Thread: koran, allah, and all things islam

Imam Rauf (the "moderate" scum promoting the Ground Zero Mosque) claims that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant.


01 - Jihad, defined as "to war against non-Muslims to establish the religion," is the duty of every Muslim and Muslim head of state (caliph). Muslim caliphs who refuse jihad are in violation of Shariah and unfit to rule.

02 - A caliph can hold office through seizure of power, meaning through force.

03 - A caliph is exempt from being charged with serious crimes such as murder, adultery, robbery, theft, drinking and in some cases of rape.

04 - A percentage of Zakat (charity money) must go toward jihad.

05 - It is obligatory to obey the commands of the Caliph, even if he is unjust.

06 - A caliph must be a Muslim, a non-slave and a male.

07 - The Muslim public must remove the caliph if he rejects Islam.

08 - A Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed immediately.

09 - A Muslim will be forgiven for murder of: 1) an apostate, 2) an adulterer, and 3) a highway robber – making vigilante street justice and honor killing acceptable.

10 - A Muslim will not get the death penalty if he kills a non-Muslim but will get it for killing a Muslim.

11 - Shariah never abolished slavery or sexual slavery and highly regulates it. A master will not be punished for killing his slave.

12 - Shariah dictates death by stoning, beheading, amputation of limbs, flogging – even for crimes of sin such as adultery.

13 - Non-Muslims are not equal to Muslims under the law. They must comply with Islamic law if they are to remain safe. They are forbidden to marry Muslim women, publicly display wine or pork, recite their Scriptures or openly celebrate their religious holidays or funerals. They are forbidden from building new churches or building them higher than mosques. They may not enter a mosque without permission. A non-Muslim is no longer protected if he leads a Muslim away from Islam.

14 - It is a crime for a non-Muslim to sell weapons to someone who will use them against Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot curse a Muslim, say anything derogatory about Allah, the Prophet, or Islam, or expose the weak points of Muslims. But the same does not apply to Muslims.

15 - A non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim.

16 - Banks must be Shariah compliant, and interest is not allowed.

17 - No testimony in court is acceptable from people of low-level jobs, such as street sweepers or bathhouse attendants. Women in low-level jobs such as professional funeral mourners cannot keep custody of their children in case of divorce.

18 - A non-Muslim cannot rule even over a non-Muslim minority.

19 - Homosexuality is punishable by death.

20 - There is no age limit for marriage of girls. The marriage contract can take place any time after birth and consummated at age 8 or 9.

21 - Rebelliousness on the part of the wife nullifies the husband's obligation to support her, and gives him permission to beat her and keep her from leaving the home.

22 - Divorce is only in the hands of the husband and is as easy as saying, "I divorce you," and becomes effective even if the husband did not intend it.

23 - There is no community property between husband and wife, and the husband's property does not automatically go to the wife after his death.

24 - A woman inherits half what a man inherits.

25 - A man has the right to have up to four wives, and she has no right to divorce him even if he is polygamous.

26 - The dowry is given in exchange for the woman's sexual organs.

27 - A man is allowed to have sex with slave women and women captured in battle, and if the enslaved woman is married, her marriage is annulled.

28 - The testimony of a woman in court is half the value of a man.

29 - A woman loses custody if she remarries.

30 - To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.

31 - A rapist may only be required to pay the bride-money (dowry) without marrying the rape victim.

32 - A Muslim woman must cover every inch of her body, which is considered "Awrah," a sexual organ. Not all Shariah schools allow the face of a woman exposed.

33 - A Muslim man is forgiven if he kills his wife at the time he caught her in the act of adultery. However, the opposite is not true for women since he "could be married to the woman he was caught with."


Sabang :

Are these 33 Sharia laws compliant with the US Constitution? Is your "moderate" imam Rauf an honest man, or is he a fraud? Speak up, I can't hear you!

Ok never mind Rauf, you clearly have an unhealthy interest in him...what about these Sharia laws; any comment?


Shariah for Dummies

Nonie Darwish is an Egyptian-American human rights activist, the author of "Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law" and founder of Former Muslims United.

^ Good post, Keda. I doubt SB will reply.

Originally Posted by Jools

Dogs are unclean, to Islam.

If they withdraw the dogs and a terror incident succeeds because of it, someone's going to have to explain to the people and esp victim families, slowly and clearly, how they calculate the going rate of lives to Islamic sensibilities... [FONT=Arial Black]

That is not deep science. One infidel death is the same as any number of infidel deaths, since infidels reject Allah and are worthless. Note that this is not the fault of Islam; it is the fault of the infidel for rejecting Allah.

Next, a Muslim's sensibilities is worth way more than the life of a worthless infidel.

Now you have enough data to do the math.

Re: Sabang's "peaceful average practicing moderate litmus tested" imam Rauf, just the right guy to chair the GZM.

