Utopia Talk / Politics / Sharia Law Followed By US Court

Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:30:01 July 25, 2010 Shariah law is already here: Judge allows spousal rape on Islamic grounds By Bryan Fischer Christianity, the foundation of American law, teaches that husbands are to "love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Elsewhere, husbands are told, "[L]ive with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7). In other words, Christianity teaches a husband to treat his wife with honor, respect and restraint, and never to use his superior physical strength to impose his will on his wife, who is his full equal in worth, value and dignity. Not so in Islam, where husbands are explicitly taught that they may beat their wives into submission. Now comes news of a disgruntled Muslim husband in New Jersey who repeatedly raped his wife, despite her tearful resistance. This, in classic Islamic fashion, was an arranged marriage. She was 17 at the time of the wedding in 2008, and had never even met the man before they got married. The woman was told by her husband every time non-consensual sex took place, "This is according to our religion. You are my wife, I can do anything to you." The man forced himself on his wife one last time before later on that same day taking her to the home of a local imam where he verbally divorced her. Now get this. The American judge dismissed the woman's charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct on the grounds that her husband should not be punished for spousal rape because Islam permits it. Said the judge, "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." The judge then refused to issue a restraining order against the man, leaving the woman vulnerable to repeated rape attempts with no legal protection of any kind. This ruling, it should be noted, was reversed on appeal. But it is astonishing and revealing that an American judge would vacate an American law on the grounds that Shariah law had supremacy. Yet that is exactly what happened. Bottom line: Shariah law is not coming, it's already here, right here in the United States. Remember that at the same time Elana Kagan kicked military recruiters off the campus of Harvard Law, she welcomed Muslim recruiters to campus who were looking for top talent to help implement Shariah-compliant financing. So Ms. Kagan was unwilling to use Harvard Law to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States, but was perfectly willing to use it to advance Shariah law. And she soon will be sitting on the highest court in the land. God help us. Four Christians were arrested outside an Islamic festival in Dearborn, Michigan several weeks ago. Their crime? Handing out free copies of the gospel of John on public property. Although they were doing so peaceably and under the protection of the First Amendment, it mattered not to Dearborn police, who hauled them off to jail anyway. So it is now illegal, just as Shariah law requires, to share the gospel of Christ in Dearborn, Michigan, just like it is illegal in Saudi Arabia and virtually every other Islamic nation in the world. And don't forget that it is the explicit goal of Islam to impose Shariah law on the entire United States. It cannot be stated too often or too loudly that Islam is flatly incompatible with American values. It is impossible for a devout Muslim to be a good citizen of the United States or any other nation formed and shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition. We are committing cultural suicide by allowing unrestrained Islamic immigration into our country, and that cultural suicide is now being aided and abetted by mind-numbed and clueless judges, including a soon-to-be justice of the United States Supreme Court. I continue to maintain that it is catastrophic folly to grant any Muslim citizenship in the United States. And I submit that a judge who justifies rape on Islamic grounds simply makes my case. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/100725
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:31:29 This is the cancer I spoke of the other day.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 06:38:03 "Sharia Law Followed By US Court" And overturned. "This ruling, it should be noted, was reversed on appeal." The judge who made the initial ruling is now bound to go in the opposite direction in subsequent cases.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:40:03 The longest journey begins with a single step. This is just the beginning. IMHO.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 06:41:18 That single step has been overturned, with the judge who made that step now bound never to do it again.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:42:51 So are you saying that Sharia Law will never be followed in the US again, or just by this particular judge?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:47:27 A bit too long to post here, but worth reading. Sharia Law in Canada and Britain http://www...a_law_in_canada_and_brita.html
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 06:49:29 1. The judge was not ruling based on what sharia law was saying; he was ruling based on his interpretation of New Jersey domestic abuse laws. 2. The judge denied the restraining order because the couple was already divorced by the time they made his way in front of him. He felt that the order was unnecessary. 3. Obviously his interpretation of the law was wrong. 4. I sincerely doubt that there are that many judges that would side with religious law over federal and state Constitutional, statutory, administrative and common laws.
