Islam at it's core would want to over throw the Constitution

[Fishking]

Islam must follow the United States Laws.

Nearly any ideology that is purified down to is fundamental elements would overthrow the Constitution.

 

[The Baron]

The Koran is the basis for Islam.

But you admit the Hadith, no?

Nope. You can't even explain yourself in your own words because you know nothing about this subject.

And, yet, I've been spanking you for pages now.

It does, sure. It still is secondary to the Koran.

So you admit the Hadith and it's allowances for lying.

Good.

As usual, you cannot debate using your own words so you have to resort to linking what others have said and cannot even express them in your own terms.

I've simply been backing-up my own words with sources. It's standard practice in a debate. You don't like my sources as they--like me--continue to prove you wrong.

I'll give you credit; your ability to regurgitate what others have said is impressive. And yet you still fail to counter what I have said.

Is this a joke?

Seriously, if you can't do better than this I'm done.

This is fundamentally stupid.

I have quoted the Koran verbatim.

As have I.

It's you who cannot think of counters or ideas on your own so you have to borrow what others have written.

I said they lie and then backed it up with the Koran, the Hadith and other sources that all say the same thing...Islam allows you to lie.

You've tried to spin that fact, but the facts don't change.

I've said that Islam kills people who don't convert and back it up with sources as is standard practice. You simply chose to ignore that whole argument.

I've backed-up what I've said with multiple sources and you're only defense has been:

1. I don't like your source therefore it is not credible.

2. You post sources so therefore you can't speak for yourself even though there are literally pages of me correcting you time and again.

The only thing you have proven is that you can copy and paste links...

...and prove you wrong.

You can't even write in your own words counters to what I say; more proof you are out of your league.

See above.

 

[The Baron]

I apologize for thinking you could keep track of more than a two things.

You should apologize for trying to derail this thread as a last-ditch--and useless--effort to keep from losing this debate.

You are as unfamiliar with history as you are with Islam.

See above.

I can see reading is hard for you.

As you are now reduced to personal insults instead of genuine, legitimate debate, I will simply accept the victory in a gentlemanly manner and seek a more thoughtful and intelligent debater in another thread.

Have a nice day.

 

[Jredbaron96]

But you admit the Hadith, no?

There are many verses that have been written in the Hadith that have been claimed to be the word of Mohammed.

And, yet, I've been spanking you for pages now.

If that's what you need to tell yourself.

I've simply been backing-up my own words with sources. It's standard practice in a debate. You don't like my sources as they...

...are from a bunch of Christian fundamentalist websites. Nothing you've posted could be considered reputable, like academic sources or something peer reviewed.

Is this a joke?

Seriously, if you can't do better than this I'm done.

This is fundamentally stupid.

Lol, odd time to pretend that suddenly you care about quality.

I've said that Islam kills people who don't convert and back it up with sources as is standard practice. You simply chose to ignore that whole argument.

I pointed out that "convert or be killed" was not the standard practice of Islamic nations as history demonstrates. You then changed the subject. If you disagree feel free to cite historical evidence to the contrary.

For the record, there were absolutely times when Islamic leaders demanded conversion under threat of death; my point remains that this was not the standard policy and was the exception, rather than the norm.

I've backed-up what I've said with multiple sources and you're only defense has been:

1. I don't like your source therefore it is not credible.

Your sources aren't credible because they aren't written by people with any credibility. Notice how nothing you've posted is from an academic source or peer reviewed. It's random Christian fundamentalist websites.

2. You post sources so therefore you can't speak for yourself even though there are literally pages of me correcting you time and again.

Because you can't even quote your own sources to prove your point. Simply posting a link and saying "No you're wrong". Is bad form.

 

[Jredbaron96]

As you are now reduced to personal insults instead of genuine, legitimate debate,

Your debating has been a lot of things, legitimate is not one of them. I nevertheless accept your surrender.

 

[Lisa]

Nearly any ideology that is purified down to is fundamental elements would overthrow the Constitution.

This is why the Framers had the forethought to include the Establishment Clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.


Gentlemen


The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.


Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

 

[Fishking]

This is why the Framers had the forethought to include the Establishment Clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state in the First Amendment.

My comment wasn't limited to only religions. It's any ideology, religious or securlar.

 

[Lisa]

My comment wasn't limited to only religions. It's any ideology, religious or securlar.

I agree with you about religion.

What secular ideology did you have in mind?

 

[Fishking]

I agree with you about religion.

What secular ideology did you have in mind?

Marxism pushes secularism which, when broken done to it's purist forms, ends up oppressing religious people. That's why you often see religious persecution in communist countries. Or, hell, I can say the same for capitalism, which is the form of economy that I prefer. If you had pure laissez faire capitalism then you'd have robber barons and basically have people be owned and governed by corporations.

 

[Lisa]

Marxism pushes secularism which, when broken done to it's purist forms, ends up oppressing religious people. That's why you often see religious persecution in communist countries. Or, hell, I can say the same for capitalism, which is the form of economy that I prefer. If you had pure laissez faire capitalism then you'd have robber barons and basically have people be owned and governed by corporations.

