Pennsylvania: Muslim leaders threaten Muslim business owners with boycott if they don't stop selling alcohol, tobacco and pork

The son of Oliver Stone is an idiot

Islam is a one-way street

4:89 "(apostates) slay them wherever ye find them"

http://newstime.co.nz/anderson-cooper-media-snake.html

TJFJ:

"Rise of the Third Reich, Redux!!!! muslim thug sharia protecton racket scam.... Odd, just reminded me of bho regime practices increasing, creeping towards dictatorship..."
____________

Yes. And this from the article:

"“We have a right to request that you stop contributing to the death of your community,” Keith Muhammad said. 'We are asking as a community for you to stop. That should be respected. Certainly, out of the law of Islam, you should be moved.'"
________

No. We don't have a "right" to request anything in this world. We either request it or not. This is typical Mohammedist word-mongering.

And, "contributing to the death of your community"?

This presupposes that there are no Infidels patronizing the Mohammedist-owned stores. What if there are? If there are, I would be, in fact, in favor of patronizzing those stores even further than I may already have. I wouldn't boycott the Muslim stores - that plays, conversely, into the hands of the Supremacists. They seek to limit my Kuffar access to booze and cancerettes.

What's next? Limit my access to Playboy Magazine?
________________________________________________

Further...

'We are asking as a community for you to stop. That should be respected.'"

Again, just plain-old Supremacism 'mongst his Mohammedist bretheren, or by mis-application, the Kuffar patron of whatever damned store the Kuffar pleases to patronize in Pennsylvania, USA! ..."asking....SHOULD be respected...".
______________

Ack! Sharia-pushers are worse than the drug dealers!

Cole wrote:

They are acting as an Islamic police force.
..........................

That's *exactly* what they are doing, Cole.

Shari'ah states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia have the feared religious police, who target everything from people eating during Ramadan to "blasphemy" to "improper" mixing of the sexes to "mal-veiling".

Muslims are commanded to "enjoin the right and forbid the wrong"—which means to force *everyone else* to follow Shari'ah norms—both their Infidels and their own coreligionists.

Wellington, you've laid a finger on two of the biggest swindles ever to fall on a vulnerable community: government dependence and Islam. Indeed, I think that Islam, in which the world as originally created, is a playground rather than a garden or workshop (cf. the mandates of Genesis, in which man iss to subdue the earth, till and keep the ground, and name the animals), exacerbates the swindler/looter/mark mentality. While someone like Keith Muhammad will note that drug dealing is death for the community, he pushes something that is deathly in quite another way.

Where I teach, I also note there's a whole bunch of young neo-Muslims who are so rye-chee-uss that they won't be seen without a kufi on, but who wear their pants way down as if they think they need to be some older/stronger male's catamite, are covered with tattoos, and flout authority wherever they can. The largely African-American law enforcement circles in the community cannot seem to speak of such people without a barely disguised note of sarcasm.

And, I think, what Keith Muhammad said about not contributing to the death of our community ought to be heeded by those of us who value the Western tradition, whether we're old, native stock or newcomer: let's not contribute to the death of our community by encocuraging the growth of a worldview which is highly covetous, lustful, and destructive by pretending that it is somehow "enriching" or "liberating" or conducive to "dignity".

If all muslims thought alike, there would not be any need for muslims enforcing Shariah on other muslims.

So muslims do not think alike

"Peter" wrote:

If all muslims thought alike, there would not be any need for muslims enforcing Shariah on other muslims.

So muslims do not think alike
..................................

I see "Peter" is back with his same old crap.

There have *always* been people who have been lax in the practice of their beliefs—whatever their beliefs may be.

This is *not* the same as a genuine pluralism of beliefs about what Islam teaches.

There are Muslims who drink, go to strip clubs, and sneak food during Ramadan. And there has always been its equivalent.

And yet, this has *never* led to a "moderate" Islam—nor is it likely to.

