What is a Moderate Muslim?

[shagdrum]

Continue to call me naive..... But I'd love to see you produce anything other than ad hominem and bare assertion.

Nevermind that is all you ever do.

PROJECTION: The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.

 

[Calabrio]

Find, if you had any level of knowledge of this subject, you'd realize I DID engage everything you asked and every point you made quite thoroughly. You seem to be trying to compensate for your ignorance of the subject(s) by using hostility. It's really gotten tiresome and, if it continues, I'm not going to bother to engage you anymore. It's not worth the effort.

You asked me what part of Sharia isn't consistent with the constitutional.
Did you read what I wrote? I specifically mentioned dhimmitude.
Before you look it up and pretend to be an informed individual, are you familiar with the term??

I specifically said:
how would you work dhimmitude into the constitution? Islam preaches Islamic supremacism, not tolerance and equality.
Do you think that Sharia is nothing more than wearing a something on your head and not drinking alcohol? Do you think Sharia is the equivalent of a Muslim ten commandments?

Also, you keep asserting you have "studied" Islam, but you all you have demonstrated is a knowledge of propaganda. This was pretty well illustrated in the other thread where you declared western music against Shariah.

What you mean is that I've provided arguments that contradict your pathetically limited knowledge.
Because you THINK you know something, when you're confronted with something that contradicts this, you immediately dismiss this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam

Continue to call me naive..... But I'd love to see you produce anything other than ad hominem and bare assertion.

Maybe someday you'll be wise enough to know that I have.

 

[FIND]

You asked me what part of Sharia isn't consistent with the constitutional.
Did you read what I wrote? I specifically mentioned dhimmitude.
Before you look it up and pretend to be an informed individual, are you familiar with the term??

I specifically said:
how would you work dhimmitude into the constitution? Islam preaches Islamic supremacism, not tolerance and equality.
Do you think that Sharia is nothing more than wearing a something on your head and not drinking alcohol? Do you think Sharia is the equivalent of a Muslim ten commandments?

Sorry guess I missed that. All your ad-hominem was a pain to read through so I guess I missed the one sentence where you made any type of response to my post.

Only certain sects of Islam preach Islamic supremacy. Dhimma is only a part of traditional Islam, not modern Islam outside of the less than tolerant countries. This would be equivalent to saying that Mormans should not be allowed in this country because polygamy is part of their beliefs. The Dhimma contract is of course a part of traditional Shariah law, however the Dhimma contract is basically allowing people of non-islamic faith to be citizens (of slightly lesser status) of islamic nations, so long as those people pay taxes. The Dhimma contract has nothing to do with secular states. Why would you have to reconcile Dhimma contract with the constitution? The US is a secular state. How bout this for a good read? "Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries: Tensions and Opportunities for Dutch and EU Foreign Policy" from Amsterdam University Press in 2008. You should be able to look it up. Why don't you tell me how many countries still follow this practice?

Sharia is in a way the equivalent of the ten commandments to them in as much as it is the word of god to believers and something they must follow. However, more contemporary and moderate sects interpret shariah differently, so once again, I'd love to hear specifically what you are taking issue with. As I have said time and again,

 

[Calabrio]

Sorry guess I missed that. All your ad-hominem was a pain to read through so I guess I missed the one sentence where you made any type of response to my post.

No, you just don't understand what I'm talking about.
You've demonstrated that countless times in this thread. I made the crucial mistake of presuming you knew something about the topic and addressed you as such. That was clearly a mistake.

Only certain sects of Islam preach Islamic supremacy.

No, it's in the Koran. You say you read the Koran. It's in there.
It's in the supporting books. It's at the foundation of Islam.

Do you need me to explain who Mohamed was to you as well??? Here's a hint, he wasn't a real nice guy.

I'm going to resign myself to the obvious here. It's pointless to have this discussion with you because, it's not that you're lying or trying to defend the indefensible, it's that you honestly have no idea what you are talking about-

I've been extremely patient with you. I've asked countless questions to you that have not been answered. You keep saying you read the Koran, what else did you read? What else have you studied? I asked you what order you read the Koran, how you accommodated the difficulties most people have when reading it. I asked if you read the supporting literature and sacred books. You've only told us you got the koran as a wedding present.

So far, all you've had are excuses.
Excuses why facts don't apply, excuses why you don't read facts, and excuses why you don't need to address honest and thoughtful challenges directed to you.

Everything you don't understand isn't ad hominem.
And since I'm not busy searching wikipedia like you, I don't have to provide internet "sources" every time I state something is true. A lack of footnotes on a message board does not mean ad hominem.

