"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring – I was very, very offended by that," said Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team.

Who would have thunk it?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at August 14, 2008 11:29 AM

"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring – I was very, very offended by that," said Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team."

You might also want to feel some love. The link below is full of the love and care of these "group of people".

http://thereligionofpeace.com

The history of the love and care of these people.

http://historyofjihad.org

Posted by: arjun.sevak at August 14, 2008 11:41 AM

I've looked across the interfaith bridge. I see a tank coming! The religious leaders in this area wouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.

I don't think Paul Ruff has anything to worry about. He has just said what a lot of his constituents have been thinking.

American often recognize having your cake and eating it too!

Posted by: credit man at August 14, 2008 11:41 AM

If the email had stated it was OK to kill Apostates and Infidels it would have been a Free Speech issue.

Posted by: AllahSnackbar at August 14, 2008 11:42 AM

Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution provides:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."

What can be more clear but that sharia law is contrary to a republican form of government?

The Congress is empowered to prevent sharia as much as it would be empowered to prevent a monarchy.

While there is still a strong residue of constitutionalism in our society I would urge people to use this important safeguard which our forefathers gave us against threats to republicanism (with a small "R" of course).

See an interesting discussion and footnotes on this obscure provision here at Findlaw (and yes, I am a lawyer):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article04/18.html#2

Posted by: Nick at August 14, 2008 11:43 AM

UPDATE:

Frankfort Township Assessor Paul Ruff issued an apology today: "I made a significant error in my statement in a recent email, for which I would like to apologize to those who were offended. What I meant to say was, 'anyone who wants to live under Shariah law should leave the United States'".

Of course, I made that up, but that' what I would like to see.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 14, 2008 11:44 AM

We need to go together forward, not by spreading hate, but by understanding and building bridges," added Khalid Mozaffer of the American Islamic Association.

How about you take that message with you on your next Hajj?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at August 14, 2008 11:48 AM

The Truth hurts....

Posted by: tanstaafl at August 14, 2008 11:49 AM

Religious leaders say the sentiment presented in the e-mail demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding.
LOL! A dangerous lack of understanding of Sharia Law and pure ignorance displayed by the Religious leaders. If only the new the real truth.

Posted by: SonofIsaac at August 14, 2008 11:53 AM

I just sent a supportive e-mail to Paul Ruff. Let folks who take a stand know that you support them and that they should not apologize.

I sent him my "Citizen's Plea Re Islam" and the "Four Stages of Islamic Conquest" (modified from KP). A short 2 pages of rational thought on Islam for broad consumption.

Use our democratic process. WE are constituents, too. Speak up!

Robert - you are a national treasure.

Posted by: Civilus Defendus at August 14, 2008 11:53 AM

Religious leaders say the sentiment presented in the e-mail demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding.
LOL! A dangerous lack of understanding of Sharia Law and pure ignorance displayed by the Religious leaders. If only they knew the real truth.

Posted by: SonofIsaac at August 14, 2008 11:54 AM

Islamic law is not compatible with US law. If a person wants to live under Islamic law, then they should go to an Islamic country that is ruled by sharia, i.e , leave this country , the USA, and go to the Islamic country of choice.

Therefore, what is the issue? Making a statement like that is not hate. On the other hand, wishing for islamic law to take over the USA , well that’s another matter! Let’s see an open discussion on that. I don’t believe that CAIR would not be too happy to have that openly being discussed in the public forum.

If the statement was a simple one like above, “ If a person wants to live under Islamic law, then they should go to an Islamic country that is ruled by sharia, i.e , leave this country , the USA, and go to the Islamic country of choice“, then Frankfort County appears to have a person there that sees things more clearly then most!

Posted by: balticwaves at August 14, 2008 11:58 AM

Nick, thank you for the reference. Article IV goes on to state that the US shall protect each state "against Invasion; and ... aginst domestic violence."

Now we need for states or courts to define Invasion and domestic violence in such a way as to protect rights but identify clearly nefarious or insidious actions against the US, its states or its citizens. Perhaps bring the Muslim Brotherhood statements to the public arena in court? in Congress?

Our Constitution is as stake.

Posted by: Civilus Defendus at August 14, 2008 12:08 PM

Here is the email as sent to me by dm60462:

-----------------------

America Needs a Leader Like This!
(a photo of former Australian Prime Minister John Howard follows)

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Austrailian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques.
Quote:”IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.”

“This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.”

“We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society learn the language!”

“Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is cetainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as you new home, because God is part of our culture.’

“We will accept your beliefs and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.”

“This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.’”

“If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.”

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

If you agree, please SEND THIS ON.

----------------------

Cheers

Posted by: Doctor Bulldog at August 14, 2008 12:12 PM

Using Spencer's rationale (below), which is surely correct, the common-sense conclusion is that MOST Muslims should be shipped out. Not all. Just the ones who actually believe in Moohammy's humbug.......
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Spencer: "On the one hand we are supposed to believe that every Muslim in the United States completely accepts American pluralism and Constitutional rule...
By labeling this email "hate," isn't he (Mozaffer) admitting that many, if not most, American Muslims do want Sharia here?"

Posted by: confused at August 14, 2008 12:31 PM

Looks like Ruff used es-PM Howards speech, picked this up from Weasel Zippers:

Paul Ruff's Email Nothing More Than an old Speech Given by Australia's Ex-PM John Howard......
I'm in shock, this is nothing more than a speech given by John Howard in July, 2006 telling Muslims in Australia to love it or leave it (see my prior post for more details)....

America Needs a Leader Like This!

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom."

"We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God.This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is cetainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as you new home, because God is part of our culture.'

"We will accept your beliefs and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'"

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths.

If you agree, please SEND THIS ON.

(Source)

Here are a few quotes (there are many more) describing Ruff as a fear-monger and racist who betrayed the Constitution. Over what? A story about John Howard? This is fucking insane.....

"Never in my 35 years (in this community) have we had such an opinion expressed by an elected official,"Ahmad said.

"Ruff has not only crossed us but he has betrayed the Constitution of the United States. I'm offended, and my community is offended. Maybe he needs to re-read the constitution,"said Afzal Ahmad, chairman of the board for the American Islamic Association.

"Unfortunately, the politics of fear-mongering continue to be a reality in the (United States), and the Muslims are at the losing end of this really hateful attitude," said Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations of Chicago.