Instead, it just leads to periodic crackdowns—often violent crackdowns—on lax Muslims by their more vicious coreligionists.

Have you even met a Muslim before?

In your utter, crass stupidity that knows no bounds, you wrote: So not all muslims think alike

The whole point of Sharia is to force everyone to think alike, Muslim or not. That's Islam. That's the ideology. 'Purity' achieved through force, rather than through persuasion, is fundamentally wrong.

As always, you focus on the Muslim and not the bizarre ideology of Islam. Why? Because you can not defend Islam, so you create smoke screens. But no one is fooled, you clown!

SM

I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that 'Peter' **is** a Muslim, here throwing sand.

Exactly!

Excellent analysis, DDA. Add into that analysis the brown shirts and nazis, beginning in '33, *musling-muscling* in to German society's general acceptance of harassment of the Jews, shop owners, Kristallnacht, and the criminal and ugly, unprecedented rest of violations of Jews, and other nazi gang declared *unfits-infidels* etc. The only difference, is now it is openly everyone else than muslims, including some muslims as well, not just the Jews and so called other *deemed unfits*, which they simply sterilized, in Germany, if one was relatively *lucky*.

It is increasinly healthy to see clear evidence in people from all walks of life, "getting it", that islam is no religion, but a masquerade of one, and is a mere gang, albeit the worst, most dangerous, in history, and is subject to RICO and all anti gang criminal hate crime laws.

In fact, I just heard a brand new speech, by Santorum, and is is crystal clear now, that he gets it, that islam is not a theology! Right now, I'm praying that he becomes our next POTUS, after our current potus. I have a hope, that more and more, albeit precious few yet, of our potential political leaders are beginning to "get it". Moreover, these people know the gang is out to get America, and the West, to conquer us all, and have so long, including 14 centuries, and the gang leaders, have declared that intent, and repeated it, time and again, officially!!!!

Hopefully, the unthinkable vacinating dose of the Holocaust, is still strong enough to activate intelligent, thoughtful, capable peoples minds, to wholly reject a sham non-theology, gang, and prosecute them fully, as hate crime, and all else, of their criminal acts.

I guess you can't see the irony of protesting Islam's lack of personal freedoms by endorsing a candidate who believes it's a moral good that women bear their rapists' babies. Because after all Santorum thinks that an incarcerated father is better than a gay father.

"The son of Oliver Stone is an idiot"

The stone doesn't fall far from the tree.

"It is another story in regard to the brothels because fornication is considered the cardinal point of sin in the Christian tradition."

I don't know about that "the".

"Why is it so difficult for religious people, even Christians who should know that their belief cannot be made into a social norm, to leave other people alone with their "vices"? "

Every society enforces virtues and punishes vices. Secular societies, and secularism, didn't just fall from the blue sky; they organically developed in the modern West, evolving out of the complex and protracted process of the reconfiguration (or, from the other angle, dissolution) of Christendom. In this process, the cultivation of virtue and punishment of vice woven into the fabric of laws in Western secular societies retain a certain amount of substance inherited from the West's Judaeo-Christian heritage. The issue and problem is not so much the fact of that inheritance, but certain aspects of practical application, whereby sectarian doctrines and/or overt expressions of theology within its complex diversity become perceived to be promoted by our secular laws, thereby crossing the line of respecting individual freedoms in a diverse society where multitudes of individuals disagree about what is the True Meaning of Life and many for understandable reasons don't want somebody else's version of the True Meaning of Life forced upon them (and certainly don't want the State to facilitate this imposition).

I.e., as practically applied, in sociopolitics (which perforce includes laws), secularism is not enforced atheism, but a kind of neutral agnosticism that cannot avoid containing and dispensing a blandly atomized quasi-Deism (insofar as the substance of laws, morality, necessarily contains residues of religious heritage). Attempts to push the logical envelope of secularism in the direction of enforcing atheism sociopolitically have, from the French Revolution forward, resulted in disastrous consequences, including mass oppression and murders.

