"Religion of Peace?"

[RESOLUTION]

Terrorists will never control Islam because terrorism is fundamentally anti-Islamic and these alleged terror organizations creations of Mossad and Western Intelligence agencies.

And Muslims don't fear terrorists we fight them.

Ignorant Americans are a bigger threat to Islam than fake terrorists.

And the True God will bring an end to all.

You see how we can make statements but in the end God has the last say.

As for Fake terrorist are you saying the planes flew themselves into the buiding's of the 9/11 attack?

What business did any other Country or their people have in the USA to kill innocent men and women?

If you don't admit to Islamic terrorism then how are you going to debate the truth or keep them from attacking their own?
Of course that is when Islam would fall. Once a religion turns upon it's own, it will fall.
It will self-destruct from within.

If we believe terrorism does not control Islam and Islam is good then why do they execute men and women in the streets with stoning and beheading for sinning?
Why are homosexuals put to death. Evil does not exist just by people hiding behind religion to do evil. Evil can exist with it's beliefs with a religion.

We are not here to judge others. But we must prevent evil from ruling.

 

[hughwatt]

And like the Judeans in Jesus (pbwh) day they were removed from power and even exiled in some cases, although the Muslims were far more just in their treatment in of Jews after they were removed from power in Arabia and let them live in peace after all was said and done. The Romans enslaved them by contrast and did many heinous things.

And like Jesus was slandered in the Talmud, which was completed before Islam so doesn't mention Mohammed (saw), he was slandered as ibn Ishaq reports by the Jews of Medina for killing 900 Jews, 150 years after his death they were spreading this lie that has no independent corroboration and wasn't reported as factual by Ishaq although it is certainly used as if he did. At least one contemporary author, a Malik, thought Ishaq an imposter, I think it's possible but also possible he felt duty bound to report, not as fact but that it was claimed, exactly what he was told, like Church Fathers did about lies told by the Jews about Jesus as early as Iraneus and Eusebius, which aren't used to misinform or treated as fact, typical double standard.

Yes, of course you would want to dismiss one of Islam's top historians, ibn Ishaq. After all, if anyone reads his writings the Muslim apologist finds them uncomfortable reading.

And despite you excluding us, we will not do the same and everybody who is good can go to Paradise regardless of religion.

The Religion of Peace. #214

You have any Islamic texts for that?

But Muslims are happy as long as Islam exists and don't need to convert obsessively like Evangelists or persecute Jews for killing Christ (saw) because we have our own religion. #215

So why are Muslims doing da'wa?

How peaceful. You will find war, but no such war crimes as these killings of women and children, in the Qur'an, only the sworn enemies of Islam who sought its destruction and soldiers only at that, men of fighting age. #218

There's no Islamic sources relaying accounts of Muslims slaughtering women and children upon Muhammad's orders?

You do understand Sharia only applies to Muslims and Muslims don't desire to make it the law of the world, right?

Quote just one authoritative Islamic source from the time of Muhammad for that.

Sharia is practiced everyday in America and everywhere there is Islam. It's not something that is coming but here, now, and no threat to anyone. It doesn't apply to anyone but Muslims and is protected by the Constitution. #219
[/quote]Which Constitution would that be?

Can you name a respected Muslim scholar or a famous and respected example of tafsir that provides us with an example of non peaceful exegesis of the Qur'an?

How many books dedicated to Quranic exegesis (tafsir) have you read and by who?

Because otherwise you are assuming that it is a relatively common thing to interpret the Qur'an for the cause of violence which is hardly the case in any true Muslim sect as the Qur'an is a very tolerant book that discouages violence, even injuring a person, one person, unless you have no choice and afterwards you are supposed to make some kind of peace agreement.

You would have to literally distort, not interpret, the Qur'an to reach any kind of excuse for unprovoked aggression. That is very rare. And not Islam any longer.#220

Google something to do with Muhammad's and Islams early violent history.

