The adventures of President Donald Gump

[Wrecker45 3,378]

3 minutes ago, A F said:

No, I agree with PD when he talks football, because he is thoughtful. Shall I repeat it?

You can if you want but it will just prove my point.

[Earl Hood 5,787]

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

AF that might say more about you. You've indetified Prodee is a thoughtful person except when he has an opposing view to yours. Hmmmm

"You rabid climate alarmists, border- free, safe-space, high taxing, lazy socialists can keep whining for the next 8 years"

Wrecker there is nothing thoughtful about the diatribe above! Obviously Prodee can be quite calm and measured when talking football but when it comes to anybody challenging his conservative view of how the world should be, he goes into a tail spin.  

[Wrecker45 3,378]

52 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

"You rabid climate alarmists, border- free, safe-space, high taxing, lazy socialists can keep whining for the next 8 years"

Wrecker there is nothing thoughtful about the diatribe above! Obviously Prodee can be quite calm and measured when talking football but when it comes to anybody challenging his conservative view of how the world should be, he goes into a tail spin.  

Which part do you disagree with?

[nutbean 8,837]

8 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Which part do you disagree with?

everything in between the quotation marks ?

[hardtack 10,126]

30 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Which part do you disagree with?

I could practically sense the foam and spittle forming around ProDee's mouth as he spat out that string of invective

[Wrecker45 3,378]

35 minutes ago, nutbean said:

everything in between the quotation marks ?

Welcome to climate skepticism, border security, ridiculing safe spaces and endorsing captalism. It's about time you saw the light.

[Gator 16,891]

I forgot sharia-loving Israel-hating weirdos

[nutbean 8,837]

19 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Welcome to climate skepticism, border security, ridiculing safe spaces and endorsing captalism. It's about time you saw the light.

I see what you did there...

[dieter 3,325]

1 hour ago, ProDee said:

I forgot sharia-loving Israel-hating weirdos

As they say in the classics, my dear boy, do you have the faintest idea what the term 'sharia law means'?

Hopefully you're not just going to regurgitate the ignorant garbage that spews forth from Hanson and Lambie.

So, please, enlighten us, What exactly is Sharia Law?

[Gator 16,891]

1 hour ago, dieter said:

As they say in the classics, my dear boy, do you have the faintest idea what the term 'sharia law means'?

Hopefully you're not just going to regurgitate the ignorant garbage that spews forth from Hanson and Lambie.

So, please, enlighten us, What exactly is Sharia Law?

You'll be pleased to know that Islamic leaders consider leftists useful idiots.  They'd like you.  

Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well.  The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule.  Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems.

Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims.  The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy.  This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.  Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching.

Islam does not believe in freedom or democracy.  These are man-made laws.  They only accept God's law.

Here's some light reading for you from archives I've found over the years (note - I'm not going to spend much time debating a leftist, but happy to try and make you a bit smarter on the topic):

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you."  This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.

Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government."  This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments.

Qur'an (19:64) - "And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful."

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers."

Qur'an (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not."  The "hypocrites" are defined as Muslims in name only, those who do not submit to the theocracy of Allah.

Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee"  Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people.  A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty.  It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.

Qur'an (3:28)  - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."  The word 'friend' is Awliyaa which is inclusive of friends, protectors and helpers - the components of civil society.  See also verse 5:51

Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper." 

Qur'an (28:17) - "O my Lord! For that Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!"  It is difficult to reconcile this verse with the civic duty of a public office holder in a pluralistic society.

Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..."   Oddly enough, this verse is sometimes used in an attempt to make the case that Muslims should respect a non-Muslim civil government.  But a careful reading makes it clear that the rulers Muslims are to obey are from among their own body of believers.  This verse commands strict obedience to the leader (even if he steals and flogs them, according to a hadith reported by Sahih Muslim).  How can this refer to a non-Muslim leader when other parts of the Qur'an call for violent Jihad against persecution from non-believers?

See also 9:29, which establishes the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

From the Hadith:
 
Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
 
Bukhari (53:392) - While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews."  We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras.  He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
 

Additional Notes:
In Islam, loyalty is to Allah and his religion.  It cannot be to a kafir country.  As the former mufti of the Grand Mosque in Mecca put it in a recent fatwa, "His homeland may be not Islamic, so how can he be loyal to his homeland?" 

Scholar Jamal Badawi insists that, "Muslims should not melt in any pot except the Muslim brotherhood pot."

