Trump fans: Respond to Khizr Kahn, muslim father who lost his son in Iraq, DEVASTATES Trump at DNC

DiscoGary wrote:

Coffee and a donut wrote:

...

If he wins, it will force everyone in political communications to completely re-think "the rules" of how politicians should act and speak.

...

And THAT is why I'm voting for Trump. The only way to break the Republican/Democrat Establishment hold on the country is to find a new way to defeat them. If Trump can survive being politically incorrect then maybe more people will stand up to the PC fascists and defeat them. We can't fix our problems if we're not even allowed to discuss them.

And there he is, right on cue.

Some folks cry ‘PC’ constantly, thinking it is some sort of trump card (pun unintended but unavoidable). They don't seem to realize that it just makes them look like a moron.

DiscoGary wrote:

This guy waved the Constitution at us after he supported the supremacy of Sharia Law over all other law. He doesn't believe in Constitutional Law, and if he understood it he would know that there is no Constitutional restriction for placing religious limitations on immigrants.

If you had taken the time to read what Breibart posted on scribd, you would have seen that Khan was speaking within the context of Islamic Law, useful material for the oil and gas industry when dealing with Saudi Arabia, where Khan was located at the time of his writing. He's absolutely correct when he states that the Qur'an is the ultimate authority in Islamic Law, just like the Torah is the ultimate authority in Halakah.

But show me the part where Khan writes that Muslims must reject secular laws that conflict with Shariah and I'll freely admit my error.

Who cares about the carefully scripted whining that charlatan Khan delivered at the Dem's convention?

His son was killed while inspecting foreign troops truth be told. He wasn't killed while engaged in some heroic act. But in today's PC world, anything one does while in certain parts of the world is "heroic" if it serves Israeli (and certain US) interests.

Mr. Khan is typical of the arrogant, self-absorbed hypocrites from that part of the world, that culture, that religion. Probably one of the reasons the son joined the military was to escape being assaulted from behind by his father, an act which is all too often the norm for those poor, besieged Muslims. The stories about law school tuition are bunk since someone with the kid's background will have money tossed his way along with lax admission requirements in comparison to those evil palefaces, and that's a fact.

“The invariable and basic rules of Islamic law are only those prescribed in the Shari’ah,” Khan writes. “All other juridical works… must always be subordinated to the Shari’ah.”

This guy is a strict adherent to Sharia Law which is incompatible with our Constitution. Someone should read the Bill of Rights to Khan so he knows what he's waving around next time.

DiscoGary wrote:

Coffee and a donut wrote:

...

If he wins, it will force everyone in political communications to completely re-think "the rules" of how politicians should act and speak.

...

And THAT is why I'm voting for Trump. The only way to break the Republican/Democrat Establishment hold on the country is to find a new way to defeat them. If Trump can survive being politically incorrect then maybe more people will stand up to the PC fascists and defeat them. We can't fix our problems if we're not even allowed to discuss them.

Plus you want our military to target and eliminate families in the streets.

While we're on the subject of Khizr Khan and his religion of peace, guess what happened in Paris, France today that the MSM has not told us about???

DiscoGary wrote:

“All other juridical works…

Meaning the Ijma, the Qiyas... It's clear enough what he's referencing, given that he's referring to juridical works in the past 1300 years, meaning since the founding of Islam, and thus sources dealing within the realm of Islamic Law.

Do you think that the Halakha is incompatible with the US Constitution? Deuteronomy 22:22 is clear that adulterers are to be put to death. Is that not in conflict with the laws of the United States as we have them now?

Khan and his wife (who isn't allowed to talk in Public) have been publicly destroyed by Trump!

ANOTHER TOTAL VICTORY FOR TRUMP!!!

Jeff Wigand wrote:

DiscoGary wrote:

“All other juridical works…

Meaning the Ijma, the Qiyas... It's clear enough what he's referencing, given that he's referring to juridical works in the past 1300 years, meaning since the founding of Islam, and thus sources dealing within the realm of Islamic Law.

Do you think that the Halakha is incompatible with the US Constitution? Deuteronomy 22:22 is clear that adulterers are to be put to death. Is that not in conflict with the laws of the United States as we have them now?

In general, Christians around the world do not put their religious decrees above the law of the land. Muslims do.

Christians are the ones who came up with the concept of separation of church and State. "Render unto Caesar what is his..." etc. Islam has no such concept or tradition.

Just keep trying to get people to think their Aunt Sally who goes to church every Sunday and prays for God to protect her family is just as dangerous as the guy who drove a truck over all those people in Nice. Let's see how that goes.

Jeff Wigand, wrong again, Halakha is not incompatible with the constitution. "Deenay malchut haaretz" means the law of the land and it is understood that this is what you follow. Jews might want to be able to enjoy rituals and advocate for them (circumcision, kashrut, days off to celebrate holy days) but Jews don't expect these criminal laws to take place. I responded in another thread to you yesterday that Rabbis don't expect any of those biblical laws to be followed until the messiah (the jewish one) comes

Hobby Lobby and Kim Davis notwithstanding.

I'd say that has more to do with obeying the law of the land, given that not long after those words were written (in historical terms) Nicene Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire and the expense of non-Nicene Christians, Pagans and Jews. More credit in western society goes to the Socian Christian John Locke and then the deist Thomas Jefferson.