The virtue of respecting individual freedoms cuts both ways. Under secularism, religious people are given the freedom to push their agenda and promote a "virtuous society" as they understand it, as long as they do so legally and don't use violence. Since Muslims cross the line in that regard, and pursue the de-secularization project seditiously, they should be prosecuted for this qua Muslims (defined, obviously, as a supporter of said seditious agenda). Some Christians may pursue their de-secularizations project in an annoying manner; but last I heard, being annoying isn't by itself against the law in the West.

(See Secularism: The Neutral Umbrella for more thoughts on this.)

LemonLime,

Great reply to Ole Hartling; your entire comment was spot on, and here you wrote:

"Attempts to push the logical envelope of secularism in the direction of enforcing atheism sociopolitically have, from the French Revolution forward, resulted in disastrous consequences, including mass oppression and murders."

Also, statistically atheists remain in the minority. I once read a Gallup poll done in 2010 for the United States which puts them at around 5%, which is very low. And even if that poll isn't accurate, and the number is perhaps higher, then they would still be in the minority by a large margin. I mention this statistic to demonstrate how futile it is for atheists--in particular--to fight against all faiths. Picking our battles wisely is key, and especially in knowing and picking the REAL enemy: islam & company.

Thanks champ,

Exactly right. That's interesting about the minority percentage of atheists in the West today. I'd wager that atheists would, when they perceive it to be to their advantage, want to embrace all the agnostics and people who are still searching (or "between" faiths), as part of their demographic. It cuts both ways. The considerable demographic of people who don't firmly identify themselves as religious (but who also would not call themselves "atheist") are in transition -- i.e., they are living human beings who may change their heart and mind as they go along living their lives and continuing to search and question, and such a process may result either in their embrace of Christianity, or of deciding to "be an atheist" (or other options from the Cafeteria of Meanings of Life).

The main thing for society in this life, I think, is for no single belief system being allowed to force their belief system on others. If there existed only two belief systems out there, it might be another matter; but the fact of the matter is that there is a multitude of different belief systems, and even among those belief systems, you have subsets who bicker with each other about what the Truth is. In such a situation we all live in, of multiplicity of Truths Claimed (which is a distinct issue from whether there is, in fact, only one Truth), the wisest and most humane way of organizing society is for laws to be as neutral as possible and to allow as much freedom for all the different belief systems and their believers to promote their beliefs, without infringing on other people's rights who disagree.

Some atheists need to get it through their head that they are perfectly free to roll up their shirtsleeves and get into the public arena and promote their worldview until they're blue in the face; but what they are not free to do is force others to be atheist. Ironically, and hypocritically, they (cf. supra) accuse Christians of that kind of attitude they themselves have.

progressive muslims are already coming up with a new Koran called " the reformist Koran " :

https://www.irshadmanji.com/reformist-quran

Regrettably, no candidate is without warts, and one must prioritize. Ultimately, I want the one who will win, above all else, bar none. But he must be a real honest qualified, unquestioned American, who was raised in America, and have leadership abilities that are consistent with American Freedom and the Constitution. He must recognize enemies when he sees them and be able to have enough experience and age, that he may be wise in decisions about the enemy. And he better be an intelligent Patriot. And it would be nice if he could learn what he doesn't yet know. Sometimes people get a better choice, sometimes not.

I do not protest, nor do I merely concern myself with removing individual rights by islam. I do not even consider it an irony. It is a tragedy, that we face the most insidious challenge in our history. It was bad enough to face islam at our founding, in Tripoli. And that mankind has had to face this evil for 14 centuries, since the evil Bedouin declared eternal war on mankind, by his little growing gang of criminal butchers. Many civilizations have faced the same challenge, that we face now.

Freedom must be worked on wisely, and held very dear, at all times and in all ways. There are many who, with intent or short sightedness, would take any or all freedom away. We are facing that in spades now, with the current regime, in so many ways, little and large.