A CAIR executive director (in the United States) recently said, "if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land."

The Calcutta Qur'an Petition says of Muslim communities that "even fresh converts tend to become highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of [the Qur'an] with a fanatical zeal with the result that whichever country as their sizable number amongst its population can never have peace on its soil."  Where Muslim minorities exist, there is unusual social strain manifested by dissention, demand and disloyalty, as well as a cohesive group identity that resists self-reflection and thrives on the perception of victimization by the majority.

Islam teaches that nations are in one of two major categories - Dar-al Harb (house of war) and Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule).  Any nation that is not Muslim is therefore, by definition, at war with Islam (or, at best, in contradiction to the preferred order).  Muslims cannot be expected to maintain loyalty to a nation that is at war with their religion.

To be fair, some Muslim scholars contend that there is a middle ground, Dar al-Ahd (land of covenant) or Dar al-Sulh (land of truce), in which non-Muslim countries agree to allow Muslims to practice their faith and evangelize freely in exchange for peace (rights that are formally denied to infidels in Islamic lands).  Scholars consider this a transitional period leading to the eventual triumph of Islam via conversion.

The practical definitions of Dar al-Ahd and Dar al-Sulh are somewhat nebulous.  Some feel, for example, that denying Muslims their own system of law and Sharia courts constitutes an interference with Islam.  Others believe that these states of condition only applied in Muhammad's day.  Still others feel that a truce has a ten year-limit, and can be broken anytime by the Muslim party.

Another difficulty with these "middle ground" options is that there is no central authority to declare which non-Muslim nations fall outside the category of Dar al-Harb.  Ultimately, true Muslims are citizens of the ummah (Islamic community) and not of any country - and the ummah has no recognized leader.

Even a government of Muslims is not necessarily a Muslim government.  Islam requires Islamic law, therefore theocracy is the only pure form of government.  In fact, this is what propels the vast majority of violence in the Muslim world, which victimizes Muslims themselves more than any other group.

Although Muslim apologists sometimes claim that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim by virtue of the fact that they kill other Muslims, the Qur'an advocates striving against both unbelievers and hypocrites, the latter of which are Muslims who profess Islam, but do not support Islamic rule over the way of the infidel as required (see Muslim 20:4696).

Hypocrites include any government which does not uphold strict Sharia, as well as those that make alliances with a non-Muslim country (thereby making covenants and truces quite difficult to legitimize).  This is the real reason terrorists kill fellow Muslims, particularly local police, troops and officials who are in the service of such governments.

One of the most influential Islamic scholars of the modern age, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, says that Muslims have a duty to overthrow any non-Islamic governments by violent means.  He explains:

"Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it.  Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man.  Other societies do not give it [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom.  Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to Allah, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude to man." [Quoted from Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad]

Elsewhere, Qutb puts it even more bluntly:

The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah (unbelievers) from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature." [Quoted from Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?]

In a book promoted by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi writes that "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation that rules it.  Islam requires the earth – not just a portion – but the whole planet.”  (source)

Whether or not a Muslim believes in active rebellion against secular or non-Muslim rule (and most may not), it is does not change the fact that Islam is defined by allegiance to Allah and his self-proclaimed messenger, Muhammad.  Therefore any extraneous loyalty that is in contradiction to what Allah has already established would be strictly forbidden.

[It should be noted that Muslims as individuals vary widely in their understanding of and allegiance to Islam.  While ideological scrutiny may be appropriate for certain sensitive positions in the intelligence, military or law enforcement communities, simply being a Muslim is not sufficient grounds for denying employment to or making assumptions about any such individual.]
 

Edited February 16, 2017 by ProDee

[dieter 3,325]

4 minutes ago, ProDee said:

You'll be pleased to know that Islamic leaders consider leftists useful idiots.  They'd like you.  

Islam is not just a religion but a political system as well.  The state is intended to be inseparable from religious rule.  Islamic law, or Sharia, is complete and not designed to coexist with or be subordinate to other legal systems.

Muslims are not meant to be ruled by non-Muslims.  The Qur'an is very clear that they are to resist unbelievers by any means until Islam establishes political supremacy.  This doesn't mean that everyone must be forced to become Muslim, but rather that everyone must submit to Muslim rule.  Many Muslims are loyal to the non-Muslim countries in which they live, of course, but it is in spite of Islamic teaching.

Islam does not believe in freedom or democracy.  These are man-made law.  They only accept God's law.

