Is Islam protected by the Constitution?

[zyzygy]

It isn't Islamophobia if muslims are really out to kill you. I have quoted loads of proof from Islam's books of hate. Those quotes from these Islamo-books were referring to killing all--not some--but all non-muslims. But all you do is deny the quotes and move on to this ridiculous Islamophobia card. So you are basically a troll and are not participating in the topic in a reasonable matter whatsoever. But who ever said the left had reason, right? You radical liberals live by one iron rule: Logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.

I am not American, I am not a liberal or left wing. No Muslim has ever tried to kill me. How many times have Muslims tried to kill you? I have quoted the hate in the bible but you ignore that and you ignore the right wing Christian violence in your country.

 

[Ploughboy]

I am not American, I am not a liberal or left wing. No Muslim has ever tried to kill me. How many times have Muslims tried to kill you? I have quoted the hate in the bible but you ignore that and you ignore the right wing Christian violence in your country.

You merely misquoted the Bible. But I am not misquoting the Qur'an or Sunnah. You have ignored what I posted from the Ash Shifa. So here it is again. Its all about killing unbelievers.

Ash Shifa (Aisha Bewley translation):

Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 1, p.376

"Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.
Ibn ' Attab said that the Book of Sunna require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed."

Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 2, p.376

SECTION 2
The Proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him

"The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed."

Section 2, continued..p.378

"Similarly on the Day of Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet."

Section 2, continued..pp.378-379

"Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.
It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.
Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.
Al-Mujahir ibn Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of Ridda chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man has an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he has shed her blood with impunity."

Part Four, Chapter 1, Section 5, p.387,

"Muhammad ibn Sahnun said, "Anyone who doubts a single letter which Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought, is a denying unbeliever."
He said that the judgement against anyone who rejects the Prophet is that he is killed.
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun's companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.
Abu 'Uthman al-Haddad said something similar and said that if someone said the Prophet died before his beard began to grow or that he was in Tahart (Morocco) and not Tihama, he is killed because this constitutes denial.
Habib ibn ar-Rabi said that it is disbelief to alter his description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. The one who conceals it is a heretic and is killed without being asked to repent."

https://kitaabun.com/shopping3/produ...oducts_id=2417

https://www.meccabooks.com/829-ash-s...908892270.html

https://www.kitabcrate.com/products/...hifa-qadi-iyad

https://www.slideshare.net/AhmadAbdl...hifabyqadiiyad

Muhammad (pbuh)- Ash-Shifa | amsons.co.uk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jejLu1_Y54w

 

[zyzygy]

You merely misquoted the Bible. But I am not misquoting the Qur'an or Sunnah. You have ignored what I posted from the Ash Shifa. So here it is again. Its all about killing unbelievers.

Ash Shifa (Aisha Bewley translation):

Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 1, p.376

"Habib ibn Rabi' al-Qarawi said that the school of Malik and his companions is that anyone who says anything disparaging about the Prophet is killed without being asked to repent.
Ibn ' Attab said that the Book of Sunna require that someone who intends to even slightly harm or disparage the Prophet, either by allusion or clear statement, must be killed."

Part 4, Chapter 1, Section 2, p.376

SECTION 2
The Proof of the necessity of killing anyone who curses the Prophet or finds fault with him

"The Qur'an says that Allah curses the one who harms the Prophet in this world and He connected harm of Himself to harm of the Prophet. There is no dispute that anyone who curses Allah is killed and that his curse demands that he be categorized as an unbeliever. The judgement of the unbeliever is that he is killed."

Section 2, continued..p.378

"Similarly on the Day of Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet."

Section 2, continued..pp.378-379

"Abdu'r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Az-Zubayr said, "I will." He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.
It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, "Who will save me from my enemy?" Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.
It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent 'Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.
Ibn Qani' related that a man came to the Prophet and said, "Messenger of Allah, I heard my father say something ugly about you, so I killed him," and that did not distress the Prophet.
Al-Mujahir ibn Umayya, the Amir of Yemen, reported to Abu Bakr that a woman there in the time of Ridda chanted curses against the Prophet, so he cut off her hand and pulled out her front teeth. When Abu Bakr heard that, he said to him, "If you had not done what you already did, I would have commanded you to kill her because the hadd regarding the Prophet is not like the hadd regarding others."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, "Who will deal with her for me?" A man from her people said, "I will, Messenger of Allah." The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet, "Two goats will not lock horns over her."
Ibn 'Abbas said that a blind man has an umm walad who used to curse the Prophet. He scolded her and restrained her, but she would not be restrained. That night she began to attack and revile the Prophet, so he killed her. He told the Prophet about that and he said he has shed her blood with impunity."