Dhimma is only a part of traditional Islam, not modern Islam outside of the less than tolerant countries.

No one asked you to provide an ignorant, semi-literate excuse for why the concept of Dhimmitude shouldn't be taken seriously. Or where it's not being applied right now. You challenged my assertion that Sharia law was NOT compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Dhimma is absolutely at the foundation of Sharia law.

Now explain to me how Dhimmatude can be applied in a way that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. If not, I don't expect a public apology, but you should consider doing some more research on this subject before you try to scold anyone EVER again.

Islamic Supremacy is a fundamental tenant of Islam and Sharia law.
If you had understood the Koran, you'd be aware of this.

This would be equivalent to saying that Mormans should not be allowed in this country because polygamy is part of their beliefs.

........because you just can't leave any doubt about how ignorantyou are, you feel the need to press the issue.

This is NOT equivalent to Mormons and polygamy.
Arguably, Islam and polygamy would be the equivalent to the Mormon belief, but even that is wrong. The Mormon church publicly DISAVOWED polygamy in 1890 and they excommunicate anyone that practices it! Unlike the Mormons, polygamy and slavery are practiced in Islam.

The Dhimma contract is of course a part of traditional Shariah law, however the Dhimma contract is basically allowing people of non-islamic faith to be citizens (of slightly lesser status) of islamic nations, so long as those people pay taxes.

That is an incredible benign, white washed, definition that really doesn't resemble the truth. It's not just a "tax" or jiyza, it's a form of subjugation and humiliation.

I'm going to quote an unattributed article I found online that happens to be totally accurate:

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience.

The plight of the dhimmis, an immense but almost completely ignored ongoing scandal that continues in Muslim countries today;
The plight of women under Sharia provisions, similar to conditions imposed on dhimmis, in the denial of equal rights and dignity;
Slavery in Islamic lands, which continues today, justified by Sharia-'s dhimmi codes;​

And here's something about the humiliation of dhimmis during collection of jizya:

In his commentary on Sura 9:29, Ibn Kathir writes that dhimmis must be:

disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they [dhimmis] are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated.[114]

Some scholars explicitly link this ritual to the interpretation of Sura [Qur'an 9:29], that jizya was not merely to be a tax, but also a symbol of humiliation:

[Saaghiruuna means] submissively… by coercion… [’an yadin means] directly, not trusting the trickery of an intermediary… by force… without resistance… in an unpraiseworthy manner… while you stand [and the dhimmi] sits with the whip in front of you [you take] the money while he has dirt on his head. (Al-Suyuti's tafsir on Sura 9:29)[115]​

The Dhimma contract has nothing to do with secular states. Why would you have to reconcile Dhimma contract with the constitution?

Are you following the conversation or just automatically naysaying things you clearly don't understand.
Let's go back to the beginning.
I asked you if you thought a MODERATE MUSLIM would seek to impose Sharia law through non-violent or democratic means.

The US is a secular state.

And so are most European countries, does that mean that they have nothing to worry about? Does that mean that Sharia can't be imposed on their secular state through democratic means?

How bout this for a good read? "Sharia and National Law in Muslim Countries: Tensions and Opportunities for Dutch and EU Foreign Policy" from Amsterdam University Press in 2008. You should be able to look it up. Why don't you tell me how many countries still follow this practice?

Is that one of your text books or did someone lend it to you?
Considering that I don't have the book, you'll have to ask me a more specific question. I don't know what you're asking me.

But, I can tell you, if it's about Sharia in Europe, it's not going to help any argument you're trying to make.

Sharia is in a way the equivalent of the ten commandments to them in as much as it is the word of god to believers and something they must follow. However, more contemporary and moderate sects interpret shariah differently, so once again, I'd love to hear specifically what you are taking issue with. As I have said time and again,

You're simply wrong.
Sharia is a complete system the dictates almost every aspect of the devote Muslims life. It's a complete political and theological system.

Please, do some research on the so-called "Religion of Peace." Have you read Robert Spencer's work or seen him speak? I don't know what you base your hostility on.
But, I will quote him in conclusion here. 5 things the Muslim community must do.

1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively not just "terrorism," but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people.
3. Teach Muslims the imperative of coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.

And since I added it in an edit after you'd already commented, I'll repost something I said earlier:

Also, you keep asserting you have "studied" Islam, but you all you have demonstrated is a knowledge of propaganda. This was pretty well illustrated in the other thread where you declared western music against Shariah.

