Intolerance is not just part of al-Qaeda. What Obama could have done.
These aren't five or two thousand year old rules that have largely been discarded by a faith. This is right now, today.
The Tolerant Pose (The relatively short article should be read in full.)
"Non-Muslims are barred from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina - not merely barred from building synagogues or churches, but barred, period, because their infidel feet are deemed unfit to touch the ground. This is not an al-Qaeda principle. Nor is it an 'Islamist' principle. It is Islam, pure and simple.
'Truly the pagans are unclean,' instructs the Koran’s Sura 9:28, [...] And it is enforced not because of some eccentric sense of Saudi nationalism. The only law of Saudi Arabia is sharia, the law of Islam."
"As Iraq’s 'moderate' Ayatollah Ali Sistani - probably the world’s most influential Shiite cleric - has explained, the touching of non-Muslims is discouraged, because they are considered to be in the same 'unclean' category as 'urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors, and the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].'
These teachings are worth bearing in mind as we listen to the staunch defenses of religious liberty that have suddenly become so fashionable among proponents of the Cordoba Initiative"
"The president’s commitment is to a vacant abstraction, not to actual liberty. If his resolve to defend religious freedom were truly unshakable, the last thing he would endorse is the construction of a gigantic monument to intolerance in a place where bigots devastated a city they have repeatedly targeted because of the pluralism and freedom it symbolizes."
"For [defenders of the GZ mosque this] is our 'opportunity to show how we are better than Saudis.' That misses the point in two ways. First, we don’t need to show that we are better than the Saudis. [...] Second and more significant, the comparison of what is permitted in Manhattan and what is permitted in Mecca is not about the Saudis: It is about Islam. Saudi Arabia does not have any law but sharia."
"In other places, the degree of imposition depends on relative Islamic strength, and it increases as that strength increases. Thus, the standard Muslim position on 'Palestine,' where Islamic strength is growing but not yet dominant: Muslims are to be permitted to live freely within the Jewish state, but all Jews must be purged from Palestinian territories. Again, that’s not an al-Qaeda position; it’s the mainstream Islamic view."
"In the United States, there is no threat to religious liberty . . . except where there are high concentrations of Muslims. Not high concentrations of al-Qaeda sympathizers - high concentrations of Muslims."
"Moreover, the same theory that considers every Muslim to be a Muslim forever - whether he wants to be one or not - analogously holds that if a given inch of land has ever been under Islamic domain, it is Islam’s property in perpetuity. There is a reason Islamic maps of Palestine do not reflect the existence of Israel and that Spain is called al-Andalus."
"There are Muslims who want to change this, Muslims who want to evolve their faith into the light of ecumenical tolerance, Muslims who crave true religious liberty and reject sharia’s repression. These reformist Muslims face a daunting challenge, however."
"This president, uniquely, could have framed that question in the right way. He could have called on Muslims who claim to be moderate to reject Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda explicitly, by name and without equivocation. He could have called for them to support freedom of conscience, to support the right of Muslims to leave the faith. He could have called for Muslims to reject the second-class citizenship to which sharia condemns women and non-Muslims. He could have demanded that they accept the right of homosexuals to live without fear of persecution. He could have called for a declaration that sharia is a matter of private contemplation that has no place in the formation of public policy.
If the Ground Zero mosque were understood as standing for those values, it would be a monument worth having: A testament to the rise of a uniquely American Islam that stands foursquare against the hate-filled ideology we’re fighting, an Islam for which Americans would be proud to fight."
Of course this didn't happen. The Left, like Islam, considers the definition of "tolerance" to be submission to their will.
After the cut is something I find interesting regarding the President's reception by and actions toward Muslims.
Did you know President Barack Obama is an apostate Muslim?
Oh no! Melvin is one of those crazies who says Obama is a Muslim. No, no. Pay attention.
It didn't come from me. It came from Islam, and from the New York Times
"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant."
"His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is 'irtidad' or 'ridda,' usually translated from the Arabic as 'apostasy,' but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings."
"Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama - not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law - another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards."
Now to my knowledge this information from the New York Times is all pure fact. Yet Muslims seem incredibly receptive to Obama the Apostate.
Am I insinuating he is a secret Muslim? Absolutely not. I can tell you with 100% conviction I do not think Obama is a (practicing) Muslim.
What I do believe is that most Islamic leaders are strong believers in Islam, and that they are suffering someone who has committed the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit. One wonders why. Is it their world renowned tolerance? Or is it because he continues to actively work to empower them in every way he can? If it's the latter, the moment he stops failing to do so things could get "interesting".
I'm just putting all this out there.