Here's some light reading for you from archives I've found over the years (note - I'm not going to spend much time debating a leftist, but happy to try and make you a bit smarter on the topic):

The Qur'an:
Qur'an (5:3) - "This day have I perfected your religion for you."  This verse is often interpreted to mean that any government outside of Sharia is unnecessary at best, and corruptive at worst.

Qur'an (18:26) - "[Allah] maketh none to share in his government."  This was probably intended as a slam against polytheists and the Christian belief in the Trinity, but it has also been used as the basis for criticizing earthly governments.

Qur'an (19:64) - "And we do not descend but by the command of your Lord; to Him belongs whatever is before us and whatever is behind us and whatever is between these, and your Lord is not forgetful."

Qur'an (4:141) - "...And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers."

Qur'an (63:8) - "...might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers; but the hypocrites know not."  The "hypocrites" are defined as Muslims in name only, those who do not submit to the theocracy of Allah.

Qur'an (5:49) - "So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee"  Allah's Qur'an takes priority over the desires of the people.  A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty.  It's clear from this verse which side he must choose.

Qur'an (3:28)  - "Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah."  The word 'friend' is Awliyaa which is inclusive of friends, protectors and helpers - the components of civil society.  See also verse 5:51

Qur'an (4:123) - "Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper." 

Qur'an (28:17) - "O my Lord! For that Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace on me, never shall I be a help to those who sin!"  It is difficult to reconcile this verse with the civic duty of a public office holder in a pluralistic society.

Qur'an (4:59) - "O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority from among you..."   Oddly enough, this verse is sometimes used in an attempt to make the case that Muslims should respect a non-Muslim civil government.  But a careful reading makes it clear that the rulers Muslims are to obey are from among their own body of believers.  This verse commands strict obedience to the leader (even if he steals and flogs them, according to a hadith reported by Sahih Muslim).  How can this refer to a non-Muslim leader when other parts of the Qur'an call for violent Jihad against persecution from non-believers?

See also 9:29, which establishes the ideal relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims.

 

From the Hadith:
 
Muslim (19:4294) - "When you meet your enemies who are polytheists [Christians], invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"
 
Bukhari (53:392) - While we were in the Mosque, the Prophet came out and said, "Let us go to the Jews."  We went out till we reached Bait-ul-Midras.  He said to them, "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle."
 

Additional Notes:
In Islam, loyalty is to Allah and his religion.  It cannot be to a kafir country.  As the former mufti of the Grand Mosque in Mecca put it in a recent fatwa, "His homeland may be not Islamic, so how can he be loyal to his homeland?" 

Scholar Jamal Badawi insists that, "Muslims should not melt in any pot except the Muslim brotherhood pot."

A CAIR executive director (in the United States) recently said, "if we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land."

The Calcutta Qur'an Petition says of Muslim communities that "even fresh converts tend to become highly orthodox people and follow the sayings of [the Qur'an] with a fanatical zeal with the result that whichever country as their sizable number amongst its population can never have peace on its soil."  Where Muslim minorities exist, there is unusual social strain manifested by dissention, demand and disloyalty, as well as a cohesive group identity that resists self-reflection and thrives on the perception of victimization by the majority.

Islam teaches that nations are in one of two major categories - Dar-al Harb (house of war) and Dar-al-Islam (Muslim rule).  Any nation that is not Muslim is therefore, by definition, at war with Islam (or, at best, in contradiction to the preferred order).  Muslims cannot be expected to maintain loyalty to a nation that is at war with their religion.

To be fair, some Muslim scholars contend that there is a middle ground, Dar al-Ahd (land of covenant) or Dar al-Sulh (land of truce), in which non-Muslim countries agree to allow Muslims to practice their faith and evangelize freely in exchange for peace (rights that are formally denied to infidels in Islamic lands).  Scholars consider this a transitional period leading to the eventual triumph of Islam via conversion.

The practical definitions of Dar al-Ahd and Dar al-Sulh are somewhat nebulous.  Some feel, for example, that denying Muslims their own system of law and Sharia courts constitutes an interference with Islam.  Others believe that these states of condition only applied in Muhammad's day.  Still others feel that a truce has a ten year-limit, and can be broken anytime by the Muslim party.

Another difficulty with these "middle ground" options is that there is no central authority to declare which non-Muslim nations fall outside the category of Dar al-Harb.  Ultimately, true Muslims are citizens of the ummah (Islamic community) and not of any country - and the ummah has no recognized leader.