 

[hughwatt]

Islam is a persecuted religion in Turkey, not one in control of the government. So blaming Islam for the lack of Christians in Turkey is announcing to anyone who actually pays attention to history and current events that you don't even know Islam has no power in the Turkish government. Are uneducated regarding history.

I am not trying to make anyone feel stupid, although if you didn't know Muslims don't run the show in Turkey I don't know if you are capable of feeling stupid, definitely not of knowing it, much like the hate you feel that drives you to claim the existence of "polls" of "Muslims" who want to force Sharia on non-Muslims, which if you didn't make up yet actually believed, literally makes you stupid. Again sorry if rude, honesty first though.

Which is not even governed by Muslims, Islam or Sharia.

I don't think anyone could make people like this realize how dumb they are in thinking, if it can be called thinking, the dumb things they do. All with zero knowledge of who runs what in the world, knowledge of religious concepts true meaning, pretty much everything real and true.

Because it's only an uneducated person's attempt at justification of a hatred of a culture, and you can't educate those with minds clouded by hate, they don't want to learn and like, NEED, some group to hate.

To make their misery more bearable they put down the easiest people to put down.

In the wrong country at that...but I don't they really care about the facts or reality, it is more important to make up reasons why hate is appropriate even if they are reasons thought up in a state of historical, religious and all-around ignorance.

Is if funny, sad...both? I am not entirely sure what it is, besides pathetic, disturbing...#233

The timing of this post in the light of Turkey's election win for Erdoğan could not have been better.

So he doesn't want to establish a caliphate, a revived Ottoman empire he rules over where Islam dominated?

"There is no compulsion of any sort in religion as the right way stands distinguished from the way of error."

Is a quote, Sura 2:256 Qur'an.

Probably how it is known by this person, it's written in the Qur'an, forced conversion is forbidden in it.

Making it a fact based conclusion.

Making you wrong completely. Humorously too.

Hope that helps. Don't assume that people who say things regarding things in which you are uneducated are false, just because you are not educated.#235

As pointed out before, this verse was revealed when Muhammad was militarily weak and was trying the velvet glove approach to his enemies. That changed when he amassed an army then he started using violence against those who refused to accept him and his god.

I find it the most curious thing...

A person of limited education can be forgiven for misunderstanding and even fearing Sharia, given the measures taken by the media and the fear mongering propaganda from politicians and their aides, and the general conspiracy to slander Islam in every possible way while even claiming, from time to time, that Islam isn't the enemy, so as not to be accused of religious persecution and appear un-American, but nevertheless insisting "Radical Islam" is a threat to world peace, which they also created in many ways direct and indirect.

But if a Muslim tells you that Sharia is protected by the Constitution and therefore already exists in America and every place with religious freedom, isn't imposed on, never mind it not even applying to, non-Muslims, and you still feel the urge to and do continue to express the feeling that you don't want to live under Sharia, even though you were just told it doesn't apply to you so there is no reason to be concerned about it, you have serious mental problems when it comes to absorbing information.

Let me simplify this one last time.

Sharia is not a threat to anyone, and doesn't apply to non-Muslims, it is proper conduct for Muslims and if you aren't Muslim doesn't concern you whatsoever, making your ridiculous fears both ridiculous and unfounded on anything logical.

Sharia is protected as a religious freedom under the US Constitution and always has been, and has never caused a problem in America.

One last time, if you are not Muslim and concerned about Sharia, know this, Sharia is NOT CONCERNED with or about you.


As I mentioned previously, my education of Sharia is my personal responsibility and something that I have never had a conversation about in a Mosque or with any Muslim I know.

What I mean is if I am not being taught, never mind having it forced on me, Sharia, non-Muslims fearing Sharia just makes me laugh hysterically at their idiocy.

You can not explain to them even in simple terms anything that they will absorb to alleviate their fears.

It's almost as if they deliberately ignore facts so they don't have to let go of the fear that justifies their biggotry.

You have more to fear from Halakha and Zionism than Sharia. #238

What you're hoping the ignorant will not see is sharia is never enforced where Muslims are in the minority. The goal of Islam is to impose the said law upon all the world. If I'm wrong let's have some texts to disprove this. This will be done through violent means if necessary.

