Election: What Is Your Take...

[Cow Poke]

....After all - I still have to carry money around that says "in god we trust,"....

Please send it all to me, and I will proudly carry it around.

[Cerebrum123]

Actually - I have. But check your local U.S. Muslims and ask them what they think. You might be surprised.

So to understand the teachings of Christianity you would just trust the average "Joe Christian" on the street? That may be good enough for you, but I prefer to go to the source. The outward sayings of Muslims don't seem to apply when Muslims gain power. The actual teachings of the Quran and Hadith aren't something the average Muslim can change. Then there is the issue of taqqiya.

If you don't think Muslims gaining a majority could change things for the worse in the USA, then you haven't been paying attention to places like Dearborn Michigan. Christians being arrested even when they were following the laws of the area for spreading the Gospel.

[carpedm9587]

Please send it all to me, and I will proudly carry it around.

I'm sure you would...but then again.... THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU!

[carpedm9587]

So to understand the teachings of Christianity you would just trust the average "Joe Christian" on the street? That may be good enough for you, but I prefer to go to the source.

I actually said or suggested nothing of the kind...

The outward sayings of Muslims don't seem to apply when Muslims gain power. The actual teachings of the Quran and Hadith aren't something the average Muslim can change. Then there is the issue of taqqiya.

Actually, it's Taqiya or Taqiyya. This practice, in Islamic law, is only permitted in the face of persecution, compulsion, or imminent harm. Although the anti-Islamic sentiment has become significant, most Muslims I know would never consider engaging in this - and laugh when I suggest it. The general response is "this is still the U.S. - we're nowhere near that point."

If you don't think Muslims gaining a majority could change things for the worse in the USA, then you haven't been paying attention to places like Dearborn Michigan. Christians being arrested even when they were following the laws of the area for spreading the Gospel.

Perhaps you have not followed the case as well as you should. The arrests were not made by Muslims, but by the city police for "breach of peace." Since then, the two involved were unanimously acquitted by a jury of their peers (just the way it's supposed to work) and the city issued a public apology. You are also talking about an 8-year-old event.

People being arrested on false grounds is not new. And the system appears to have worked exactly as it was supposed to.

Cerebrum - that you have an anti-Muslim perspective is evident. I don't share it - and I don't find it becoming. I also don't find it based on anything remotely accurate.

[One Bad Pig]

Outside of context - of course. The countries you are talking about weren't "taken over" by Muslims

You can't possibly be that ignorant of history, carpe.

- Muslims have pretty much always been a majority force - and the countries have had a strong lean towards theocracy. The notion that this would befall a country that has long valued religious liberty is borderline ludicrous. As I said - if we have survived decades (centuries?) of Christians wanting to make this a "Christian nation," we would survive Islam as well.

As cerebrum has said - your ignorance of Islam is showing. If the United States became a Muslim majority state, its values would necessarily change significantly in that process. That you seem to think otherwise is beyond ludicrous.

[carpedm9587]

You can't possibly be that ignorant of history, carpe.

I have a feeling we're not talking about the same things. Are you referring to Muslim expansion in the 7th century? If so, you might want to take a moment and compare it to what happened to the Aztecs, Incas, and the Christianization of Europe in the 7th-15th centuries. I'm not seeing anything that other religions have done over time.

But this isn't the 7th-15th centuries. There are seven theocracies in the world today (AFAICT): Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Vatican City. Six are Muslim - and all six have been predominantly Muslim (though not always theocracies) for several centuries. One is under the control of a monarchy (Saudi Arabia). Afghanistan has been a battleground for political control since time immemorial. All of them are in or just around the middle east.

As cerebrum has said - your ignorance of Islam is showing. If the United States became a Muslim majority state, its values would necessarily change significantly in that process. That you seem to think otherwise is beyond ludicrous.

Your opinion is duly noted. Don't look now, but your anti-Muslim sentiment is showing.

[Cow Poke]

I'm sure you would...but then again.... THIS IS NOT ABOUT YOU!

If it's on Tweb, it's about me.

[One Bad Pig]

I have a feeling we're not talking about the same things. Are you referring to Muslim expansion in the 7th century? If so, you might want to take a moment and compare it to what happened to the Aztecs, Incas, and the Christianization of Europe in the 7th-15th centuries. I'm not seeing anything that other religions have done over time.

False equivalence for the win, carpe? Islam has expanded solely through the sword for nearly all of its history. In contrast, you are vastly exaggerating the spread of Christianity in Europe via the sword, and the New World conquests were not significantly driven by religion (though it was occasionally used as a convenient cloak).

But this isn't the 7th-15th centuries. There are seven theocracies in the world today (AFAICT): Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Vatican City. Six are Muslim - and all six have been predominantly Muslim (though not always theocracies) for several centuries. One is under the control of a monarchy (Saudi Arabia). Afghanistan has been a battleground for political control since time immemorial. All of them are in or just around the middle east.

I'm not sure what you're trying to combat here; even you acknowledge that the only non-Muslim explicit theocracy is an insignificant flyspeck. Are you trying to imply that those are the only countries where sharia law is in effect?