DELIRIUM TREMENS Member	Mon Aug 09 06:50:55 ROFL stupid christians: "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:51:09 I hope you are right.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 06:52:25 The bottom line is that judges make rulings based on the law. If his is really a concern to you, you should be petitioning your state legislature to strengthen spousal abuse laws.
werewolf dictator Member	Mon Aug 09 06:52:45 ''Christianity, the foundation of American law'' since when is christianity foundation of american law.. i guess this means jews make bad judges..[it is interesting phariseeism and oral law is essentially 'judicial activism' attempting to overcome horrible 'constitution' of leviticus and other 5 books of 'moses'..for this matter rabbi jesus is doing 'judicial activism' too..] also..levels of sociological amnesia are always amazing to me..before womens rights movements it was normal american expectation that men beat wives for misbehavior and also a legal right..[it was like this elsewhere in christian world too..]same right existed for not consenting sex in all american states before 1970s..
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 06:57:54 Hang on a second, I went back and rerad these two paragraphs. She had criminal charges against him, not just a request for a restraining order. "Now get this. The American judge dismissed the woman's charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct on the grounds that her husband should not be punished for spousal rape because Islam permits it. Said the judge, "This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."" Are you sure he deserved to get off because according to Sharia Law he is allowed to commit "sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct" against his wife who is considered little more than property?
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 07:09:37 "Are you sure he deserved to get off because according to Sharia Law he is allowed to commit "sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct" against his wife who is considered little more than property?" No one said this. The actual ruling sheds insight on this. The issue before the judge was whether a restraining order should be issued. The judge noted that in his opinion, sexual abuse had not occured and, having gotten that out of the way, decided that the fact that they were already divorced meant further contact between the two would be minimal and found it to be unnecessary. He did NOT dismiss the sexual assault charges. The appellate court's ruling on this noted: "As a final matter, the judge recognized the pendency of a criminal action against defendant, and indicated its existence constituted an additional basis for the judge's ruling denying a final restraining order, since he assumed that a no-contact order had been entered as a condition of bail." http://law...ts/appellate/a6107-08.opn.html So the criminal charges against the husband were still outstanding in another court. The defendant did not "get off."
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Aug 09 07:20:53 Hot genocider is the cancer of UP.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 07:24:13 >-The issue before the judge was whether a restraining order should be issued. "The American judge dismissed the woman's charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct..." >-The judge noted that in his opinion, sexual abuse had not occured and, having gotten that out of the way... "his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." This last is a direct reference to the husbands "rights" under Sharia. US Law does not allow "sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct,,," by a husband against his wife. >-The issue before the judge was whether a restraining order should be issued. I think a careful reading of the article leaves the time line a little murky. Were the criminal charges and request for a restraining order filed before or after the divorce. The court case *could* have been heard after the divorce.
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Aug 09 07:25:17 heres your cock theres a small boys mouth
Brainy UPer Member	Mon Aug 09 07:57:50 "This last is a direct reference to the husbands "rights" under Sharia. US Law does not allow "sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct,,," by a husband against his wife. " No US law does not. But that wasn't the issue. This Judge believed there wasn't any intent to commit such acts. "The issue before the judge was whether a restraining order should be issued. " The restraining order request was made after the fact, the fact being the divorce. Since this Judge felt that since a divorce was granted and they are living seperate lives that it is unecessary for a restraining order to be granted unless the ex-husband has been making threats to her still during the aftermath.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 08:12:11 "The American judge dismissed the woman's charges of sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct..." I will say this again. No he didn't. When the article says "dismiss," he means that the judge rejected the argument that sexual abuse was a cause for a restraining order. He did not "dismiss" any criminal charges against the husband. The portion appellate court ruling that I quoted from flat out says that criminal charges were still pending. Who do you trust more, the appellate court or the author of your OP, who as a pundit has a job to sensationalize everything? ""his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited." This last is a direct reference to the husbands "rights" under Sharia. US Law does not allow "sexual assault and criminal sexual conduct,,," by a husband against his wife." Again, no one is denying that this is a moronic ruling. But again, it's wrong to focus on this for several reasons: 1) The issue of sexual assault was only an incidental matter, to help decide whether a restraining order needed to be issued. Whether or not he had committed sexual assault was not before the court. Given the fact that the ruling was made orally by the judge, and not by the verdict of a jury, it should be obvious that no criminal allegations were being decided here. 2) The argument that it was accepted religious practices was only one of several factors in the judge's decision to deny the restraining order. Other reasons included the fact that the couple was already divorced, meaning contact between them would be minimal (although he then goes on to note that an unborn child could make contact necessary in the future) and that the criminal courts would probably issue a RO anyway. To claim that the judge's decision was solely "well, this is in line with your religious beliefs, DISMISSED" is inaccurate. 2) The judge did find that the husband had engaged in harassment and assault against his wife, and that his actions violated the law. Although he (again, moronically) decided that the level of abuse did not rise to sexual assault, he did NOT find the husband to be innocent of behavior unacceptable under the law. In any case, this is all moot since the appellate court almost instantly overturned the judge's ruling, and in the process provided clarification of how judges in New Jersey should rule in future similar cases. The outcome is good; you may argue that the judge who made the oral ruling needs to be removed from his bench, but you cannot possibly his stupidity is indicative of any trends within the American legal system. "I think a careful reading of the article leaves the time line a little murky." Again, don't read the article. Read the actual court case; it's a lot more informative and a lot less biased. The writer in the OP is a pundit; it's his job to make everything seem like the sky is falling. I'd also question his knowledge of the American legal system, since he starts out by brazenly asserting that "Christianity [is] the foundation of American law." As we both know, English law and some 17th and 18th century philsophers are the foundation of American law, not Christianity.