If these Islamic "leaders" want to be outraged, why don't they start with the story from earlier today about a Saudi man who tortured, then burnt his daughter to death because she converted to Christianity.....

Email Paul Ruff and show him some support: assessor@frankfortassessor.com

ZIP

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at August 14, 2008 12:49 PM

"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring – I was very, very offended by that," said Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team."

Jan is a good dhimmi, and is the clueless-co-chair of the Southwestern Ignoramusfaith Team.

Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 1:11 PM

"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring – I was very, very offended by that," said Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team.

"We need to go together forward, not by spreading hate, but by understanding and building bridges," added Khalid Mozaffer of the American Islamic Association.
....................................

"Understanding", huh? I wonder how much understanding Jan Shaulis has of Shari'ah law?

Posted by: gravenimage at August 14, 2008 1:13 PM

Interesting how time and time again what seems to upset Muslims about as much as anything (and their dhimmi allies) is just telling the truth about Islam. Of course, no one would know this better than Robert Spencer. In any case, would that most every non-Muslim American fully comprehend that Sharia and the Constitution of the United States of America are absolutely incompatible.

Posted by: Wellington at August 14, 2008 1:20 PM

Would the response of the Southwest Interfaith Team have been the same had the email said "anyone who wants to live under communist rule should move to a communist country"?

It's the same old islamaphobia, muslims are victims response that we see every time a muslim or anything about islam is criticized.

Posted by: walterc at August 14, 2008 1:26 PM

"We need to go together forward, not by spreading hate, but by understanding and building bridges," added Khalid Mozaffer of the American Islamic Association.

--

Yeah, great. Let's build a bridge for sharia to roll over.

What I do understand is that sharia is incompatible with democratic rule.

Therefore understanding islam would result in building walls - not bridges.

Posted by: Ummah Gummah at August 14, 2008 1:30 PM

It might be interesting to see a state legislature file a lawsuit against the federal government, under the clause mentioned above, saying that the federal government had failed to protect the state from invasion.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 14, 2008 1:36 PM

What exactly is "The Southwestern Interfaith Team"? Probably yet another self annointed talking-shop composed of one reform rabbi, a Unitarian-Universalist seminarian and an imam from a storefront mosque. Mr. Shaulis sounds like the kind of dope who should be exposed to the fun that is sharia in northern Nigeria.

Posted by: MP at August 14, 2008 1:44 PM

"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring – I was very, very offended by that," said Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team.

Yes, Jan, very loving. Some fathers are so loving that they actually love their daughters to death. Very few Christians or Jews are capable of that. And Moslem men so love their wives that they will only beat them where the bruises won't show. What compassion! Of course, when the wives are wearing their full get-up, the eyes are about the only part of them showing.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 14, 2008 2:06 PM

http://rupeenews.com/2007/11/27/reds-have-greed-roots/

History isn't being taught, is it?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at August 14, 2008 2:10 PM

Muslims Against Sharia vigorously object to characterization of 'Muslims who want to live under Islamic law [need] to "get out of the country"' sentiment as anti-Muslim. There are many Muslims in America who left Islamic countries for a single reason: to escape the yoke of Sharia. We fully support the sentiment that if someone wants to live under Sharia, they should immediately leave the United States. On the one hand, there are plenty of countries in the world that are ruled by Sharia law; so Sharia proponents can be free to practice according to their beliefs. On the other hand, Sharia is incompatible with Democracy and installation of Sharia in the United States will result in denying freedoms for the vast majority of the population, including Muslims.

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/08/e-mail-called-on-muslims-who-want-to.html

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 14, 2008 2:13 PM

OT, but important:

People, is this "Swede" a Mohammedan?

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=reu-wrestling&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 2:14 PM

The e-mail called on Muslims who want to live under Islamic law to "get out of the country."

What's the problem? It seems perfectly reasonable. Islamic law is not our system of government. Any invasion force whose aim is to overthrow our system of government should be encouraged to leave. It's only a question of how much prodding is required for them to get the message. It's apparent that not enough "encouragement" has yet been applied.

Religious leaders say the sentiment presented in the e-mail demonstrates a dangerous lack of understanding.

"Dangerous lack of understanding" on whose part, yours? From the Islamist perspective I'm guessing the email is more likely to show a dangerous lack of misunderstanding.

"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring …

Spare me.

– I was very, very offended by that," said Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team.

The latest in a string of transmissions from the fuzzy, irrational universe of the utopian multiculti. Well, who really cares? What was John Wayne's saying again; "Life is tough; it's tougher when you're stupid?" You have no right not to be offended. Watch a news program or read a history book sometime, there are many worse things in this world than being offended. In fact, you have offended me by not telling them yourself that they should leave the country if they want to be governed by Sharia.

"We need to go together forward, not by spreading hate, but by understanding and building bridges," added Khalid Mozaffer of the American Islamic Association.

Which is exactly why we need those who want to replace our system of government with Sharia to hit the road. Sharia is systematic hate.

Grow up, quit trying to make yourself a victim, and get over it… and don't expect a unanimous welcome wagon for a oppressive colonial political ideology dressed up as a religion inside the U. S. It isn't going to happen.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at August 14, 2008 2:32 PM

Muslims Against Sharia...

I consider your group apostates, but in my book that's a good thing...When are you actually going to jump ship and abandon the sinking garbage barge of Allah? You're almost there now...Just get a little closer to the edge...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 14, 2008 2:36 PM

I don't hate people who want to impose Sharia. I just find them detestable. I also agree that they should be deported. How to deport a Sharia advocate:
1) Purchase large have-a-heart trap.
2) Bait pan with jizya coupon.
3) Check trap for success.
4) Load trap with advocate into back of hatchback, administer sedative, cover with blanket.
5) Drive to border crossing. Tell guard you're taking in dinner and a movie.
6) Take advocate to remote wooded area, upend trap. Poke advocate until he or she staggers out.
7) Drive back home.
Hey, it works with skunks!

Posted by: jewdog at August 14, 2008 2:39 PM

If this anti sharia dude is a politician, where does one send him a campaign contribution ?

Posted by: dgene at August 14, 2008 3:02 PM

Muslims Against Sharia,

though I also think the the abandonment of Islam is the ultimate logical end, as duh swami does, I just want to say I commend you and your group for making as public a stand as you are against Sharia.

