Patterico's Pontifications

11/16/2015

President Obama: U.S. Will Accept Syrian Refugees. Governors Say No, American Security Comes First

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:17 pm



[guest post by Dana]

After it was revealed that at least one of the terrorists in the Paris attacks had entered Europe as a Syrian refugee, 24 governors have thus far said that they will not accept Syrian refugees. The states are as follows:

— Alabama
— Arizona
— Arkansas
— Florida
— Georgia
— Idaho
— Illinois
— Indiana
— Iowa
— Kansas
— Louisiana
— Maine
— Massachusetts
— Michigan
— Mississippi
— Nebraska
— New Hampshire*
— North Carolina
— Ohio
— Oklahoma
— Tennessee
— Texas
— Wisconsin

*It should be noted that New Hampshire’s governor Maggie Hassan is a Democrat. Her office released the following common-sense statement:

The Governor believes the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people.

The current vetting process takes up to two years.

Interestingly, back in October, DHS director, Matthew Emrich was questioned by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions about whether Syrian refugees could even be properly vetted:

Under questioning from Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Emrich admits that there is no reliable way to assure that individuals coming from Syria are properly checked. The exchange lasts about seven minutes and Emrich sounds desperate when he says “we check everything that we are aware of” and that “we are in the process of overturning every stone.” The bottom line is that there is no way to verify the identity of Syrians so the defeated Homeland Security official proceeds to say that “in many countries of the world from which we have traditionally accepted refugees over the years the United States government did not have extensive data holdings.”

Emrich’s testimony before the Senate panel comes on the heels of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Assistant Director Michael Steinbach’s revelation that the U.S. government has no system to properly screen Syrian refugees. “The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet,” Steinbach said. “That would be the concern is we would be vetting — databases don’t hold the information on those individuals. “You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that is — does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets — the police, the intel services — that normally you would go to seek information don’t exist.”

Yesterday, the head of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul was on Meet the Press, and addressed the issue of databases :

“We have hundreds of Americans that have traveled” to Iraq and Syria, he urged. “Many of them have come back as well. I think that’s a direct threat.”

McCaul once again said he has spoken with FBI and Homeland Security officials who say that “We don’t have the databases to vet them.”

“They tell me this cannot be properly done.” the Congressman added.

McCaul has consistently warned that ISIS has planned to use the refugee crisis to get operatives into the US.

“This causes a great concern on the part of policymakers, because we don’t want to be complicit with a program that could bring potential terrorists into the United States,” McCaul said.

FBI Director James Comey had earlier discussed similar concerns:

“My concern there is there are certain gaps … in the data available to us,” Comey said.

“There is risk associated of bringing anybody in from the outside, but specifically from a conflict zone like that,” he added.

“There is no such thing as a no-risk enterprise and there are deficits that we face.”

In particular, the lack of solid on-the-ground intelligence assets in Syria has clouded the U.S.’s ability to crosscheck the backgrounds of every refugee hoping to come to the U.S., Comey and other national security officials told the Senate panel.

In spite of these officials “popping off” about the risks associated with Syrian refugees coming into the U.S., President Obama remains determined to press on with his plans to accept 65,000 100,000 Syrians next year, because to not do so would be un-American.

–Dana

275 Responses to “President Obama: U.S. Will Accept Syrian Refugees. Governors Say No, American Security Comes First”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. If anybody knows what un-American is, Obama does.

    nk (dbc370)

  3. It will be interesting to see how the 24 governors intend to “back up” their refusal:

    “When push comes to shove, the federal government has both the plenary power and the power of the 1980 Refugee Act to place refugees anywhere in the country,” said Kevin Appleby, the director of migration policy at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the largest refugee resettlement organization in the country.

    Appleby said one thing the states could do was to cut their own funding in the area.

    American University law professor Stephen I. Vladeck put it this way: “Legally, states have no authority to do anything because the question of who should be allowed in this country is one that the Constitution commits to the federal government.”

    But Vladeck notes that without a state’s participation the federal government would have a much more difficult time. “So a state can’t say it is legally objecting, but it can refuse to cooperate, which makes thing much more difficult.”

    Dana (86e864)

  4. It’s as if those actually know something about the risk and danger involved in permitting Syrian refugees in to the country due to the insufficient vetting process are just making it up; and it’s as if working to protect Americans is just flat-out wrong:

    Penn State Law professor Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia points out that each potential entrant goes through a rigorous screening process.

    “It’s been misleading for leaders of States to apply what happened in Paris to would-be refugees who may come to the U.S,” Wadhia said. “There is a significant screening process to take before individuals are admitted.”

    “Refugee admissions are set by the President, and guided by federal law,” she said. “States play a role in working with the federal government when refugees are resettled, but the overarching authority rests in federal law.”

    Additionally, she said, “The people who are coming to the U.S. as refugees are fleeing from the very same perpetrators who committed the acts in Paris. There is a real disconnect and lack of compassion when trying to respond to the Paris attacks by endangering the most vulnerable.”

    Dana (86e864)

  5. The “two brothers and a crockpot” came as refugees, living in Section 8 housing and eating with foodstamps for years.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. And I expect that the number will increase to 25 on December 8 when The Honorable Steve Beshear of Kentucky will be replaced by Matt Bevin.

    nk (dbc370)

  7. well ‘Boston Strong’ mattered for a while, so now is when he decides to exert federal supremacy, over the states, shocker I know,

    narciso (732bc0)

  8. The New Mexico or Arizona desert should fit them just fine. Maybe they could have a spot next to the Apache in case they want to piss someone off.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  9. So because a small number of jihadis may be among the refugees, you want to keep out thousands who do not want live under sharia law and want no part in jihadism, and are proving it by quite literally voting with their feet?

    Irony abounds in the fact that this is the same logic used by the Brady bunch to justify gun grabbing.

    And remember this: you are humans who happen to be Americans, not the other way around, and the commandment to love your fellow allows no excuses, and no exception is allowed for “‘I was afraid”.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  10. which screening process, haven’t they made clear in an attempt to debunk the threat, that all documentation coming from syria, is suspect?

    narciso (732bc0)

  11. I’ve met “refugees” from the former Yugoslavia. They were economic refugees. They created phantom death squads and put their names on phantom death lists, made their way to Bonn, and gullible (or maybe not, it was Albright back then) State Department official gave them refugee visas. I’m willing to bet that the alleged persecution most of these “refugees” claim is no more real than the KKK’s terror campaign in Mizzou.

    nk (dbc370)

  12. I mean there should be priority you would think, yet it works in inverse fashion,

    narciso (732bc0)

  13. Kishnevi,

    I want the plan to allow 100,000 people into our country halted until a fully efficient vetting process can be figured out and implemented. I believe the risk, at this point, is simply too great. Do you think that since we now know that one of the terrorists came into Europe as a refugee, it’s reasonable to take more sieriously the vetting concerns of experts?

    Dana (86e864)

  14. We have the right to “keep out” as you put it any damn person we want, it’s our country. Or don’t you think it is?

    What logic is used by ‘the Brady bunch” that has anything to do with jihad?

    There is no commandment ‘To love your fellow” unless there’s eleven. And we are both humans and Americans. You should be thankful you are one. BTW, until you’ve been to war you had best mind your manners about who is allowed to be afraid. When you understand the cost of the things you are saying then your opinion is valid. When you see a mans liquefied brain run out his mouth because some clown let the enemy in then speak.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  15. And remember this: you are humans who happen to be Americans, not the other way around, and the commandment to love your fellow allows no excuses, and no exception is allowed for “‘I was afraid”.
    I resent your implications. And I believe it’s a false choice. You don’t get to decide whether me or anyone is loving their neighbor or fellow man by whether we let in 100,000 or not. You are not God.

    Further, by your logic, we should not be concerned with the safety of our nation, let alone the safety of our families and loved ones first and foremost, because by doing so, we are in turn not showing love toward our fellow man.

    Dana (86e864)

  16. Gee, maybe, if we are lucky California will get to take in more than our fair share and won’t that be special. Somebody, please stop this madness!!

    bald01 (f38852)

  17. Dammit. No Italics except for Kishnevi’s quote.

    Dana (86e864)

  18. Yes, there is Hoagie. The Gospel reading yesterday was The Good Samaritan according to Luke and Christ summarized the Commandments as “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

    But you know what? When I left my house this morning, I locked my door. And no hungry person came in to eat from my refrigerator; no person in pain to take my Advil; no homeless person to sleep in my daughter’s bed; no ragged person to wear my clothes. And I bet that all my fellow worshipers, and the priest too, locked their doors. And I imagine so did kishnevi.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. And if that wasn’t enough, I walked right by the Salvation Army bell-ringer without dropping a penyy in his bucket.

    nk (dbc370)

  20. If we could all live by the strictures Christ placed on his Disciples, our faces would be on frescoes on church walls surrounded by halos.

    nk (dbc370)

  21. Further, kishnevi, if I were not putting my family first and doing all I could to protect and preserve them, that would certainly not be loving them. I imagine the vast majority of Americans feel similarly.

    Dana (86e864)

  22. I not only think, I know it is a false choice between doing nothing and letting 10,000’s of unknown people from the middle east in
    If you want to take in the most vulnerable there are women and children of various faiths and non-Muslims of all ages that are the most vulnerable
    Let the young men be given weapons and supplies to fight and territory to defend

    Obama and co. Are quick to say we can’t be the world’s policemen,
    But it seems they think we can be the world’s hospitality center and welfare program.

    This looks too much like a crisis of Obama’s making that they don’t want to go to waste

    He is a wicked, deceitful, evil person

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  23. Guess these particular masses aren’t tired, poor, or huddled enough for Lady Liberty’s sensibilities. Which part of American exceptionalism is the exceptional part, again? Self-preservation is a fine quality, no doubt. It’s the furthest thing from an exceptional one.