The problem is authoritarian governments, of which capitalism is almost certainly authoritarian. Communism isn't authoritarian and those countries in the past were never truly communist, just as East Germany and North Korea are not democratic republics.

Marxism is not secular. It's an economic idea of group ownership of goods and control, and it can be either anarchist, moderate or authoritarian. It is easily possible to have a socialist or true communist form of government that has protected religious rights or even a theocracy.

 

[Fishking]

The problem is authoritarian governments, of which capitalism is almost certainly authoritarian. Communism isn't authoritarian and those countries in the past were never truly communist, just as East Germany and North Korea are not democratic republics.

You couldn't have written a more wrong statement than someone had literally gone out of their way to purposefully write something that was false. Capitalism is the least authoritarian system out there, bar none. It's premised on the voluntary exchange of goods and services. Now, any system can be abused but the foundational aspects of capitalism is liberty. Conversely, communism is literally authoritarian. It's part of it's bedrock, baked in the cake. Collectivism, by it's very nature, suborns the freedom and liberty of the individual.

Your "No true Scottsman" fallacies above aside, there is a reason why all the societies that are capitalistic are the most free nations in the world and every single one that is communist is one of the most murderous and oppressive. Further, you cannot take property from someone without oppressive levels of authoritarianism, and communism voids the concept of private property, where private property is one of the main pillars of liberty.

Marxism is not secular. It's an economic idea of group ownership of goods and control, and it can be either anarchist, moderate or authoritarian. It is easily possible to have a socialist or true communist form of government that has protected religious rights or even a theocracy.

Uhhhh....this just demonstrates even more that you absolutely do not know what you're talking about Marxism most definitely is secularism. It's one of the pillars of it.

 

[stevecanuck]

Would be a surprise to the Caliphates, many of whom held substantial populations of Christians and Jews for centuries.

That's where the Jizya comes in.

9:29 - Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That's where the Jizya comes in.

Okay? Doesn't change that fact.

 

[stevecanuck]

Okay? Doesn't change that fact.

I'm pretty sure that's what my post agreed to. To confirm, non-Muslims may live in Muslim-run countries as long as they accept inferior status and pay a religious tax. Correct?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I'm pretty sure that's what my post agreed to. To confirm, non-Muslims may live in Muslim-run countries as long as they accept inferior status and pay a religious tax. Correct?

So, they had to pay taxes. Just like the rest of the world.

Except, the Jizya was actually an easier burden on the populace than Persian or Byzantine rule. Which is why the Arabs didn't face any significant resistance to their rule.

 

[stevecanuck]

So, they had to pay taxes. Just like the rest of the world.

Nope. That was a disingenuous deflection. I'm talking about an EXTRA tax called the Jizya - and you know it.

Except, the Jizya was actually an easier burden on the populace than Persian or Byzantine rule. Which is why the Arabs didn't face any significant resistance to their rule.

Source?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Nope. That was a disingenuous deflection. I'm talking about an EXTRA tax called the Jizya - and you know it.

There's nothing disingenuous about pointing out how people in Dar Al-Islam had to pay taxes like the rest of the world.

The insinuation you want is that the Muslims were more asshole-ish because they made people pay their special tax, even though by most marks life under Arab rule, at least initially, was superior to Persian and Byzantine control.

Source?

How many revolts did the Arabs face after their conquests?

 

[stevecanuck]

There's nothing disingenuous about pointing out how people in Dar Al-Islam had to pay taxes like the rest of the world.

Still trying to insinuate that the Jizya is 'just another tax'? Rock on. I won't be correcting you again on that, so enjoy having the last word.

The insinuation you want is that the Muslims were more asshole-ish because they made people pay their special tax, even though by most marks life under Arab rule, at least initially, was superior to Persian and Byzantine control.

Let's impose a special tax on Muslims living here and see how that goes.

How many revolts did the Arabs face after their conquests?

So, no source. Noted.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Still trying to insinuate that the Jizya is 'just another tax'? Rock on. I won't be correcting you again on that, so enjoy having the last word.

I'm sorry the reality of taxation of the pre-modern world saddens you.

Let's impose a special tax on Muslims living here and see how that goes.

How many Islamic states today impose the Jizya?

So, no source. Noted.

It's okay that your google search for "revolts against Arab rule" didn't turn up anything for you. In reality, this has been documented for some time.

"In many ways, local populations found Muslim rule more flexible and tolerant than that of Byzantium and Persia. Religious communities were free to practice their faith to worship and be governed by their religious leaders and laws in such areas as marriage, divorce, and inheritance. In exchange, they were required to pay tribute, a poll tax (jizya) that entitled them to Muslim protection from outside aggression and exempted them from military service. Thus, they were called the "protected ones" (dhimmi). In effect, this often meant lower taxes, greater local autonomy, rule by fellow Semites with closer linguistic and cultural ties than the hellenized, Greco-Roman élites of Byzantium, and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians." Esposito, John. (1988)

This shouldn't come as a suprise when you consider the fact that the Arab armies, apart from being small and lacking the Persian and Byzantine bureaucracies needed to sustain them, tended to camp outside of major settlements reducing their pressure on local populaces.