10:25. Allah invites us all to the abode of peace and He guides him who wishes to be guided to the exact right path leading to the goal.

3:64. O people of the Scripture! Let us agree to a proposition common to us both.


The definition of Jihad, Arabic-English Lexicon of Lane & Raghib:

The use of or exerting of one's utmost powers, efforts, eandeavors or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation, and this is of THREE KINDS; a visible enemy, the devil, and one's self.

The definition of "Holy War" is unknown entirely to Arabic speaking people who are unaware of the slanderous definition given by the West.

By slander I mean, lie, literally creating propaganda designed to give Westerners a false impression of the meaning of Jihad. It's not a secret, people are just not all that into investigating the validity of claims made about Islam, by enemies of Islam.

22:39-40

Permission (to fight in self defense) is now given to those against whom war is waged without cause, because they have been done Injustice to, and Allah indeed has might and power to help them. To those who have been driven from there homes without just cause. Their only fault was that they said, 'Our Lord is Allah.'

See: Palestine. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.#242

Does Allah guide the unbeliever? What did Allah say of the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), who refused to believe Muhammad's message?

 

[hughwatt]

Yes, however, sharia law could be an example. Plus, aren't we all born as Muslims?

How are we all "born as Muslims?"

 

[hughwatt]

First, is islam even a religion ? Or, is it an oppressive dictitorial government system that has religious overtones?

Second, we can only determine whether islam is peaceful by looking at it's "holy books", it's foundations that every moslem is admonished to adopt and regard as the very word of their god.

In a sense, islam is peaceful, that is, when it's objectives are achieved and the "infidels" are moslems under an islamic theocracy, there will be peace.

The koran has at least 106 sura's that proclaim violence against and/or control over non moslem people. Further, The hadith, comments about mohammeds life from a variety of authors, portrays him as a killer, torturer, and most probably a sexual deviant. Don't believe me, read it for yourself.
Third we must look at history to determine it's peacefulness. From it's inception, islam has been about violent conquest. Whether it be the violent conquest of Constantinople, a Christian city, the conquest of Spain, a Christian nation, the conquest of parts of Eastern Europe, originally Christian, or Fighting in attempt to conquer Austria, being stopped at the gates of Vienna. Lets also not forget the conquest of huge swathes of India, with particular brutality and extreme torture being carried out against the Sikh's. Always are brought up in defense of historically brutal islam, are the Crusades. The Crusades never arose till after 200 years of border war and harassment by islam, and were small in relation to the conquests of islam, and were very small in relation to the numbers of people killed in relation to islam.

Now, you no doubt will be told that those are times past, and modern day islam is peaceful. Lets look at that claim. Lebanon, a Christian nation, is now under total control of moslems, who through an invasion of "Palestinian refugees" displaced the Christian Lebanese, and now persecute them. This occurred in the 1960's, 70's, and 80's. At the beginning of the twentieth century , The ottoman empire slaughtered in the thousand upon thousands Greek Christians, Men, women, and children were literally butchered. Photo's of the carnage makes you want to weep. The photo that has haunted me since the day I saw it is of four very pretty young Greek girls, who had been brutally raped, then crucified, hanging nude on crosses.

The "borders of Fire" is the modern historical description of any non moslem country that shares a border with a moslem country. Continual strife and conflict.

Of course, we know now what allowing millions of primarily young men from moslem countries in has done to many liberal European states. Riots, almost continual in France, Sweden, the now rape capital of Europe, moslems may rape women who do not dress according the moslem definition of modestly.

Fourth, islam cannot be compatible with western culture and traditions, and laws. In the US, and Europe and Australia, they recreate the moslem foundations of their homeland in self created moslem ghetto's, then live as they always have lived. And, they complain. In new York, they sued a diner because the smell of frying bacon offended them. In London they demanded that no English person be allowed to walk a dog near their enclave. What they really, really hate is the Western concept of free speech. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikh's and others have had scurrilous things said about their religion, their Gods, their holy men and women, and recognize the ignorant ones spouting off have the RIGHT to say whatever they chose. Not so the moslem, they demand that your right be curtailed because they are offended.

