Verify his Muslim Beliefs

outdoor338 wrote: well..aspen, you posted something we agree on. You are dead on...idiots on both sides..is it too late to take back this country? No, I don't think so...the bankers are the worst..take bailouts, and will not help those in need of modification loans! I know several who can't get their banks to help them..its a dog and pony show! Good post aspen :thumbsup:

Hint, hint, outdoor.....

You aren't going to "take it back" so long as you believe you're "taking it back" from the "libruls".

So long as you are locked into this us/them, left/right paradigm you are right where they want you.

AspenValley wrote:

travelingirl wrote: It's here. In small doses. Just like frogs in boiling water.


Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/shari ... ligio.html

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

And this isn't all that has me concerned, but in the spirit of staying on topic, this is just ONE more reason why I don't like the direction the current administration is taking with our country. I'll find other posts to challenge our current economy, bail outs, unemployment.

I hope a higher court overturns that kind of nonsense. Sharia law has no more business in this country than does the idea of forcing everyone to go to a Christian church on Sundays.

But I don't really see how you can lay this on "the current administration". I kind of doubt a New Jersey judge is acting under direct orders from the White House. If you can show me he is, I'll be as alarmed as you are by this "development". Otherwise, I'll just assume this is another example of an idiot judge. They aren't rare.

Thankfully, a higher court did overturn the ruling.

Every President gets to appoint judges so Obama would never come out and openly broadcast his Islamic beliefs, but he can quietly appoint judges who espouse his liberal agenda.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue or Left vs. Right. This is just plain wrong. I'd be just as concerned about this issue if a Republican were in office and held Muslim/Islamic leanings.

travelingirl wrote:
Thankfully, a higher court did overturn the ruling.

Every President gets to appoint judges so Obama would never come out and openly broadcast his Islamic beliefs, but he can quietly appoint judges who espouse his liberal agenda.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue or Left vs. Right. This is just plain wrong. I'd be just as concerned about this issue if a Republican were in office and held Muslim/Islamic leanings.

Did Obama appoint this judge you're talking about? And if so did he do so because of the judges supposed Muslim leanings? Or is it all just innuendo?

No innuendo intended. My point is that Obama, and any president for that matter, can appoint judges that are like-minded. An earlier poster stated Obama would never come out and support Sharia Law because it would hurt him politically. That's true. This is how he can quietly impose his belief system.

Do you believe that Obama is doing that?

If he hasn't yet, he will. Every president in history appoints judges. And I'm sure they make those appointments based on their personal belief system. We all make certain decisions based on our belief system, even if we say we don't have one. So yes, I have no doubt he'll appoint judges than lean his way.

I mean, do you believe that he has already appointed judges that will rule in the favor of Sharia law?

Scruffy wrote: I mean, do you believe that he has already appointed judges that will rule in the favor of Sharia law?

Fair question Scruffy. I'll do some research and let you know what I find out.

travelingirl wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

travelingirl wrote: It's here. In small doses. Just like frogs in boiling water.


Sharia in New Jersey: Muslim husband rapes wife, judge sees no sexual assault because Islam forbids wives to refuse sex
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/07/shari ... ligio.html

Muhammad said: “If a husband calls his wife to his bed [i.e. to have sexual relation] and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning” (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also said: “By him in Whose Hand lies my life, a woman can not carry out the right of her Lord, till she carries out the right of her husband. And if he asks her to surrender herself [to him for sexual intercourse] she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle” (Ibn Majah 1854).

And now a New Jersey judge sees no evidence that a Muslim committed sexual assault of his wife — not because he didn’t do it, but because he was acting on his Islamic beliefs: “This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

And this isn't all that has me concerned, but in the spirit of staying on topic, this is just ONE more reason why I don't like the direction the current administration is taking with our country. I'll find other posts to challenge our current economy, bail outs, unemployment.

I hope a higher court overturns that kind of nonsense. Sharia law has no more business in this country than does the idea of forcing everyone to go to a Christian church on Sundays.

But I don't really see how you can lay this on "the current administration". I kind of doubt a New Jersey judge is acting under direct orders from the White House. If you can show me he is, I'll be as alarmed as you are by this "development". Otherwise, I'll just assume this is another example of an idiot judge. They aren't rare.

Thankfully, a higher court did overturn the ruling.

Every President gets to appoint judges so Obama would never come out and openly broadcast his Islamic beliefs, but he can quietly appoint judges who espouse his liberal agenda.

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue or Left vs. Right. This is just plain wrong. I'd be just as concerned about this issue if a Republican were in office and held Muslim/Islamic leanings.

Travelingirl, I find it strange how you post something, then later contridict your own post, or later add new info which should of been there in the first place. For instance...

From his own book, Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

After Scruffy questions if it was taken out of context (same thing I'd of guessed), you come back with this...

The actual quote from the book is from page 261 and is as follows: "Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

So not only was it taken out of context, but it wasn't even a correct quote to begin with. Was the first post a mistake on your part, or did you intentionally misquote?

Next you post a ruling from a judge, but fail to mention until a later post that the ruling was overturned. Shouldn't that of been mentioned in your first post?

And even if you can prove that Obama is a Muslim (your "evidence" so far is also stuff out of context and does not impress me), it's a huge stretch to say he's going to impose Islamic law in the United States.

The Kennedy and the Catholic Church example has already been made. If we were to elect an evangelical Christian, do we need to worry about a return of Old Testament law? They had stonings too.

Pine...Christians are under the new law, in their teachings of the new testament..love is taught, repect for fellow humans is key, wives are honored, etc. I can tell you don't attend an evangelical church! Not so in Sheria Law, its growing in the US and people on both sides are asleep at the wheel...enough said!