Love your Dhimmi Award, BTW. So appropriate.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Posted by: Vee at August 14, 2008 3:10 PM

duh_swami...
You need to understand the difference between Islam, the religion, and Islamism, the political ideology.

dgene: "If this anti sharia dude is a politician, where does one send him a campaign contribution ?" - http://www.paulruff.org/

Vee,
Thank you for your support

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 14, 2008 3:22 PM

Here's Paul Ruff's website if you want to send him an e-mail of support:

http://www.paulruff.org/thankyouEMAIL.asp?m=

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 3:28 PM

Sorry, here it is:

http://www.paulruff.org/default.asp

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 3:29 PM

"The American Islamic Association invited pastors, rabbis and other religious leaders in its mosque in Frankfort to discuss an e-mail sent by Frankfort Township Assessor Paul Ruff".

This is really laughable. You know that they would only have such a discussion with lobotomized morons like Jan Shaulis, Christian co-chair of the Southwestern Interfaith Team who could say sappy ignorant- idiocies like

"To make these kind of comments against a group of people who are so loving, and so caring – I was very, very offended by that,".

Has this guy ever read the sharia laws? It’s blazingly obvious that anyone who really wants to live under Sharia should not live in the West, not only because Sharia is entirely incompatible here but also because such people are hopeless idiots, Stockholm-Syndrome beaten women, or psychopaths – in any case they don't belong here.

Furthermore, it is only right and proper that all rational, freedom-demanding persons should hate what is surely hateful and to even advise on why something is hateful and encourage hatred of it.

Let these sucker baiting Muslims put up or shut up by inviting a video discussion with the likes of Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, or even Bernard Lewis – not bloody likely.

Posted by: FM at August 14, 2008 3:44 PM

Muslims Against Sharia:

Your own website points out that the Koran calls for Islamic supremacy. That is Islam, not Islamism. Not enough Muslims are saying otherwise.
We aren't the ones that need to learn the difference between Islam and Islamism. Muslims are. All the imams that have been teaching Muslims to hate the other are the ones that need to be shown the error of their ways.
Islamism, the political ideology, should be banned in the United States.
Muslims came to the US to escape the yoke of Sharia, but they insist on their footbaths in the middle of an airport. They insist on the right to refuse service to people who carry alcohol. They insist on an awful lot. They want SHARIA COURTS here in the USA.
Those who came here to escape sharia are the ones who need to teach them. They won't listen to any of us.

Posted by: PMK at August 14, 2008 3:49 PM

PMK...

I still say that any Muslim who puts this up on a site,

we must acknowledge evils done by Muslims in the name of Islam and accept responsibility for those evils. We must remove evil passages from Islamic religious texts, so that future generations of Muslims will not be confused by conflicting messages.

is to be commended.

Posted by: Vee at August 14, 2008 3:57 PM

Speaking of evil, another female suicide bomber in Iraq. She killed 26 people:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 4:56 PM

PMK: "Your own website points out that the Koran calls for Islamic supremacy."

Our own website is also contends that Koran has been corrupted.

PMK: "We aren't the ones that need to learn the difference between Islam and Islamism ... Muslims came to the US to escape the yoke of Sharia, but they insist on their footbaths in the middle of an airport."

You just proved that you are the one who needs to learn that difference. Muslims who insist on footbaths came here to install Sharia, they are Islamists. Muslims who came here to escape the yoke of Sharia would argue against the footbaths. As far as your claim that you "aren't the ones that need to learn the difference between Islam and Islamism", visit this link, http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/search/label/Dhimmi%20Award, and honestly tell me that you aren't the ones.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 14, 2008 5:21 PM

>>Muslims who came here to escape the yoke of Sharia would argue against the footbaths. --posted above

Well, where are they? I haven't heard of any. Their silence sure speaks volumes, methinks.

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 5:26 PM

darcy: "Well, where are they?" - http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/, right hand side, a couple of pages down.
darcy: "I haven't heard of any. Their silence sure speaks volumes, methinks." - don't confuse 'their silence' with 'your ignorance'. And one of the reasons why you don't hear more from moderate Muslims is crap like this: "muslim dude, ... f**k allah ... f**k mohommend ... and especially f**k you ... and everybody that thinks like you."

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 14, 2008 5:59 PM

"don't confuse 'their silence' with 'your ignorance'. And one of the reasons why you don't hear more from moderate Muslims is crap like this: "muslim dude, ... f**k allah ... f**k mohommend ... and especially f**k you ... and everybody that thinks like you." --From "Muslims Against Sharia" to me.

Whoa, where'd that come from? Who are you quoting? Cite your source.

Also, don't call me ignorant, thank you.

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 6:08 PM

Vee:
Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by: PMK at August 14, 2008 6:10 PM

Muslims Against Sharia,
Where are the Muslims who came here to escape Sharia? They're not answering CAIR. They're not standing up to the taxidrivers and Dearbornistan.

If you're against sharia and what is in the Koran then what makes you a Muslim?

Posted by: PMK at August 14, 2008 6:14 PM

"I haven't heard of any. Their silence sure speaks volumes, methinks." - don't confuse 'their silence' with 'your ignorance'. And one of the reasons why you don't hear more from moderate Muslims is crap like this: "muslim dude, ... f**k allah ... f**k mohommend ... and especially f**k you ... and everybody that thinks like you."
Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia

Gee! Oh boy. You made that one up "Muslims Against Sharia", right? I took a deep look into the 'Google' crystal ball, did not come up with a single hit containing that many adjectives. You think we gonne buy all you sell, right? WRONG!

Give me break from another ...

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at August 14, 2008 6:20 PM

Paul Ruff has only one apology to make: to himself, for overestimating the intelligence and good sense of others. But how could he have known, how can anyone know, until one runs up against these moral preeners, these boys in the Interfaith-Healing Racket, who simply will not read, will not study, will not examine the texts or tenets, don't want to hear about the history of the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam, don't want to hear any of it at all. For it offends them.

Podsnaps all.

Posted by: Hugh at August 14, 2008 6:24 PM

His personal web site is http://www.paulruff.org Please send him a message of support and/or a PayPal donation through his re-election campaign website.