Even a government of Muslims is not necessarily a Muslim government.  Islam requires Islamic law, therefore theocracy is the only pure form of government.  In fact, this is what propels the vast majority of violence in the Muslim world, which victimizes Muslims themselves more than any other group.

Although Muslim apologists sometimes claim that Islamic terrorists aren't Muslim by virtue of the fact that they kill other Muslims, the Qur'an advocates striving against both unbelievers and hypocrites, the latter of which are Muslims who profess Islam, but do not support Islamic rule over the way of the infidel as required (see Muslim 20:4696).

Hypocrites include any government which does not uphold strict Sharia, as well as those that make alliances with a non-Muslim country (thereby making covenants and truces quite difficult to legitimize).  This is the real reason terrorists kill fellow Muslims, particularly local police, troops and officials who are in the service of such governments.

One of the most influential Islamic scholars of the modern age, Egyptian Sayyid Qutb, says that Muslims have a duty to overthrow any non-Islamic governments by violent means.  He explains:

"Islam is not merely a belief, so that it is enough merely to preach it.  Islam, which is a way of life, takes practical steps to organize a movement for freeing man.  Other societies do not give it [Islam] any opportunity to organize its followers according to its own method, and hence it is the duty of Islam to annihilate all such systems, as they are obstacles in the way of universal freedom.  Only in this manner can the way of life be wholly dedicated to Allah, so that neither any human authority nor the question of servitude remains, as is the case in all other systems which are based on man's servitude to man." [Quoted from Andrew Bostom's The Legacy of Jihad]

Elsewhere, Qutb puts it even more bluntly:

The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah (unbelievers) from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature." [Quoted from Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace?]

In a book promoted by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic scholar Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi writes that "Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation that rules it.  Islam requires the earth – not just a portion – but the whole planet.”  (source)

Whether or not a Muslim believes in active rebellion against secular or non-Muslim rule (and most may not), it is does not change the fact that Islam is defined by allegiance to Allah and his self-proclaimed messenger, Muhammad.  Therefore any extraneous loyalty that is in contradiction to what Allah has already established would be strictly forbidden.

[It should be noted that Muslims as individuals vary widely in their understanding of and allegiance to Islam.  While ideological scrutiny may be appropriate for certain sensitive positions in the intelligence, military or law enforcement communities, simply being a Muslim is not sufficient grounds for denying employment to or making assumptions about any such individual.]
 

That's a great critique of why you hate anything to do with the Muslim faith.

Just for the record, there are as many examples of not very nice things, shall we say, in the old testament, and, if you really want to have your sensibilities singed and are strong of stomach read the Torah and the Talmud.

If you would like a definition of Sharia law, you may be interested in watching this:

https://www.facebook.com/alikadribrisbane/videos/1341037999294413/

 

[daisycutter 28,454]

20 minutes ago, dieter said:

That's a great critique of why you hate anything to do with the Muslim faith.

Just for the record, there are as many examples of not very nice things, shall we say, in the old testament, and, if you really want to have your sensibilities singed and are strong of stomach read the Torah and the Talmud.

If you would like a definition of Sharia law, you may be interested in watching this:

https://www.facebook.com/alikadribrisbane/videos/1341037999294413/

 

lol, dieter.......how very predictable and droll

try googling chalk and cheese

[nutbean 8,837]

19 minutes ago, dieter said:

That's a great critique of why you hate anything to do with the Muslim faith.

Just for the record, there are as many examples of not very nice things, shall we say, in the old testament, and, if you really want to have your sensibilities singed and are strong of stomach read the Torah and the Talmud.

If you would like a definition of Sharia law, you may be interested in watching this:

https://www.facebook.com/alikadribrisbane/videos/1341037999294413/

 

Playing devils advocate - having studied the old testament and Talmud ( years of my life i wont get back) - even the most ultra orthodox jews are not advocating a return to the harsher Judaic laws - for example  - stoning of adulterers ( read an interesting Talmudic tractate on false witnesses and in certain circumstances it carried the death penalty) . However are not advocates of return to strict Sharia Law looking for total adherence ?

[daisycutter 28,454]

hey dieter, why don't you tell us all about sharia law punishments?

suppose that's a no-go zone for human rightists

Current Membership of the Human Rights Council, 1 January - 31 December 2016

COUNTRY	TERM EXPIRES ON
Republic of Korea	2018
Russian Federation	2016
Saudi Arabia	2016
Slovenia	2018

[Gator 16,891]

Christians worship the new testament, Dolt.

