Brilliant comparison ! You are a sharp one 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Has the vetting process been reduced to three months?

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/0...-enough/209814

Despite the prevailing stereotypes of Muslim Americans, Islam has contributed a great deal to the U.S. In fact, Muslims have played an integral part in defending the homeland and fighting for the American government’s geopolitical interests. The history of Muslim Americans serving in the U.S. military challenges the widespread skepticism that Americans have for those who follow Islam. Muslims are asked by Prophet Muhammad to “love your country as [patriotism] is part of Islam.” The Qur’an (4:60) calls on Muslims to be obedient to their governments: “O you who believe, obey God and the Prophet and obey those in authority from among you.” As I discuss in this piece, Muslims have heeded the Prophet’s call for allegiance and shown love for America.

Muslims served in the U.S. military under the command of General George Washington, who was Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the American War for Independence. Rosters of soldiers serving in Washington’s Army lists names like Bampett Muhammad, who fought for the Virginia Line between the years 1775 and 1783. Another Again it seems many love to focus on the minority not the majority ...

one of Washington’s soldiers, Yusuf Ben Ali, was a North African Arab who worked as an aide to General Thomas Sumter of South Carolina. Peter Buckminster, who fought in Boston, is perhaps Washington’s most distinguished Muslim American soldier. Buckminster fired the gun that killed British Major General John Pitcairn at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Years after this famous battle, Peter changed his last name to “Salaam,” the Arabic word meaning “peace.” Peter Salaam later reenlisted in the Continental Army to serve in the Battle of Saratoga and the Battle of Stony Point. If Washington had a problem with Muslims serving in his Army, he would not have allowed Muhammad, Ali and Salaam to represent and serve non-Muslim Americans. By giving these Muslims the honor of serving America, Washington made it clear that a person did not have to be of a certain religion or have a particular ethnic background to be an American patriot.

And these Contributions to America are still happening to this day from all walks of life.. step back from the emoting and Fear and look at the big picture..

I dont understand killings in the name of Islam is some how different from Killings blamed on MH issues or Racial motivated Mass Murder .. when the latter happens far more frequently Here in the US .. they are all unacceptable ... And we all have far less control over theses events then we'll acknowledge

Sure, so long as Muslims are a small minority, they will, for the most part, be "patriots" of sorts. Many of them would either be "moderate" Muslims who don't really adhere strictly, or who, if they adhere at all, do it very loosely, to all the Quranic texts. This is just as true for Christians or Jews who are "moderate" in their beliefs. But note what happens to countries when Muslims are in control. And look at what happens when the picture of the "small minority" of so-called extremist or fundamentalist or radical Muslims are not paid enough attention because the big picture of moderate Islam paints a comforting, and fundamentally false, interpretation of Islam.

Muslims are actually allowed, when they are a minority, as a matter of their faith to deceive those in power--referred to as taqiyya. Washington may have had a problem if he had ordered the Muslims to kill invading Muslim regiments.

As for the citation of Quran 4:60, I found this:

[4:60] O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey His Messenger and those who are in authority among you. And if you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you are believers in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end.
[4:60] اے وہ لوگو جو ایمان لائے ہو! اللہ کی اطاعت کرو اور رسول کی اطاعت کرو اور اپنے حکام کی بھی۔ اور اگر تم کسی معاملہ میں (اُولُوالامر سے) اختلاف کرو تو ایسے معاملے اللہ اور رسول کی طرف لَوٹا دیا کرو اگر (فی الحقیقت) تم اللہ پر اور یومِ آخر پر ایمان لانے والے ہو۔ یہ بہت بہتر (طریق) ہے اور انجام کے لحاظ سے بہت اچھا ہے۔

The attached interpretations of this verse make it clear that the phrase "who are in authority among you," or in other translations "authority over you," has not been properly understood by some. Most translators understand it to mean "from among yourselves" which means you should obey only that authority which happens to be from among yourselves, meaning Muslim authority alone.

