Is Obama the anti-christ from the east?

[numinus]

what laws do you find freedom of thought inalienable?
in Islam they don't think the same way you do.
argue with yourself all you want, you still won't understand Islamic theology or thought unless you lived it.

Try the first ammendment.

 

[bewitched]

Try the first ammendment.

in what country?
I think you are going a little off topic here.

in Islam there are no first ammendments.
if this country is threatened by an Islamic take-over then there won't be a first ammendment here either.
if Obama has a position of power and lays the US down like a doormat for our rights to be taken away then we do have a little problem. and that's what's on the table.

 

[numinus]

in what country?
I think you are going a little off topic here.

in Islam there are no first ammendments.
if this country is threatened by an Islamic take-over then there won't be a first ammendment here either.
if Obama has a position of power and lays the US down like a doormat for our rights to be taken away then we do have a little problem. and that's what's on the table.

I am talking about YOU -- not some goat herder in the middle east.

If you believe you have an inalienable right of thought -- something that is a function of your human nature, not granted by the state -- then how in heavens name can you deny the same in somebody else????

 

[bewitched]

I am talking about YOU -- not some goat herder in the middle east.

If you believe you have an inalienable right of thought -- something that is a function of your human nature, not granted by the state -- then how in heavens name can you deny the same in somebody else????

am I the topic of this thread? no. this is about Obama and the threats we face.
here, maybe this will help you understand that Islam doesn't recognize those inalienable rights you profess.
"Last October, the international media establishment was abuzz over a letter sent by 138 Islamic scholars representing the elite of the worldwide ulema to Pope Benedict, entitled “A Common Word between Us and You”, in response to his papal address at Regensburg in September 2006. The letter extols the common bonds between Muslims and Christians, and their common belief in the love towards neighbors. It further declares that “justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbor.” Many Christian leaders have responded by welcoming this effort and affirming the Islamic scholars’ letter.

The letter was the product of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan, and its chief scholar, Sheikh Said Hijjawi, was one of the 138 signatories (#49). In fact, according to the introduction, the letter was presented by the Institute to the Islamic scholars gathered at a conference held at their facilities in September 2007.

There is one thing, however, amidst all the flowery overtures, theological discussion, and representations of religious pluralism that the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute and the 138 Islamic scholars forgot to mention: The Institute, which operates a website, AlTafsir.com, which it calls “the largest and greatest online collection of Qur’anic commentary, translation, recitation, and essential resources in the world,” includes in an “Ask the Mufti” section a number of fatwas on apostasy issued by the Institute’s chief scholar, Sheikh Hijjawi, that call for the death of Christian reverts (Christians converting to Islam and then returning to the Christian faith) and Muslim apostates. Further they state that if the Christian reverts and Muslim apostates are not killed, they should be deprived of all rights and accorded the status of non-persons.

This glaring contradiction between the proffer of dialogue with Christians on the basis of allegedly shared common beliefs in freedom of religion and human rights, while simultaneously denying those very fundamental freedoms and recognition of rights to those Christians and Muslims who choose to exercise their freedoms, was first noted by an Australian Anglican cleric, Dr. Mark Durie, in a blog post last week [HT: Andrew Bostom]. Rev. Durie, a noted scholar on comparative theology who spent years studying the culture of the Acehnese in Indonesia and is fluent in Arabic, also is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and senior associate of the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. He previously served as the head of the Department of Linguistics and Language Studies there."
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/what_the_islamic_scholars_forg.php

 

[9sublime]

I love it how you have conveniently avoided giving me those direct quotes you said you would give after your one pathetic excuse for a dodge bewitched.

 

[numinus]

am I the topic of this thread? no. this is about Obama and the threats we face.

It is most definitely about you. There is something dreadfully wrong with your opinion that you can presume to know a person's thoughts by his religious affiliation alone.

And when you extrapolate this opinion to the entirety of people of that particular religion, regardless of cultural background, education, nationality, etc.....well, you know the meaning of the word.

here, maybe this will help you understand that Islam doesn't recognize those inalienable rights you profess.
"Last October, the international media establishment was abuzz over a letter sent by 138 Islamic scholars representing the elite of the worldwide ulema to Pope Benedict, entitled “A Common Word between Us and You”, in response to his papal address at Regensburg in September 2006. The letter extols the common bonds between Muslims and Christians, and their common belief in the love towards neighbors. It further declares that “justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbor.” Many Christian leaders have responded by welcoming this effort and affirming the Islamic scholars’ letter.

The letter was the product of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan, and its chief scholar, Sheikh Said Hijjawi, was one of the 138 signatories (#49). In fact, according to the introduction, the letter was presented by the Institute to the Islamic scholars gathered at a conference held at their facilities in September 2007.

There is one thing, however, amidst all the flowery overtures, theological discussion, and representations of religious pluralism that the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute and the 138 Islamic scholars forgot to mention: The Institute, which operates a website, AlTafsir.com, which it calls “the largest and greatest online collection of Qur’anic commentary, translation, recitation, and essential resources in the world,” includes in an “Ask the Mufti” section a number of fatwas on apostasy issued by the Institute’s chief scholar, Sheikh Hijjawi, that call for the death of Christian reverts (Christians converting to Islam and then returning to the Christian faith) and Muslim apostates. Further they state that if the Christian reverts and Muslim apostates are not killed, they should be deprived of all rights and accorded the status of non-persons.