Posted by: dm60462 at August 14, 2008 6:26 PM

Paul Ruff for Congress!
The Republican incumbent, Jerry Weller, is not seeking re-election. The slot is open; the Republicans could do a lot worse than run Paul Ruff. And besides being right about the Moslems in America, he seems to have a good record on taxes.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 14, 2008 6:48 PM

>>Muslims who came here to escape the yoke of Sharia would argue against the footbaths. --posted above

Well, where are they? I haven't heard of any. Their silence sure speaks volumes, methinks.

Posted by: darcy

I agree with Darcy, as their silence is deafening; and secondly, I agree with MusHuntCowboy, as I have yet to find that many f-adjectives myself as they pertain to Islam. Makes me wonder what kind of blogs you visit, MAS.

Muslims should be more than against Sharia, as far as I'm concerned. Muslims ought to start by being against some of the evil things Muhammad did, and then work your way towards being against Sharia. Lets start with the basics, shall we. Try speaking out against his evil life, first.

Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 7:02 PM

Here are a couple of "F" words I overlooked:

Muhammad was a FALSE prophet.

Allah is a FALSE god.

Koran is a FALSE holy book.

Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 7:15 PM

Muslims Against Sharia: You never responded (except to insult me and claim I know almost nothing about Islam) to my query from a previous post which I will state again: What is there in Islam which is good which is not found in other religions or philosophical systems? I say there is nothing in Islam which is fine and decent and which can't be found elsewhere. I also (as I did before) maintain that there are many terrible things about Islam, from its founder, Mohammed, to its holy book, the Koran, to the Hadith, to Sharia (which you say you don't want but when I asked how much of Islam is left without Sharia {my exact words being "you'd have to gut Islam like a fish" if you take Sharia out of the damn religion} you just said I don't know Islam), to its treatment of women, to its desultory performance in the world over the last half millennium and much more. In short, why be a Muslim at all? Go ahead, enlighten me.

Posted by: Wellington at August 14, 2008 7:42 PM

Try speaking out against his evil life, first.

Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 7:02 PM

Well, that's a nice try, champ, but somehow I don't think that the "Muslims Against Sharia" are going to do that, lol! They might have some quarrels with shar'ia law, but the Prophet? I don't think so. Remember - he's *perfect* (roflao)

How 'bout it, MAS? What do you have to say about Mohamet?

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 8:22 PM

darcy: "Whoa, where'd that come from? Who are you quoting? Cite your source." - that was just of of the examples from here: http://reformislam.org/quotes.php

darcy: "Also, don't call me ignorant, thank you."

Ignorance: lack of knowledge, information. You claimed that moderate Muslims are silent on the subject. I proved you that they are not. How do you want me to call you?

PMK: "If you're against sharia and what is in the Koran then what makes you a Muslim?"

First, we are not against everything what's in the Koran. We are only against those parts that we believe did not come from God. The fact that we consider ourselves to be Muslims makes us Muslims, but if it makes you feel better, we also believe in five pillars of Islam.

MusHuntCowboy: "You made that one up "Muslims Against Sharia", right? I took a deep look into the 'Google' crystal ball, did not come up with a single hit containing that many adjectives. You think we gonne buy all you sell, right? WRONG!"

Why are some of the posters here so eager to display their ignorance? If you're so used to making things up, you shouldn't be projecting your vices onto others. http://reformislam.org/quotes.php

champ: "I agree with Darcy, as their silence is deafening" - Can you read? We posted a link to a list of Muslims who are NOT silent. If you have problems following that link, here's the list:

Prominent Moderate Muslims:
Tewfik Allal
Ali Alyami & Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
Hooman Anvari & SEMUS
Zeyno Baran
Brigitte Bardet
Dr. Suliman Bashear
British Muslims for Secular Democracy
Center for Islamic Pluralism
Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury
Center for Islamic Pluralism
Tarek Fatah
Dr. Tawfik Hamid
Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser & American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Jamal Hasan
Sheikh Muhammed Hisham
Kabbani & Islamic Supreme Council of America
Sayed Parwiz Kambakhsh
Nibras Kazimi
Naser Khader & The Association of Democratic Muslims
Hasan Mahmoud
Irshad Manji
Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi & Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community and the Italian Muslim Assembly
Arifur Rahman
Imad Sa'ad
Secular Islam Summit
Mohamed Sifaoui
Mahmoud Mohamed Taha
Amir Taheri
Ghows Zalmay
Supna Zaidi & Islamist Watch / Muslim World Today / Council For Democracy And Tolerance

Wellington, judging by your inability to understand simple concepts, you do not appear to be bright enough to warrant a response.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 14, 2008 8:33 PM

MAS - you cleverly avoided my main point - the one pertaining to Muhammad. Interesting how you addressed my comment about Muslims "silence being deafening", and then you attach numerous names for me to research; but then you completely walked away from addressing the star-of-the-show: Muhammad. Who, btw, was a borrower of other religions, and a false prophet, at best. He was a sexual pervert and a murdering marauder, so lets talk about him, first.

Go ahead, attempt to defend your "prophet", MAS.

Posted by: champ at August 14, 2008 8:45 PM

Brigitte Bardet

What? Since when is Brigitte Bardot, who can't stand (and rightfully so) Islam, a "moderate muslim?"

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 8:51 PM

duh_swami...
You need to understand the difference between Islam, the religion, and Islamism, the political ideology.
Muslims against Sharia...

Thanks for the advice, but I have read Allah's book,
I have read many hadith, I have read nearly everyones commentary, and I know the difference between an apostate and one who is not.
I think I understand Islam, political and otherwise just fine. Sharia Law is not politics in itself, it is law, derived from Allah's book, and Mohammad's words and deeds. It, like the rest of Islam, is perfect. Or maybe you don't think Islam is perfect. Thats very 'un-Islamic' of you. How can the perfect have imperfect law?
You may have some difficulty explaining your position to Allah, and some of your brothers, but of course, that does not seem to concern you.

I appreciate that, I ignore Allah and Sharia myself...But I'm a kuffar, Allah has no high expectations from me. But you guys, muslims, he expects a lot more out of.
It looks to me like Allah does not like half hearted players. You are either on his team or you are not. If not you are a kufr or an apostate. Allah and Mohammad left plenty of instructions on how you are to conduct yourself. That translates to Sharia. Any variations of that is un-Islamic. That seems to be the general position of the Islamic schools and various Imams.
You are swimming against the tide...but good luck...someone has to do it...I won't mention this conversation to Allah if you don't...