And why does every quarter-wit leftist bring up Christianity in their insane attempts to defend the indefensible, which is Islam ?

Why do the left not demonstrate against honour killings, FGM, child brides, subjugation, gays hanged from cranes or thrown from buildings, women stoned to death for being raped, etc. etc. ?

In Sweden 77% of sexual assaults are committed by 2% of the male Muslim population.  Where are the leftists protesting about this insanity now infecting Europe ?

And all deranged leftists do is stutter but what about the Old Testament...

Check out all the other stats where polled Muslims in the middle east, as well as the west support honour killings, suicide bombers, death to apostates, and other niceties. 

I'm completely certain that leftism is a mental illness.  There can be no other explanation. 

As for Lambie ?  I can't abide her.  She's an ill-bred feral fool.  The fact that we share concerns over Islam being compatible with western democracies, or our values, is about the start and end of our unity ticket; and even then there'd be fundamental differences. I don't have much time for Hansen either, although I firmly believe she means well and has definitely improved as a political force.  Twenty years will do that.

Thankfully, many Muslims are westernised and have no interest in orthodox Islam.  Many have little idea about the Quran themselves, which is why some leave the religion when they delve deeper and discover the truth about this insidious ideology.  An ideology where the most radical teachings come from Mosques.  Are you aware of what a Mosque really is and what happens there ?  It's not like a little church on a corner where Granny goes on a Sunday.

The Sunnis and Shia hate each other's guts after 1400 years, so don't expect any peaceful resolution in the middle east any time soon.

Do yourself a favour and look at videos/photos from Iran and Afghanistan in the 1970s, where women wore skirts and had their hair flowing.  Not a medieval anti-rape sack in sight.  Veiling isn't a requirement of the Qur'an.  And it sure as hell is a terrible symbol of female subjugatuon.

I won't waste more time on the topic, because I'm not clever enough to cure a mental illness.  

In the meantime give yourself an uppercut.

Edited February 16, 2017 by ProDee

[dieter 3,325]

25 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Playing devils advocate - having studied the old testament and Talmud ( years of my life i wont get back) - even the most ultra orthodox jews are not advocating a return to the harsher Judaic laws - for example  - stoning of adulterers ( read an interesting Talmudic tractate on false witnesses and in certain circumstances it carried the death penalty) . However are not advocates of return to strict Sharia Law looking for total adherence ?

Good point. So, who is advocating return to strict sharia law?

[dieter 3,325]

23 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

hey dieter, why don't you tell us all about sharia law punishments?

suppose that's a no-go zone for human rightists

Current Membership of the Human Rights Council, 1 January - 31 December 2016

COUNTRY	TERM EXPIRES ON
Republic of Korea	2018
Russian Federation	2016
Saudi Arabia	2016
Slovenia	2018

I don't understand the question. My question is - as per Nutbean's post - just who is advocating strict adherence to so-called sharia law? Lunatics like Hanson and Lambie rave on about it, but just who in Australia advocates it?

[dieter 3,325]

14 minutes ago, ProDee said:

 

The Sunnis and Shia hate each other's guts after 1400 years, so don't expect any peaceful resolution in the middle east any time soon.

Do yourself a favour and look at videos/photos from Iran and Afghanistan in the 1970s, where women wore skirts and had their hair flowing.  Not a medieval anti-rape sack in sight.  Veiling isn't a requirement of the Quran.  And it sure as hell is a terrible symbol of female subjugatuon.

I won't waste more time on the topic, because I'm not clever enough to cure a mental illness.  

In the meantime give yourself an uppercut.

The Sunnis and the Shia got along fine under Ottoman rule and for 14 hundred years before that. So did Muslims and Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. Witness the Jewish populations in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria etc etc.

As usual,  fanatical and misinformed haters like you have total amnesia about the origins of religious wars in the Middle east, namely the Sykes/Picquot agreement.

But that's okay. You sound like a brainwashed foot soldier to me, someone who believes anything that consolidates your prejudices. 

You might like to treat yourself to a frontal lobotomy if you want to start behaving like a decent human being.

And, please, PD, why the name calling? It's so unbecoming of such an obviously fine gentleman.