Your opinion is duly noted. Don't look now, but your anti-Muslim sentiment is showing.

Your opinion of my opinion is duly noted. Be sure to let me know how my opinion is allegedly anti-Muslim.

[Sparko]

And none of them have the U.S. constitution or safeguards.

Christians have been insisting this is a "Christian country" for decades - maybe centuries - but our protections remain in place. They will survive a Muslim majority as well.

Read OBP's post.

And a constitution and a government could be overthrown here just like it has been in every other country that Muslim's took over.

If there is ever a theocracy in the USA, it would be Muslim, not Christian. Even when 90+% of the USA was Christian we didn't have anything close to a theocracy.

[Cow Poke]

Read OBP's post.

And a constitution and a government could be overthrown here just like it has been in every other country that Muslim's took over.

If there is ever a theocracy in the USA, it would be Muslim, not Christian. Even when 90+% of the USA was Christian we didn't have anything close to a theocracy.

And Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association addressed that.

[Sparko]

Read OBP's post.

And a constitution and a government could be overthrown here just like it has been in every other country that Muslim's took over.

If there is ever a theocracy in the USA, it would be Muslim, not Christian. Even when 90+% of the USA was Christian we didn't have anything close to a theocracy.

also, even in countries that are not officially a muslim Theocracy, such as Saudi Arabia which is a monarchy, Sharia Law still has precedent in the running of the country.

[JimL]

Says the anti-Christian bigot who is here for no other reason than to be a jackass.

Says the anti-athiest bigot, hypocrite and supporter of Trump, the treasonous underminer of our democracy.

[Cow Poke]

Says the anti-athiest bigot, hypocrite and supporter of Trump, the treasonous underminer of our democracy.

You need your diaper changed, Jim.

And it's not ME who's going to the 'atheists R us' website to harass atheists --- it's you who comes here to poop!

[Sparko]

Says the anti-athiest bigot, hypocrite and supporter of Trump, the treasonous underminer of our democracy.

"ant-atheist bigot"

[Cerebrum123]

I actually said or suggested nothing of the kind...

You suggested I do the equivalent of what I said, but for Islam.

Actually, it's Taqiya or Taqiyya. This practice, in Islamic law, is only permitted in the face of persecution, compulsion, or imminent harm. Although the anti-Islamic sentiment has become significant, most Muslims I know would never consider engaging in this - and laugh when I suggest it. The general response is "this is still the U.S. - we're nowhere near that point."

I always get confused on whether it is two Q's, or Y's. Way to nitpick though.

It's allowed in far more than just "persecution, compulsion, or imminent harm". Mohammed allowed it in the case of murdering a man who opposed Mohammed and not only allowed it, but endorsed such activity. Since he is the ultimate standard as far as what a "good Muslim" is supposed to be, then it's pretty important.

The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do".
Sahih Bukhari 4:52:271

Lying* for the sake of a good outcome is also allowed according to Hadith.

He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar.
Sahih Bukhari 3:49:857

Remember, the Quranic verse that is often used to justify it only in "persecution" says to not even be friends with non-Muslims unless you are afraid of them. So, either they aren't following Quranic teachings, or your own Muslim friends are afraid of you.

Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them.
Surah 3:28

Ibn Kathir on 3:28—Allah said next, (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''

Perhaps you have not followed the case as well as you should. The arrests were not made by Muslims, but by the city police for "breach of peace." Since then, the two involved were unanimously acquitted by a jury of their peers (just the way it's supposed to work) and the city issued a public apology. You are also talking about an 8-year-old event.

People being arrested on false grounds is not new. And the system appears to have worked exactly as it was supposed to.

They were set up by a group of Muslim thugs at an Arab festival. The police went along with it, and those arrested reported police there who talked to them about the kinds of things going on there, like "honor" killings, but were too afraid to do anything about it. The system nearly didn't work with the people in Dearborn doing their best to keep the videos taken by Acts17 Apologetics out of the picture as long as possible. They painted them as hateful bigots who were being disruptive. If you watch the videos of what happened, said claim was far from the truth. The anti-Semitic stuff was being given a free pass there, and these thugs had gotten far more people thrown out, and possibly arrested. If it weren't for the videos, and the fact that they had been warned of such activity beforehand the Acts17 group likely would have not gotten the truth out. If the system had been working as it was supposed to, the arrest wouldn't have happened, because the Muslims who set them up would have been forbidden from coming to the Arab Festival that year. The police were also informed by a third party that a setup was in the works, but the one doing the arrest was unwilling to listen to a fellow police officer. Given everything that happened it sounds like the non-Muslim leaders in Dearborn are a bunch of dummiesDhimmies.

If you really think it would have been different if Muslims were the majority in the USA, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Cerebrum - that you have an anti-Muslim perspective is evident. I don't share it - and I don't find it becoming. I also don't find it based on anything remotely accurate.

I have an anti-Islam sentiment yes, as the teachings are evil. I don't have anything against individual Muslims however. Given your distortions, and other positions I don't really care what you think is "becoming" or not.

*In another version it says a rationalizes things by saying that type of lie isn't really a lie.