    Leviticus (73e577)

  24. Obama has a responsibility to his neighbors already here.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  25. Maybe it was due process and the presumption of innocence? (no, that can’t be it). Maybe… judging people not by the color of their [flag] but the content of their character? (that doesn’t seem to fit, either). Maybe if was… the land of opportunity? Courage? I’m sure there is something “American” about this; I’ll think of it, just give me a sec.

    Leviticus (73e577)

  26. Since there is nothing to be concerned about, Leviticus should be happy to welcome 65,000 Syrians to his locale. Add in DC, and Chicago.

    JD (34f761)

  27. How bout this? For every one Syrian refugee we let in, we can deport three Mexicans! Both can be done by lottery!

    Trump 2016

    Leviticus (73e577)

  28. This is a logical extension of their open borders nonsense.

    JD (34f761)

  29. he is more obtuse than usual, which is saying something, so there are two passports with the same name and identifying details, transliteration is tricky found several countries apart,

    narciso (732bc0)

  30. Leviticus
    You sound as bad as Obama

    You don’t think a group of traumatized religious minorities doesn’t have priority over young men of whom a significant number are infiltrating soldiers???

    Go ahead and whine about needing “safe spaces” for foolish college students while Druze, yahidzis, Christians and anti jihadi Muslims are tortured and slaughtered,
    And then try to shame the rest of us into letting a flood of terrorists come in

    If you and Obama care a rat’s anus about people terrorized by war,
    Where the he** have you been
    I would have thought those pictures of people being crucified would have prompted some action.

    Jesus once took a whip and drove the self interested out
    This is political self interest disguised as compassion,
    And it is revolting and disgusting

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  31. Those who want to bring them in can be the first to put them up in your spare rooms and backyards
    None of this “we need to help” crap where “we” means “you”.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  32. he has learned nothing from the last seven years, Obama’s policies allowed those who collaborated with us, in Iraq, to be slaughtered or sent into exile, an abject lesson for those who would dare do so again, this allowed the fmr Baathist to slip into Syria, where they formed the Islamic State, with a fair amount of funds from the ummah abroad, all the while he dismissed them as JV,

    narciso (732bc0)

  33. I wouldn’t mind San Francisco having a majority Muslim population. Or Oregon. Or Houston. Or Salt Lake City even. Can you guess why?

    nk (dbc370)

  34. Am I missing something, or are the Druze, Yazidi, Christian, and other Syrians whose loved ones were tortured and slaughtered by ISIS not the people that we are trying to offer refuge?

    Leviticus (73e577)

  35. I don’t think so. I think they’re the ones Merkel does not want.

    nk (dbc370)

  36. Guess we probably can’t vet that, either.

    Leviticus (73e577)

  37. Well,
    I guess in one way I agree that he hasn’t learned anything in 7 years,
    But I would say it is because he didn’t need to
    He makes it clear that he thinks the US has no role in making a helpful response to the problem,
    Just stand by and watch the slaughter
    Unless he can find a way to “help” that damages the US

    How much good is our country going to want to do after a few terrorist attacks? The reaction will make it look like we’ve been clones of Mother Theresa.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  38. “A flood of terrorists.” Sheesh.

    Leviticus (73e577)

  39. Self-preservation is a fine quality, no doubt. It’s the furthest thing from an exceptional one.

    Just saw this. Don’t ever make fun of Mark again.

    nk (dbc370)

  40. No, Leviticus
    They’re not
    We’re talking about taking in whoever gets to Europe to present themselves.
    The people who need to get out the most are the ones with the least ability to find a way to get out
    Or do you think ISIS is going to facilitate the infidels getting to safety,
    Promising safe passage????

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  41. Leviticus,
    You are being too quick with your snide self righteous anticonservative BS to think straight
    1 in 10 of 100,000 who are willing to blow themselves up in crowded airports on Thanksgiving and in Mall of America during Christmas is a flood
    And will evaporate any compassion that remains

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  42. I wouldn’t mind San Francisco having a majority Muslim population.

    Sounds good to me. Let the dopey liberals in such places live (and endure) the experience 24/7, 365 days of the year. Better yet, throw in tens of thousands of the “undocumented” from the wonderful, well-educated, prosperous, low-crime-rate towns of Mexico, so that they combined with thousands of Sharia-oriented Muslims will really test liberals’ ability to walk the walk and not just walk the walk.

    An alternative suggestion: Allow Syrian refugees into the US on the condition that, in turn, Obama is booted out to those refugees’ homeland. Quite sincerely, I have more confidence that anonymous refugees from Syria will pose less of a threat to the US than the case with the nut in the Oval Office.

    Mark (f713e4)

  43. Round zem up.
    Kick them out
    send them to the dunes of hell
    Thats where democrats belong.

    mg (31009b)

  44. It’s un-American to only help those that are being beheaded by ISIS.

    JD (34f761)

  45. 38. Am I missing something, or are the Druze, Yazidi, Christian, and other Syrians whose loved ones were tortured and slaughtered by ISIS not the people that we are trying to offer refuge?

    Leviticus (73e577) — 11/16/2015 @ 10:00 pm

    Yes, genius, you’re missing something. You’re missing the whole point.

    …Lauren Mack, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Public Affairs Officer, responded with an official statement to The Christian Post on Thursday confirming that there were currently 28 Iraqi nationals in custody at the Otay Detention Facility in San Diego. “One of those individuals was criminally charged last week in a federal court with providing false information on an immigration application. Twelve others in the group have now been ordered removed by an immigration judge.”
    Remaining time: 00 seconds

    But Mark Arabo, spokesman for the local Chaldean Christian community in San Diego and for the Minority Humanitarian Foundation, is upset by the U.S. government’s decision to refuse refuge for the Iraqi Christians escaping the Islamic State, and said in a recent press statement, “These Christians have escaped slavery and death from Islamic State only to be imprisoned. The symbol for America is the Statue of Liberty. It’s not a gated fence.”

    Arabo told CP that he is in touch with 20 of the 28 Iraqi Christian refugees currently being held at the detention center. “The families of the detained refugees say they did not come across illegally or evade law enforcement. Rather they came with the right paperwork and told immigration officers that they were fleeing persecution by Islamic State in Iraq and were seeking refuge in America

    Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/escaping-islamic-state-12-iraqi-christians-seeking-freedom-now-face-deportation-by-us-govt-142293/#QZxU0ms6uDBvLKeB.99

    This administration is treating religious minorities from the war zone like crap precisely because they’re fleeing persecution from the Islamic State. Which as our preezy keeps lecturing us is not Islamic. And since it’s the position of the regime is that it’s also not a state, Christians fleeing IS don’t qualify as refugees since they’re not fleeing persecution from their own government.

    Our preezy lectures us that it’s un-American to have a “religious test” for refugees. How un-American of us, drawing a distinction between those facing genocide because their killers have a “religious test” for who they should kill, and their executioners. Why, this towering intellect in the WH, this great moral authority Chicago Jesus, almost has me ashamed of myself.

    Naw, who am I kidding. I’d question my humanity if President Dammit-these-inconsiderate-ISIS-beheadings-are-keeping-me-off-the-golf-course had reason to praise me.

    AS for you, Leviticus, I realize some people here consider you one of the rare thoughtful liberals but all I ever see is half-baked, ill-informed snark.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  46. The bias against Christians is real. But here’s the real problem. The Obama administration requires Christians, and I suppose Yazidis, while the Druze haven’t been a significant part of the refugee flow, to cross all their “T”s and dot all their “I”s.

    This San Diego U-T article hints at the problem.

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/10/Iraq-Chaldean-Christians-deported-immigration/

    …Martin Manna, president of the Chaldean Community Foundation — a Detroit-based organization that provides support for Iraqi refugees — said applying for refugee asylum can take several years.

    Immigrants must petition the United Nations for refugee status. After that, applicants must complete a standard interview, but interview dates often come with a five- to seven- year wait time, according to Manna.

    And this post at Jews News spells it out.

    http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/02/27/obama-welcomes-muslim-refugees-but-keeps-out-christians/

    …But if that were not sufficient to spark outrage, Christians that are victims of Islamic State in Syria and Iraq do not qualify for resettlement in America, as do Muslims.

    The Department of State is adhering strictly to a rule that only refugees in refugee camps qualify for resettlement. Christians stay away from refugee camps as they are dominated by Muslim refugees and have Islamic State collaborators in them. The president who has a cell phone, a pen, and an ability to trample the Constitution when it comes to admitting illegal immigrants has no tools at his disposal for helping Christians fleeing Islamic State. The Christians are seeking safe haven, not economic advancement.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  47. Of course, the one rule the Obama administration follows is that the rules are made to be broken.

    http://www.examiner.com/article/admin-unilaterally-changes-law-lets-immigrants-with-limited-terror-ties-u-s

    Guess which group this rule is meant to favor? Not the Christians and Yazidis, who as members of religions Obama dislikes and disfavors have to strictly adhere to the rules. Rules, like those IRS rules for conservative groups applying for tax exempt status, can be made impossibly strict.

    No, this illegal rewrite of the law was meant to favor their Muslim persecutors.

    On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department bypassed Congress and published new exemptions that would allow immigrants who provided “limited material support” to terrorists into the country, the Daily Caller reported.

    “These exemptions cover five kinds of limited material support that have adversely and unfairly affected refugees and asylum seekers with no tangible connection to terrorism: material support that was insignificant in amount or provided incidentally in the course of everyday social, commercial, family or humanitarian interactions, or under significant pressure,” an official with the DHS told the Daily Caller.

    According to the unnamed official, the exemptions are needed and will be applied on a case-by-case basis “after careful review,” which reportedly includes security checks with various agencies.

    “This exemption process is vital to advancing the U.S. government’s twin goal of protecting the world’s most vulnerable persons while ensuring U.S. national security and public safety,” the official added.

    Got that? The world’s most vulnerable persons include people with terrorist ties to ISIS, which beheads Christians. And Obama will not acknowledge the perpetrators as Muslims or their victims as Christians.

    So the world’s most vulnerable persons don’t include Christians, who are being exterminated from North Africa, the Middle East, and everywhere Muslims rule.