This glaring contradiction between the proffer of dialogue with Christians on the basis of allegedly shared common beliefs in freedom of religion and human rights, while simultaneously denying those very fundamental freedoms and recognition of rights to those Christians and Muslims who choose to exercise their freedoms, was first noted by an Australian Anglican cleric, Dr. Mark Durie, in a blog post last week [HT: Andrew Bostom]. Rev. Durie, a noted scholar on comparative theology who spent years studying the culture of the Acehnese in Indonesia and is fluent in Arabic, also is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and senior associate of the Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne. He previously served as the head of the Department of Linguistics and Language Studies there."
http://www.pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/what_the_islamic_scholars_forg.php

Sigh.

However self-contradictory or idiotic or down-right offensive your thoughts are, YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO THEM. That is what an INALIENABLE RIGHT means.

If this logic is applicable to offensive speech or expression, like that of say, purveyors of pornography or the ku klux klan, how much more is it applicable to person's THOUGHTS????

 

[bewitched]

I love it how you have conveniently avoided giving me those direct quotes you said you would give after your one pathetic excuse for a dodge bewitched.

I showed you the direct quote. you choose to remain in denial.

 

[bewitched]

It is most definitely about you. There is something dreadfully wrong with your opinion that you can presume to know a person's thoughts by his religious affiliation alone.

And when you extrapolate this opinion to the entirety of people of that particular religion, regardless of cultural background, education, nationality, etc.....well, you know the meaning of the word.



Sigh.

However self-contradictory or idiotic or down-right offensive your thoughts are, YOU STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO THEM. That is what an INALIENABLE RIGHT means.

If this logic is applicable to offensive speech or expression, like that of say, purveyors of pornography or the ku klux klan, how much more is it applicable to person's THOUGHTS????

oh gawd. I'm out. you fail to understand that in Islam there is no inalienable rights. and the danger to the US is real.
good luck to you.

 

[9sublime]

I showed you the direct quote. you choose to remain in denial.

Please show me where you gave a direct quote to support every one of your critisisms and I will happily accept my error - or stop lying. Either one will finish the argument.

 

[vyo476]

oh gawd. I'm out. you fail to understand that in Islam there is no inalienable rights. and the danger to the US is real.
good luck to you.

No matter how many times or how vehemently anyone tells you that you don't have the ability to think for yourself, it still isn't true. No religion can take that away short of physical lobotomy or death.

Let's say someone believes the law of gravity does not apply to himself. He completely, fully believes that, one hundred percent. What do you suppose happens when he jumps off a building and tries to fly?

Belief does not trump fact, whether it be physical or metaphysical. Unless I'm much mistaken that's what numinus is trying to get through to you.

 

[bokile]

typical. why doesn't he embrace the photo

he's not secretly a Muslim, he is a Muslim and always will be a Muslim according to the Quran.

I agree he "changed" his religion so he could gain a political power

 

[bewitched]

I agree he "changed" his religion so he could gain a political power

indeed. he wouldn't have been able to become a senator unless he was a Christian.
there is no doubt that his muslim ties and his errors of judgement in US military defense are probably intentional.
I'm not willing to take that risk.

 

[Popeye]

indeed. he wouldn't have been able to become a senator unless he was a Christian.
there is no doubt that his muslim ties and his errors of judgement in US military defense are probably intentional.
I'm not willing to take that risk.

Fact: Obama is not a Muslim he's a Christian

Now, if you want to assign some loony conspiracy theory to his candidacy that's your prerogative, but it says way more about your paranoia and you as a person more than anything else.

 

[PLC1]

typical. why doesn't he embrace the photo instead?
I don't think the Clinton campaign released it, it was out way before that since it happened in 2006.

he's not secretly a Muslim, he is a Muslim and always will be a Muslim according to the Quran.

Once again, with feeling:

Barack Obama is not a Muslim.

Even if he were a Muslim, the nonsense about him being some kind of terrorist is just that, nonsense. That story has been debunked.

And the idea that he is the Antichrist is in the same category as stories about the ghost of Elvis and having Bigfoot's baby. It's garbage.

Just for the record, I still don't believe you lived with the Taliban.

 

[numinus]

oh gawd. I'm out. you fail to understand that in Islam there is no inalienable rights. and the danger to the US is real.
good luck to you.

The presumption of innocence is the single legal principle most endearing to organized crime. In fact, it stands in the way of punishing them.

But the legal system doesn't do away with this principle because in doing so, it becomes a GREATER DANGER TO SOCIETY THAN WHAT IT MEANS TO ERADICATE.

Which is exactly what you are doing. You criticize other people for intolerance when, in fact, YOUR INTOLERANCE IS AS MUCH A DANGER TO SOCIETY AS THOSE YOU CRITICIZE.

Do you finally understand or do you require me to speak in much plainer english?