Well, here he is in Malaysia refering to the burning of Churches by Muslims, after the Arab Christians dared to use the Arabic word for god in referring to their own god. The Arabic word for god is Allah; the name of the Muslim god is also Allah. Therefore, imam Rauf claims the copyright for Islam.


"Yes, it is true that Allah is the Arabic word for God and that Arab Christians use the word Allah when they refer to God. And yes, it is true that under freedom of speech and freedom of religion, one should be able to refer to the supreme deity any way one wants.

[....] My message to the Christian community in Malaysia is that using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative..."


Read that last bit again: "...using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct, but in the context of Malaysia, it is socially provocative."

My message to Rauf, is that "the construction of a victory mega-mosque next to GZ may be legally correct, but in the context of New York, it is socially provocative."

Among everything else that is evil and devious about Islam, it is also a selfish ideology that usurps language at will.


And he goes on, "...If you want to have influence with people in Malaysia, you must find a way to convey your message without provoking this kind of response. If you want to reach the Malays, then use the Malay word for God, which is Tuhan."

Er, no, they were not 'provoking' anyone, Rauf, they were simply using their own language. They were not trying to 'reach the Malays', or preaching for converts from Islam; that would breach their dhimma, which is the Islamic treaty of arbitrary protection for second class citizens.

Not sure about your mate sabang, but you already know that, don't you, Rauf!

Originally Posted by keda

Are these 33 Sharia laws compliant with the US Constitution?

These 33 'Sharia' laws as brought to us by the infamous World Net Daily?
I am no more interested in studying Sharia laws than I am in studying good old bloodthirsty stuff from the Hebrew scriptures, or the Jewish law stuff that says how it is OK for a Jew to cheat a Goyim (which as I understand means cattle in Hebrew), or the wisdom of Torquemada and the Inquisitors, or the brave Conquistadors. Ancient mumbo jumbo holds no interest to me.

What is of interest is how many countries, and what percentage of the Moslem population, currently lives under a pure form of Sharia law? The Taliban parts of Afghan & our good friends in Saudi spring to mind, I'd be quite interested to know other places. Obviously I believe it is a small part of the Moslem world, percentage wise.

Originally Posted by keda

Is your "moderate" imam Rauf an honest man, or is he a fraud?

I believe he is an honest, moderate and credible man as do many other people, including quite prominent political and media figures who have met him or know him personally. As does the US State Department for that matter.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by keda

Are these 33 Sharia laws compliant with the US Constitution?

These 33 'Sharia' laws as brought to us by the infamous World Net Daily?

Something about you that never ceases to amaze me. Much like the Pamela Geller stunt you tried to pull, eh?

Let's try again and see if there's any honesty left on your side of the screen. Are those 33 Sharia samples all lies because they are untrue, or because they were posted on World Net Daily? Would they be any less intolerable to your sensitive nostrils if they were posted on fcuktheinfidel.com or amputationfordummies.com or howtothrashyourwife.com?

I am no more interested in studying Sharia laws than I am in studying good old bloodthirsty stuff from the Hebrew scriptures, or the Jewish law stuff that says how it is OK for a Jew to cheat a Goyim (which as I understand means cattle in Hebrew), or the wisdom of Torquemada and the Inquisitors, or the brave Conquistadors...

Nothing to do with Conquistadors, no matter how desperately you need a distraction. Nobody asked you to abandon your family and career to go study Sharia, or don a yarmulke and go murder a few million Palestinian children.

I asked and ask again, if you agree with your average moderate imam that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant, in the light of those 33 Sharia examples.

And then, are those Sharia examples a fair reflection of Sharia, or a catalogue of lies because the Jews and Christians are not perfect and anyway they came from the wrong site?

No use pointing away from Islam all the time. Eventually even you will need to come to terms with the folly of defending the indefensible.

...Ancient mumbo jumbo holds no interest to me.

I suppose anything older than 1,400 years is ancient and fair game, right, sabang? Still, you seem to know more about those things than you do of your own sick twisted religion of hatred for the West.

What is of interest is how many countries, and what percentage of the Moslem population, currently lives under a pure form of Sharia law? The Taliban parts of Afghan & our good friends in Saudi spring to mind, I'd be quite interested to know other places. Obviously I believe it is a small part of the Moslem world, percentage wise.

Yes I fully agree and all of those points are indeed interesting, and we really should discuss them sometime. Meanwhile, you are still surrounded by debris of your own making, so let's clear away some of that before we're suckered into your latest diversion.

I believe he is an honest, moderate and credible man as do many other people, including quite prominent political and media figures who have met him or know him personally. As does the US State Department for that matter.

Do you agree with Rauf that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant; are the posted examples of Sharia true or not; and iyho under what terms might an "honest and credible man" versed in Sharia, claim that the US Constitution is Sharia compliant?