The Tolerant Pose (The relatively short article should be read in full.)
"Non-Muslims are barred from entering the cities of Mecca and Medina - not merely barred from building synagogues or churches, but barred, period, because their infidel feet are deemed unfit to touch the ground. This is not an al-Qaeda principle. Nor is it an 'Islamist' principle. It is Islam, pure and simple.
'Truly the pagans are unclean,' instructs the Koran’s Sura 9:28, [...] And it is enforced not because of some eccentric sense of Saudi nationalism. The only law of Saudi Arabia is sharia, the law of Islam."
"As Iraq’s 'moderate' Ayatollah Ali Sistani - probably the world’s most influential Shiite cleric - has explained, the touching of non-Muslims is discouraged, because they are considered to be in the same 'unclean' category as 'urine, feces, semen, dead bodies, blood, dogs, pigs, alcoholic liquors, and the sweat of an animal who persistently eats [unclean things].'
These teachings are worth bearing in mind as we listen to the staunch defenses of religious liberty that have suddenly become so fashionable among proponents of the Cordoba Initiative"
"The president’s commitment is to a vacant abstraction, not to actual liberty. If his resolve to defend religious freedom were truly unshakable, the last thing he would endorse is the construction of a gigantic monument to intolerance in a place where bigots devastated a city they have repeatedly targeted because of the pluralism and freedom it symbolizes."
"For [defenders of the GZ mosque this] is our 'opportunity to show how we are better than Saudis.' That misses the point in two ways. First, we don’t need to show that we are better than the Saudis. [...] Second and more significant, the comparison of what is permitted in Manhattan and what is permitted in Mecca is not about the Saudis: It is about Islam. Saudi Arabia does not have any law but sharia."
"In other places, the degree of imposition depends on relative Islamic strength, and it increases as that strength increases. Thus, the standard Muslim position on 'Palestine,' where Islamic strength is growing but not yet dominant: Muslims are to be permitted to live freely within the Jewish state, but all Jews must be purged from Palestinian territories. Again, that’s not an al-Qaeda position; it’s the mainstream Islamic view."
"In the United States, there is no threat to religious liberty . . . except where there are high concentrations of Muslims. Not high concentrations of al-Qaeda sympathizers - high concentrations of Muslims."
"Moreover, the same theory that considers every Muslim to be a Muslim forever - whether he wants to be one or not - analogously holds that if a given inch of land has ever been under Islamic domain, it is Islam’s property in perpetuity. There is a reason Islamic maps of Palestine do not reflect the existence of Israel and that Spain is called al-Andalus."
"There are Muslims who want to change this, Muslims who want to evolve their faith into the light of ecumenical tolerance, Muslims who crave true religious liberty and reject sharia’s repression. These reformist Muslims face a daunting challenge, however."
"This president, uniquely, could have framed that question in the right way. He could have called on Muslims who claim to be moderate to reject Hamas, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda explicitly, by name and without equivocation. He could have called for them to support freedom of conscience, to support the right of Muslims to leave the faith. He could have called for Muslims to reject the second-class citizenship to which sharia condemns women and non-Muslims. He could have demanded that they accept the right of homosexuals to live without fear of persecution. He could have called for a declaration that sharia is a matter of private contemplation that has no place in the formation of public policy.
If the Ground Zero mosque were understood as standing for those values, it would be a monument worth having: A testament to the rise of a uniquely American Islam that stands foursquare against the hate-filled ideology we’re fighting, an Islam for which Americans would be proud to fight."
Of course this didn't happen. The Left, like Islam, considers the definition of "tolerance" to be submission to their will.
After the cut is something I find interesting regarding the President's reception by and actions toward Muslims.
Did you know President Barack Obama is an apostate Muslim?
Oh no! Melvin is one of those crazies who says Obama is a Muslim. No, no. Pay attention.
It didn't come from me. It came from Islam, and from the New York Times
"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant."
"His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is 'irtidad' or 'ridda,' usually translated from the Arabic as 'apostasy,' but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victim’s family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings."
"Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama - not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law - another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards."
Now to my knowledge this information from the New York Times is all pure fact. Yet Muslims seem incredibly receptive to Obama the Apostate.
Am I insinuating he is a secret Muslim? Absolutely not. I can tell you with 100% conviction I do not think Obama is a (practicing) Muslim.
What I do believe is that most Islamic leaders are strong believers in Islam, and that they are suffering someone who has committed the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit. One wonders why. Is it their world renowned tolerance? Or is it because he continues to actively work to empower them in every way he can? If it's the latter, the moment he stops failing to do so things could get "interesting".
I'm just putting all this out there.