    And Obama favors the Muslim rulers. Not just over the Christians of the Middle East. Over Americans. We can’t vet these people. And even if they’re in a terrorist data base odds are Obama will still let them in, claiming their terrorist ties are “limited.” Like the illegal alien felons he has released to commit thousands of crimes including rape and murder weren’t such “serious” criminals they need to be deported.

    Yes, Leviticus, you missed something, genius.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  48. Muslums like leviticus are a sick litter.

    mg (31009b)

  49. terrorists and vegans

    these people are ruining red cup season

    our frenchman came by yesterday and was charmingly reticent on the topic of his country’s recent multicultural misadventures

    even after crazypickles offered to be his personal therapy dog

    really good guy

    not understanding the angst about the refugee trash food stamp wants to sprinkle on failmerica’s bloated corpse

    it’s not like we have effing borders anyway

    happyfeet (831175)

  50. Muslums have part harvest potential and that is all.
    I miss you Ace Bailey.

    mg (31009b)

  51. The hacker group Anonymous has threatened all out cyber-war against ISIS or 72 Virgins Strike Back.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. Our Windy City barrister wrote:

    And I expect that the number will increase to 25 on December 8 when The Honorable Steve Beshear of Kentucky will be replaced by Matt Bevin.

    Outgoing Governor Beshear has said that the Bluegrass State should accept the refugees; incoming Governor Bevin has already said that he will not.

    Even if we assume that whatever screening process is put in place turns out to be 100% effective, and not a single hidden Da’ish operative makes it in to Kentucky, or the United States as a whole for that matter. The vast majority of these refugees will speak little or no English, will have few if any skills which are useful in the American economy, and every last one of them will require food, clothing and shelter, just as winter is about to start. We will be importing welfare recipients.

    Kentucky is a very poor state, and if you have ever traveled through eastern Kentucky, you’ll have seen what poverty looks like. Owsley and Wolfe and Leslie and Jackson are some of the poorest counties in the country; altogether, 16 of the 100 poorest counties in the country are in Kentucky. Mr Beshear, a Democrat, would inflict upon the people he was twice elected to serve, a few hundred more people who would have to be completely supported by the taxpayers. Fortunately, Mr Bevin, a Republican, has enough sense to realize that a state which has so much difficulty in supporting its own people does not need to add to the problem.

    The Dana who grew up in Kentucky (f6a568)

  53. You guys realize that what ISIS wants is to have Western governments push the refugees back to Syria where ISIS can continue to take advantage of them. And they want Western governments, to the extent possible, to make this a war of civilizations, the West against Islam, to persuade the world’s 1.6 billion muslims that their only security is with ISIS. ISIS would love to start a war of religion because they know only under that guise do they have a hope of winning.

    And that every word and action by Republican presidential candidates and Republican governors will have the effect of making ISIS happy.

    Not only is it uncharitable to turn the stranger from your door and send him and wife and children off back into danger (How would Moses have faired, and the Hebrews had they been met at the other side of the Red Sea by a barbed wire wall and people telling them to take their chances with the pharaoh?),

    Not only is it uncharitable to reject all refugees, it is stupid. Have you considered the possibility that ISIS knew what it was doing by directing those guys in Belgium (already in Belgium – you plan on barring Belgians from the U.S.? All Muslims?) to shoot up parts of Paris. They were counting on the overreaction. They were counting on people to get hysterical by that Syrian passport. They can’t win if the West doesn’t help them. And right now Republican seem determined to help them.

    DavidWilson (d7dde7)

  54. 20.Yes, there is Hoagie. The Gospel reading yesterday was The Good Samaritan according to Luke and Christ summarized the Commandments as “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

    No, there is not, nk.

    The 10 Commandments
    1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
    2.You shall not make idols.
    3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
    4.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    5.Honor your father and your mother.
    6.You shall not murder.
    7.You shall not commit adultery.
    8.You shall not steal.
    9.You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
    10.You shall not covet.

    Do you see in those Ten Commandments anything remotely like what both you and Leviticus stated? I don’t. There are other rules in life and The Golden Rule is one but it is not one of the Ten Commandments. When to state Christ “summarized” the commandments what he did was “summarize” the first four relating to our duty to God. He then stated The Golden Rule which is still not a commandment.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  55. I have never seen any redeeming value out of Leviticus (the person, not the Book in the Bible). This thread is more evidence for my point of view.

    John Hitchcock (44c781)

  56. DavidWilson you are wrong on all counts. It’s a toss-up as to who is less informed; you or Leviticus.

    38. Am I missing something, or are the Druze, Yazidi, Christian, and other Syrians whose loved ones were tortured and slaughtered by ISIS not the people that we are trying to offer refuge?

    Leviticus (73e577) — 11/16/2015 @ 10:00 pm

    Have I mentioned you did, in fact, miss something, genius.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted

    …Fleeing persecution at the hands of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other jihadist groups, Syrian Christians generally avoid U.N. refugee camps because they are targeted there too.

    Most refugees considered for resettlement in the U.S. are referred by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

    Applications are then handled by one of nine State Department-managed resettlement support centers around the world, a process that includes vetting and interviews by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and takes an average of 18-24 months. There are occasions when a process can begin without UNHCR referral, but this usually applies in cases of close relatives of refugees already in the U.S.

    Of 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted into the U.S. since the Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, only 53 (2.4 percent) have been Christians while 2098 (or 96 percent) have been Muslims, according to State Department statistics updated on Monday.

    The remaining 33 include 1 Yazidi, 8 Jehovah Witnesses, 2 Baha’i, 6 Zoroastrians, 6 of “other religion,” 7 of “no religion,” and 3 atheists…

    Gee, Leviticus, looks like you were wrong about who TFG in the WH is trying to offer refuge. He’ll bend the rules for Muslims re.e. their terrorist ties so on the very rare chance that a background check yields a hit in some database, and we don’t have any access to any database in the refugees’ home countries so they’ll have to be in a US or European database which is indeed rare, they’ll still get in.

    But TFG has not bent any rules for the Christians or Yazidis or apparently any Druze.

    I’ll deal with your know-nothing blather later, DavidWilson; the tornado sirens have been keeping me up since 3:30 this morning.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  57. Maybe it was due process and the presumption of innocence? (no, that can’t be it). Maybe… judging people not by the color of their [flag] but the content of their character? (that doesn’t seem to fit, either). Maybe if was… the land of opportunity? Courage? I’m sure there is something “American” about this; I’ll think of it, just give me a sec.

    Leviticus (73e577) — 11/16/2015 @ 9:39 pm

    Leviticus is exceeding his normal (already high) rate of non sequiturs.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  58. Actually DavidWilson, the only one here who seems “determined” to help ISIS is you. For some reason you seem to have made it your cause to bring moslems to America. Why?

    Not only is it uncharitable to reject all refugees, it is stupid.

    Really? That’s the best you got, charity? There is nothing charitable about bringing in people who are your enemy and immigration has nothing to do with charity, immigration is political not personal.

    ISIS would love to start a war of religion because they know only under that guise do they have a hope of winning.

    In case you haven’t noticed the moslem dogs have been fighting a religious war for 1800 years. It’s all they know. Their religion is based on war.

    Your posts sound like those of a 17 year old inexperienced idealist. Grow up. The moslems would cut your head off just to look at you. If you feel like putting yourself in jeopardy of Islam then move to Syria but don’t bring these animals here to murder our families like they have before.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  59. That was cute, DavidWilson. Special even.

    JD (34f761)

  60. ISIS would love to start a war of religion because they know only under that guise do they have a hope of winning.

    DavidWilson (d7dde7) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:07 am

    Is this for real? What are you under the impression they have been doing all this time?

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  61. You can do your Judeo-Christian, Hoagie, and I’ll do my Christian. The Gospels are the literal word of God. The Old Testament not so much, except when quoted or referred to by Christ in the Gospels. In other places in the Gospels, for example the rich youth and the eye of the needle, Christ refers to all the Commandments. But the passage I cited is the Commandment of God, spoken by Christ who is God, just as much as those also found Exodus and Deuteronomy (but not in … Leviticus).

    nk (dbc370)

  62. The views expressed by Leviticus when it comes to immigration and, to a lesser degree, American exceptionalism, are the views taught to every college student in America. A few students are smart enough to question these views while they are still in school, but all students understand these views and many accept them.

    Multiply Leviticus by a million or two million or more. We can’t stop these views by getting angry at him. We probably can’t stop them at all, but he will learn. I pray — selfishly, because I have children living in this country, too — that it won’t be the hard way.

    DRJ (15874d)

  63. Oh, BTW, the Golden Rule is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

    nk (dbc370)

  64. It was because the Mohammedans were murdering, enslaving, terrorizing non-Mohammedans that Christopher Columbus went to find a new route to India.

    It was because the Mohammedans were murdering, enslaving, terrorizing Americans that the Marine Corps Anthem got its words.

    Mohammedanism does not fit self-rule, nor does it fit Constitutional restraints when that Constitution is ours. Never has, never will.

    John Hitchcock (44c781)

  65. One other thing DavidWilson, you need to be as concerned for the safety of your fellow Americans and the security of your country as you seem to be about Syrians, moslems and middle easterners. They have their own country why don’t they fix that instead of breaking ours? We don’t have enough problems with illegal aliens murdering and raping our people now you want to bring in thousands of moslems to join the party. What’s the matter, not enough South Americans living on our tax dollars you need to have us support the moslems too?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  66. Is it loving our neighbors to bring in people who threaten the innocents who live here? American charity is boundless. Wouldn’t it be just as loving to fund relief efforts in the Middle East until the refugees can be vetted there or, better yet, resettled?

    DRJ (15874d)

  67. I’ll just leave it at this for now.

    Shorter DavidWilson; if we don’t commit national suicide, the terrorists will have won.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  68. robot overlords
    jackal running with the pack
    never looking back

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. The Gospels are the literal word of God. The Old Testament not so much, except when quoted or referred to by Christ in the Gospels.

    nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:49 am

    Is that what your church teaches nk?