Part Four, Chapter 1, Section 5, p.387,

"Muhammad ibn Sahnun said, "Anyone who doubts a single letter which Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, brought, is a denying unbeliever."
He said that the judgement against anyone who rejects the Prophet is that he is killed.
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, Sahnun's companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black.
Abu 'Uthman al-Haddad said something similar and said that if someone said the Prophet died before his beard began to grow or that he was in Tahart (Morocco) and not Tihama, he is killed because this constitutes denial.
Habib ibn ar-Rabi said that it is disbelief to alter his description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. The one who conceals it is a heretic and is killed without being asked to repent."

https://kitaabun.com/shopping3/produ...oducts_id=2417

https://www.meccabooks.com/829-ash-s...908892270.html

https://www.kitabcrate.com/products/...hifa-qadi-iyad

https://www.slideshare.net/AhmadAbdl...hifabyqadiiyad

Muhammad (pbuh)- Ash-Shifa | amsons.co.uk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jejLu1_Y54w

The vast majority of Muslims ignore those parts of the Koran. How many Muslims have tried to kill you?

 

[stevecanuck]

Err...everything.

News flash: If they were really here to kill us all (*gasp!*, *scream!*), there'd be a lot more of us dead. Stop this nonsense, you're making Christians look ridiculous.

I think it's possible to back up to a point of agreement, and from there to proceed to areas of disagreement. The point that should put us all on the same page to begin with occurred in about 629 when "God" instructed Muslims via verse 9:29 to fight infidels until Islam reigns supreme. That verse exists, and its meaning is not in dispute.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Can I get an amen so far?

 

[stevecanuck]

The vast majority of Muslims ignore those parts of the Koran. How many Muslims have tried to kill you?

Even if only 10% of Muslims want to see jihad pick up where it left off, that's still 150,000,000 people who would strive to see it happen. And please don't try to imply that those who have physically picked up arms and waged jihad are the only Muslims who support it. 19th century American author Henry Brooks Adams said, "He too serves a certain purpose who only stands and cheers", and we both know there's a hell of a lot of cheering going on whether you'll ever admit it or not.

 

[zyzygy]

Even if only 10% of Muslims want to see jihad pick up where it left off, that's still 150,000,000 people who would strive to see it happen. And please don't try to imply that those who have physically picked up arms and waged jihad are the only Muslims who support it. 19th century American author Henry Brooks Adams said, "He too serves a certain purpose who only stands and cheers", and we both know there's a hell of a lot of cheering going on whether you'll ever admit it or not.

Not where I live.

 

[OlNate]

I think it's possible to back up to a point of agreement, and from there to proceed to areas of disagreement. The point that should put us all on the same page to begin with occurred in about 629 when "God" instructed Muslims via verse 9:29 to fight infidels until Islam reigns supreme. That verse exists, and its meaning is not in dispute.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

Can I get an amen so far?

No, man...sorry, you can't. In Canada, Islam is the second biggest religion, with over a million people who observe it - and that statistic is from 2011, it was the most recent one I could find. What I'm seeing doesn't line up with the text you are quoting. I don't dispute that it's in there...I just don't think it's anything to lose sleep over. My reason for that lies in the absence of Muslims fighting infidels until Islam reigns supreme in Canada... :shrug:

Our book says a lot of crazy **** too, man. I know that's been said so many times that it seems like cliché, but it's no less true. But that's not important, the important part is are modern day Christians acting on that crazy ****. Is that happening everywhere, or in isolated pockets or regions? Is there anything in particular driving these isolated pockets or regions to act a certain way? I look around me, and I don't see anything to be afraid of.

I'm not sure if I answered your question the way you'd like, but I find it difficult to find common ground discussing any modern demographic through their ancient texts. It's only ever part of the picture.

Out of curiosity, what part of Canada are you from?

 

[zyzygy]

Even if only 10% of Muslims want to see jihad pick up where it left off, that's still 150,000,000 people who would strive to see it happen. And please don't try to imply that those who have physically picked up arms and waged jihad are the only Muslims who support it. 19th century American author Henry Brooks Adams said, "He too serves a certain purpose who only stands and cheers", and we both know there's a hell of a lot of cheering going on whether you'll ever admit it or not.

