Verify his Muslim Beliefs

outdoor338 wrote: 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!

I felt travelingirl was making a huge stretch by first assuming Obama may be Muslim, then making another huge stretch assuming he might impose Islamic law in the US.

My example was also making a huge stretch worrying an evangelical Christian might impose Old Testament laws. I don't believe at all they would, just as you point out. I was just trying to show how extreme it is to make such assumptions.

pineinthegrass wrote:

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.

If you had read my posts you would have found that I posted the quote in full context and said my original post had been taken out of context. No big secret there.

When I found that a judge had overturned the ruling and I posted it. No dark secret there either. The point is, Sharia Law is alive and well in the USA. And a US judge allowed it.

I never intended my posts to impress you so no disappointment there.

Jesus said, "he who is without sin cast the first stone." And as the Bible tells us, no one did! I like his gospel. In Sharia Law, the woman that was about to be stoned WOULD HAVE BEEN STONED! (Aren't they still doing that in ISLAMIC countries?? Iran??) What a great guy Jesus is! I love having him looking out for me! Talk about pro-woman! Once he died and rose again we were no longer under the Old Law but free under the New Covenant (not Bill Clinton's by the way!). So no, I don't fear having an Evangelical in office.

As I mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I am not completely sure what religion Obama is because I've seen videos where he told Rick Warren that he is a "born-agan Christian" and then slipped with George Stephanopoulos and said "my Muslim faith". So it's not unreasonable at all that many like me are just darn confused. Maybe HE's NOT SURE what he is either...with the kind of mixed up family life he had growing up it's not unreasonable to think he's a bit confused too!

Bottom line: He'll say and/or do whatever it takes to get his liberal agenda accomplished which in his words is to "fundamentally change America".

travelingirl wrote: [Bottom line: He'll say and/or do whatever it takes to get his liberal agenda accomplished which in his words is to "fundamentally change America".

You're the one who is "confused" if you imagine that sharia law and a "liberal agenda" have anything in common.

pineinthegrass wrote:

outdoor338 wrote: 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!

I felt travelingirl was making a huge stretch by first assuming Obama may be Muslim, then making another huge stretch assuming he might impose Islamic law in the US.

My example was also making a huge stretch worrying an evangelical Christian might impose Old Testament laws. I don't believe at all they would, just as you point out. I was just trying to show how extreme it is to make such assumptions.

Why do you think I'm making a huge stretch by assuming Obama is Muslim when all we have to do is take a quick peek at the Youtube video of the interview with George Stephanopoulos? It's Obama - in the flesh - saying those words. Obama would never affirm his leanings in say, his State of the Union address. He's too cunning for that. But what will (and has happened) is the Muslims will say "it's my religious right to worship and follow my religion and my religion says I force my wife to have sex with me (aka rape under US law)". Then our politcally active judges (one already in NJ) will agree. Obama's DOJ is "acting stupidly" by moving the terrorist trials to civl court, so why would it be a stretch to think they might just give these radical judges a pass too? There are so many other things Obama has done that certainly looks like he's pandering to the Muslims that make most people at least question where he stands.



The difference between today's practicing Muslim vs. today's practicing Christian is that today's Muslim still stones women for so-called infidelity. Whereas today's practicing Christian does not...huge difference in my mind! So you're right - it was a huge stretch on your part.

AspenValley wrote:

travelingirl wrote: [Bottom line: He'll say and/or do whatever it takes to get his liberal agenda accomplished which in his words is to "fundamentally change America".

You're the one who is "confused" if you imagine that sharia law and a "liberal agenda" have anything in common.

No, not confused. Never said liberal = Sharia Law.

travelingirl wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

travelingirl wrote: [Bottom line: He'll say and/or do whatever it takes to get his liberal agenda accomplished which in his words is to "fundamentally change America".

You're the one who is "confused" if you imagine that sharia law and a "liberal agenda" have anything in common.

No, not confused. Never said liberal = Sharia Law.

Well, if you're not confused you've certainly mangaged to confuse me.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you can see Obama on the one hand as single-mindedly pushing his "liberal agenda" and at the same time suspect him of wanting to impose a fanatically conservative version of Islamic law on the hapless citizens of the Good Old US of A?

Or is just everything you think is evil and wrong should be imputed to the guy?

travelingirl wrote: [Why do you think I'm making a huge stretch by assuming Obama is Muslim when all we have to do is take a quick peek at the Youtube video of the interview with George Stephanopoulos? It's Obama - in the flesh - saying those words.

Yes, he says the words, but once again you are basing a claim on something taken out of context. Here is a longer clip of the video then you usually see. I'd suggest listening to all 2 min of the clip, but the the "Muslim" discussion starts around the 1:12 mark...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQqIpdBOg6I

A fuller quote is "... John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith". But even that doesn't give the full context. Before that, they were talking about conservatives who are questioning Obama's Christain faith by calling him a Muslim. He was responding to that. And after the famous quote out of context, Obama goes on to exlain it, just in case what he said wasn't clear enough already; "what I'm saying, he [McCain] hasn't suggested I'm a Muslim".

It's another huge stretch to suggest Obama is admitting he's a Muslim based on that video.

travelingirl wrote: If you had read my posts you would have found that I posted the quote in full context and said my original post had been taken out of context. No big secret there.

When I found that a judge had overturned the ruling and I posted it. No dark secret there either. The point is, Sharia Law is alive and well in the USA. And a US judge allowed it.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence, but I guess you are agreeing that your first quote was out of context? I think you are saying that you later found that out after posting it, and corrected it with the second quote in your later post? If so, I have no problem with that. Glad you corrected it.

But as I said, this is more than just a quote out of context. It's a fabricated quote in that the word "Muslims" was added to it, and that word doesn't appear at the same place in the second quote.

So far as a US judge allowing Sharia law goes, there's a lot of assumptions you'd have to make. First of all, while the judge did dismiss sexual assault (wrongly, IMO, and glad he got reversed), he did at least rule the husband to be guilty of harassment and assault...

http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/

Now, if the judge were supporting Sharia law, why would he of even found the husband guilty of anything? He would of let him off scott free.

Also, sexual assault in marriage is nothing unique to Muslims. It's been a subject of much legal debate for a long time among people of all religions in the United States. In the past, laws and courts have given lighter sentences to husbands who sexually assault their wife compared to sexual assault outside of marriage...

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/wiferape.shtml

Today it is a crime in all 50 states (and federal lands) for a husband to rape his wife. However, according to the National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape (see Resource List), as of March 1996, only 17 states and the District of Columbia have completely abolished the marital rape exemption (which precludes a husband from being charged with rape of his wife in certain situations, or limits the seriousness of the offense with which a husband could be charged). Marital privileges are extended to unmarried cohabitants in some states.

My point is that it's reasonable to assume that this particular judge may of reached the same conclusion even if the couple weren't Muslim. It's happened before, and laws supported it (again, wrongly, IMO). And the fact that he still found the husband guilty of at least two counts supports a conclusion that the judge was not honoring Sharia law.

... love is taught, respect for fellow humans is key...

Love - you mean like "Love your enemies?"

"Respect" --- as in not calling people barbarians? Or maybe not showing videos that are grossly out of context?

Ever thought having a cup of tea with a Muslim?

Asleep at the wheel? I'd argue that people don't belong in the driver's seat, anyway.

Enjoy clanging your gong.....

I'll look for a church with a handbell choir.....