CNN features Muslim comedian who equates Santorum with Taliban

yes. it is exactly the opposite of judaism where if the mom is a jew then the child is a jew. muslims, if you are born from a muslim father you are automatically a muslim.
M

yes. I was just going to say this and you beat me to it. he also wants to ban anal sex. this guy is out of his mind to say the least, that said this comedian is like the rest of the muslims as soon as muslims murder innocent people they go right back to bible as bible was/is also violent. they vever take responsibility for thie own behavior.
M

Penn doesn't exactly equate Muslims with Christians, but he doesn't go after them either:

Jihadwatch Link

From the above link:

Are there any groups you won’t go after?

We haven’t tackled Scientology because Showtime doesn’t want us to. Maybe they have deals with individual Scientologists —- I’m not sure. And we haven’t tackled Islam because we have families.

Meaning, you won’t attack Islam because you’re afraid it’ll attack back …

Right, and I think the worst thing you can say about a group in a free society is that you’re afraid to talk about it—I can’t think of anything more horrific. [...]

You do go after Christians, though …

Teller and I have been brutal to Christians, and their response shows that they’re good fucking Americans who believe in freedom of speech. We attack them all the time, and we still get letters that say, “We appreciate your passion. Sincerely yours, in Christ.” Christians come to our show at the Rio and give us Bibles all the time. They’re incredibly kind to us. Sure, there are a couple of them who live in garages, give themselves titles and send out death threats to me and Bill Maher and Trey Parker. But the vast majority are polite, open-minded people, and I respect them for that.'

sorru cuda, but i dont get/understand your response to me. can you please clarify a bit?
M

santorum is out is a good thing. this guy is so far off it is not even funny. he wants to get in people's bed room to see if people are watching porn or rngaging in anal sex. do we want this guy to be runnung the country? it is the same as obam shoving down contracetion down on the throat of parctising catholics.
M

miriam rove claimed about Santorum that "he also wants to ban anal sex."

Got a link?

CGW,

Thanks for posting that link. I recommend readers go through Chris Logan's exchange with Dean Obeidallah. Logan pointed out the problems with the phrases "hostile to Islam" and "oppress Muslims," from the apologist source (on Quran 9:29) which Dean was foolish enough to cite (see link below)
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/quran_929_commentary

From Dean's source [my emphases] re 9:29:

EXCERPTS:

"[...] We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)

Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:

Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?
Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people."

END OF EXCERPTS

In other words, Dean Obeidallah has, either wittingly or unwittingly, approved a document that permits Muslims to carry out lethal violence and warfare to "defend" the religion of Islam. This goes far beyond merely defending Muslims from military attacks. It permits violent military action against those who are merely "hostile" toward the Islamic religion, or against those who impede the spread of the full practice of Islam (which includes the full implementation of sharia). Stopping Muslims from setting up any aspect of the full sharia is considered "oppression" of Muslims and warrants a military jihad response. Being "hostile" toward the religion of Islam is considered an "offense" warranting a violent military response.

As for the peace treaties and dhimma, etc., these would require the non-Muslims never to criticize Islam or Muhammad, and to conform to other aspects of sharia. If the non-Muslim in such a pact violated it, such as by criticizing Muhammad, the non-Muslim would be killed according to sharia.

Also, if a non-Muslim leader refused the invitation to either embrace Islam or accept the terms of the dhimma (including payment of jizya), this would be grounds for Muslims to wage jihad warfare against the entire non-Muslim people of that leader.

Incredibly, Dean's cited piece goes even further in explaining the rationale for waging war against unbelievers and apostates [my emphases]:

EXCERPTS:

"[...] Bukhari: God’s Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)
With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:
And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah."

This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today’s governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the ‘people’ referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:
“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)
Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur’an explicitly states:
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion…
Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear."

END OF EXCERPTS

Yes, sure, not imposing Islam on non-Muslims, but merely killing them or waging war on them if they don't comply with the letter and spirit of sharia law.

And citing Ibn Taymiyyah, among others (al Mawardi, et al.)? Looks like Dean has some explaining to do; I hope someone in a position to ask him some questions will ask him why he is endorsing classical military jihad and sharia policies.

Miriam - You stated that "this comedian is like the rest of the muslims as soon as muslims murder innocent people they go right back to bible as bible was/is also violent. they vever take responsibility for thie own behavior."

I was just trying to clarify that while Penn doesn't antagonize Muslims the way he does Christians because of a sense of fear (which is cowardly) he does not equate Christians as being as violent, or as disrespectful or as kind as Christians are. He does imply that Christians are more or less better people than Muslims based on the reactions of both groups.

I had assumed, by comedian, you meant Penn, while you may have meant Dean. My apologies for assuming.

it is all good.
M