I could not copy the interpretation entries which are far more detailed, but the url, which also is: https://www.alislam.org/quran/tafsee...EN,E2&CR=EN,E2

Also, via islamicstudies.info, there is the Sunna 4:60 with its explanation:

(4:60) "(O Messenger!) Have you not seen those who claim to believe in the Book which has been revealed to you and in the Books revealed before you, and yet desire to submit their disputes to the judgement of taghut (the Satanic authorities who decide independently of the Law of Allah), whereas they had been asked to reject it.91 And Satan seeks to make them drift far away from the right way."
The added interpretation: "Taghut clearly signifies here a sovereign who judges things according to criteria other than the law of God. It also stands for a legal and judicial system which acknowledges neither the sovereignty of God nor the paramount authority of the Book of God. This verse categorically proclaims that to refer disputes to the judgement of a court of law which is essentially taghut contravenes the dictates of a believer's faith. In fact, true faith in God and His Book necessarily requires that a man should refuse to recognize the legitimacy of such courts. According to the Qur'an, belief in God necessitates repudiation of the authority of taghut. To try to submit both to God and to taghut at the same time is hypocrisy.

Both sources indicate that the Quran's notion of believers obeying their governments refers to governments that are in accordance to the commands of Allah. Which would be the commandments given in the Quran or the Sunna or the Hadith. In other words, governments that are Islamic in nature.

So the quote you cite, taken out of quranic context, and outside of Islamic law, is very misleading. Actually, the interpretation given by your source to the Quran 4:60 is the opposite of how Islamic scholars interpret the verse.

Both sources are legitimate pro-Islamic scholarship "experts"--al Islam, the official website of the Amadiyyah Muslim Community, and Islamicstudies.info.

2016 and the Muslims are now finally getting around taking over the world!!!!!

If you think theses extremist are a recent development in world history you guys need to get out more :sleeps:

Is there a point to your sarcastic rant?

No ... just shorter than yours thats all

:bgi:

when you subtract the quotes and opinions of other sources in mine, it is not longer than your first post to which I was responding. I didn't consider your first post to be a rant because it wasn't an extravagant or unreasonable declamation.

I responded in a similar rational, reasonable manner backed by quotes and interpretations of Islamic scholars. I pointed out that "the quote you cite, taken out of quranic context, and outside of Islamic law, is very misleading. Actually, the interpretation given by your source to the Quran 4:60 is the opposite of how Islamic scholars interpret the verse."

Given as that your quote from the Quran was a key element to your post, I thought that my response reasonably refuted the basis of your argument. I believe my post made that point well. And it is part of a much larger point that we uncritically accept laudatory statements about Islam or false interpretations of the Quran by those who want us to believe Islam is something that it isn't. Or who may actually want to believe what they tell us. Or who may intentionally be trying to deceive us.

Now you respond in this post by admitting that your previous one was indeed a rant and did not, actually, have a point. Well done.

BTW, in another thread I asked you if it would be OK if we imposed the same requirements on voting as we do on gun ownership. Would you be good with that?

name one :)

How many times does he have to recite , without giving any credit, the Huffpost article ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why don't you go for a walk through Arlington and see for yourself. Pass out some Trump hats while your at it.

I was just going to recommend going there as well. Plenty of markers there with the Islam symbol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Arlington is a moving experience,many members of today's military cringe when they think of Hillary as commander in chief. I am sure a Trump hat would be welcome as he respects our veterans. Conversely, anything to do with Hillary would be respectfully tolerated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just about every person I know who's a vet or current military are pro Sanders. They want someone in office who isn't a hawk and makes logical decisions based on right or wrong and not based on who makes the most money off of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Piemma is the exception. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan seem to support Trump. Maybe being drafted made the difference in some., especially the ones who didn't want to be there.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/v...n-controversy/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Americans wish to ignore this basic fact"...... I was asking him to name one of these....



I don't like Trump....

Quotes in red by wdmso
Quotes in black responses by detbuch

Isn't that the whole issue with Islam? its those interpretations and the people who do these interpretations.

In relativism, that is the issue with all perception, not just Islam. If you're a relativist, which you seem to be, certainly seem to be concerning the Constitution, the issue is merely a matter of interpretation. But those who created the Constitution did not intend to make a document which depended on relativistic points of view. Law is peculiar in that respect. It cannot function as an opinion. It must be universal. Otherwise everyone would be a law unto himself. As well, he who created Islam did not intend to institute a free-for-all system of rules and beliefs. He made LAW. And he claimed that Allah dictated that law to him.

