrong?
Posting an hour long video without referring to anything in it that supports your argument?
Hah.

Anyway, you do have to quote from it what you believe contradicts my position.
That should be obvious, what kind of nonsense is that?
Otherwise everyone can just post links to videos and articles without making any argument based on anything that is being said there.
Do you even have an argument or did you just believe that posting this long video will mean you wouldn't need one?
Wow.

I have already shown there are SCOTUS cases which over rule this law. Also just because there are radical Islamists in the world does not mean that this person, or Center of Davis are radical Islamists.

There are radical Islamists in the world and so is this person. Denying it is quite absurd as the man is calling for the murder of Jews or is that not radical enough? Absurd.
And you recognize that in accordance with California laws he can be charged with making criminal threats then? Because what you're saying about "showing determination to act in accordance with the threat" is up to the court to decide.

The example that you give via your link is wrong as I have shown in the link that I gave you. Watts v United States and NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. show this to be a fact. SCOTUS over rules state laws. The rest of the examples that your link gives for this are correct as they have to do with assault and interference in voting process. I will admit that a hate crime can include things other than assault. I will amend what I said as I had forgotten some things which the examples reminded me of. A person can only be charged with a hate crime if another crime was committed. The hate crime law is essentially an addendum for extra punishment based on someone committing a crime due to hatred of a protected class. Since no crime has happened, a hate crime charge can not be brought forth.

Oh so the source is wrong and you are right? That I've yet to hear.
You're actually questioning the credibility of a law group on the issue of laws. Good for you.
Send them a mail and correct them would you?

From your link:

Each of the examples given shows that it is happening at an event where a riot is likely to occur and in a public space. Doubt very seriously that a church filled with only Muslims on private property would be considered under this law.

Even then I have doubts that this would pass a Supreme Court challenge.

No offense but I don't care much about your doubts, I care only about facts.
It says there plainly that you are wrong about a riot needing to happen, if you admit to being wrong or not is up to you but I think we can end the discussion here.