Brainy UPer Member	Mon Aug 09 08:13:44 "The husband in the case has been indicted on criminal charges and is expected to face trial in the fall." Just for more clarification. http://www...easures-alarmed-judges-ruling/
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Aug 09 08:16:26 "Who do you trust more, the appellate court or the author of your OP, who as a pundit has a job to sensationalize everything? " Wait - youre asking Hot hack this?
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 08:18:31 Muslims who rape their wives should be butchered in the streets.
jergul Member	Mon Aug 09 08:21:53 My God Ok, what the judge did was rule that the history of abuse had no relevance to current affairs after the divorce and thus a restraining order was not needed. That was overturned and a restraining order was granted. The fellow now faces criminal charges for spousal abuse. Which is a matter unrelated to the initial ruling which merely considered the restraining order.
jergul Member	Mon Aug 09 08:22:58 JB Ok if we start by butchering US servicemembers and veteran spousal rapists first?
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 08:40:29 HR ran away, does this mean he lost the debate? Rugian et al won?
Adolf Hitler Member	Mon Aug 09 08:46:49 Come on, thats all Hot Whore ever does. Spam and then run away. Heres a thread Theres some HR spam
Nimatzo Member	Mon Aug 09 08:56:19 >>Christianity, the foundation of American law<< Stopped reading right there.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 09:00:07 Mon Aug 09 08:22:58 JB Ok if we start by butchering US servicemembers and veteran spousal rapists first? " Fine by me. Rapists should be butchered in the streets.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 09:00:44 Anything to reduce the Muslim population.
Jack Sparrow Member	Mon Aug 09 09:07:34 >>Hot Rod<< Stopped reading right there.
Aeros Member	Mon Aug 09 09:07:52 You know, one of my best friends is Muslim. Her family are such nice people, they sell tea at our county farmers market every Saturday. Actually won a prize at the last fair for it. Want to kill them too?
jergul Member	Mon Aug 09 09:17:05 Well, you could reduce the conversion rate by killing all Americans I suppose. That would help reduce the Muslim population.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:38:16 "Mon Aug 09 09:07:52 You know, one of my best friends is Muslim. Her family are such nice people, they sell tea at our county farmers market every Saturday. Actually won a prize at the last fair for it. Want to kill them too? " Ask your "friend" if he curses you in his heart even as he smiles in your face. Ask him if he believes in the Qur'an- yes or no. Ask him if he disagrees with any of it. Ask him if he knows that the Qur'an promises destruction upon the head of any Muslim who does not fight the Christian, the Jew, or the Infidel: Educate yourself, fool. http://www...es-religion-of-peace-t2299.htm
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 10:39:02 Kill yourself.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:39:34 Aeros is the typical uneducated American who knows nothing about Islam, but wants to defend it as a "religion of peace". Aeros, don't take my word for it; just read what the Qur'an itself says.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:40:35 Islam =/= "peace" Islam = SUBMISSION There can be peace in the world- according to Islam- only when there is global submission to Allah.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:42:54 I made it as easy as possible for you to educate yourself, but I'm sure you won't bother. Nevertheless, I will drop this subject by simply posting a single link. I am sure you won't go there since the link is to Muzzle, but if you want to know why I utterly HATE Islam, I explain it quite clearly. I use ONLY Islamic law and Islamic sources. Remember, I lived in the ME and N. Africa for years, studying intensely. I left with YOUR attitude, that Islam can be our friends. They do not concur: http://www...es-religion-of-peace-t2299.htm
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:46:42 CORRECTION, and for the sake of clarity: * I Left the United States (before my stay overseas) with your attitude, that Islam can be our friends. While there, I discovered they do not concur.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 10:46:47 I guess you think the Bible is as equally bad... yes?