That's a big if.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Islam is unique in terms of advocating violence to further the cause. The bible starts as a ****-show in the OT, whereas the NT takes a completely different tone. The mythical character known as Jesus was all about love and forgiveness. How Christianity turned so horrible for about 1500 years is mind bending. Jesus neither did nor said anything to justify the atrocities carried out in his name. Islam's history is the polar opposite. During Mohamed's first 12 years in Mecca, he didn't do or say anything that would justify jihad and/or terrorism. However, after the Meccans rejected his message in no uncertain terms, which caused him to relocated to Medina, everything changed. He immediately started a war with Mecca, and the message of the Qur'an began to take on an intolerant an militaristic tone. After he defeated the Meccans at the Battle of the Trench in 628, he immediately committed genocide against the Jewish Banu Quraiza tribe. He had about 600 men and boys beheaded and took the women and children as slaves. The largely Jewish city that he came to in 622 was completely Muslim by 628. He then "received" the first 29 verses of sura 9 which completed the shaping of Islam into an offensive and colonizing force. By 632 the Muslims left Arabia and began their campaign to conquer the known world, and all in accordance to the words and deeds of Mohamed. This is all easily verified. Any similarity between Christianity and Islam ended at that point.

I don't debate any of that, as it's (at least mostly, so far as I can tell) accurate history.

Where we are now with Christianity in the USA is a different place altogether. Many have abandoned the core of Christ's teaching and are instead using a combination of things from the OT and the apocalyptic stuff in the Book of Revelation to create an imminent End of Days story. This stuff can easily be found by putting a phase like "rapture ready" in a search engine. We have one, maybe 2 of these people on our supreme court, the Vice President is one of them, and the current administration is stuffing the courts with like-minded people. Their immediate goal seems to be ending all access to abortion and making gays disappear, but their are other elements to this Dominionist philosophy that when taken together render an end game not unlike an Islamic Caliphate. They literally want to control business, education, the government and the military. My perspective is admittedly USA centric, because that's what impacts my life most directly. I will note that they are not currently using much in the way of terrorism, except against abortion providers.

 

[Tennyson]

The vast majority of Muslims ignore those parts of the Koran. How many Muslims have tried to kill you?

How many Nazis and Japanese tried to kill American citizens in the continental USA circa 1945? How many Muslims killed 3,000 plus Americans on 9/11 vis-a-vis the total Muslim population?

 

[Lursa]

It was far enough back that I don't remember the exact title, but I think it was one of the threads about the Confederacy.

Thanks

 

[ElChupacabra]

It isn't Islamophobia if muslims are really out to kill you. I have quoted loads of proof from Islam's books of hate. Those quotes from these Islamo-books were referring to killing all--not some--but all non-muslims. But all you do is deny the quotes and move on to this ridiculous Islamophobia card. So you are basically a troll and are not participating in the topic in a reasonable matter whatsoever. But who ever said the left had reason, right? You radical liberals live by one iron rule: Logic is the enemy and truth is a menace.

So how do you explain the millions of law abiding Muslims in this country? You focus on quoting the Koran yet ignore the evidence right in front of you. It's interesting you mention "logic" but stick to a narrow logic that assumes all Muslims will follow the Koran as fundamentalists despite that not being the case. Islam like other religions, will have people who reconcile the tenets of the faith to their society and to themselves. Fundamentalists however are a problem because they are seeking what you're describing. The question is do you radicalize more people by treating them under a flawed assumption they are all of one mind and intent, or work with those who are compliant with this countries laws so they continue assimilating. Also, you describe others not having "reason" yet your criterion is that people either accept your premise without challenge despite it being myopic.

 

[zyzygy]

How many Nazis and Japanese tried to kill American citizens in the continental USA circa 1945? How many Muslims killed 3,000 plus Americans on 9/11 vis-a-vis the total Muslim population?

Your point being.....?