By the way, your bubbling contempt will in the end consume you, mate.

Originally Posted by keda

sick twisted religion of hatred for the West.

yeah, sure.

The first test for so called moderate Muslims, is to ask if Hamas is a terrorist organisation. If the Muslim or apologist cannot or will not answer, don't bother pursuing the subject because you'll end up nowhere.

Meanwhile, we have apologists that will on the one hand cling to the US State Department's view of Rauf as a 'moderate', since it supports their own flimsy position. Then, when the very same US State Department labels Hamas a terrorist organisation, the typically two-faced liberal dismisses it as obviously bigoted and therefore unacceptable by any reasonable minded person. And anyway, the mantra goes, they're American and everyone knows that Americans are mad so that doesn't count.

Such people are at constant war with themselves, and this is their approach to awkward topics; select what suits the position and trash the rest as unfair and inappropriate since it doesn't slot seamlessly with their world view. And never but never forget to smear the opposition, because it makes you look good and when confronted you can always duck with a smilie or two. Isn't that so, sabang?

Meanwhile, the litmus tested honest and decent moderate average practicing Muslim and chair of the GZM, Rauf, was again recently asked, several times, if Hamas is a terrorist organisation; and again ducked in the classic style of Islam; "I am not a politician. I try to avoid the issues".

Only, there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam, since the religion is the politic. Rauf knows this, but clearly presumes that infidels will not see through the sham. It's not like Hamas is an obscure organisation without a richly documented past.

The Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) was established to wage violent jihad that would continue until Israel is annihilated. No matter how many times it is denied and by whom, this remains a fact. Aside from its barbaric culture against the Jews and its own captive Palestinian population, Hamas celebrates the death culture by naming streets and venues after its more successful 'martyrs', and by dressing children indoctrinated from kindergarten to hate and kill, in mock suicide belts. The Hamas charter is clear; it exists for the sole purpose of waging violent jihad that would continue until Israel is annihilated.

Which part of this is difficult to comprehend? While we can accept that Muslims become uncomfortable discussing such things, since they were raised in an atmosphere of uncompromising submission and ignorance of their own faith, it should be easy for the thickest skinned Western liberal apologist to agree that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and without the statutory string of buts with defensive fingers poking in every which direction except Islam.

Anyway, here's an interesting clip, imam Kringle vs Andy McCarthy. Expect Muslims and their apologists to revile this in tight lipped silence. We may also expect them to claim it must be a bigoted Islamophobic fabrication, not with any evidence but simply because it was broadcast on Fox.




Whilst Islam is a crime against Humanity, the best mitigation for liberalism should be its recognition as a certifiable condition.

Originally Posted by keda

ask if Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

It is not, no more than Hezbollah. For a start, both the militant and military wings are just a small part of the organisation. For an example, you are well aware Hamas is willing to recognise Israel as part of a 'land for peace deal'.

Originally Posted by keda

Only, there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam, since the religion is the politic.

Yet strangely, only a very small proportion of Islamites live in a theocracy.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by keda

ask if Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

It is not, no more than Hezbollah. For a start, both the militant and military wings are just a small part of the organisation. For an example, you are well aware Hamas is willing to recognise Israel as part of a 'land for peace deal'.

No, I'm not aware that Hamas is willing to recognise Israel as part of a 'land for peace deal'. This is something that well propagandised weak minded hate filled apologists read and believe because it fits with their innate contempt for Jews and Israel.

Still, I am aware that Hamas are prepared to put recognition of Israel's right to exist on the negotiation table. Note that the recognition of a nation and peoples' right to exist should in any civilised society not be a matter for negotiation, except for sick, sad ideology supported by sick, sad individuals.

Moreover, and perhaps this will earn another of your famous smilies, Hamas have declared more than once that even if it negotiates with Israel, nothing it agrees will be binding. Go figure.

As a tentacle of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Hamas charter and its singular purpose for existence is to destroy the Jewish state and murder its Jews, for Allah. Therefore, they will agree to a truce, not peace, in exchange for land, which will be for as long they feel weak and unable to take Israel by force. When they feel at anytime thereafter, that by violence or other means they can further the cause of Islam at the expense of the Jews or the West, the Jews can whistle goodbye to that piece of paper. Every person on both sides of the negotiation table already knows this.

On the one hand you refer to these 'ancient' beliefs as mumbo jumbo, and on the other you cannot be bothered to read the very books that you squander so much time and credibility by ignorantly defending.

If you were a Muslim, your hollow arguments and evasive tactics would make a lot more sense. That is intended as neither compliment nor offense, just plain fact.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by keda

Only, there is no separation of religion and politics in Islam, since the religion is the politic.

Yet strangely, only a very small proportion of Islamites live in a theocracy.