There are many exceptions, and we should always judge an individual as an individual, but we must also recognize those fundamental beliefs they say they adhere to.

No, islam is not a peaceful religion

Yes, Islam is more political but with some religion thrown in.

 

[hughwatt]

Has Islam done anything to suggest it isn't?
More importantly... if the Islam terrorist got into power would those who call themselves peaceful Islam followers do as they were told by the terrorist due to fear?

If Satan can fool people by pretending to be an 'angel of light' how do you suggest a tyrant might rise in this world?

Just ask those sweet loving Muslim people around you if they would prefer sharia law wherever Muslims are in the majority. I think the answer will speak volumes.

 

[icehorse]

You are an idiot. I am sorry if it sounds rude, sometimes the truth is rude.

In my experience, such ad hominem attacks come from people who have weak arguments.

Sharia is not a threat to anyone, and doesn't apply to non-Muslims, it is proper conduct for Muslims and if you aren't Muslim doesn't concern you whatsoever, making your ridiculous fears both ridiculous and unfounded on anything logical.

Sharia is a threat within Muslim countries in addition to outside of them. The OIC (a collection of 57 "Muslim nations" within the UN), has consistently disregarded Universal Human Rights in favor of Sharia-friendly human rights. For example, under Sharia apostasy is a crime, often a capital crime. Under Sharia, women are second class citizens, as are non-Muslims.

 

[shmogie]

Who is "they"? You appear to be describing Sharia obedient Sunni Muslims. Just as the word Christianity isn't defined by the KKK or the Justinian code, Islam isn't defined by the Umayyad interpretation of the Quran and MP

THEY are those who follow the Koran, sunni, wahabi, shia, whomever. I will happily concede that there have been in the past, and they exist today, islamic scholars who interpret the book in symbolic and allegorical ways, thus pretty much pulling it's fangs. Sadly these scholars in the past were persecuted, and today they are a tiny minority.

 

[shmogie]

"There is no compulsion of any sort in religion as the right way stands distinguished from the way of error."

Is a quote, Sura 2:256 Qur'an.

Probably how it is known by this person, it's written in the Qur'an, forced conversion is forbidden in it.

Making it a fact based conclusion.

Making you wrong completely. Humorously too.

Hope that helps. Don't assume that people who say things regarding things in which you are uneducated are false, just because you are not educated.

Read your quotation carefully. Your exegesis fails. It has nothing to do with compelling one to follow the "true faith". It says that the right way is so obvious that you should believe the truth as opposed to error without any compulsion. It says nothing about what will happen if you choose to not believe the obvious.

I have spent a lot of time and study to understand the history and beliefs of islam, I know quite a bit about both issues. Your quotation helps in showing you don't fully grasp what you read. Hope this helps

 

[J2hapydna]

Your translation reads very differently than mine. And yes I "claim" to have read the Quran, because I read the mediocre, dusty old tome. As far as having an understanding, I would say watch your tongue, because Muslims don't agree with each other on the "proper" understanding of the book. So I'll say it again, I trust my translators over you.

Translation of Quran by Mohsin Khan and Taqi Al-Hilali - Surah (Chapter) 3. Aali Imraan

How does it read differently? Here are the two translations you have read?

Muhsin Khan:
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell the Verses of Allah for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is Swift in account

Hilali:
And there are, certainly, among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), those who believe in Allah and in that which has been revealed to you, and in that which has been revealed to them, humbling themselves before Allah. They do not sell the Verses of Allah for a little price, for them is a reward with their Lord. Surely, Allah is Swift in account.

So please explain this verse

I agree the Quran can be understood both as a peaceful text and as an extremist one.