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Aug 09 10:47:30 Isn't it time for kargen, the HR translator, to come in and declare a winner now?
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Aug 09 10:48:39 picture on kargen (right) http://mul...rized/2007/04/17/punchout1.png
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:49:18 "Mon Aug 09 10:46:47 I guess you think the Bible is as equally bad... yes? " Great side-step. Just to be clear; NO COMMENT FROM YOU on the mountains of quotes about Islam, only attacks on the Bible?
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 10:50:30 I didn't attack the bible. Pinpoin where I attacked the bible. I asked you a question do you consider the bible equally as bad as the Quran considering it's content? Do not put words in my mouth. I didn't put words in yours. Now answer the question.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 10:52:49 You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20 Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10 Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16 Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7 Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13 Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20 Any city that doesnâ??t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11 Jude reminds us that God destroys those who donâ??t believe in him. Jude 5
Trolly McCool Member	Mon Aug 09 10:55:47 This is why you dont read third hand recycled articles from a sensationalist blogger. They took an extremely minor case where a terrible judge made an idiotic ruling about a restraining order and turned it into "US JUDGE ALLOWS MUSLIMS TO RAPE WOMEN AS PART OF THEIR RELIGION". Thankfully, only Hot Rod and JB fell for the ruse. Does it ever concern you that if Hot Rod or JB had been born in Riyadh, that they would probably be fanatical followers of militant wahabbist Islam?
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 10:59:20 Cold Rod: Please find teachings of Jesus (YOU KNOW, THAT WACKY GUY THAT CHRISTIANS FOLLOW) that teach violence.
Trolly McCool Member	Mon Aug 09 11:01:18 Really, that is the best reason to hate militant Islamists, because they are basically the JBs and Hot Rod's of the Islamic world. They share so many similarities. Ability to rationalize despicable behavior in the name of God and country; belief in the supernatural even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; etc...
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 11:02:07 You can't play that game JB. You are critical of an array of quotes in the Quran, here are some from the Bible equally as bad. Are you declaring the Bible and Quran are not on equal footing in regards to violence to non-believers? If that's the case, go ahead and declare it so we can move on from this silly tirade being conducted by you.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 11:12:14 Muslims follow the Prophet of Allah, Mohammed. I posted his quotes of violence. Christians follow Jesus, the prophet of God. Pleas post his quotes of violence.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 11:13:41 Hey, Aeros, go back to that thread I posted Islamic quotes in, and then scroll down to the end of it, so you can see what you are defending. Scroll down to the fruit of this corrupt tree, and what it brings forth into the world.
Trolly McCool Member	Mon Aug 09 11:13:53 "Christians follow Jesus, the prophet of God." Jesus was the son of God, not a prophet. Please stop blasphemizing.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 11:15:32 Again you can't play that game. You asked Aeros if his friend disagrees with anything in the Quran. This suggest that this person with that belief has to be objective because the Quran, just like the Bible, have ridiculous delcarations in regards to killing. Should we review your post again for clarification? I don't think it's necessary. Again, I ask, do you consider the Bible equally as bad, and to add to my question, do you think that Christians are being objective in regards to the content of the bible and not agree with everything in it, and are you declaring that followers of the Quran are incapable of objectivity?
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 11:17:15 It's quite simple really. Continue this and I will consider your avoidance as a concession and the matter will be closed.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 11:27:30 PWNT.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 11:29:17 What did you do exactly? You have evaded every question I asked. Its okay. I consider that your concession.
Aeros Member	Mon Aug 09 11:42:36 Hey J.B. go read your bible some time and realize that God loves the sinners too. It is not our place to deny them a chance to turn away from an evil path.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 11:54:30 What the hell are you talking about? Now all of a sudden you are a tender-hearted christian demanding a chance for penitence on behalf of Muslims? Why don't you advocate for these people, Mr. Jesus-loves-the-victims: http://www...igion-of-peace-t2299.htm#29965
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 11:57:13 Concession of JB: http://www...hread=37434&time=1281372156527
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Aug 09 11:59:32 "Hey J.B. go read your bible" But that takes work. Can I just bash Muslims to make myself feel like a good Christian instead? BTW, "I am not a practicing Christian." -Fake Christian JB
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:01:28 I've read the bible cover to cover. I am not a hypocrite like some people. I do not follow the teachings of the Bible, but I dont have to follow the teachings of a religion to a. understand it or b. make a judgement call on it. I know the Bible cover to cover, and I know the Qur'an almost as well. I follow neither, but I can quote both. No, I will not follow Islam, and no I will not go to church on Sunday, and donate to a preacher I never met before. This is evil?