More "small minority" smoke and mirrors. Anything less than 50%, or some 600-750 million brain dead Muslims constitutes a minority, with small being subjective according to how one wishes to manipulate the numbers. And you can toss in theocracy as a baffler, but a nation under Sharia does not necessarily have to be a theocracy. You know that. You are being disingenuous, again.

While your Muslim brothers welcome separation of church and state for the naive infidel, this is only because they know that the West knows better than to invite Islam into the same pc stricture. In other words, Islam chuckles at the naivete of their sworn enemy, while our greatest consolation is to paint dots around our collective neck.

Meanwhile, Islam and Sharia are the religion and politic of the Muslim nation; there is no separation because one cannot survive without the other.

Play with numbers as you please; they seem to make a pleasant distraction.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by keda

ask if Hamas is a terrorist organisation.

It is not, no more than Hezbollah. For a start, both the militant and military wings are just a small part of the organisation. For an example, you are well aware Hamas is willing to recognise Israel as part of a 'land for peace deal'.

You claim that your hero Rauf is a moderate, and argue in support that this is also the view of the US State Dept.

Yet the very same US State Dept, among countless other free agencies, condemns Hamas as a terrorist organisation. Only, now, for you, the State Dept doesn't count because they are a clueless tool of the right wing Zionist fascists. And anyway, they're American so they must be mad.

You're a cherry picker, and not a very good one either.

Slavery in Islam - today

Islam has not changed in 1400 years, and if left unchecked will not evolve in another 1400 years.

The Islamic slave industry exists today under various guises. Some trade continues as it has from the time of the homicidal epileptic, while the infidel technology of mass transport has been adapted to provide slaves from many distant nations for modern day Islam, and from beyond its traditional harvesting grounds of Africa.

What the two - ancient and modern - have in common are brutality, barbarity, duplicity, torture, torment, rape, murder, depravity, and the mayhem that Islam has brought to people and nations since its birth.

Slavery was outlawed by civilised beings many years ago, and some Islamic nations, including Saudi and Gulf States, eager to be seen as litmus tested 'moderate', have placed their signature on treaties that define and prohibit slavery.

One question needs to be asked: Why does Islam, and especially wealthy Gulf states, need slaves in the modern world? The answer is simple: Islam is an avaricious, redundant ideology that produces stagnant followers incapable of doing anything for themselves towards civilisation and progress. Without slaves, Islam would roll over and die.

Anyway, here's something to get along with.

To the pc apologists: this is a legitimate Channel 4 Dispatches report posted on YouTube. The videos were not fabricated by any right wing Zionist fascist media or conspiracy. Just so you know, and if there's any finger pointing then let's have a knuckle or two aimed also at Islam, if only for a nanosecond.











Note that this courageous expose doesn't even scratch the thick skinned surface of Islam, which steals the lives of literally millions of vulnerable people for enslavement by its dregs of humanity.

Another week to go...will it, won't it reach 1,000 peaceful murders?

Still, we can expect the apologists and other useful idiots to point at the 'other religion' tally of one for one, in utter disgust!

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

* yawn *

^ I'm sure the bleeding hearts will find an excuse for this.

When somebody convinces me that the casualties inflicted by foreign forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are in the name of God, I will believe those killings are in the name of Islam.

Originally Posted by sabang

When somebody convinces me that the casualties inflicted by foreign forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are in the name of God, I will believe those killings are in the name of Islam.

And untill then you believe they are not in the name of islam but....what?

Originally Posted by sabang

When somebody convinces me that the casualties inflicted by foreign forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are in the name of God, I will believe those killings are in the name of Islam.

Erm, did we ever say they were? Do you know right from wrong? Enemies viz allies?

Originally Posted by Dug

And untill then you believe they are not in the name of islam but....what?

Some of those killings are as mundane as family & business disputes, some (lots) are civil war & factional violence, some fighting occupying forces. I wouldn't venture to suggest how many listed there would be defined by the perpetrators as 'in the name of Islam' but defining all conflict in the Moslem world as Jihad or Holy war is taking a rather occluded view of things. When Catholics and Protestants are killing over Northern Ireland is that religious war? Or when Catholic Priests were egging on and in some cases leading the Hutu massacring the Hutu's, was that religious War? You may think differently, but I think not.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Dug

And untill then you believe they are not in the name of islam but....what?

Some of those killings are as mundane as family & business disputes

Or when Catholic Priests were egging on and in some cases leading the Hutu massacring the Hutu's, was that religious War? You may think differently, but I think not.

That killing is mundane? So mozzies killing Westerners is not mundane? Good, we agree.
Hutus killing Hutus? Erm, wasn't that the Tutsis? And Catholic priests egged them on? Aiya, dunno what freakoids you're getting your news from, SB, but of late, your whole posture has been totally feked, IMO. You must be totally freaked that the obama agenda you supported is totally feked.