Losing all freedoms is an absolute uppermost matter to be guarded against, not just a few freedoms, or a freedom, which must all likewise be guarded against the loss of. But priorities, priorities, all is greater than some, is greater than a few, or one.

I have not forgotten, ever for a moment, seeing awfully frequently, in the past (that was not all so nice, actually), the articles, or hearing the radio news, of the women who died in back ally and botched abortions, for all kinds of reasons. Or those who became sterile. Nor of those fortunate few who had funds and could go elsewhere to get an abortion, safely. All that is seared into my memory, and the difference, the benefits, that occurred when a woman could finally get full professional care. Abortions, most often not desirable, but done nevertheless, one way or the other. Always available somewhere, no matter the irresponsible behavior of the society in America, to suppress too much the individual freedom of choice. Booze was another example. Black markets and their evils are born, when society is too stringent, and shortsighted!

But always, eventually, everything, not just individual rights are destroyed by the gang of islam, everything, the soul, the conscience, all goodness, everything. The blackest darkness of the ages descends upon the most Islamic nations. Islam demonstrates that it kills baby, hours, weeks, months, and years old, and kills mothers with babies still unborn, to kill the mother and baby, or just to kill the baby. And muslims kill them, by hand, by bullets, knives, garots, again and again, by women, and by men, both commit the atrocities, time and time again, no, not as exceptions, nor always commanded, but committed by ultimate denigration, degradation, and corruption of the minds!

Islam is fully corrupted like nothing else from its original imagination-inception of 632CE, and it corrupts everything, because it is based on pure evil lies, a pure satanic belief masquerade. Islam is a gang running a giant butcher shop, of humans and animals. It is a giant torture shop of horrors. It is the living nightmare of hell on earth. There are many in islam who commit suicide, who see no way out of their living hell. See the self-immolators here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/02/afghan-bride-burns-herself-in-protest-of-domestic-violence.html They would be happy to only miss only one freedom, not all, don’t you think?

And yet, so many have not read the giant book of repeated horrors of the medina final ko-ran, those infamous verses of the sword, In their natural language. And sometimes, when they do, they can’t believe it is real what they behold. On occasion, they don’t believe even the backup of the hadiths. Try this for example: http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/enlightening-my-father-about-the-real-islam-and-the-fatal-consequence/ .

Worry not, abortion will not long be taken away, if unwisely at all, but if Freedom is lost in this American last bastion, which we still have the privilege to enjoy and to be guardian, no one will be left to come to our aid, as did Sobieski, and Martel, to the Western Civilization, of our forefathers. We are the last bastion of Freedom, above all else, that’s just the way it is working out, and it is a privileged position of supreme responsibility! True Americans, don’t blow it, or allow it to be blown! Learn about the the American Constitution, take the free course at Hillsdale College, online tomorrow. Go to http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/ Learn why, and what to defend in our Constitution, you know, the one that the Ruth Ginsberg, didn’t seem to understand? It may not be everything, but Hillsdale has a historic place, and can teach some of the considerations of our history, at the least. The most amazing intellects, and total heroes, who pledged all and sometimes lost all, in America’s history, founded our Constitution, for all time. It must be relearned with every new generation, learn now or refresh your learning.

Peter,

"progressive muslims are already coming up with a new Koran called " the reformist Koran ""
https://www.irshadmanji.com/PDFS/ReformistTranslation.pdf

That's old news. A Reformist Translation of the Quran by Yuksel et al. is a profoundly intellectually dishonest production. It's not so much a translation as it is an creative attempt to patch over a lot of the Quran's embarrassing spots to bring it in line with modern western sensibilities for public relations purposes. It's a show to put on for non-Muslims. Yet even at this it fails, due to the inconsistent, spotty nature of the "reform" of the translation. In fact, many of the harshest and most objectionable verses and policies are still retained. For examples:

24:2 "The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall lash each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let any pity take you over God's system if you acknowledge God and the Last Day. Let a group of the acknowledgers witness their punishment."