 

[J2hapydna]

THEY are those who follow the Koran, sunni, wahabi, shia, whomever. I will happily concede that there have been in the past, and they exist today, islamic scholars who interpret the book in symbolic and allegorical ways, thus pretty much pulling it's fangs. Sadly these scholars in the past were persecuted, and today they are a tiny minority.

The way you have phrased your statement it suggests that the followers of these peaceful scholars are not following Islam and that only followers of the Umayyad scholars are following Islam. In other words you seem to be collaborating with ISIS. Do you realize this?

You say you concede, but you actually don't

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Movies, pornhub, dating apps can serve as a temptation for cheating.

This seems like floundering to me, and no solid evidence that adultery breeds adultery. More just another muslim opposing "Western culture".

In Illinois for example, the consequences for adultery is up to a year in jail for both cheaters.

No. In Illinois adultery is a Class-A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of no more than $2,500. It is also an archaic law, i.e. not actively enforced.

As for stoning to death, I think it was designed for religious people, so, I don't really sure about this one though. But the point is, if adultery is punishable then at list it has a bit of idea of sharia law.

You're promoting that sharia is better than other laws and methods. So prove that flogging and stoning (the sharia punishments for adultery) work better than jails and fines and are more importantly humane, and better for a peoples.

If the law allows polygamy it isn't adultery.

By that logic, if the law allows movies, porn, dating apps, and other forms of "adultery" then it's not adultery.

It's unfair to judge a foreign culture, a tradition as old as marriage and as old as Islam, in Islam, based on modern Western standards.

It is unfair to judge a foreign culture, and traditions older than islam, based on islamic standards.

Especially since most married people cheat,

Show some statistics, or you're just talking out your rear.

A Muslim can live a polygamous lifestyle in America if already wedded prior to moving here, too.

No they can't.

"...the U.S. government won't recognize bigamous marriages for immigration purposes (that is, would not allow one of the spouses to petition for immigration benefits for the other), even if they are legal in the country where bigamous marriage was celebrated. (Matter of Mujahid, 15 I. & N. Dec. 546 (BIA 1976)) Known bigamists are inadmissible to the United States. (8 USC §1182 (a)(10)(A))

 

[Theweirdtophat]

Get defensive, it helps. And yes, I can. I already have. I've made a number of posts on this thread here and here. I don't think anyone has actually tried to address the points I've made.




Okay, since you obviously don't believe your claims are strawmen, I'll attempt to explain why I believe it is.

This thread is about Islam - as in the religious doctrine. While the OP mentions Muslims, he doesn't mention all Muslims, nor does he generalise, nor does he say 'they all think the same' AFAIK. Literally the only person doing that here is you. You're deliberately twisting arguments made about the intolerant aspects of Islamic doctrine to make this about Muslims. You're trying to shift the conversation to force us to focus on the person rather than the belief that person holds. I'm honestly not sure whether this is deliberate. The point is, you're addressing an argument that is not being made - you're making up your own narrative, acting as if we hold it, and knock it down. That is why your arguments against our generalising of Muslims is a strawman - we're not making any such generalisations.

What's worse is you're even telling people what they think. "You think that all Muslims think the same because they read the same book!" You even do it later in this post of yours that I'm responding to here.




And which of my previous posts have actually said or implied that? I've been a bit sardonic but I've not gone out of my way to say those who disagree with me are stupid. I'd really appreciate it if you could stop putting words in my mouth.




"Couldn't". 'Could' doesn't make sense; if you could care less then that means you still care to some degree. Presumably you're trying to establish that you don't care.




I have done so in multiple posts which you or any other of Islam's defenders have yet to address. Pointing out the OIC's attempts global blasphemy laws undermines the claim that some Muslims don't want to force Islamic law on others is of substance; asking why applying Islamic religious law against non-Muslims is just, is of substance; pointing out the fact that saying 'aspects of Islam like zakat makes Islam peaceful but things like capital punishment for apostasy, historical extortion of non-Muslims (jizyah), enslavement of non-Muslims, the destruction of non-Islamic religious structures etc doesn't make Islam a violent or intolerant faith' is applying a double-standard.