What you mean is that I've provided arguments that contradict your pathetically limited knowledge.
Because you THINK you know something, when you're confronted with something that contradicts this, you immediately dismiss this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam

 

[FIND]

No, you just don't understand what I'm talking about.
You've demonstrated that countless times in this thread. I made the crucial mistake of presuming you knew something about the topic and addressed you as such. That was clearly a mistake.


No, it's in the Koran. You say you read the Koran. It's in there.
It's in the supporting books. It's at the foundation of Islam.

Do you need me to explain who Mohamed was to you as well??? Here's a hint, he wasn't a real nice guy.

I'm going to resign myself to the obvious here. It's pointless to have this discussion with you because, it's not that you're lying or trying to defend the indefensible, it's that you honestly have no idea what you are talking about-

I've been extremely patient with you. I've asked countless questions to you that have not been answered. You keep saying you read the Koran, what else did you read? What else have you studied? I asked you what order you read the Koran, how you accommodated the difficulties most people have when reading it. I asked if you read the supporting literature and sacred books. You've only told us you got the koran as a wedding present.

So far, all you've had are excuses.
Excuses why facts don't apply, excuses why you don't read facts, and excuses why you don't need to address honest and thoughtful challenges directed to you.

Everything you don't understand isn't ad hominem.
And since I'm not busy searching wikipedia like you, I don't have to provide internet "sources" every time I state something is true. A lack of footnotes on a message board does not mean ad hominem.


No one asked you to provide an ignorant, semi-literate excuse for why the concept of Dhimmitude shouldn't be taken seriously. Or where it's not being applied right now. You challenged my assertion that Sharia law was NOT compatible with the U.S. Constitution.

Dhimma is absolutely at the foundation of Sharia law.

Now explain to me how Dhimmatude can be applied in a way that is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. If not, I don't expect a public apology, but you should consider doing some more research on this subject before you try to scold anyone EVER again.

Islamic Supremacy is a fundamental tenant of Islam and Sharia law.
If you had understood the Koran, you'd be aware of this.


........because you just can't leave any doubt about how ignorantyou are, you feel the need to press the issue.

This is NOT equivalent to Mormons and polygamy.
Arguably, Islam and polygamy would be the equivalent to the Mormon belief, but even that is wrong. The Mormon church publicly DISAVOWED polygamy in 1890 and they excommunicate anyone that practices it! Unlike the Mormons, polygamy and slavery are practiced in Islam.


That is an incredible benign, white washed, definition that really doesn't resemble the truth. It's not just a "tax" or jiyza, it's a form of subjugation and humiliation.

I'm going to quote an unattributed article I found online that happens to be totally accurate:

Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring to restore.

If dhimmis complained about their inferior status, institutionalized humiliation, or poverty, their masters voided their contract and regarded them as enemies of Islam, fair game as objects of violence. Consequently, dhimmis were generally cowed into silence and worse. It was almost unheard-of to find dhimmis speaking out against their oppressors; to do so would have been suicide. For centuries dhimmi communities in the Islamic world learned to live in peace with their Muslim overlords by acquiescing to their subservience.

The plight of the dhimmis, an immense but almost completely ignored ongoing scandal that continues in Muslim countries today;
The plight of women under Sharia provisions, similar to conditions imposed on dhimmis, in the denial of equal rights and dignity;
Slavery in Islamic lands, which continues today, justified by Sharia-'s dhimmi codes;​

And here's something about the humiliation of dhimmis during collection of jizya:

In his commentary on Sura 9:29, Ibn Kathir writes that dhimmis must be:

disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they [dhimmis] are miserable, disgraced, and humiliated.[114]

Some scholars explicitly link this ritual to the interpretation of Sura [Qur'an 9:29], that jizya was not merely to be a tax, but also a symbol of humiliation:

[Saaghiruuna means] submissively… by coercion… [’an yadin means] directly, not trusting the trickery of an intermediary… by force… without resistance… in an unpraiseworthy manner… while you stand [and the dhimmi] sits with the whip in front of you [you take] the money while he has dirt on his head. (Al-Suyuti's tafsir on Sura 9:29)[115]​

Are you following the conversation or just automatically naysaying things you clearly don't understand.
Let's go back to the beginning.
I asked you if you thought a MODERATE MUSLIM would seek to impose Sharia law through non-violent or democratic means.


And so are most European countries, does that mean that they have nothing to worry about? Does that mean that Sharia can't be imposed on their secular state through democratic means?


Is that one of your text books or did someone lend it to you?
Considering that I don't have the book, you'll have to ask me a more specific question. I don't know what you're asking me.