    By Gospels did you mean to say the New Testament, or do you mean just the four Gospels?

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  70. go david wilson
    skedaddle to syria
    you and dumbass dems

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  71. I can see that you’re the type that no matter how I show you to be incorrect you will insist you’re right, nk. So, okay, you’re right. I guess there is a world of difference between “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Again, you’re right. I can see the gaping difference. I was taught Do unto others was based on Love your neighbor but you’re right.

    The Gospels are the literal word of God. The Old Testament not so much

    Did you really just say the Ten Commandments, written by the Hand of God, given to Moses himself on Mt. Sinai to give to the Israelites is “not so much” the “literal Word of God” because it was in the Old Testament, but statements, parables and philosophies expressed by Christ somehow become one of the Ten Commandments?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  72. One Syrian refugee in Louisiana has already gone missing, and no one is looking for him/her.

    DRJ (15874d)

  73. A “New Testament Christian” is a woefully uninformed person, as he rejects that which Christ Himself said not to reject.

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  74. From CNS as headlined on Drudge:

    So Far: Syrian Refugees in U.S. Include 2,098 Muslims, 53 Christians

    It’s interesting that the worst of the children who have been twisted by our government schools delight in their “victimhood”. They are the ones who are easy to identify because they can’t resist telling us about their mythic struggles. Leviticus and his pals are the real victims, and they don’t even know it.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  75. Yeah, we need more “refugees”.

    http://thehayride.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/wbrz-syrian-refugees.png

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  76. Leviticus comment #26:
    “Guess these particular masses aren’t tired, poor, or huddled enough for Lady Liberty’s sensibilities. Which part of American exceptionalism is the exceptional part, again? Self-preservation is a fine quality, no doubt. It’s the furthest thing from an exceptional one.
    Leviticus (73e577) — 11/16/2015 @ 9:33 pm”
    = = = = =
    In the first place, that poem is — just a poem. Not a law. Not a commandment.

    In the second place, a “culture” (= a “society”) depends on the cooperation of like-minded individuals. To maintain that culture/ society, it is NECESSARY to *not* poison it. Islam, may I point out, has a 1400-year history of destroying other cultures/ societies.

    In the THIRD place, if you feel soooo deeeply the need to serve Muslims with an eye to elevating THEIR culture, you can go to the Middle East and solicit souls for Christ. That way, the “holy work” gets done without bringing terrorists over here to kill OUR women and children. (Although, to be fair, I understand that Islamist, Sharia-centric countries like Saudi Arabia take a VERY dim view of Christian evangelism. Ah, well, at least you’ll die a holy martyr. #Winning !!!)

    Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah (187ab7)

  77. And this too as linked from Drudge:

    Breaking: Syrian ‘Refugee’ Already MISSING IN LOUISIANA

    Any bets on this person’s real religion?

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  78. Loving your neighbor as you love yourself stands,
    but it is secondary to loving God.
    Love for God informs how we should love ourselves and then others.

    Love for God says it is wrong to murder. Love for a neighbor includes you do not let a neighbor get away with murder.

    I do not know if David Wilson is being purposefully dishonest, like Obama, or not.
    No one said anything about not accepting any refugees,
    and we have pointed out that those in the most danger have not been given the protected status they deserve.
    And no one said we needed to push people back into lands occupied by those who would kill them.
    Had we been willing to give the Kurds the support they needed to begin with, they probably could have extended safe zones to protect many who have already been slaughtered,
    and if some wanted help relocating out of the area, they could have demonstrated willingness to identify the jihadists among them.
    That was a much better response than letting innocents get slaughtered and years later make it easy for the perpetrators to infiltrate.

    Such garbage is what makes it tiresome trying to have a discussion with those of the Obama mindset,
    you ignore the real problems and invoke magical thinking to pretend your “solution” will work.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  79. “Am I missing something?”

    (Leviticus)
    I could read a million law books
    And practice many stern looks
    while learnin’ how to sue
    And my head I’d be scratchin’
    While my thoughts were busy hatchin’
    If I only had a clue

    I’d unravel any riddle
    For any individ’le
    miscreant it’s true

    (Us)
    With the blood they would be spillin’
    All the people they’d be killin’
    If you only had a clue

    (Leviticus)
    Oh, I would tell you why
    We should bring ’em to our shores
    We’d see things we’d never seen before
    just think of all the blood and gore

    The key word’s decapitation
    A happenin’ in our nation
    To give Allah his due
    I would dance and be so merry
    Unicorn farts and pink fairies
    If I only had a clue

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  80. BobStewartatHome, it’s sad isn’t it? I am truly confused by the number of moslem and Syrian apologists at this blog. We are the United States and we are a kind and generous people but that in no way means we should accept people who are our enemies, who murder our people, who scream allahu Akbar and Death to America into our country. That does not make us “uncharitable” as DavidWilson contends, it makes us smart. Hey David, would you have been for bringing in 100,000 Germans or Japanese in 1943?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  81. One of your best, Colonel!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  82. # 9

    So because a small number of jihadis may be among the refugees, you want to keep out thousands who do not want live under sharia law and want no part in jihadism, and are proving it by quite literally voting with their feet?
    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

    Yet these same refugees 75-80% of whom are young men of fighting age who dont want to live under sharia law apparently have no problem letting their parents, their sisters, their children, their families live under sharia law.

    Doesnt it make wonder why they dont stick around to help their families. Apparently not, using commons sense and logic and being a liberal is mutually exclusive.

    joe (debac0)

  83. 9. Sorry kid, your characterization of the facts on the ground is deliberately false, beginning with a ‘few jihadis’ and proceeding thru owing the world’s unfortunates a better life.

    Try honesty.

    DNF (755a85)

  84. Ok,

    Let’s take it one at a time, at least until other duties call.

    Am I calling for national suicide? No. I don’t think accepting some refugees, both muslim and christian will lead to national suicide. Those arguing that a country of 300 million is under some existential threat because of a few thousand refugees have the burden of showing when, in the history of this country, large numbers of refugees have ever been an existential threat. The theory apparently is that muslim refugees are some special superhuman kind of threat, to the extent to which one gone missing in Louisiana, like some ebola patient wandering the street, is going to lead to the death of us all. Really ? How does that work exactly, any more so than the other crazies with guns who already wander America?

    Do I think that it is unfair that so few christians have arrived compared to muslims? I guess it would depend on the number of both faiths who are applying. How else can you tell if the proportion is off? But assuming the proportion is off, then by all means admit more christians. But the theory that all these christian refugees are per se safe and all the muslim refugees are per se dangerous is dumb on its face.

    Furthermore, the theory advanced that we should admit only christians and establish a religious test for refugees that all muslims are going to automatically fail feeds right back into the problem already noted – that what ISIS wants is a religious war.

    As for those who cleverly point out that there’s been a religious war with Islam for “1800” years (really? That’s what the Roman empire was up against in 215 AD?) note that actually, no, for most of the 20th century, going back to the 19th, we were not fighting a religious war with ISlam. At best various Western countries were fighting fairely straitt ahead national wars with Ottoman Turkey, and or attempting to conquer various muslim tribes in the desert. Only now, apparently, the bright idea is to damn well ensure we get a religious war by insisting that every muslim is the enemy which will somehow defeat ISIS …. Well no I never actually get that part.

    It’s like Republicans have a three point war plan:

    1) Name the True Face of the Enemy
    2)???????
    3) Victory!

    As for the general anti-immigrant stylings of the Rev. Barack, well for reasons mentioned I actually think it would be good long term strategy in the fight against ISIS to make sure that refugees are treated humanely, as people, and not as the subhuman bearers of some terrorism virus. I would argue for that point purely on what’s good for the U.S.

    But as noted in a previous post, a well known political and religious philosopher noted our obligation to treat strangers with love and not hate. When the Samaritan was walking that road, the guy in the ditch was a stranger to him and of a different religion and possibly even a little bit dangerous. As far as I can tell the Republicans have become the party of pharisees, chanting to themselves how much they love Jesus, while hurrying off down the road.

    DavidWilson (d7dde7)

  85. Strawman argument. One Syrian refugee can’t kill us all but he could kill some, and that’s 100% success to those victims.

    The same screening that authorizes the government to reject immigrants with deadly or potentially deadly diseases should also authorize it to screen and reject refugees who pose a threat. There is no way to know if these refugees pose a threat, so we need to stop bringing them in until we have a basis to know if they are dangerous.

    DRJ (15874d)

  86. Here’s Luke 10:25 et seq from the King James Version:

    And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 26He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? 27And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. 28And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

    I take that to be a summary of the Commandments approved by Christ.

    Anyhow, I have to go to the dentist now, and this was good preparation. The last time, I closed my car hood on my thumb.

    nk (dbc370)

  87. David Wilson, did you know Hoagie’s wife of a great many years just recently got her US Citizenship? So try again. And next time, learn about a person’s positions before making your false claims.

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  88. If you want to help the Syrian refugees, DavidWilson, here’s a Kickstarter campaign. It’s been endorsed by the Obama Administration, if that makes you feel better.

    DRJ (15874d)

  89. Strawman argument. One Syrian refugee can’t kill us all but he could kill some, and that’s 100% success to those victims.

    The same screening that authorizes the government to reject immigrants with deadly or potentially deadly diseases should also authorize it to screen and reject refugees who pose a threat. There is no way to know if these refugees pose a threat, so we need to stop bringing them in until we have a basis to know if they are dangerous.
    DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 7:05 am

    Quoted so it could be read twice.

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  90. Colonel Haiku @83, I approve.

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  91. You are a special snowflake, DavidWilson.

    JD (34f761)

  92. Liberals have gotten very good at trying to guilt Christians into supporting liberal policies and ideas. It’s smart politics but I’ll believe it’s sincere when they go help people in the world’s most dangerous places, instead of asking the American military to go or the American people to bring them here. Better yet, bring the refugees to their blue cities and homes, instead of depending on America’s Christian churches.