[daisycutter 28,454]

3 minutes ago, dieter said:

I don't understand the question. My question is - as per Nutbean's post - just who is advocating strict adherence to so-called sharia law? Lunatics like Hanson and Lambie rave on about it, but just who in Australia advocates it?

do your own research

there are those that do. not necessarily the full, strictest version, but i suppose the concept of the thin edge of the sword is too difficult a concept for you to grasp

turkey is not far from changing from a secular state to an islamic theocracy 

[daisycutter 28,454]

1 minute ago, dieter said:

The Sunnis and the Shia got along fine under Ottoman rule and for 14 hundred years before that. So did Muslims and Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. Witness the Jewish populations in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria etc etc.

As usual,  fanatical and misinformed haters like you have total amnesia about the origins of religious wars in the Middle east, namely the Sykes/Picquot agreement.

But that's okay. You sound like a brainwashed foot soldier to me, someone who believes anything that consolidates your prejudices. 

You might like to treat yourself to a frontal lobotomy if you want to start behaving like a decent human being.

And, please, PD, why the name calling? It's so unbecoming of such an obviously fine gentleman.

can we limit ourselves to the century we actually live in

(your history by the way is very selective and biased)

[Biffen 12,298]

As Pro Dee has highlighted,

There is no such thing as "Islam Light" or a moderate Muslim.

The quotes he has brought to your attention illustrate that fundamentalism is at it's core.

YOU ARE EITHER ISLAMIC OR YOU ARE NOT!

There is no middle ground.

Sure,there are those who question the faith, but they slip down to the level of "Dogs", or up in my view.

The moderate Muslims in your kebab shop might be nice guys but the hardliners turn on the nice guys.

It's an oppressive faith, totally disgusting in it's attempt to conquer all in its path.

I try to take "the Left" along with me but ProDee is less concerned in getting through to you.

There is no light in Islam.

"A radical Muslim is someone who wants to kill you

a moderate Muslim is someone who wants an extremist to kill you"

Those of you conflating anti-Islam with racism need to understand that there will be no secularism, no elected government, no choice but to submit.>

 

That's not how I live my life.

It's not how most of you live yours .

it is an all or nothing bet.

Furthermore,any Australian kid that converts should be watched and monitored 24/7 as he will just become a tool of this insane cult-a ticking time-bomb if you will.

Read the doctrine before you start throwing in the guilty red-herrings you do in your lovely way.

They want you dead. 

 

 

 

 

 

[dieter 3,325]

1 minute ago, Biffen said:

-herrings ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you're talking.

[Biffen 12,298]

7 minutes ago, dieter said:

The Sunnis and the Shia got along fine under Ottoman rule and for 14 hundred years before that. So did Muslims and Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. Witness the Jewish populations in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Syria etc etc.

As usual,  fanatical and misinformed haters like you have total amnesia about the origins of religious wars in the Middle east, namely the Sykes/Picquot agreement.

But that's okay. You sound like a brainwashed foot soldier to me, someone who believes anything that consolidates your prejudices. 

You might like to treat yourself to a frontal lobotomy if you want to start behaving like a decent human being.

And, please, PD, why the name calling? It's so unbecoming of such an obviously fine gentleman.

Some Jews survived between 1933 and 1945.

Dieter,I don't know what books you've read ,or if you read in German,but i urge you to look at TOTALITARIANISM in all it's forms.

It's the great evil-the ideology that denies logic and difference in a human society.

Yes minorities need protection as,do whistleblowers and apostates.

Islam needs full-frontal attack from anyone with any sense at all.

[dieter 3,325]

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

 

Dieter,I don't know what books you've read ,or if you read in German,but i urge you to look at TOTALITARIANISM in all it's forms.

It's the great evil-the ideology that denies logic and difference in a human society.

 

Biff, don't you understand that your reaction to Muslims is a form of TOTALItARIANISM? Your take on them Muslims is about as sane and rational as Hitler's version of the Jews.

In fact, I regard all this anti Muslim propaganda as the new Anti Semitism. ( The irony being, of course, that most likely the Ashkenasi Jews are not Semites anyway.)

Edited February 16, 2017 by dieter

[Earl Hood 5,787]

Anyhoo back to President Gump the storm clouds are gathering over this Russian stuff. He has obviously got the intelligence agencies off side big time because there are leaks coming from multiple agencies and there are multiple investigations underway examining Trump's campaign people and who they were communicating with. Why were they talking to Russian Intelligence agents? Who knows. And of course Flynn has fallen on his sword but the big question is what did Donald know and when? Why would Flynn make a deal with the Ruskies without some agreement with the Donald? 

All we can take from this mess is that the FBI and the CIA have been infiltrated by lunatic left wing Marxists!