We don't agree on this particular subject, that's all.




Anyone who refuses to learn about things like kinetic energy, mass & velocity while mindlessly chanting "9/11 was an inside job 'cause jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is not someone I'll be able to take seriously.




How have you arrived at that conclusion? Literally none of my posts contain arguments along those lines; and you have my permission to quote any post I've ever made here on RF to disprove me.




I feel the need to nip this misrepresentation thing you do squarely in the bud because I'm heartily sick of it. You ignore what people have said, tell them what they're arguing, then proceed to counter this argument that only you have produced. Again, the strawman thing.




Talking with someone who's either incapable or unwilling to counter the arguments presented in threads like this?




See, this is what I mean. You claim that I believe "all Muslims think the same because they read the same book", then proceed to get all incredulous with me because, apparently, this is what I think. You know what? Time to stop this crap here. Let me make this very clear for you:

I am arguing against Islamic doctrine. I am not generalising or stereotyping Muslims individually or collectively. That is not my goal, that is not my intent. My main contention is with the intolerant aspects of Islamic belief that some people seem all too eager to ignore but I feel need to be addressed and acknowledged if Islam is to undergo any genuine kind of Enlightenment.

This is your one & final warning: I've made clear what I'm arguing against and why. You can no longer feign ignorance on the matter. If you continue to misrepresent my arguments as being Islamophobic, anti-Muslim or being aimed at Muslims then I will continually point out that you're lying because you will then be misrepresenting my arguments in the knowledge of why I'm actually making them.




Just as pointing out problems with Christianity (which Mormonism is a sect of) and Judaism is unfair while giving Islam a free pass or, worse, accusing anyone who gives Islam similar treatment that the other two religions get is also unfair. Why is one okay but not the other? Christianity (rightly) comes in for a lot of criticism from some quarters of society who are more than willing to give Islam - with its similar history & doctrines which accommodate or even encourage intolerance towards outsiders - a free pass.

So what's your point?

I'm asking, what is your point? That there's contradictions in Islam and some people abuse it? We know this. We know already there's contradictions and some Muslims are control freaks out there. Focus on the ones that corrupt and pervert Islam, not Islam itself. Not all want to force Sharia law and not all Muslim majority countries follow Sharia law. But we need to base it on their actions, not on a book that was written over a thousand years ago but multiple people.

You don't have to be an expert in physics to know that a plane can't bring down buildings like that. Ok, the fuel did it. Even though the plane exploded and the jet fuel went away with it. Even if it could melt it, which it can't, explain how other steel buildings can still stand when they have been engulfed in flames, but the twin towers, as well built as it was, just collapses?

Yeah, that wasn't fire or fuel. That was clearly demolition.

But some will say that they don't hate all Muslims, but in the end, they may as well say it, because they will be less trustworthy of Muslims, always suspect them of wrongdoing and not interact with them if they can help it. I've seen that before with whites who say they don't hate all blacks but they act like it.

It's up to the individual Muslim to make the decision. You can change the doctrine all you want. Not all of them follow it to the letter anyway. And you can't ban Islam either because they'll still practice it anyway.

 

[Theweirdtophat]

You know the koran forbids forced conversion ? How do you know that, have you actually read the book ? How about the hadith, have you read that ? Your conclusions are not based on fact, perhaps wishes ?

What do you mean, "How do I know?" It's right there in there Quran. Whether a Muslim actually follows that, it's up to them. But there are multiple quotes that say it's forbidden.

"There shall be no compulsion in the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." [2:256]"

 

[sovietchild]

How are we all "born as Muslims?"

Muslim means a believer. In Islam we believe everyone was born as believer. Prophet Muhammad once said, "Each child is born in a state of "Fitrah"

"When a child is born, it has with it a natural belief in God. This natural belief is called in Arabic the “Fitrah”. If the child were left alone, it would grow up aware of God in His oneness, but all children are affected by the pressures of their environment whether directly or indirectly.