    DRJ (15874d)

  93. Colonel @ 83,

    Gotta admit, that was pretty good.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  94. Is see that Steve beat me to the CNS link. Sigh, living on the Left Coast means I’ve got to get up at 5 am to keep up with you guys. By the way, here’s a factoid: the only Republican holding a state-wide elected office on the Left Coast (WA, OR, KA) is Washington’s Sec. of State.

    And for all you Kalifornia types suggesting that Arizona or New Mexico would be suitable destinations for the “refugees”, I seem to remember a lot of vacant land on either side of I-15 between Barstow and Las Vegas that would be just as suitable. Especially with barbwire fencing for the cohort that claim to be 17 year old Christians, but beards, Koran, and scars suggest otherwise.

    We did manage to keep a lot of POWs under guard during WWII on U. S. soil, so it could be done again. But I don’t consider the current batch of murderers POWs. Better to just hang them and be done with it. It will be interesting to see what happens with the two murderers the French have in custody (including the one captured by the 3 Americans in August.) More than likely they’ll be sent back to Syria in hopes of pacifying the caliphate. This would align with David Wilson’s view of the world. It is something that we can do that would be effective provided our enemies have no motivations except responding to how we behave. This is a mind set that slaves adopt as they grovel before their masters, always fearful of offending.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  95. So you not only refuse to practice charity, but boast that you do not do it?

    Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.

    kishnevi (9cb6b5)

  96. I take that to be a summary of the Commandments approved by Christ.

    You can take it any way you want but “and thy neighbour as thyself” is not a Commandment. Now nk, I know you hate to be wrong but go back and re read the TEN, not eleven Commandments. Take your time.

    Good luck at the dentist.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  97. I don’t need to extend my charity to those that would wish us harm, kishnevi.

    JD (34f761)

  98. I don’t need to extend my charity to those that would wish us harm, kishnevi.
    JD (34f761) — 11/17/2015 @ 7:31 am

    Also, don’t cast your pearls before swine, and don’t feed the dogs. And the “refugees” from Syria are both.

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  99. Preaching warning if you don’t want to read it:

    I propose that the problem begins with misunderstanding reality.
    One can’t make sense of scientific observation if you can’t add 1 and 1 and get 2.

    Some try to claim that the objective moral good is to be tolerant and not judge others, and that it doesn’t matter what people believe,
    hence we should not care what those who call themselves Muslim think.
    but that line of reasoning is obviously self contradictory,
    because while acceptance of those who would murder is encouraged,
    they are not tolerant of those who encourage not to murder babies in the womb.

    They scream about “safe zones” from “offensive speech” on college campuses,
    but ignore the reality of female genital mutilation.

    Here’s the problem,
    Joni Mitchell and the “Woodstock” generation, now ruling too much of the land,
    want to “get back into the Garden”
    but that is impossible.
    The only way to peace on this earth now goes through the bloody cross of the Son of God who gave Himself for our forgiveness,
    and those who would make peace need to follow in His steps ourselves.

    The Obama mindset is for someone out there to fix the problem with other people’s money.
    That way they don’t have to sacrifice anything themselves
    (except their moral compass…)
    and at the same time claim moral superiority over those who say there is a right and wrong.

    I believe Islam is a “false gospel” and that Mohammad was a false prophet,
    on that basis it would be good to demonstrate God’s love to them;
    but that does not mean one needs to tolerate those who would kill to impose their views on others.

    FWIW, there are many people in Muslim lands who are disillusioned and reject the idea that killing in the name of God makes sense. Some of them become atheists, some become Christian.

    That is why I do not condemn everyone who is grouped among “the Muslims”.
    Yes, there are many experts in Islam and the Koran who reason pretty directly from their writings that their Wahhabism is the correct understanding of what it means to be Muslim,
    I understand that, I know people who have lived in Muslim lands, I have met people who were once “radical Muslims” themselves, including one who was a supporter of Khomeini when he came to power in ’79 who now preach Jesus at the risk of their own lives.

    That is why I say I understand the danger that Islam presents, but I refuse to categorically denounce all who would consider themselves “Muslim”
    how to practically implement that in immigration policy is very difficult,
    I reject the idea of easy importation of “Syrian refugees”, because a significant number of them are not and will hurt and kill people here;
    but neither can I condemn every “Muslim” as equal.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  100. In case you haven’t noticed the moslem dogs have been fighting a religious war for 1800 years.

    As for those who cleverly point out that there’s been a religious war with Islam for “1800” years (really? That’s what the Roman empire was up against in 215 AD?) note that actually, no, for most of the 20th century, going back to the 19th, we were not fighting a religious war with ISlam.

    DavidWilson (d7dde7) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:59 am

    Nice little straw man. He didn’t say “there’s been a religious war with Islam for “1800” years”. No has to be fighting with them for there to be an Islamic religious war.

    Have you ever heard of the Hindu Kush genius?

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  101. One thing not mentioned enough is the action that has created this crisis in the ME: Obama’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Recall that by pursuing Bush’s policies in 2009 and part of 2010, Obama and Biden were able to claim victory … and, of course, it was their victory, not America’s. And they threw it away.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  102. in the history of this country, large numbers of refugees have ever been an existential threat.
    Never in the history of this country have we welcomed people who hate us and are happy to do suicide missions to kill civilians.

    The theory apparently is that muslim refugees are some special superhuman kind of threat, to the extent to which one gone missing in Louisiana, like some ebola patient wandering the street, is going to lead to the death of us all. Really ? How does that work exactly, any more so than the other crazies with guns who already wander America?
    What rock have you been hiding under. A small group killed thousands of people and destroyed a big section of NYC and attacked DC.
    Did you miss that one?

    Do I think that it is unfair that so few christians have arrived compared to muslims? I guess it would depend on the number of both faiths who are applying. How else can you tell if the proportion is off? But assuming the proportion is off, then by all means admit more christians.
    Short sighted assessment. the number applying is reflective of the number who had the means to get out. Had those who were persecuted able to get out they wouldn’t have stayed around to be killed. If anything, getting out might be a surrogate marker for being a jihadist sympathizer.

    But the theory that all these christian refugees are per se safe and all the muslim refugees are per se dangerous is dumb on its face.
    It is not an argument “on its face” if there is ample evidence.
    When was the last time American civilians were killed by Christians?

    that what ISIS wants is a religious war.
    No, Isis is conducting a religious war, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

    insisting that every muslim is the enemy which will somehow defeat ISIS

    I disagree with that as well, but recognizing that those who are sympathetic with violent jihad is not a small but rather significant percentage is reality.

    I actually think it would be good long term strategy in the fight against ISIS to make sure that refugees are treated humanely, as people, and not as the subhuman bearers of some terrorism virus. I would argue for that point purely on what’s good for the U.S.
    But it is not reality based if you think all of those “refugees” are innocent victims of their circumstances.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  103. in the history of this country, large numbers of refugees have ever been an existential threat.
    Never in the history of this country have we welcomed people who hate us and are happy to do suicide missions to kill civilians.

    And never before have we had a society with such technology that allows such tragedy from asymmetric warfare as evidenced in 9/11. If all we had to worry about was what 18 people could do with their hands, a knife, and a revolver that would still be bad, but that is not what we are talking about.

    And you are either being shortsighted or dishonest in refusing to acknowledge that.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  104. Liberals have gotten very good at trying to guilt Christians into supporting liberal policies and ideas. It’s smart politics but I’ll believe it’s sincere when they go help people in the world’s most dangerous places, instead of asking the American military to go or the American people to bring them here. Better yet, bring the refugees to their blue cities and homes, instead of depending on America’s Christian churches.
    DRJ (15874d) — 11/17/2015 @ 7:17 am

    Agree. Obama has no use for Christians or Christian faith unless it is to manipulate them to do his bidding.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  105. DRJ – one Syrian refugee could do a lot of damage. So could somebody living somewhere near you. So could somebody driving a car badly. But for some reason the thought of one Syrian refugee somewhere doing harm now becomes the excuse to turn away millions of refugees. Not only does it make little sense as a matter of logic it shows a callousness worthy of those who turned away Jewish refugees before WWII.

    And DRJ, the idea of settling refugees in America is of course to bring them to cities, including blue cities (and at this point most of America’s cities are blue) for resettlement. But you and your ideological friends apparently feel compelled to block doing that out of exaggerated fears of the harm they will cause.

    I have to give us credit. We are an exceptionally fearful country. I realize that loving your neighbor is not one of the 10 commandments and calling us the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is not in the Constitution, but I had no idea the extent to which conservatives are willing to turn their backs on general principles of Christian charity, or American history, to preserve a 100% guarantee that no stranger, ever, will ever, ever harm them.

    DavidWilson (d7dde7)

  106. How many Syrians can fit into the Lincoln bedroom? Is there room in the closet for their terrorist arms? Do the Obama women have to wear Taliban mandated head to toe coverings, also who are the related males to escort them in public?

    PCD (39058b)

  107. A problem with the church, both those who truly believe and especially those among the large crowd, is that we too often are like Peter in wanting to respond to issues the way the world would, not the way Jesus would,
    we too can fall prey to wanting the cheap way to go, pay someone else to do the hard work with someone else’s money.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  108. In case you haven’t noticed the moslem dogs have been fighting a religious war for 1800 years. It’s all they know. Their religion is based on war.

    As for those who cleverly point out that there’s been a religious war with Islam for “1800” years (really? That’s what the Roman empire was up against in 215 AD?)
    DavidWilson (d7dde7) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:59 am

    Nice little straw man. Did he say there’s been a religious war with Islam for 1800 years?

    Ever heard of the Hindu Kush genius?

    Beyond that, as I pointed out, ISIS has been fighting a religious war from day one. The idea that a religious war isn’t going on until we refuse entry to refugees is bizarre.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  109. DavidWilson (d7dde7) — 11/17/2015 @ 8:00 am

    Cross-posted, I already replied, in case you missed it.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  110. David Wilson, your abject refusal to understand Biblical Theology is obvious. And you can’t Alinsky us Christians the way you’re trying to. It’s the race card with a twist: just as fraudulent, just as evil, just as over-played.

