Conservative Feud Grows Over Muslims White House Staffers

Halafire Media Network ^ | february 24, 2003 | alt.muslim

[AppyPappy]

Islamic teachings require Muslims to obey Sharia'h above any another law

Then how do you explain Muslims that drink and fornicate?

[Calpernia]

My point is Islamic beliefs put Sharia'h over our federal laws. The Bill of Rights can't be used to protect people that don't uphold it themselves, no?

[Calpernia]

Oh, then tell me what Khilafah teaches.

[Calpernia]

And you know they aren't punished because?

[jwalsh07]

My point is Islamic beliefs put Sharia'h over our federal laws. The Bill of Rights can't be used to protect people that don't uphold it themselves, no?

No.

The basis of American jurisprudence is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Any muslim capable of obtaining a security clearance to work at the White House has been thouroughly vetted. Of that I am quite sure.

Your opinion that American Muslims put Sharia'h above federal laws is simply an opinion determinative of nothing.

[Salgak]

You are. By your view, we should also lock out Catholics: after all, the Office of the Holy Inquisition is still out there. But just as Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition are not indicative of the Catholic Church as a whole, Radical Islamists are not indicative of Islam as a whole. .

[Bill Davis FR]

Then how do you explain Muslims that drink and fornicate?

do they like it???

[Calpernia]

>>>>Your opinion that American Muslims put Sharia'h above federal laws is simply an opinion determinative of nothing.

Sorry JWalsh. Nothing I've written about Islam, Khilafah or Sharia'h is MY opinion. Is is written Islamic teachings.

Islamists will support *NOT* democracy. They only DO while in opposition. This is only to eliminate it when they themselves come to power – the formula known as ‘one man, one vote, one time’…

Radical parties such as the Islamists must be allowed to enter the process only gradually. If they spring overnight from an underground forbidden status via a strong protest vote into a massive electoral victory, they will gain near total power and will not have been subject to the ‘taming’ experience of sharing in, but not dominating, governance. This was the Algerian experience in the elections in late 1991. Instead the entry of radical parties must be gradual, perhaps by their gaining control of certain municipalities or a modest proportion in the legislature. Control over their actions should also be available: a president, an army, a court system, and other mechanisms that will prevent Islamist from gaining total power at the outset and forcing them to work within the existing system…..

Clearly, power by Democracy, or, the ballot box, offer the best chance to constrain the radicalism of Islamists”.

This should be a clear warning for those Islamic groups that wish to bring the Shariah through the Ballot box as not only is it against the Sunnah of the Rasool-Allah Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam but it is falling in to the trap that the colonialist have laid for the Muslims to compromise their Islam.

This attempt of the Kuffar to find a middle ground between Islam and Kufr and hence and weaken and compromise Islam is nothing new. The Quraysh in Mecca realized that fighting the Dawah of the Rasool-Allah (Sallalahu Alaihi Wasallam) and the Sahabah through oppression, torture, boycott, slander only strengthened the call to Islam.

[Defiant]

Does ANYONE KNOW if there is a difference between Muslim and radical Muslim?

Sure, it's easy to tell the difference. A Radical Muslim is one who has acted on his religion's principles by participating in some type of terror or advocating it publicly.

A regular Muslim is one who professes a religion that tells him to engage in violence and war against infidels, but who has not taken specific steps YET in accord with his beliefs.

[Calpernia]

Then why don't you SHOW me where I'm wrong in quoting Sharia'h rather then turning the tables to another discussion?

I'm speaking about Islam. Show me where this is not across the board in the teaches. LEAVE out other religions. You answer my questions, then we can start a new topic. Khalifah is to create Islamic State. That is to invite or jihad to convert all.

Sharia'h is to be upheld over anything created by nonmuslims.

Dispute this first.

[Defiant]

Frank? Is that you? We had some disagreement on Trent Lott, but I agree with you 1000 percent on this one. Keep it up, and keep exposing the reasons why Norquist is so pro-Muslim. I think it is important to understand your enemy, and I think the White House is going a little too far in trying to be nice to Muslims.

[AppyPappy]

And you know they aren't punished because?

Because they do it all the time. Even the 9/11 terrorists were drinking in a strip club.

[ZULU]

Bush is getting VERY bad advice from that idiot Norquist.

Norquist, according to Debbie Schlosser is a Muslim apologist who was repsonsible for that idiotic statement of Bush's about Islam being a "peaceful" religion. Georgie should have paid more attention in history class - than he would have known better.