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Aug 09 12:02:11 "I do not follow the teachings of the Bible" -Fake Christian JB
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Aug 09 12:02:46 "I will not go to church on Sunday, and donate to a preacher I never met before. This is evil?" No. Just hypocritical.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 12:03:55 You ignored what the Bible has said about the demise of non-believers that you are so vehemntly against because that is what the Quran teaches, according to you. But your concession has been noted: http://www...hread=37434&time=1281372156527
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:04:31 "No. Just hypocritical." So now I am a hypocrite because I do not follow the teachings of every book I ever read or studied? Did you ever read Roman or Greek mythology? Do you pray to Hera or Zeus? Does it make you a hypocrite if you do not worship the gods you read about in books?
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:05:41 "Mon Aug 09 12:03:55 You ignored what the Bible has said about the demise of non-believers that you are so vehemntly against because that is what the Quran teaches, according to you" So now I am vehemently against unbelievers? Link?
Tragically Hip Member	Mon Aug 09 12:08:39 Islam = submission...hmmm But doesn't that = the individual submitting themselves / their will to Allah, or whatever... and not, what I think you're trying to say, make infidels submit to Muslims. And don't say "it's the same thing".
miltonfriedman Member	Mon Aug 09 12:10:27 "So now I am a hypocrite because I do not follow the teachings of every book I ever read or studied?" Hypocritical: "Christianity should be taught in public schools." "I do not practice Christianity" Hope this clear things up.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 12:14:42 I said that you are against the Quran because some of the contents views again non-believers, infidels. The Bible has the same language too. However you how the Bible above the Quran. Your concession about it was right here; http://www...hread=37434&time=1281372156527
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:19:49 Mon Aug 09 12:10:27 "So now I am a hypocrite because I do not follow the teachings of every book I ever read or studied?" Hypocritical: "Christianity should be taught in public schools." "I do not practice Christianity" Hope this clear things up. " Actually, no it doesn't. I think Christianity should be taught in schools *AS A HISTORICAL SUBJECT* rather than being ignored as revisionist atheists want to do, by ignoring the role it played in history. I do not think proselytization should occur in school.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:21:36 "Mon Aug 09 12:14:42 I said that you are against the Quran because some of the contents views again non-believers, infidels. The Bible has the same language too. However you how the Bible above the Quran." I have an opinion that the teachings of Jesus are far superior to the teachings of Mohammed. I offer as evidence the teachings of both "prophets", in a side by side comparison. The reader, the individual with Free Will (who has not yet "submitted" his will to any teaching) must judge for himself/herself which teaching is superior.
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 12:21:54 Concession noted: http://www...hread=37434&time=1281372156527
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 12:24:44 Did you or did you not ask Aeros' to ask his muslim friend if he agrees with everything in the Quran, which suggests that he should have some objectivity, due to some of the extremist language of it's content? Where such extremist language can be located in the Bible as well, in which Christians routinely use objectivity, which in turns suggestions that Muslims are incapable of? Are these your opinions? It's okay, we have your concession; http://www...hread=37434&time=1281372156527
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 12:26:03 Some of JB's examples of Muhammad's "intolerance": Qur'an 5:17 "Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, 'The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.'" Qur'an 5:72 "They are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: 'God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.' But the Messiah only said: 'O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'" --- Yeah, next time try to come up with something better than "we Muslims believe something different from Christians."
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:27:16 Rugian, do you also summarize the contents of a book by the first sentence in it?
Cold Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 12:28:14 Well, apparently you do in regards to the Bible. As noted here; http://www...hread=37434&time=1281372156527
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 12:31:49 Most of your quotes are along the lines of "Christians and Jews are wrong, so don't follow what they believe" and "non-believers will burn in Hell when they die." If you think the New Testament is devoid of such sentiments, there's a book called Revelation that I think you may be interested in reading.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:33:00 Show me the love, mercy and peace of Islam, or show me a quote of Jesus teaching hate and violence. Just show me. Back up your argument.
J.B. Member	Mon Aug 09 12:34:27 Do you deny, for example, this: There can be peace in the world- according to Islam- only when there is global submission to Allah.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 12:36:30 "Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers." - Qur'an 60:8
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 12:37:23 "There can be peace in the world- according to Islam- only when there is global submission to Allah." The New Testament basically says the same thing. There can only be peace in the world when the non-believers are cast into Hell during the apocolypse and only the faithful remain on Earth.