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  111. one Syrian refugee could do a lot of damage. So could somebody living somewhere near you. So could somebody driving a car badly

    people driving airplanes do much more damage,
    to date the motivation for such incidents has been jihadism, only

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  112. For that matter, there have been more car incidents that haven’t been adequately covered, just car accidents like Hassan was workplace violence.

    Are you the equivalent of one of the useful idiots of the 60’s,
    or one of the Weather Underground anarchist ringleaders?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  113. Refugee facts vs liberal myths:

    The majority of the refugees have been placed in medium-size cities as compared to large metropolitan area. Boise, Idaho, for example, has accepted more Syrian refugees than Los Angeles and New York combined.

    DRJ (15874d)

  114. In case you haven’t noticed the moslem dogs have been fighting a religious war for 1800 years. It’s all they know. Their religion is based on war.

    As for those who cleverly point out that there’s been a religious war with Islam for “1800” years (really? That’s what the Roman empire was up against in 215 AD?)
    DavidWilson (d7dde7) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:59 am

    Nice little straw man. Did he say there’s been a religious war with Islam for 1800 years?

    Beyond that as I pointed out, ISIS IS fighting a religious war. The idea that a religious war would somehow commence with refusing entry to refugees is bizarre.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  115. Syrian Muslims won’t be killed if they remain in the Middle East but Christians will be. They are the refugees we should be targeting for assistance.

    DRJ (15874d)

  116. “I have to give us credit. We are an exceptionally fearful country. I realize that loving your neighbor is not one of the 10 commandments and calling us the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave is not in the Constitution, but I had no idea the extent to which conservatives are willing to turn their backs on general principles of Christian charity, or American history, to preserve a 100% guarantee that no stranger, ever, will ever, ever harm them.”

    Last time I looked, my neighbors were next door, in my town… in my state… heck, at least in the same country. As always, lefties value what they believe are well-intended policies over the disastrous results these same policies nearly always result in. And they never learn. Nor do they care to. They have a deep-seated need to see themselves as heroic, which is amusing given their cowardly nature.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  117. I think/hope/plan my last comment for awhile,

    it is like Obamaites to refuse to acknowledge the consequences of their past mistakes while blustering to pull the next one over on the American people.

    And some thought he would make a good president because he was “articulate” and “clean” and had a “nice crease in his pants”.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  118. Not to mention a “great orator” (as long as he was reading someone else’s words off a TelePrompter).

    John Hitchcock (d13e71)

  119. There was as much substance to the one being celebrated on the podium as there was in those fake “columns”.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  120. The Left finds common cause with radical Islam. They both hate what America represents and will work to exploit the principles and freedom Americans hold dear to their advantage.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  121. … turn their backs on general principles of Christian charity, or American history,

    DavidWilson speaks of “American History” as though he knew something about it. This is a revealing book that deals with a little fragment of history, how defeated soldiers from Russia survived as the Reds obliterated the White Russian “army”.


    Constantinoplers: Escape from Bolshevism

    You will see that these men did attempt to fight for Russia. They weren’t movie heroes. They were often forced to fight at gunpoint, and many deserted only to be reenrolled in yet another poorly led and ineffectual formation. And many had to leave their wives and children to the tender mercies of the Bolsheviks.

    Note also that those who managed to get to the U. S. were those lucky enough to find sponsors who would post a substantial bond and provide room, board and employment. And this took years. Also note that these were Christians (or more likely agnostics, based on my experience, having survived several years of civil war by whatever means were necessary,) and not muslims. As I define a muslim, that person is someone who is willing to swear to anything, but all allegiance is truly to sharia, a form of government that is incompatible with any oath to support our Constitution. There are many who come from the muslim system of tyranny, and many have changed their world view. But not enough. Let those who treasure sharia live in one of the hell holes that embraces sharia, but not here.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  122. They are fools who don’t learn from history. If they succeed, they will be destroyed by the Islamists.
    But the Islamists do not use guillotines, but knives and swords.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  123. “… this was the moment when the rise of Islam began apace and our planet began to burn …”

    – Barcky Obama

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  124. The theory apparently is that muslim refugees are some special superhuman kind of threat, to the extent to which one gone missing in Louisiana, like some ebola patient wandering the street, is going to lead to the death of us all. Really ?

    I agree one muslim can’t lead to the death of us all. Pretty powerful point!

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  125. He’s so smaht, Gerald, not dumb like people say… he’s smaht!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. DavidWilson – are you a sophomore in high school? Your “argument”‘is juvenile, at best, and chock full of lies, false choices, leftist canards, and other types of douchenozzlery.

    JD (7dbed3)

  127. DavidWilson, would you be willing to post a bond (drawn on your personal bank account) for $10,000 or more in today’s dollars, and guarantee to feed, house, and employ one of these refugees until that person had repaid your bond and was able to function independently, without public assistance? And would you be willing to be financially responsible for any damage done by this person for that period while he was under your supervision? Seems pretty tough doesn’t it, but that was how it was done back in the day.

    Today the Government pays thousands of dollars a month to individuals willing to provide shelter to the unaccompanied kids who’ve stormed across the Rio Grande. And I suspect a lot of these U. S. hosts are in it for the stipend, and don’t really provide the supervision and education that might be needed. Indeed, they have reason to lie about the presence of their charges, since they’d lose the stipend if they reported the “child”, perhaps a 17 year old male with well developed facial hair, missing, which means the security this system appears to provide is illusory.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  128. Let’s see how much longer the Democrats take the ostrich “head-in-the-sand” approach to all of this. Can you imagine the left’s icon FDR taking to the airwaves to declare, “we must find the perpetrators of this” after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

    These aren’t your grandparent’s Democrats.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  129. an act of an ongoing war, not “Teh Streets of San Francisco”.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  130. America is a benevolent nation, but most of us are not fools.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  131. Is that what your church teaches nk?

    By Gospels did you mean to say the New Testament, or do you mean just the four Gospels?
    Gerald A (5dca03) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:02 am

    Just the Four Gospels, Gerald A. Acts and the Epistles are central to the Apostolic Tradition but they are only the acts and words of the Apostles inspired by the teachings of Christ and the Holy Spirit, not the Word. Only Christ is the Word. Revelations has no part at all in Greek Orthodox Church services. At least that’s what I’ve learned in 59 years, but I could be a bad student, so let’s not blame the Church if I’m mistaken.

    nk (dbc370)

  132. Hoagie and John, I appreciate that there are profound differences between the Catholic (Roman or Greek Orthodox) and Protestant churches. S’okay. For now we see through a glass darkly….

    nk (dbc370)

  133. jesus is the reason for the red cup season

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  134. You’re right, nk. It really doesn’t matter. God is God and Christ, Christ.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  135. These aren’t your grandparent’s Democrats.

    I’ve noticed that for years, Colonel. What ever happened to the once great and patriotic Democratic Party that has brought it down to a party of seditionists an socialists? Now they’re just democrats, lower case for lower class people. You know, I was once a Democrat. The party left/lost me in 1980 in the Carter/Reagan race. Then I stayed an Independent until Obama ran, t’was then I became a Republican. Obama was such a piece of crap I had to. I knew he was going to be so bad it required absolute devotion.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  136. #137 wasn’t completely true. I forgot I registered (R) a few times over the years for primary purposes but went back to (I) after. Sorry. Just an old guy’s memory.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  137. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:42 am

    Colonel! You’ve outdone yourself!

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  138. JFK would be run out of the country for saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but you can do for your country.”

    We’ve got idiot slackers trying to bully their way to diplomas, riches, and power. They shoould be dumped in Zimbabwe and not allowed back in the US for 10 years, if they survive that long with out maturing into complete adults.

    PCD (39058b)

  139. . At least that’s what I’ve learned in 59 years, but I could be a bad student, so let’s not blame the Church if I’m mistaken.
    nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:27 am

    For now we see through a glass darkly….
    nk (dbc370) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:33 am

    You’re right, nk. It really doesn’t matter. God is God and Christ, Christ.
    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 11/17/2015 @ 10:42 am

    Well said. Peace be with you, brothers.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  140. MD in Philly did such an excellent job of exposing DavidWilson’s nonsense that any further line by line fisking on my part would be superfluous. To make DavidWilson’s argument you have to know nothing of US and world history.

    Which is why our man-child preezy is making it. But make no mistake, he is an Alinskyite through-and-through. When this anti-American, anti-Western Civilization scold wags his finger at us and says turning away this hostile wave of invaders is “un-American” and “not who we are” he is thinking of his leftist caricature of America and American values. And he is applying Alinsky’s tenet of “make them live up to their own rules.” The rules he wants us to live up to are not our rules. But that’s not the point. The point is to overwhelm and break the system. As he is doing on our border.

    Our immigration system isn’t mysteriously broken, as if we don’t know how it eroded over time into a state of disrepair. We’re watching him break it in front of our eyes. Barack Obama’s mission is to give America its comeuppance. In his leftist anti-American, anti-Western eyes not just our immigration system but everything about America is dysfunctional and, really when you get down to it, evil. Which is why he needs to fundamentally transform this country.

    Which brings us to this “refugee” crisis. People think Barack Obama is delusional because he refuses to change his ISIS strategy or his plans to bring in hundreds of thousands of radical Muslims (while it is true that the majority of Muslims are not members of ISIS or even violent jihadists, most Muslims do in fact hold radical beliefs and are closer on the spectrum to what ISIS professes than what Imam Obama would have you know).

    In fact, Obama is staying the course because as far as he’s concerned it’s working out perfectly.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/01/27/going-the-distance-david-remnick

    …“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.