So, yes, it still says whip those guilty of zina with 100 stripes. (For zina they've chosen to use adultery instead of fornication, the latter being the traditional understanding based on Hadith, which Yuksel et al. reject in order to replace the punishment of stoning with 100 lashes. That's their idea of reform!).

Also note that word "acknowledgers." It seems Yuksel et al. imagine that by referring to believers as those who acknowledge (i.e., Allah, Muhammad, etc.), and disbelievers as those who don't acknowledge, that somehow this is an improvement. I don't think so.

Same problem, different words:
18:104 "Those whose efforts in the worldly life were wasted while they thought they were doing good!
18:105 These are the ones who rejected the signs of their Lord and His meeting. So their works were in vain, and We will not give them any value on the day of Resurrection.
18:106 That is their recompense, hell; for what they rejected and for taking My signs and My messengers for mockery!
18:107 Those who acknowledge and do good works, they will have gardens of paradise as a dwelling place."

And this:
88:23 "Except for he who turns away and
rejects.
88:24 Then God will punish him with the great
retribution."

And this:
48:13 "Anyone who does not acknowledge God
and His messenger, then We have
prepared for the ingrates a hellfire."

Looks like Yuksel et al. have a ways to go. I thought they might have given up on their desire to fry and torture the disbelievers--excuse them the non-acknowledgers! Irshad Manji who endorsed this book also supports the hell-fire punishment for disbelievers, last time I checked.

I don't see any improvements here:

5:32 "It is because of this that We have
decreed for the Children of Israel,
"Anyone who kills a person who has not
committed murder, or who has not
committed mischief in the land; then it is
as if he has killed all the people!
Whoever spares a life, then it is as if he
has given life to all the people." Our
messengers had come to them with
clarification, but many of them are, after
this, still transgressing on the earth.
Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword
5:33 The recompense of those who fight God
and His messenger and seek to corrupt
the land, is that they will be killed or
crucified or that their hands and feet be
cut off on alternate sides or that they be
banished from the land. That is a
disgrace for them in this world. In the
Hereafter, they will have a great
retribution;*"

Same old same old:

9:29 "Fight those who do not acknowledge God nor the Last day among the people who received the book; they do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden, and they do not uphold the system of truth; until they pay the reparation, in humility.
9:30 The Jews said, "Ezra is God's son," and the Nazarenes said, "The Messiah is God's son." Such is their utterances with their mouths; they imitate the sayings of those who rejected before them. God's curse be on them. How deviated are they!4"

What a patronizing reply, but I guess that's what to be expected from the type of man who would vote for Santorum - don't worry your pretty little heads, ladies, read up on this menace, it's far more important than you and any concerns for your civil rights and bodily integrity at this moment in history. It sounds so much like the apologists that insist that women have more rights under Islam, because a partial inheritance is more important than actual autonomy. Santorum is exactly what his google name implies, a slimy, ugly mess produced by his rank hypocrisy and bigotry. He believes that all Americans should obey the tenets of his faith - and extreme ones that that - it makes him no different than anyone who seeks to impose sharia law.

Kinana of Khaybar wrote:

Peter,

"progressive muslims are already coming up with a new Koran called " the reformist Koran ""
https://www.irshadmanji.com/PDFS/ReformistTranslation.pdf

That's old news. A Reformist Translation of the Quran by Yuksel et al. is a profoundly intellectually dishonest production....
.................................

I was getting ready to to reply to "Peter" when I decided to read the rest of the comments first.

Your counter is excellent, Kinana—and better than anything I could have written.

And they still couldn't really whitewash the ugly Sura of the Sword, Qur'an 9.5:

So when the restricted months have
passed, then you may kill those who
have set up partners wherever you find
them, take them, surround them, and
stand against them at every point. If they
repent, hold the contact prayer, and
contribute towards betterment, then you
shall leave them alone. God is
Forgiving, Compassionate
....................................