Paramount Member	Mon Aug 09 12:38:18 Judaism says the same thing as well.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 12:40:16 No, it doesn't.
Paramount Member	Mon Aug 09 12:54:08 Rugian Member Mon Aug 09 12:40:16 No, it doesn't. ^Lies A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17 Extermination of the Christians is a necessary sacrifice. Zohar, Shemoth Tob shebbe goyyim harog - Even the best of the Goyim (Gentiles) should be killed. Soferim 15, Rule 10 All Israelites will have a part in the future world . . . The Goyim, at the end of the world will be handed over to the angel Duma and sent down to hell. Zohar, Shemoth, Toldoth Noah, Lekh-Lekha Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night. Midrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L
so what Member	Mon Aug 09 13:39:26 Oh, so Christianity and Islam want everybody to be in paradise when they go to another world and the jews want to live in paradise in this world, to be served by non-jews... the more I learn about judaism, the more disgusted by them I become.
Rugian Member	Mon Aug 09 13:51:24 so what: Paramount is deceiving you. Ask him to quote a source that isn't unique to Kabbalah.
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 18:46:02 I've been gone all day, sorry. Rugian, after catching up I concede. You were absolutely right this morning.
Dickhead UPer Member	Mon Aug 09 19:27:40 Uh oh. Two concessions, what is this the twilight zone?
Hot Rod Member	Mon Aug 09 19:29:46 It's called being honest. You should try it sometime.
Dickhead UPer Member	Mon Aug 09 19:39:30 Obviously you're trying it. Btw, what am I being dishonest about?
werewolf dictator Member	Tue Aug 10 10:05:16 1 corinthians 7 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. does it make sense..that can one rape their own body.. no surprise christianity historically dont accept that rape happens in marriage..
Cold Rod Member	Tue Aug 10 10:49:24 JB not around? I'm shocked!
Davey Avenger Member	Sat Nov 20 10:01:16 set davey free
so what Member	Sun Nov 21 04:25:44 Only Jewish and Christian law should be followed by the US courts!
Nekran Member	Sun Nov 21 04:33:52 "It cannot be stated too often or too loudly that Islam is flatly incompatible with American values. It is impossible for a devout Muslim to be a good citizen of the United States or any other nation formed and shaped by the Judeo-Christian tradition." No devout follower of any religion can be a good citizen of any secular nation. "show me a quote of Jesus teaching hate and violence." Jesus went out from there, and withdrew into the region of Tyre and Sidon. Behold, a Canaanite woman came out from those borders, and cried, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, you son of David! My daughter is severely demonized!" But he answered her not a word. His disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away; for she cries after us." But he answered, "I wasnâ??t sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But she came and worshiped him, saying, "Lord, help me." But he answered, "It is not appropriate to take the childrenâ??s bread and throw it to the dogs." But she said, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their mastersâ?? table." Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, great is your faith! Be it done to you even as you desire." And her daughter was healed from that hour. Jesus is basically being racist against all non-jews. He does help the woman after she grovels and admits she's but a dog in comparison to the jews... but I'd still call that hate.
so what Member	Sun Nov 21 04:39:28 You call that hate, but that's because you don't respect the Chosen People like JB and HR do. Also remember 6 million jews were killed! And they were persecuted throughout history. Hated by every people they came to.
roland Member	Sun Nov 21 04:41:40 So Hot Rod's brother has been exposed for posting crxp again?
Seb Member	Mon Nov 22 11:13:28 Rugian: I think perhaps you have a problem, you are unable to see the bad sides of your country... no, wait, hang on, that's total bollocks: what you are actually doing is carefully going back to the source material and removing the BS inserted by media. Now if only you could see that pattern of behaviour when others engaged in it too...
Rugian Member	Mon Nov 22 11:36:25 Seb, Sorry, but what?
Seb Member	Mon Nov 22 11:48:14 Every time you pull a hot rod and start pontificating about the UK taking random sensationalist crap as your gospel source material, and I quietly point out the inaccuracies, you start lecturing me on my obvious nationalist bias. Given you now demonstrated ability to debunk sensationalist crap, and your ability to recognise the media engages in sensationalist crap, I suggest you apply the same skills more widely.
Milton Bradley Member	Tue Nov 23 03:44:39 "Seb Member Mon Nov 22 11:48:14 Every time you pull a hot rod" That kind of flaming is just uncalled for.
	show deleted posts