[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war

Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 22, 2015
Author: William J. Federer
Post Date: 2015-09-22 12:41:15 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 2287
Comments: 24

Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible

Published: 09/26/2009 at 12:00 AM

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111055/#OrxL51xmOl9dJTHh.99

President Barack Obama stated in Cairo, Egypt, June 4, 2009: "When the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the ... Holy Quran."

The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet the Quran states in Sura 4:89, "Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them."

In Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari (Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57), Muhammad said: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him."

Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to "dhimmi" status, where they are not to propagate their customs amongst Muslims and cannot display a Cross or a Star of David.

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge "the freedom of speech," yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer or ringing church bells.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away "the right of the people to peaceably assemble," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot build any new places of worship or repair any old places Muslims have destroyed; they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings; they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," yet Islamic law states non- Muslims are not to harbor any hostility toward the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

The Second Amendment states, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to "quarter" someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill - and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures," yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

The Fifth Amendment states that "no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime ... without due process of law," yet Muhammad said, "No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel)" (Hadith Sahih al- Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a "public trial by an impartial jury" and the Seventh Amendment states "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting a non-Muslim from testifying in court against a Muslim.

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no "cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," yet the Quran states:

"Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done - a deterrent from Allah" (Sura 5:38).

A raped woman is punished: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication - flog each of them with a hundred stripes" (Sura 24:2).

Women can be beaten: "If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them" (Sura 4:34).

Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no "slavery or involuntary servitude," yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Muhammad owned slaves.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens "equal protection of the laws," yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law.

Referring to Jews as "the People of the Book," Muhammad said: "They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine" (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

The 15th Amendment guarantees "the right of the citizens ... to vote shall not be denied ... on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," yet the fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making their own laws.

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." Muhammad said, "Fight those who believe not in Allah ... until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).

The 18th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as "the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors ... for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited."

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law prohibits non- Muslims from selling or drinking wine and liquor openly. One would assume that to swear upon a book implies believing what is in that book.

As Muhammad was not just a religious leader, but also a political and military leader, Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political and military system.

Since no one has the authority to demand Muslims worldwide cease imitating the political/military example of Muhammad, when Muslims bow in prayer they are also pledging political/military allegiance to Mecca.

Swearing to defend the U.S. Constitution upon a Quran that promotes different values is a dilemma worthy of a presidential explanation.

William J. Federer is the author of the best-selling book What Every American Needs to Know About the Qur'an-A History of Islam and the United States

http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/111055/#zGV5yp2BpxCPgojr.99http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/1 11055/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

#1. To: tpaine, redleghunter (#0) (Edited)

The dilemma is: How can one swear to defend something upon a book that promotes the opposite?

The dilemma for Christians is: how can they swear upon a Bible in which their Savior commands them to never swear at all, that oaths such as they are swearing are from Satan?

Why do Christians always perform an act from Satan (according to Jesus) when they take office in America, or testify in court?

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-22   14:18:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

Why do Christians always perform an act from Satan (according to Jesus) when they take office in America, or testify in court?

There is such an easy way to solve this. The services did go to the alternative 'affirm' which means I give my word as 'yes'.

One could go in court and say "I affirm to tell the truth and let my yes be yes and my no be no."

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-22   14:47:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: redleghunter (#3)

There is such an easy way to solve this.

Yes, that is the easy, practical way to solve it. And that is what Christians should be doing, to be subtle as serpents. Unless they have power.

Christians in power should instead change the laws so that men do not swear oaths. An oath is meaningless. That men think it DOES have superstitious meaning is idolatry, and Christians have a duty to instruct people against idolatry. No oaths of office at all is the correct stance for men who have the power to set rules. No oaths. No pretence at oaths. No vain mumblings that mean nothing but that men think means something, because that is in itself a form of deception - then the mouthing of the oath, even as an affirmation, because a vain repetition, like a spell. And there are no such things.

The correct position is that we are going to stop all pretence of any sort of oath or affirmation, that men are always to tell the truth, and that the tradition of making men speak special incantations is going to end and not be done at all. It is very important to make the formal break and visible STOP doing what is wrong.

Paul was write that eating meat sacrificed to idols did NOT in fact taint anybody soul because the idols were meaningless. However, Jesus STILL reproached the Churches of Asia Minor for allowing people to eat meat sacrificed to idols, because of the symbolism, and perhaps because some of the idols are to demons, and demons can come in if you let them.

If Jesus said don't do it, the answer is not - well, ok, we'll do it THIS way instead, to preserve our tradition.

The answer is to rip the tradition up by the roots and STOP DOING IT COMPLETELY.

There used to be an oath of office and an oath before testimony, and now we don't do that anymore, and if you lie at all, you're liable for perjury, because yes is yes and no is no.

Taking an oath is not what makes you have to obey military orders. It's a meaningless talisman. Taking the pay is what does it. And the contract.

Of course, men shouldn't take the contract.

But to declare one's self an "Oathkeeper!" is to declare one's self a "Belligerent Defier of Christ", because he commanded TAKE NO OATHS.

It is not good to be an Oathkeeper. It's a declaration of having sinned by taking an oath.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-22   15:13:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Vicomte13, Redleghunter (#4)

It is not good to be an Oathkeeper. It's a declaration of having sinned by taking an oath.

Context, context, context; Jesus is saying that oaths were used at all emphasized the wickedness of man’s heart. Furthermore, swearing “by heaven,” “by the earth,” or “by Jerusalem” is binding, since they are God’s throne … footstool, and city, respectively. Even the color of the hair on their heads was determined by God (Matt. 5:36). However, Jesus later in His life responded to an oath (26:63–64), as did Paul (2 Cor. 1:23). The Lord was saying one’s life should be sufficient to back up one’s words. A yes always ought to mean yes, and a no should mean no. James seems to have picked up these words of the Lord in his epistle (James 5:12). Christians are to conduct their lives as if every word spoken or thought is an oath to the Lord.

GarySpFC  posted on  2015-09-22   19:08:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 12.

#15. To: GarySpFC (#12)

Context, context, context; Jesus is saying that oaths were used at all emphasized the wickedness of man’s heart.

And the proper context is: every time a man opens his mouth.

And also: a man should not swear oaths.

BECAUSE swearing an oath is affirming that there are different levels of truth, but there are not.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-22 21:45:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 12.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com