Even in this bland phrasing, this is still pretty nasty stuff...

Sorry to appear patronizing, not intended, MJ. My interests are inclusive of yours, but not paramount, to me. Please do not read that wrong. Individual issues, are always important, but not all are paramount, always, above the whole, and may need to be put at temporary risk, sometimes. See my earlier remarks, the paragraph of the deaths when it was illegal. I did not say all. But I implied, with the word "sear"

For me, the imperative is to rid the current potus. Nothing is ideal, and I'll vote for whomever appears correct for the overall benefit of the nation first, foremost, whomever that turns out to ultimately be. And Santorum has desirable qualities. One must look beyond the warts in each of them. So do others have desirable qualities, including some not yet in the running, if need be, by brokering a convention. Individual issues are important, but the nation's total interest in economic and security well being and Freedom, is imperative!

No single issue is more important at this election. All are important, but the whole is everything. And there are three more or less, good candidates, so far. More can be learned, that is important, by reading a good column this week, here:

http://www.peggynoonan.com/article.php?article=611

"In fact, I just heard a brand new speech, by Santorum, and is is crystal clear now, that he gets it, that islam is not a theology! Right now, I'm praying that he becomes our next POTUS, after our current potus."

Yes, Santorum certainly gets my vote! ...and I've been praying for the same thing, too.

What would you consider reform in islam ?

Peter,

Any significant changes would constitute reform, though I believe it would be best for Muslims to leave Islam. That said, many Muslims don't want to leave Islam. For those, I would accept for practical purposes the following reforms, to be hopefully accepted on a much wider scale than is currently the case:

Freedom to criticize Islam, the Quran, Muhammad, etc., with impunity.

Freedom to publicly leave Islam, with impunity.

Freedom to attempt to persuade Muslims to leave Islam, just as Muslims are free to persuade others to join Islam, with impunity.

Freedom to modify the religion, with impunity.

Abolish marriage rules that allow polygyny but not polyandry.

Abolish marriage to child brides. Set age limits consistent with those of international (especially western) standards for marriage and sexual intercourse.

Abolish any lenient punishments for so-called honour killers.

Abolish punishments for premarital sex.

Abolish any special restrictions (such as those remnants of the dhimma) on the practices of non-Muslim religious and non-religious traditions.

Abolish penalties for imaginary crimes like sorcery or witchcraft.

In general:
Equal rights and responsibilities for all people, regardless of whether they are male or female, Muslim or non-Muslim, gay, lesbian, or straight.

Secularism: Maintain a separation of religion and state, keep religion out of politics and law.

There are in addition numerous specific recommendations for an improved edition of the Quran which I would add. For example, the verses of warfare, verses of harsh corporal punishment, verses condoning slavery, etc., should simply be excised, as should all verses threatening hell-fire or doom for those who merely disbelieve, and a new Quran written based on what remains. Of course, changing the Quran is not a hard requirement on my part. I would be satisfied if Muslims simply didn't apply the harsh rulings and inequalities I mentioned above.

Of course, I do realize that many Muslims today are already peaceful and do not endorse the harsh and unfair elements, and do endorse the freedoms, that I mentioned above. They are like moderate western Christians, with whom I as a non-believer have no significant quarrel. I'm not asking these already truly moderate secular Muslims to reform their version Islam; I'd like to see them more widely accepted by other more traditional mainstream Muslims so as to facilitate reform of the mainstream versions.

But as I said, as a non-Muslim, I can't honestly recommend reform as the first option. I recommend that they leave Islam and adopt something else. If Muslims start leaving Islam in large numbers, this may provoke reforms in a positive direction (i.e., closer to, say, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights) for the Islam that remains.

you want muslims to leave islam and follow another religion ?