But, I can tell you, if it's about Sharia in Europe, it's not going to help any argument you're trying to make.


You're simply wrong.
Sharia is a complete system the dictates almost every aspect of the devote Muslims life. It's a complete political and theological system.

Please, do some research on the so-called "Religion of Peace." Have you read Robert Spencer's work or seen him speak? I don't know what you base your hostility on.
But, I will quote him in conclusion here. 5 things the Muslim community must do.





And since I added it in an edit after you'd already commented, I'll repost something I said earlier:

What you mean is that I've provided arguments that contradict your pathetically limited knowledge.
Because you THINK you know something, when you're confronted with something that contradicts this, you immediately dismiss this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/02/iran-supreme-leader-music-islam

So.... another very long post of you just saying I am wrong and don't know anything about what I am talking about over and over again, while as usual not presenting any facts or evidence. Gotcha. Maybe if you continue to insult me, people will believe you know what you are talking about, and they will believe I don't. Good luck with that. I hope your mission to spread hatred works out for you.

Obviously the only thing you have ever read on islam is Robert Spencer's book, since you yourself have said repeatedly you haven't read any of the Koran or other texts, and you have taken that as the gospel for accurate information on Islam, and that is the only source you ever quote. Funnier still, I condemned his book once, a while back, and never once mentioned it in this thread, but shall we go back and count how many times you have mentioned it? Shall we go back and count how many times you have mentioned me putting it down? Come on, that is the only source you push or cite when it comes to research on Islam. This would be like getting the truth about evolution from the pope and then never asking another question about it as long as you live. Get back to me when you have actually done some honest research on the subject.

Oh, and by the way.... Why don't you try finding some stuff on Dhimma contract with some contemporary relevance instead of just going with something from the 1300s. Should I just respond with the stuff the church said about muslims and jews back in the 1300s too? Do you think maybe the Crusades had anything to do with Muslim's view of outsiders back then?

Also, what does IRAN's extremist leader banning western music mean to the rest of Islam? One of those artists I posted in the other thread for you was Iranian. But yeah, I suppose an extremist in Iran wanting to ban music means that Shariah of all sects bans music.

In the end, you are just another uneducated, know-it-all, bigot.

 

[Calabrio]

So.... another very long post of you just saying I am wrong and don't know anything about what I am talking about over and over again, while as usual not presenting any facts or evidence. Gotcha.

...you can't be serious.
Or at least you can't be taken seriously.

I think you've done a wonderful job demonstrating both your character and intellectual integrity in this thread. Everyone in this community has more than enough information to make a determination.

I simply can't afford to take any more time treating you like a respectable adult any longer.

 

[FIND]

...you can't be serious.
Or at least you can't be taken seriously.

I think you've done a wonderful job demonstrating both your character and intellectual integrity in this thread. Everyone in this community has more than enough information to make a determination.

I simply can't afford to take any more time treating you like a respectable adult any longer.

Yeah, and that is why you keep making this kind of post. Just attacks on me to try and prove that you are right. You don't really have anything to say, you are just going to repeatedly say I don't know what I am talking about and hope if you say it enough, everyone will believe it.

I met every single one of my challenges, yet you have still failed to meet mine. Instead you just run away from them, redirect, say I don't know what I am talking about, or demand that I produce more and more proof and details on the extent of my study, while when you are faced with the same question you state that you don't talk about your personal life on here and refuse to divulge anything.

I asked what SPECIFICALLY in the teachings of islam are you against. Why don't you find something in the teachings that support what you are saying instead of just making vague references to something someone else thinks about Islam, or something some extremist thinks? Wait, I'll answer that question for you, it is because you don't actually know anything about Islam other than what you have read in that one book you have read on the subject or read in the paper about Iran.

Though, in the end, it seems like the same as I said in my first post in this thread. No matter how much evidence you see, you are not interested in hearing anything but things that support your view that Islam is a totalitarian organization bent on violence and world domination.

 

[fossten]

No matter how much evidence you see, you are not interested in hearing anything but things that support your view that Islam is a totalitarian organization bent on violence and world domination.

 

[Calabrio]

The question still stands to anyone one else.

How do you define a moderate Muslim?

What is moderate Islam?

Does that simply refer to anyone who doesn't strap a bomb to their chest, or actively support someone doing that?

Can you be a moderate Muslim and support a group like Hamas or Hezbollah?

Can you be a "moderate Muslim" while still supporting Sharia law and hoping to have it imposed upon your host country through democrat means and not violent ones?

 

[PetesSweets86]

a half-@ssed muslim lol