    “Let’s just keep in mind, Falluja is a profoundly conservative Sunni city in a country that, independent of anything we do, is deeply divided along sectarian lines. And how we think about terrorism has to be defined and specific enough that it doesn’t lead us to think that any horrible actions that take place around the world that are motivated in part by an extremist Islamic ideology are a direct threat to us or something that we have to wade into”…

    We had the power to prevent ISIS from taking territory, which created safe havens where ISIS could train their forces, which allowed ISIS to enrich itself selling oil it sold on the black market from that territory, and which created the refugee crisis. Any idiot could have predicted that. And Obama while I don’t have a high opinion of his intelligence, and despite the fact that I sometimes call him a short-sighted idiot myself, I don’t actually think he’s an idiot.

    What do we know is happening from the UN camps on the fringes of the Syrian war and the resultant Muslim invasion of Europe? A few things. One, these young military age men are not refugees from ISIS. In fact

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  141. The US simply doesn’t have the ability to vet Syrian refugees:

    Another DHS Official Confirms: No Way to Vet Syrian Refugees
    “The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet,” Steinbach said. “That would be the concern is we would be vetting — databases don’t hold the information on those individuals. “You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that is — does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the data sets — the police, the intel services — that normally you would go to seek information don’t exist.”

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/10/another-dhs-official-confirms-no-way-to-vet-syrian-refugees/

    Next, consider that 31% of Syrian refugees oppose [20 % oppose, 11% strongly oppose] the effort to destroy ISIL. The question was posed as follows: “To what extent do you support or oppose the declared objectives of the anti-ISIL campaign to “degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL”?” http://english.dohainstitute.o
    Given that we don’t have the ability to vet Syrian refugees, how do we keep the 31% out? Which leads to the second question: Why doesn’t the 31% stay home?

    Walter Cronanty (f48cd5)

  142. Yes it’s a full mackerel slapping exercise, but like of to he persists.

    narciso (a1aef7)

  143. Why doesn’t the 31% stay home?

    I’ll tell you why Walter, because their job is to hide among the refugees and infiltrate the U.S.. It’s called hijar and it’s been common practice for moslems for centuries. They usually sneak in to the target country, establish “neighborhoods”, build mosques and begin to recruit people. They usually recruit the dumbest, weakest and worst of the infected society like criminals and outcasts. They then bring over more and more moslems especially women which they impregnate and grow families (who in America if they spit out a kid becomes an American which is why Republicans are against anchor babies). They and their families infest the cultural fabric demanding rights in schools and working privileges for their religion (won’t serve alcohol, drive dogs) as well as the body politic taking as many social benefits (welfare, food stamps in our case) they can and recruit intensively and the adult males act as a fifth column as well as recruiters, trainers in terror tactics and financial aide and technical advisors.

    So when you hear idiots mention how it only took 8 people to pull off the Paris attacks you can tell them they’re full of shite thousands were helping behind the scenes for years just waiting for the order.

    So for all you moslem apologists, that’s why they shouldn’t be here. At all. Period!

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  144. DRJ, at 117: ISIS does have a history of killing Muslims whose religious observance does not comply with their standards, saying the Muslims-to-be-killed are apostates. Based on that, I don’t htink it’s an *accurate* assumption to say that Muslims are under no threat.

    aphrael (73b83f)

  145. OT: The Secret “Service” agents who tried to embarrass Congressman Chaffez have been identified. Forty-two (42) of these public servants are known to have accessed the Congressman’s records, but they’ve taken the 5th and so our leaders have concluded that about all we can do with them is put them on temporary suspension (paid leave?) and bring them back in a few weeks. Three more did some stuff that might be prosecutable without their admission of guilt, or more likely they said something tangential that will allow the FBI to prosecute them for a grammar error, but in either event we will need to wait and see if the wheels of justice are still mounted on an axel.

    Dozens of Secret Service agents will be suspended for looking up Congressman’s personal information in bid to smear him, admits scandal-hit agency director

    Bottom line is we’ll be paying these crooks as they edge ever closer to nice pension. The Coast Guard used to have LORAN station on all sorts of remote islands. Perhaps the Secret Service could reactivate one of those place and assign all 42 of them to the 5th Amendment Battalion, which would be tasked with monitoring sea level height and whatever radio signals they might be able to intercept. A C-130 could air drop MRE’s every two or three months.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  146. (cont.) The administration requires that refugees adhere to a UN process that not only excludes religious minorities, most of the Muslims have in fact in fact sworn allegiance to the ISIS caliphate. Because ISIS, Islamist militias, and gangs run the camps like prison gangs rule the prisons. Not that the UN has a problem with that. Their cooperation with Islamic terrorists is well documented and goes back decades. For instance, look at how the UNRWA cooperates with Hamas in Gaza, to the extent that they’ll let Hamas use UN schools to store rockets, even let them use them as firing positions, and they let Hamas terrorists use UN ambulances as troop transports.

    This is why so few religious minorities are among the refugees. They can’t survive in the camps. And these “refugees” are bringing their pathologies to the refugee camps and beyond in Europe.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/09/28/germany-segregating-christians-as-migrant-violence-escalates/

    …“We must rid ourselves of the illusion that all those who arrive here are human rights activists,” says Max Klingberg of the International Society for Human Rights (ISHR), who has worked with refugees for 15 years. “Among the new arrivals is not a small amount of religious intensity, it is at least at the level of the Muslim Brotherhood,” he said.

    Said is living in an asylum centre in southern Brandenburg, near the border with Saxony. “They wake me before dawn during Ramadan and say I should eat before the sun comes up. If I refuse, they say I’m a kuffar, an unbeliever. They spit at me… They treat me like an animal. And threaten to kill me.”

    “… They are also all Muslims,” he adds.

    …“And [the Christians] ask the question: What happens when the devout Muslim refugees leave the refugee center, must we continue hiding ourselves as Christians in the future in this country?”

    Said’s fear is not unfounded. On the 14th of September German police in the town of Hemer revealed in a statement that an Eritrean Christian and his wife – who was eight months pregnant – had been hospitalised after being brutally attacked with a glass bottle by Algerian Muslims. The man had been wearing a wooden crucifix, which had “insulted” the Algerians.

    …Simon Jacob of the Central Council of the Eastern Christians said that stories like this no longer surprise him: “I know a lot of reports of Christian refugees who are under attack. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.”

    “The number of unreported cases is high. We must expect further conflicts that bring the refugees from their homeland to Germany. Between Christians and Muslims. Between Shiites and Sunnis. Between Kurds and extremists. Between Yazidis and extremists,” he said.

    These Muslims are only “moderate” if you consider the Muslim Brotherhood moderate. You know, the crowd that wanted to eliminate the ban on slavery when they attempted to rewrite the Egyptian constitution, because that was an insult to Islam and Muhammad as the Quran authorizes enslaving the infidel and Muhammad was an enthusiastic slave holder, as well as reintroduce dhimmitude and the jizya.

    So these “refugees” are bringing their hatreds and conflicts, what Obama told the New Yorker are “jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian,” to Europe. And Obama intends to import all that here. This won’t be an accident. He knows it exists in Syria and Iraq; he’ll tell you all about it. He knows it’s in the UN refugee camps. He knows it’s a huge problem as it is imported into Europe. He wants that problem here.

    We also know that European internal security and police agencies are being overwhelmed. There are simply too many suspected radicals now to monitor. It simply can’t be done. In fact one of the suicide murderers in last Friday’s attack in Paris, Samy Amimour, was already supposed to be under judicial supervision for a 2012 attempt to travel to Yemen to join the jihad but the authorities simply lost track of him.

    http://observer.com/2015/11/jihadists-attack-paris-again-the-world-is-horrified/

    …The number of “watchable” suspects, meaning potential terrorists who need monitoring by the security services, in France alone exceeds 5,000, according to Paris. “We’re overwhelmed, and it’s getting worse daily,” was how a senior French intelligence official explained his situation to me recently.

    It’s getting worse daily because of all those “innocents refugees” that DavidWilson obtusely wants to pretend are, and Obama knowingly lies about being, no problem.

    There now will be much commentary from pundits and politicians arguing it’s time to “get tough” with the jihadists in Europe, accompanied by promises of more resources to deter the next outrage. Spies will believe such promises when executed, not before, but the stark reality is that there is no intelligence or law enforcement fix to the threat that Europe now faces from the global jihad.

    As I explained back in January, after the last outrage in Paris, although France has very competent security services, among the best in Europe at countering terrorism, the number of potential jihadists is now so vast that no intelligence agency can reliably track and deter them all. Time and again, suspects on watch-lists go missing. In real life, unlike the movies, intelligence is never perfect.

    We simply can not vet these people. On the off chance one of these people does pop up as a match on one of the few and entirely inadequate terrorist databases we have access to the Obama administration has unilaterally and illegally rewritten the law to let them in anyway.

    The Constitution says Congress establishes immigration and visa standards but since Obama is out to fundamentally transform this country and teach the American people a lesson about their evil ways why should he care?

    Our security and police agencies are no better than France’s. And Obama intends to give them a far bigger problem.

    This is not an accident. None of it, including calling ISIS the JV team. He doesn’t want to focus on ISIS, and he has no time to talk about nonsense like American leadership abroad or America winning a war on terrorism or against anyone anywhere. He has bigger fish to fry. Us, here.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  147. Without the UK media, the Daily Mail in the link above, I rather doubt we’d ever learn about half of this stuff. I’m glad someone is making use of the 1st Amendment.

    BobStewartatHome (a52abe)

  148. Obama starts his crap with the Sunnis, and the Shites and the Kurds and quite frankly we should no more care about their different sects then they care about whether they’re blowing up a Catholic, a Baptist or a Mormon. Screw’em all.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  149. I don’t htink it’s an *accurate* assumption to say that Muslims are under no threat.

    Then would it be accurate to say “non-apostates” are under no threat, aphrael?

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  150. And just when I start to think it’s not possible to hold Jay Inslee in any more contempt, Washington is missing from the list. Thanks, Jay – I can hardly wait to be shot.