Posted by: duh_swami at August 14, 2008 8:59 PM

Muslims Against Sharia: Again you use insult to avoid answering my questions. OK, Nimrod, you say I can't understand simple concepts because I'm not bright enough. All right then, let's assume that's the case, but spell out those simple concepts for others so that they will be enlightened; you know, about how much of Islam is left without Sharia, why non-Muslims should admire Mohammed and why they should be reverential, or at least respectful, toward the Koran and Hadith. Be specific. If you can't, then you're an intellectual coward. Your move. (Hey, buddy, you gotta' move cause if you don't then you've been shown up by someone not too bright, i.e., me.)

Posted by: Wellington at August 14, 2008 9:21 PM

I suggested the muslimsagainstsharia site to someone who posts anomymously on a local blog, defending Islam, thinking he might find like-minded folk there.

This was his response:

'muslims against shariah is same as
christians against bible
or Jews against talmud
or hindus against vedas or ramayan
etc etc'

Interesting.

Posted by: Vee at August 14, 2008 9:53 PM

'muslims against shariah is same as
christians against bible
or Jews against talmud
or hindus against vedas or ramayan
etc etc' --posted above by Vee

Excuse me, but please tell your local anonymous blogger that that is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

There is no such thing as "Christians against the Bible," or Jews against the Talmud." That's ludicrous!

Also, his is not an exact analogy. An exact analogy would be Muslims against the Koran. And I think the only Muslims against the Koran are ex-Muslims.

Posted by: darcy at August 14, 2008 10:15 PM

Muslims Against Sharia: Still waiting, Musulman. Many of us are quite interested in what is left of Islam if Sharia is extirpated from it. It's still your move. And here's a hint for that extraordinary intellect of yours, so obviously superior to mine and other dhimmis who post here at JW: Insult does not equal argument.

Posted by: Wellington at August 14, 2008 10:35 PM

champ, what makes you think that we would feel compelled to defend our Prophet in front of someone like you?

darcy: we know it's hard, but try to pay attention to spelling of the last name.

duh_swami: "I think I understand Islam, political and otherwise just fine."

Wellington, which part of "you are not entitled to our answers" don't you understand? When a girl in a bar tells you to get lost, do you keep bugging her until she throws a drink in your face? Just let it go already.

Vee/darcy, "Muslims Against Sharia" is like "Christians against the Inquisition". If you're Christians, it is reasonable to assume that you consider the Inquisition a perversion of Christianity. We consider Sharia a perversion of Islam.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 15, 2008 12:25 AM

"champ, what makes you think that we would feel compelled to defend our Prophet in front of someone like you?"

You obviously cannot defend Muhammad, because there is nothing TO defend, which is exactly why you've chosen to dismiss me instead.

"We consider Sharia a perversion of Islam."

Yes, I would agree with you, but first things first, MAS. You cannot avoid the unavoidable, which are the evil things that Muhammad did himself. You are following after a false prophet, deadbeat loser, MAS, so what's in it for you? You are leading others astray, too, so I hope you give that some careful thought. You are leading others astray!!!

Posted by: champ at August 15, 2008 12:36 AM

MAS - have you even bothered to read Robert Spencer's book, The Truth About Muhammad? You use his website to promote your position, but have you even read his book? I would suggest you buy it and start there - and soon.

Posted by: champ at August 15, 2008 12:54 AM

Muslims Against Sharia: I'm not entitled to an answer by someone like you? Aside from being snobbery in the extreme, I have to wonder why you post here at all with that kind of attitude. You don't want to argue, just pronounce. Typical of what the Islamic world produces, deficient in dialectic as it always has been. After all, can't try to understand the Koran, Mohammed, the Hadith, etc. rationally, now can we? (Uh, this final question is a rhetorical one that need not be anwered by another insult.) You reveal far more about yourself than you realize. Far more.

Posted by: Wellington at August 15, 2008 2:17 AM

>>champ, what makes you think that we would feel compelled to defend our Prophet in front of someone like you? --MAS

You mean, someone superior to you, like champ? Oh, OK, I get your point now, and understand why you would feel inferior.

Also, don't bother capitalizing the "P," because Mo is NOT a "Prophet," indeed the Warlord mass-murderer of Jews and Christians Pedophile Thief Enslaver Polygamist is just a con man, and boy have you sheeple fallen for the con. I guess you don't have anything else, since no inventions have been produced by Islam.

*

>>Vee/darcy, "Muslims Against Sharia" is like "Christians against the Inquisition". If you're Christians, it is reasonable to assume that you consider the Inquisition a perversion of Christianity. We consider Sharia a perversion of Islam. --MAS

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 15, 2008 12:25 AM

Man, that is dumb! Newsflash: Any "Inquisitions" perpetrated by Christians were, let's see, about 5 centuries ago. Meanwhile, Shar'ia Law is still very much with us. I mean, do you have reasoning capabilities, or what? I know it's hard, but try to infuse some reason into that kool-aid-saturated brain of yours.

Oh, and Brava Brigitte Bardot!

Posted by: darcy at August 15, 2008 8:48 AM

"allah" is Satan, and muhammad was his demon messenger.

Posted by: CGW at August 15, 2008 8:52 AM

Darcy, the poster's point was "without accepting Sharia, one is not Muslim"!

Posted by: Vee at August 15, 2008 9:56 AM

History isn't being taught, is it?

Posted by: interestinconundrum

History? That's something they used to study in the past. My grandparents told me about it. It's mainly about a lot of dead people.