That's what we call a "straw man." Christians are by and large a nice and law abiding group of people but on occasion, there have been confessing Christians that have done an awful lot of butchering in the name of the god they love and fear. As a whole, they're no better, no worse than anyone else. Were the Ustase representative of Christianity? Was Father John Geoghan?

Coach wrote:

I responded in another thread to you yesterday that Rabbis don't expect any of those biblical laws to be followed until the messiah (the jewish one) comes

Can you cite where that's written in the Torah?

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Coach wrote:

I responded in another thread to you yesterday that Rabbis don't expect any of those biblical laws to be followed until the messiah (the jewish one) comes

Can you cite where that's written in the Torah?

Why am I not worried about getting killed by religious Jews? or Sikhs, or Buddhists, or Shintos, or athiests, or Satanists!?

The only religion in the world which is saying convert or die is Islam.

Jeff Wigand wrote:

...

That's what we call a "straw man." Christians are by and large a nice and law abiding group of people but on occasion, there have been confessing Christians that have done an awful lot of butchering in the name of the god they love and fear. As a whole, they're no better, no worse than anyone else.

...

Hmmmm. Please define "as a whole".

As a whole Christians and Jews do not preach that followers of other religions HAVE to be converted, enslaved, or killed.

As a whole Muslims preach exactly that.

Do you agree?

DiscoGary wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

Can you cite where that's written in the Torah?

Why am I not worried about getting killed by religious Jews? or Sikhs, or Buddhists, or Shintos, or athiests, or Satanists!?

The only religion in the world which is saying convert or die is Islam.

The Qur'an explicitly states that there's to be no compulsion of religion. And I know what you're going to say: no everyone follows that, and you're right. And the Bible also says you're not supposed to murder anyone and yet Bible believing Christians do it daily. Not everyone follows their own rules.

Here's what I don't understand about you: in the 1940s, the Ustase killed over 300,000 Serbs and forcibly converted many thousands more to Catholicism. I don't know how old you are, but if you had been alive then, would you have had the same fear of Catholicism as you do of Islam today? Or would you have understood that the Ustase were a bunch of lunatics and not representative of Catholics as a larger group?

DiscoGary wrote:

Jeff Wigand wrote:

...

That's what we call a "straw man." Christians are by and large a nice and law abiding group of people but on occasion, there have been confessing Christians that have done an awful lot of butchering in the name of the god they love and fear. As a whole, they're no better, no worse than anyone else.

...

Hmmmm. Please define "as a whole".

As a whole Christians and Jews do not preach that followers of other religions HAVE to be converted, enslaved, or killed.

As a whole Muslims preach exactly that.

Do you agree?

No. The Qur'an states that there will be no compulsion of religion. When the Moors took control of Iberia, they didn't forcibly convert the Christians and Jews there but instead let Jews use the mosques as synagogues on Saturdays and let Christians use them as churches on Sundays. This isn't to say it was all big one utopia all the time. There were moorish leaders who were particularly brutal against non-Muslims. Just like there were Christian campaigns during the Inquisitions against Muslims and Jews that were also brutal.

Have you ever heard Kareem Abdul-Jabaar say anything about converting or killing anyone? Aqib Talib? Reza Aslan? Is that what Muslims in the Tunisian government are telling their new Jewish Minister of Tourism? Did you know that the Iranian government erected a monument to Iranian-Jews who died during the Iraq-Iran War:

Again, Iran is far, far from a utopia but you are so wrong in what you think most Muslims are about. Get a new source of information, take a class of do something different because you have a very poor base of facts.

Everyone needs to know what Wigand is doing here. It's basic Moral Equivalence, and it happens a thousand times a day in political discussions. Whenever someone is forced to defend their side on something that's indefensible, they redirect the blame by finding a similar offense committed by the other side, no matter how far back they have to go in history, and then say everyone is morally equivalent because we're ALL guilty of committing the crime so one has the moral authority to judge the indefensible acts they are trying to defend.

The moral equivalence breaks down when we don't accept the premise and refuse to accept blame for a crime committed under our side's name decades or hundreds of years ago. The son should not be made to answer for the sins of the father. Pretty basic stuff.

When we look at the picture as it stands today Islam compels its followers to commit heinous acts around the globe, while no other religion is doing anything near that. That's it. That's what we have to work with today.

The primary problem with moral equivalence is that it makes excuses for the atrocities committed by Muslims while it silences any criticism of it, which is one of the foundations of PC speech codes. If we are not allowed to identify the underlying problem, fundamental Islam in this case, then we will never be able to address the problem. For example, if we think that OUR ACTIONS are causing the murder and butchery coming out of Islam, then we will never put an end to it.

Wigand is either intentionally or unwittingly keeping us from solving the problem, and he is helping to extend the oppression and death caused by the people he thinks he's protecting from bigots.

This is really good stuff. 300 level political science class for sure.

Trump hurt the feelings of a Muslim family/Hillary helped sell weapons to ISIS, thousands of Muslims killed. Which narrative is the MSM pushing?

Here's my base of facts:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Chew on that for a while.

But great discussion Jeff. No insults at all, and I know what kind of discipline it takes to pull that off. Came kind of close right there at the end though.