The Prophet said, “Each child is born in a state of “Fitrah”, but his parents make him a Jew or a Christian. It is like the way an animal gives birth to a normal offspring. Have you noticed any (young animal) born mutilated before you mutilate them?”"

The Fitrah - The Religion of Islam

 

[sovietchild]

This seems like floundering to me, and no solid evidence that adultery breeds adultery. More just another muslim opposing "Western culture".


No. In Illinois adultery is a Class-A misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of no more than $2,500. It is also an archaic law, i.e. not actively enforced.


You're promoting that sharia is better than other laws and methods. So prove that flogging and stoning (the sharia punishments for adultery) work better than jails and fines and are more importantly humane, and better for a peoples.


By that logic, if the law allows movies, porn, dating apps, and other forms of "adultery" then it's not adultery.


It is unfair to judge a foreign culture, and traditions older than islam, based on islamic standards.


Show some statistics, or you're just talking out your rear.


No they can't.

"...the U.S. government won't recognize bigamous marriages for immigration purposes (that is, would not allow one of the spouses to petition for immigration benefits for the other), even if they are legal in the country where bigamous marriage was celebrated. (Matter of Mujahid, 15 I. & N. Dec. 546 (BIA 1976)) Known bigamists are inadmissible to the United States. (8 USC §1182 (a)(10)(A))

What about Minnesota? 609.36 - 2016 Minnesota Statutes

When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

You're promoting that sharia is better than other laws and methods. So prove that flogging and stoning (the sharia punishments for adultery) work better than jails and fines and are more importantly humane, and better for a peoples.

I think stoning was designed that way because if one were to cheat on their spouse they would go to deep hell, but if one gets stoned then one would go to a shallow hell.

 

[shmogie]

So what's your point?

I'm asking, what is your point? That there's contradictions in Islam and some people abuse it? We know this. We know already there's contradictions and some Muslims are control freaks out there. Focus on the ones that corrupt and pervert Islam, not Islam itself. Not all want to force Sharia law and not all Muslim majority countries follow Sharia law. But we need to base it on their actions, not on a book that was written over a thousand years ago but multiple people.

You don't have to be an expert in physics to know that a plane can't bring down buildings like that. Ok, the fuel did it. Even though the plane exploded and the jet fuel went away with it. Even if it could melt it, which it can't, explain how other steel buildings can still stand when they have been engulfed in flames, but the twin towers, as well built as it was, just collapses?

Yeah, that wasn't fire or fuel. That was clearly demolition.

But some will say that they don't hate all Muslims, but in the end, they may as well say it, because they will be less trustworthy of Muslims, always suspect them of wrongdoing and not interact with them if they can help it. I've seen that before with whites who say they don't hate all blacks but they act like it.

It's up to the individual Muslim to make the decision. You can change the doctrine all you want. Not all of them follow it to the letter anyway. And you can't ban Islam either because they'll still practice it anyway.

Gads, another conspiracy theorist. Utter and total pap. I don't hate any moslem, but neither can I fully trust them because of taqqiya. I do hate the religion though, it is a brutal, repressive, stone age configuration. Yes, they will practice it, as is their right, but the rest of society should watch them closely, as is it's right.

 

[LuisDantas]

Dude, I'm quite concerned about the spread of Sharia. I share your concern.

What is there to that? Sharia is an explicitly Muslim law.

I realize that Muslim communities will (IMO foolishly) often call for its implementation, but hopefully it will be in vain.

Did it gain any ground somewhere in Europe or America in the last few decades? How and where?

 

[sun rise]

Read the Koran and associated Hadith and Sunnah. This will help you to interpret whether Islam was ever a "religion of peace." Look at the life and example of its founder.

Muhammad Sarwar: If they (the unbelievers) propose peace, accept it and trust in God. God is All-hearing and All-knowing

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I think stoning was designed that way because if one were to cheat on their spouse they would go to deep hell, but if one gets stoned then one would go to a shallow hell.

Ah. I see. So by bludgeoning to death with rocks someone who made an earthly mistake, you're giving them a lesser eternal sentence of suffering.

SMGDH.