The Constitutional Founders and early Constitutional jurists made clear what the Constitution meant. But our latter day relativists have turned the original meaning upside down and created, out of personal, relativistic points of views, a different document. One which, due to the manner it has been created, really is not to be depended on beyond the moment, and will surely be changed with the next waves of personal opinions.

And Muhammad's words and actions made clear that Islam was not to be some co-existent mode, but a universal law expanded to all people by conversion either through persuasion or force. And Islam's latter day apologists, probably because the command to make Islam the law of the world is not feasible, at least not yet, are claiming to "reform" it into something it is not.

That's fine. When the Sultans, Sheiks, and Imams of Saudi Arabia, and the grand clerics of Iran truly convert to this tolerant notion of Islam, to transform it into merely a personal religion which is practiced on an equal basis with other beliefs, then most of us who view Islam as a threat will no longer do so.

an assumption on your part my point is Muslim Americans have contributed much and have died defending this country and other Americans wish to ignore this basic fact

I said that your quote from the Quran was A key element to your post. I wasn't assuming it was your whole point. And I pointed out how that quote was misinterpreted by your source, and that the quote actually meant the opposite of what your source "interpreted." If you wish to sweep that under the rug and move on . . . I understand.

But you move on a little too far when you state that "other" Americans wish to ignore Muslim American sacrifices. There is no mass call to deport Muslim American citizens or to hate them. But their personal sacrifices do not negate the incompatibility of Islam with our system of government.


^^^^^ classic Muslim Bigotry those who want us to believe Islam is something that it isn't. intentionally be trying to deceive us is this political or a religious feeling of yours? ^^^^^^^^^^

It is not a "feeling" on my part. BTW, I notice you intentionally left out the other provision I listed: "Or who may actually want to believe what they tell us." That third option is a recognition of sincerity on the part of many Muslims who believe their "religion" is a peaceful, co-existential one. In their minds either it has always been so, or, for them, it has been reformed. I hope they can sincerely keep that "point of view" and entirely practice it the rest of their lives and immerse their children on that view.

But, as I said, it is not a "feeling" on my part. It is a rational conclusion based on study. Even though I am not a lawyer or part of a left or right leaning "non partisan" institute, I know how to study. And my studies were not limited to solely anti-Muslim bigots. They were mostly informed by Islamic scholars, Islamic websites, and the nature of present day Islamic States.

Sorry never admitted anything just kinda para phrased what you think that islam is taking over the world

You said: "No ... just shorter than yours thats all" I don't see any kind of Para phrasing there regarding Islam taking over the world. You were responding to my asking if there was a point to your sarcastic rant. So, your answer "No" is admitting that there was no point to your sarcastic rant. And "shorter than yours" would imply that mine was also a rant. Which is an admission that yours was a rant as well, just shorter.

Now if I was to guess that was a paraphrase of my thinking that Islam is taking over the world, I don't see how I was to guess that.

And besides, I never said that I thought Islam is taking over the whole world. I said that fundamental Islamic doctrine requires that "taking over" as you put it.

BTW, in another thread I asked you if it would be OK if we imposed the same requirements on voting as we do on gun ownership. Would you be good with that?

No not until voting can kill or be used in violent crime or you can use it in Home defense or warfare

Well, actually, voting can be used for all those things. It can be used to promote the death penalty. To abort babies, even fully formed ones. It can be used to promote those who advocate the crime of eliminating our unalienable rights, even to the point of totally abandoning and replacing the Constitution without amendment or due process, which does great violence to our freedoms. It certainly can be used to elect those who advocate defense or warfare.

But, as I clearly stated, which you refuse to consider, or are unable to comprehend, the right to bear arms is an unalienable right NOT TO BE ABRIDGED as given in the Bill of Rights. There is no guarantee in the Constitution that voting cannot be abridged or regulated in some ways as decided by the States.

So why do you advocate for stricter gun laws than we already have (and which already have abridged the right to bear arms) even though they are far, far more restrictive than voting regulations, but you favor far less restrictive voting laws than we have.

And yes. Voting is a weapon that can be used for greater good or evil than owning a firearm.