 

[zyzygy]

So how do you explain the millions of law abiding Muslims in this country? You focus on quoting the Koran yet ignore the evidence right in front of you. It's interesting you mention "logic" but stick to a narrow logic that assumes all Muslims will follow the Koran as fundamentalists despite that not being the case. Islam like other religions, will have people who reconcile the tenets of the faith to their society and to themselves. Fundamentalists however are a problem because they are seeking what you're describing. The question is do you radicalize more people by treating them under a flawed assumption they are all of one mind and intent, or work with those who are compliant with this countries laws so they continue assimilating. Also, you describe others not having "reason" yet your criterion is that people either accept your premise without challenge despite it being myopic.

If I was him I would be more concerned about mass shootings in his country. They really do kill people. I judge how dangerous a thing is by how many people it kills.

 

[Tennyson]

Your point being.....?

My point is self evident.

 

[Tennyson]

If I was him I would be more concerned about mass shootings in his country. They really do kill people. I judge how dangerous a thing is by how many people it kills.

How many people are murdered via mass shootings vis-a-vis murdered by hammers?

 

[zyzygy]

How many people are murdered via mass shootings vis-a-vis murdered by hammers?

Hammers wielded by rabid Muslim serial killers?

 

[zyzygy]

So how do you explain the millions of law abiding Muslims in this country? You focus on quoting the Koran yet ignore the evidence right in front of you. It's interesting you mention "logic" but stick to a narrow logic that assumes all Muslims will follow the Koran as fundamentalists despite that not being the case. Islam like other religions, will have people who reconcile the tenets of the faith to their society and to themselves. Fundamentalists however are a problem because they are seeking what you're describing. The question is do you radicalize more people by treating them under a flawed assumption they are all of one mind and intent, or work with those who are compliant with this countries laws so they continue assimilating. Also, you describe others not having "reason" yet your criterion is that people either accept your premise without challenge despite it being myopic.

The vast majority of Muslims ignore parts of the Koran but his Islamophobia prevents him for seeing that. All Muslims are evil killers in his book.

 

[Tennyson]

Hammers wielded by rabid Muslim serial killers?

That is not an answer. There are many more people murdered hammers than from mass murders. Where is your outrage regarding hammers--especially assault hammers?

 

[zyzygy]

That is not an answer. There are many more people murdered hammers than from mass murders. Where is your outrage regarding hammers--especially assault hammers?

I collect them.

 

[Nickyjo]

The theories of Montesquieu, Locke, et al. were put into practice with the Constitution.

No religion is protected by any amendment. A protection is a libertarian concept with a right being phrased a a "right to." Neither the Constitution or the first ten amendments are libertarian documents.

Still don't get it. The constitution seems to define those rights by implication, perhaps negatively, but they have passed into common usage. "I have a right to speak my mind, have a trial by jury, to practice my faith" are all part of our common understanding of our rights. Why else have we called the big ten the Bill of Rights? Semantics.

 

[Tennyson]

Still don't get it. The constitution seems to define those rights by implication, perhaps negatively, but they have passed into common usage. "I have a right to speak my mind, have a trial by jury, to practice my faith" are all part of our common understanding of our rights. Why else have we called the big ten the Bill of Rights? Semantics.

The term "Bill of Rights" is a twentieth century creation to expand the federal government's power. What you cannot do is provide any founding document regarding the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights.

There is no language in the First Amendment that uses the phrase "right to."

There is no implication of defining "rights to" in the first ten amendments.

 

[zyzygy]

The term "Bill of Rights" is a twentieth century creation to expand the federal government's power. What you cannot do is provide any founding document regarding the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights.

There is no language in the First Amendment that uses the phrase "right to."

There is no implication of defining "rights to" in the first ten amendments.

I don't have an axe to grind here but is this information false?



The U.S. Bill of Rights
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

 

[Nickyjo]

The theories of Montesquieu, Locke, et al. were put into practice with the Constitution.

No religion is protected by any amendment. A protection is a libertarian concept with a right being phrased a a "right to." Neither the Constitution or the first ten amendments are libertarian documents.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Sounds like protection for every religion to me. And what scripture or law demands that the phrase "a right to" be used to define a right. They are called the Bill of Rights for a reason. We all have seemed to get this, even judges charged with handling these things.

 

[Howard the Duck]

The term "Bill of Rights" is a twentieth century creation to expand the federal government's power. What you cannot do is provide any founding document regarding the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights.

There is no language in the First Amendment that uses the phrase "right to."

There is no implication of defining "rights to" in the first ten amendments.

Good times. Give me your freaking guns.

Thanks.

The Duck.