Posted by: ebonystone at August 15, 2008 11:57 AM

darcy, you are hardly in a position complain about someone's reasoning capabilities. You don't seem to be bothered when someone brings up events from 14 centuries ago, but you claim that events from 5 centuries ago are irrelevant. You also seem unable to understand that Brigitte Bardot and Brigitte Bardet are two different people. One of the reasons you don't hear more moderate Muslims speak up is because of nimrods like you. If we say something on pro-gihadi forum, we are usually labeled neocon pretenders. If we say something on anti-gihadi forum, we usually get our religion insulted. So a reasonable moderate Muslim would ask, why bother? Besides it doesn't really matter what we say or do when Western societies are so eager to please Islamofascists (and you don't have to go far to find the proof, just read the original post.) It is easy to complain about the silence of moderate Muslims while ignoring the fact that the West is supporting radical Muslims both politically and financially. As for "don't confuse their silence with your ignorance" statement, I stand corrected. Don't confuse their silence with your stupidity.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 15, 2008 11:58 AM

MAS - you are the nimrod for subscribing to Islam at all! You are the nimrod for believing that Muhammad was a prophet from God, when in fact he was not! You are the nimrod for coming on here pushing your poopaganda about Muhammad and leading us to believe that you what change, when all you've done is prove with each and every comment, that you are no different that the average Muslim on a mission to destroy Western culture. You are no different.

Take your Islam, and we are against Sharia crap, and take a hike! You are just like the rest of the crowd who wishes harm on the infidel, so stop pretending that you are different, because this is obviously a load of you-know-what.

Posted by: champ at August 15, 2008 12:30 PM

MAS - a quick study on the true meaning of nimrod will show you that "Nimrod" was actually a man who rebelled against the One True God, and like it or not, that describes you to a 'T', because like Nimrod, you too have embraced a false prophet, a false god - and thus - a false religion. You are the rebel, you are the Nimrod; and you, and others like you, are leading people astray by pushing your false religion and false god.

You have more than Sharia that you are fighting against, as you are fighting against the One True God, and with that comes a responsibility, one that I do not think that you are truly prepared to comprehend. I have been praying for you, MAS, praying that you would see the Truth and stop with spreading these Lies.

Posted by: champ at August 15, 2008 12:46 PM

champ, you must be a real moron to accuse us of "pushing ... poopaganda about Muhammad", when everyone can read our comments. It is not surprising when a Muslim takes an anti-Sharia stand, he/she is accused of "leading people astray by pushing ... false religion and false god" by knuckle-drugging degenerates. Just another example of why many moderate Muslims prefer to remain silent.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 15, 2008 6:11 PM

Congress has, in the words of the judiciary, "plenary" power in the realm of immigration laws. One feature of the immigration laws is allotments for the number of people for specified countries. Members of Congress enjoy immunity from suit for things that they say while they hammer out such legislation in the houses.

If any mere citizen wants to communicate their view on such matters to their congresspersons, consistent with public debate, then such speech is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect. Not even Congress could outlaw such speech. That is, it is beyond the power of Congress -- even if they wanted to -- to ban speech that would say assimilate or leave, or don't enter.

Suppose that Congress mandated that all immigrants (even temporary residents) must be proficient in English, and insisted on enforcement of the same. Would that be hate? Would it be beyond the power of Congress itself -- our representatives -- to pass such a precondition? Would it, for any reason or no reason at all, be illegal "hate" for Congress to either set or adjust the allotment of immigrants from any country?

If Congress however opens the doors wide open to openly hostile enemies of liberty then surely the citizens could highlight the problems associated with such a policy and seek to correct it.

Moving along toward something specific . . .

Does Congress have the power, in the interest of protecting the equal rights for women, to create a presumption that any woman that wears clothing that signifies that she is a slave (or that she is treated like a captive breeder animal from a zoo) that this should be investigated. Would it be hate to aid such a woman in throwing off the ideological (and the hateful men behind it) shackles?

There was an argument once upon a time that slaves actually preferred to be slaves and thus slavery should not be abolished, in the self interest (and freedom) of the slaves to live as the wish; supposedly in their own words. Opposing the application of Sharia upon "Muslim" (i.e., slave) women is more akin to the late 1700's push to abolish slavery; in my opinion. One such proponent (opposition to slavery) can be found on our hundred dollar bill. Another abolition argument (by Alexander Hamilton perhaps) was that it was economically inefficient for any man of many talents to be confined to performing tasks as set out by some slave master. As we all know now, a woman's best defense against oppression/subservience by/to any man is an education and employment opportunities.

Suppose that a Black slave owner (and there were some) tried to claim that his Black slaves preferred to be slaves, and more particularly that his slaves did too? We would have to ask them, now wouldn't we? Of course; if it really is/was a worthy, non-embarrassing question to even ask.

I like the result from a 1854 case in Oregon, Vandolf v. Otis. A white settler had married an Indian woman. To be eligible under the federal grant the settler had to be married. A neighbor tried to take part of the land by characterizing the wife as an Indian and thus ineligible to keep half the property.

http://www.google.com/search?q=vandolf+otis

From the case: "Indian women, as the wives of white men, and the offspring of such marriages, are unavoidably a part of our people, and it is better that they should have property and homes, than that they should be worthless and wandering vagabonds in the country."

Women who have "married" Muslim men, with or without their consent, are no less deserving of freedom than any man, let alone freedom from any Muslim man that seeks to preserve slavery of not only of all women but all non-Muslim men.

We abandoned slavery long ago, and etched it into our constitution so that there would be no misunderstanding. It is time that Congress protect the women who are "married" to men who profess that their religion sanctions female slavery; and who might also coincidentally assert/believe that this trumps our constitution. A Muslim man (any man), whatever his reasoning, needs to be treated no better than the trespasser in the Vandolf v. Otis case above regarding any woman, regardless of her race or religion.

A Muslim man may view a woman as nothing more than a captive breeder but that does not mean we need to view it the same, or restrain ourselves from vigorously and publicly condemning it. Even as to so "religious" an institution as marriage I can find no support for any lesser protection of a woman because she has once professed a faith in Islam or has once been married to a Muslim man. It does seem warranted to accord special protections for women labeled as Muslim, precisely because they have been labeled Muslim, against their male Muslim slave masters. I can hate slavery, and so can you; and we can all seek to enact laws that punish slavemasters.

If someone wants a nice example of the semantics for disassociating religious from secular then read Employment Division v. Smith (workers comp benefits denied because of an Indian's use of peyote).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
Given that there are so many features to Islam there should be no trouble finding particular acts that should and could be criminalized, whereupon the advocates for special exemptions for criminal behavior because of Islam's supposed supremacy can argue away. We all know where the supreme law of this land resides.