[browardchad]

Any muslim capable of obtaining a security clearance to work at the White House has been thouroughly vetted. Of that I am quite sure.

Ah yes, thoroughly vetted. Al-Arian, who appeared in Emerson's 1995 "American Jihad" screaming "Death to Israel!" "Death to America!," and who has been the subject of an FBI investigation since 1995, had a front-row seat at June, 2001 White House conference about the "Faith-Based Initiative" hosted by Karl Rove.

Six days later, Al-Arian's son, then a congressional intern, was ejected by the Secret Service when he appeared for another White House meeting. Bush subsequently sent Al-Arian's wife a letter of apology.

Al-Arian, senior, was there as one of the American Muslim Council contingent, a group that had, through board member Abduraham Almoudi, publicly supported Hamas -- a terrorist group that Al-Arian is linked to in last week's DOJ indictment.

Gaffney's objections were not based on some personal animosity, racism or Islamophobia, as the above article from a Muslim website suggests. His objections (which are echoed by many other terrorism experts) are based on the fact that groups such as AMC, MPAC and CAIR who, post 9/11, are still being invited to the White House as representatives of Muslims in America through the efforts of Norquist and  Tulbah. All of these groups have at some point voiced support for Hamas and Hizbollah (or worse) and excused terrorism, and all have denied Al-Arian's terrorist funding activities, and dismissed the charges as "persecution."

We all recognize the need for "moderate" Muslims, who do not espouse or excuse terrorist groups, to come forward. As long as groups such as AMC, MPAC and CAIR are legitimized and placated through consultation with the Administration, there's little hope of that happening.

I'm all for killing the radical jihadists whenever possible, I'm all against painting with brushes so broad as to wipe out the Constitution with one stroke.

As far as justifying the invitation of these groups to the White House as "constitutional," how many open Nazi sympathizers were invited to the Roosevelt White House for consultation on domestic issues after December, 1941? It is still by invitation only, I believe?

[Calpernia]

And how does that support your arguement about the teachings of Islam and following Sharia'h?

[A Navy Vet]

"But Christianity has gone through such periods in its history as well."

Granted, but this is the 21st Century and other than a few crackpots, I don't see any sect of Chrisitans promoting and conducting mass murder. In addition, it's speculated that 10 to 12% of the some billion Muslims are fanactics...do the math.

[GovernmentShrinker]

There are parts of the Bible that teach equally violent and intolerant principles. Fortunately, nowadays few Christians (and Jews) choose to emphasize those parts, and generally explain them away as having been superceded by something in the New Testament, or inapplicable to their own lives for some other reason. But it has not always been that way. The Taliban's insistence on destroying the Bamiyan Buddhas, for example, bears a lot of similarity to certain past Protestant groups who went around smashing religious statues and pictures in Catholic churches. And the executions of thousands of "witches" in the name of Christianity were quite comparable to various Muslim leaders fatwas calling for the slaughter of "infidels".

[GovernmentShrinker]

I'm not arguing that Islam as a whole isn't in a more primitive state than current day Christianity. I'm arguing that there are very significant differences between various sub-groups of modern Islam. we lose the moral high ground if we insist otherwise in the face overwhelming evidence, and it's hardly a good strategy to punish moderate and liberal Muslims on the grounds that 10% of Muslims are radical. This serves only to push the moderates and liberals into the arms of the radicals -- and we can all agree that we don't need more of those.

[votelife]

If Islam had 50,000 worldwide members, it would be called a cult. But Islam has over a billion, with many more very "sensitive" to calling a spade a spade. So for now apparently, it's "one of the world's great religions." a "religion of peace"

[pwatson]

Yes, there were the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, and a few other times the Christians did some bad things. The difference is that was when the whole world was new at this civilization thing, moving out of the stone age into the iron age. The difference is Wahhabism Muslim Hate started in the Modern Age, while the West was going through the Industrial Revolution and has purged ourselves of Slavery, Bigotry, Segregation, Discrimination and has gone through the Enlightenment, Renaissance, Thomas Loch, Founding Fathers, the rights of Man and Freedom and Liberty for all.
The Muslims have backtracked into the Caveman Stone age of Wahhabism Tribalism, Warlords, Hate, Cover their Women in Vail’s of Shame wear Robes and Sandals don’t shave and practice a Religion of Backward thinking that is 1000 years behind the progress of modern Civilization. Other and that, yes they have both done some bad things.