If each of the central tenets of Islam that are incompatible with our protected liberties are slayed, one by one, will there be anything left of Islam that is greater than perhaps an opportunity to fashion a VooDoo doll to stick pins in in the privacy of one's home? If I had never heard of a VooDoo doll I don't think my life would have been any less rich. The same could be said for Islam. However, it is Muslim's violence that converts everyone into a captive audience.

In attacking the repugnant tenets of Islam one must try to read and follow the analytical metrics supplied by the US Supreme Court. First and foremost is the essential need to craft generally applicable laws, even if the offensive conduct is engaged in primarily by members of one group. Another -- particular to anything religious -- is to avoid "excessive entanglement" by the government into religious practices.

For illustration purposes suppose that I create a non-profit "Girls, Girls, Girls" with a corporate purpose of supporting the capture enslavement and trade of girls that are nine years old or older. Any such incorporation must be for a lawful purpose. Would this be a lawful purpose? Advocacy could be legal, even if repulsive in a civil society, so long as the entity does not engage in the very conduct that they seek to make lawful.

(One solution:) Create ten to twenty discrete-unique non-profit incorporations that each embody and promote the most heinous elements of Islam. Don't mention Islam in them. Let some state, or many, be faced with the applications for incorporation. Be sure to profess that you are not seeking these incorporations as religious organizations (for which there are different rules for incorporation) but as a public interest non-profit.

If a state were to grant any or all of the incorporations as non-profits then submit a parallel set of incorporation applications dedicated to opposing those very same issues as advanced by the initial filings. Then the entities can have a rousing debate, in public, on the issues without ever uttering the word Islam, or religion. Would CAIR support the first set but not the latter? Or, would a state refuse to grant the first set of incorporation applications?

Another specific non-profit, off the top of my head, would seek to replace the laws for mutual aid and support among blood relatives with an exemption from murder charges for killing them instead. (With a companion one opposing the same, of course; with an emphasis on exploration of legislative measures to further protect the victims of such impulses by some folks in our midst.) Surely there are more?

If Islamists were like the VooDoo doll folks then I might never have to have ever heard of their words, or their deeds, or their whining.

I hope this comment was not too long. There is a world difference between the non-criminalization of advocacy of enslavement of little girls, for either male pleasure or as captive breeders (or even the allowance of tax deductibility of donations to advocate for the same), and repeal of laws that make acting on such animal impulses -- by men, any man with ample testosterone -- criminal.

As the court said in the Smith case above:

"But to say that a nondiscriminatory religious practice exemption is permitted, or even that it is desirable, is not to say that it is constitutionally required, and that the appropriate occasions for its creation can be discerned by the courts. It may fairly be said that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely engaged in; but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs."

I do not think that branding some citizen as hateful for expressing an opinion opposing what they view as evil is the sort of accommodation that the court had in mind. The Islamists could not have compelled an apology in court. The criminal law they appear to wish to enact is that no one -- Islmamist and non-Islamist -- may speak against Islam, or rather against the supposed leaders of Islam (ordinary dictators, in my opinion). The isolation upon all things Islamic/Sharia is a tactic to achieve a blanket exemption on religious grounds, in wholesale fashion, from civil criminal laws.

Suppose that in any Muslim dominated country or even US City (or venue such as the UN) that it was a crime to speak ill of any religion (or Islam in particular). It would clearly render free speech dead. In the US a person has a right to insist even that there is no god and that all religion is just a bunch of malarkey. Could I assert that I could criticize Islam, but only so long as I was a Christian, and rely on an exemption that were drafted into their legislation, but not as an atheist? That is could I offer criticism without regard for my privately held (undisclosed) "belief?" (Or, in other words, does status and religious affiliation matter?) The formulation of a "generally applicable law" is a key component in the law and it should be emphasized in crafting legally sustainable remedies for acts engaged in by Islamist-centric protagonists. (Any discussion of the existence of, or description of, a super being must be wholly immaterial.)

The notion of a Christian-only exemption in a Muslim majority land is a near perfect parallel to any Islamic-only sort of exemption here in the US to generally applicable laws. Even after all that -- violence between primitive tribes, coupled with rape of girls from some other tribe, has a closer parallel to our primal animal nature (our animal instincts) than does the notion of being civil to one another (except within a given small tribe or extended family). It is written in our DNA.

I loved the way Robert presented the issue in the initial post, with an emphasis on the Islamic response. The apology means little more than that the emailer had no more than ordinary fortitude, as an individual standing seemingly all alone, against a well funded and well organized Islamic strike force. His capitulation is in no way a vindication of the legal proposition put forth by the folks that felt hated. In fact the law falls squarely and unequivocally in favor of the guy objecting to Islam, in the public arena.

The parallel set of non-profit organizations (suggested above) could serve as a guide post for the content of a questionnaire that would be presented to any immigration candidate. How they answer the listed questions, presented in English, could determine whether they are granted entry or rejected; or later to have any right to remain voided. It can be drafted so as not to mention any particular religion.

I simply prefer a civil society to the chaos and conflict of barbarism.

Posted by: ronled at August 15, 2008 8:32 PM

Muslims Against Sharia: Yeah, yeah, I know I'm not worthy in your eyes of a response and all that rubbish, but when you maintain that moderate Muslims are too principled to respond to someone like "champ" and me and....., you convince no one but your own coterie of adherents. No non-Muslim with any sense buys what you and all those other intrepid "moderate" Muslims are selling about remaining silent because you don't want to stoop to our level, blah, blah, blah.

Really, you ought to try a different approach. The present one is failing dismally. Oh, the real reason why moderate Muslims prefer to remain silent is because they are clueless, cowardly, useless human beings who are hedging their bets about whether their radical Muslim comrades will prevail or the West will. Hey, no guts, no glory.

Posted by: Wellington at August 15, 2008 8:56 PM

Wellington, you are not as useless as you appear. We thank you very much for a great quote.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia at August 15, 2008 9:07 PM

We thank you very much for a great quote.

Posted by: Muslims Against Sharia

What's all this 'WE' business in all of your comments - are you a two headed freak or something? Three headed? A freak, yes, but my question remains: how many heads do you actually have? Henceforth, you shall be called IT.

Take your Islame and be gone - and ironically - your Sharia problem will disappear too. You're welcome.

__________________________________________________

Hi Wellington -

Seems that IT is incapable of having a mature conversation with either of us, or with any other poster on this thread - for that matter - and IT refuses to answer any legitimate questions when posed with earnest. My guess is that IT is a young teenager, or a group of young tribal misfits, who collectively have [maybe] a Junior High level of education; and who's best, and who's ONLY defense is, it seems, is "name calling", so IT is not equipped to have an intelligent conversation. So I would surmise that we are >, I would surmise that we are perhaps - wasting our precious time.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: champ at August 15, 2008 9:38 PM

champ: I would like to think that MAS is a youngster but this probably is not the case because Islam is THE major world religion for people who refuse to grow up. So many things about Islam are child-like, whether it be its conception of the afterlife or its intolerance of other belief systems or its adulation of a man (Mohammed) who is clearly not worthy of sophisticated approbation, or its so easily being insulted (followed by gobs of self-pity), or whatever.

As for MAS himself (herself?), this person wants to announce the way things are but not debate those who pose questions to him. For instance, I have asked this individual several times what is left of Islam if you take Sharia out of it. His response? He insults me for not understanding Islam. I have also asked him what he finds good in Islam which cannot be found in other religions or ways of thought. Again his response is full of invective for my even putting the question to him. When I also posed to him what he finds in Islam which is admirable, yet again he dismisses me and asserts my intellect is deficient. Well, as I wrote to him already, he reveals more about himself than he realizes.

But this is what I have come to expect from virtually all Muslims. They are unable to debate ideas and controversial positions. I think this is due in part to the fact that subconsciously many of them know they have bought into a loser ideology but can't admit it to themselves, let alone to others. After all, defending the preposterous can be very wearying.

Posted by: Wellington at August 15, 2008 10:21 PM

Wellington - I completely agree with everything you said, and especially with your last observation: "After all, defending the preposterous can be very wearying."

Preposterous is right!

Posted by: champ at August 16, 2008 2:02 AM

Defending myself against name calling does not motivate or interest me in the least - my sole aim on JW is to defend the Truth against the ludicrous and evil lies of Islam; beginning with the ludicrous and lust-filled & murderous life that Muhammad led, and ending with the ludicrous lies contained in the unholy Koran, et al.

Name calling is merely a platform; offering yet another opportunity for me to point out how evil Islam is, how evil Muhammad was, and how evil believing in a false god (allah) is. So bring on the name calling, as it serves my purpose for defending the Truth.

Posted by: champ at August 16, 2008 2:25 AM

The Truth is that Islam is a lie.

Posted by: champ at August 16, 2008 2:27 AM

Hi champ!

Of course the Mohammedan dude at MAS is the nimrod, the moron, and the imbecile. No doubt about it.

Hi nimrod, moron, and imbecile MAS guy - you worship a pagan moon deity that doesn't exist! LOL! What a moron! Now, go and whack your grotesque zebibah to a pagan moon god THAT DOESN'T EXIST! Barbarian.

Mohamet - the Con Man of all time. And his Sheeple (like MAS dude) are STILL buying his crap! Islamic crap! Koranic crap! allah crap!

Posted by: darcy at August 16, 2008 5:45 PM

MAS guy - a knuckle-walking degenerate.

Just like his idol, false prophet and pedophile (piss be upon him), Mo. The most IMPERFECT man who ever lived, along with Hitler. Two peas in a pod!

Posted by: darcy at August 16, 2008 5:50 PM

Hey, Darcy! Great comeback, and thanks for givin' this MAS-TEAM a dose of his own tasty medicine! LOL!

MAS is probably one guy behind "Muslims Against Sharia", but he likes to come across as if he belongs to some large Think-Tank of Islamic experts; but it sounds like these "experts" are in need of some fresh ideas, as they are certainly in need of some sassier names. Moron, Nimrod, knuckle-dragger - how very original. Not.

Posted by: champ at August 16, 2008 6:20 PM

But darcy, we can all act like animals, like Barbarians. Think if it as a description of conduct, not a classification of people.

There is no super being. There is no after life. But a desire for peace and harmony here and now, for some people, in one's own life is real and personal.

If you wish to classify a people as Barbarians then let's posit the notion that The Promise Keepers are closer to it than atheists. I think TPK too believes in some sort of male supremacy. Maybe they too understand the marketing appeal, at least to men (and boys), of offering up woman as slaves to do as they are told, on command . . . in bed. Maybe such organizations exist as an unhealthy reaction to rejection of a sexual advance? Maybe we can call them the rejected ones, or rejects.

Are there any female "prophets?"

Posted by: ronled at August 16, 2008 8:09 PM

ronled: Cassandra was a female prophet (and not listened to, as is usually the case with prophets). Joan of Arc was a prophet of action, not words. She was very effective. And Florence Nightingale was another prophetess of action who humbled the masculine world around her and did much good, difficult though she was in person, which is usually the case with great people.

Posted by: Wellington at August 16, 2008 9:52 PM

ronled -

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1

"The heavens are telling the glory of God, and the sky is declaring the work of his hands" Psalm 19:1, Rom 1:19-20

Posted by: champ at August 17, 2008 2:37 AM

You set a high bar. It appears that no resume of good deeds could come close to the singular issue of acceptance of the same belief that you hold.

The logic of inserting belief ahead of deeds, good or bad, perhaps blinds you of the capacity to judge what is or good or what is bad. The notion of "corrupt[ion]" could make logical sense when it is ascribed to your loyalty to some prophet -- one that you believe to have communicated with a super being that you believe exists; not of the deeds of others.

I believe you may read far too much into a passage that is clearly hyperbole, except if it has a very specific context and application to persons then living and specific to their conduct. The contrary proposition is to declare non-believers as evil, by reason of non-belief.

The parallel to some other believer versus non-believer dialectic is too close to ignore.

How do you read/interpret the quoted Psalm?

Posted by: ronled at August 17, 2008 6:17 AM

I interpret these two Psalms this way:

Psalm 14:1: The true atheist is either foolish or wicked. Foolish because he ignores the evidence that God exists, or wicked because he refuses to live by God's truths.

Psalm 19:1 is very straightforward, as we are surrounded by God's craftsmanship through nature and beyond.

I may not be able to respond to any further questions for two reasons, this thread is nearing it's end, and I will be gone for the rest of the day. Please take care, and I will catch up with you next time.

Regards.

Posted by: champ at August 17, 2008 12:17 PM