    Tonestaple (39740c)

  151. As a matter of choice, it’s more profitable to exploit a refugee crisis than to confront the social justice-fostered humanitarian disaster in the Middle East and Africa.

    n.n (6c000c)

  152. Barack Hussein Hoagie – only if you accept ISIS’ definition of who is or isn’t an apostate. Which is to say, someone who doesn’t consider themselves an apostate, and who wouldn’t look like an apostate to a non-Muslim like you or me, is still at risk of being considered an apostate by ISIS.

    The irony in this, of course, is that the west would *much* prefer that the overwhelming majority of muslims be muslims of whom ISIS would disapprove … so we shouldn’t be willing to accept ISIS’ definition of who is or isn’t an apostate. :)

    aphrael (73b83f)

  153. The irony in this, of course, is that the west would *much* prefer that the overwhelming majority of muslims be muslims of whom ISIS would disapprove … so we shouldn’t be willing to accept ISIS’ definition of who is or isn’t an apostate. :)

    I know, aphrael, that’s why it’s such a crazy conundrum. It’s almost like we, as westerners, are being set up to fail no matter what we do. For example, look at the comment #153 by n.n..

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  154. 145. DRJ, at 117: ISIS does have a history of killing Muslims whose religious observance does not comply with their standards, saying the Muslims-to-be-killed are apostates. Based on that, I don’t htink it’s an *accurate* assumption to say that Muslims are under no threat.

    aphrael (73b83f) — 11/17/2015 @ 12:42 pm

    Of course. The leader of ISIS chose his nom de guerre, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, for a reason. Abu Bakr was the first of those the Sunnis consider the “rightly guided caliphs” after Muhammad died. And his first task was to wage war against those trying to leave Islam because they had only joined because they didn’t want Muhammad to kill them. So Abu Bakr fought what are now known as the Wars of Apostasy pitilessly to show that they had just as much to fear from him as they ever did from Muhammad. As Abu Bakr famously said if anyone owed so much as a piece of rope in zakat to Muhammad then they were going to pay it in tribute to him. If the Arabian tribes returned to the fold, all was forgiven. But any hesitation meant they had apostatized and meant Abu Bakr would kill them without mercy.

    ISIS is not killing Muslims, aphrael. ISIS is killing the Munafiq and the Murtadd. The hypocrite and the apostate.

    Quran 4:145 An Nisa (The women)

    Indeed, the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire – and never will you find for them a helper

    These are disbelievers, who Allah has condemned to hellfire. This is also, by the way, why ISIS burns certain people alive. Like Lt. Muath al-Kaseasbeh, the Jordanian Air Force pilot. Because that’s what Abu Bakr did to former Muslims who resisted his authority. By fighting in a coalition that included non-Muslims against the ISIS caliphate, al-Kaseasbeh had turned against Islam and had joined the ranks of the hypocrites. Outwardly he might appear to be a Muslim but by fighting Allah’s earthly authority in the form of the caliphate he was no longer a Muslim, one who submits, and so he was not a fellow believer.

    As an aside, this is part of the reason why I can’t stand listening to Imam Obama or Imam Cameron drone on about how ISIS is not Islamic because they kill fellow Muslims. No, they do not. Nor do the Quran and the Sunnah consider the people ISIS kills Muslims. Al Baghdadi has a Phd in Islamic theology and he clearly knows his Islamic history. Obama and other Western leaders pronouncing on what is and is not Islam are either fools or the most obvious of liars.

    http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/4

    It was narrated that Abu Hurairah said:
    “The Messenger of Allah said: ‘I was thinking of commanding that the call to prayer be given, then I would tell a man to lead the people in prayer, then I would go out with some other men carrying bundles of wood, and go to people who do not attend the prayer, and burn their houses down around them.'”

    Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
    Reference : Sunan Ibn Majah 791
    In-book reference : Book 4, Hadith 57
    English translation : Vol. 1, Book 4, Hadith 791

    Sahih is the highest grade of Hadith. There is no higher authority; it is only slightly second to the Quran itself. Simply deviating one bit from complete submission, without any outward sign or even inward thought or feeling of reservation, from the duties their religion and consequently their religious authorities impose upon them constitutes apostasy from Islam.

    And here’s Muhammad, whom Allah proclaims the perfect moral example for the Muslims, musing about burning people alive again (he actually did burn non-Muslim captives alive as torture, according to the hadith literature).

    But here is the difference. Muslims only have to submit outwardly completely and without question to ISIS while in public to avoid risk (as it says in the Quran, only Allah will know if they submitted without any inner hesitation or reservation, but not ISIS). According to dissidents who report from ISIS controlled areas at great risk to themselves, what this means is they go outside as little as possible to minimize the risk. But as long as they submit completely and without question while in public, and don’t give their ISIS overlords any reason to suspect they are plotting against them in private, they are safe.

    There is nothing Christians can do to reduce their risk. They can not stay inside their houses forever. Nor will ISIS leave them alone even if they do stay inside their houses. ISIS knows where they live, and will persecute them whether in public or inside their own homes.

    Yazidis and other religious minorities aren’t worth mentioning in this regard as they can’t live under ISIS even in a persecuted state; they have either converted or they have been exterminated in ISIS controlled territory.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  155. Steve57, you have the patience of a saint. I read these Islamic books and try to understand what they believe and why they believe it. But when some of our young friends begin the moral equivalency crap between Islam and Christianity I tend to tune the idiots out. You step in and write an in depth explanation that I would never take the time to do. Again, the patience of a saint.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  156. Steve57, my objection at this point is entirely to the notion that ISIS gets to decide who is or is not Muslim. We should be *encouraging* Muslims who disagree with ISIS to say so, and to stand up for and argue for their interpretation – because in a world where ISIS/ definition of ‘Muslim’ prevails among the Muslim community, we have a much, much larger enemy than we would in a world where their definition doesn’t prevail.

    Which means that we shouldn’t adopt their rhetoric. As ISIS conceptualizes its actions, it is killing non-Muslims. But *as the people being killed conceptualize it*, ISIS is killing Muslims. We should *not* be endorsing ISIS’ viewpoint on this.

    aphrael (73b83f)

  157. I see the following sentiments and feel ambivalent. The guy has gone through hell, so he deserves plenty of leeway at this time, and the philosophy he espouses by itself — and viewed in a vacuum or with limited context — is fine. But if he’s also the type who will rattle off a politically correct mantra in general and show signs of being a poor judge of (and ass-backwards about) the good and bad in his fellow human beings, then I’d pity him for being the stereotypical sitting duck, for making those around him sitting ducks too, and for being a fool, ready-made for subversives and the diabolical.

    (CNN)“You will not have my hatred.”

    That’s the defiant message the husband of one of the Paris attacks victims is sending to ISIS.

    Antoine Leiris lost his wife in the Friday violence that shook the French capital, taking the lives of at least 129 and injuring hundreds more. He penned the poignant tribute to his wife on Monday, publishing it on his Facebook page. His status, promising to not let his 17-month-old son grow up in fear of ISIS, has been shared over 57,000 times.

    “Friday night you took away the life of an exceptional human being, the love of my life, the mother of my son, but you will not have my hatred,”
    Leiris wrote.

    “I do not know who you are, and I do not wish to. You are dead souls. If this God for whom you kill so blindly has made us in His image, every bullet in the body of my wife will have been a wound in His heart.”

    “So I will not give you the privilege of hating you. You certainly sought it, but replying to hatred with anger would be giving in to the same ignorance which made you into what you are. You want me to be frightened, that I should look into the eyes of my fellow citizens with distrust, that I sacrifice my freedom for security. You lost. I will carry on as before.

    Mark (74fce8)

  158. ISIL by any other name is borne of our failed government and its foreign policy:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-17/theres-no-such-thing-isis-journalist-destroys-wests-terror-narrative-warns-crackdown

    The antiChrist is merely pursuing his program to sabotage and destroy god damned America from the inside fomenting “Black Lives Matter” and home-grown terrorism. The transparent goal is to require martial law by acclaim.

    DNF (ffe548)

  159. 159. Go and catch a falling star, beget with child a mandrake root and raise up a Muslim who bravely stands in the gap between the infidel and the their brother butcher.

    Unicorn dust and elves toes.

    DNF (755a85)

  160. 83 – Applause, Col.

    mg (31009b)

  161. Syrian refugees are going to get here, see all the illegal Mexican immigrants and go, “Why in the name of Allah did we choose this place?”

    Birdbath (3be0e2)

  162. The problem is, aphrael, that ISIS viewpoint is not fringe. It is mainstream. You see there is no room for interpretation in Islam. All religious authorities from al-Azhar University to the Saudi government clerics (the two official authorities in Sunni Islam) to the Iranian Ayatollahs who are the most influential religious authorities among the overwhelming majority of Shias (the Zaidis and Ismailis may differ) make that perfectly clear. The Quran isn’t divinely inspired as is scripture in Christian and Jewish theology. It is the divine authoritative word of Allah as dictated by the angel Gabriel to Allah’s messenger Muhammad. It is an exact copy, perfectly preserved, of the divine Quran that is written on a tablet in heaven along with Allah since before time.

    And here is what the Quran says Muslims must believe:

    Surah 4:65 An Nisa (The Women):

    But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.

    This is why Sunnis are called Sunni. In Arabic the term is Ahlus Sunnah wal Jemaah. The adherents of the Sunnah and of the congregation. Notice that the Sunnis are not the adherents of the Quran. The Sunnah is the “well trodden path” of Muhammad. Muhammad is according to Allah himself the judge in all matters and Muslims must accept them with fully, immediately, and without question.

    The Shiah have their own version of the Hadith (a hadith is simply a report), which are the traditions, sayings, things Muhammad approved of or disapproved of in his presence, etc., which forms the overwhelming majority of the Sunnah and to which they adhere as well because they have the same Quran with the same commandment. The five major Sunni schools of Sharia law recognize the Ja’fari and Zaidi schools as legally authoritative. Because they have no major theological differences. The only difference they have is political. The Shiah believe the succession to Muhammad’s “throne” should have been hereditary and Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali should have become the next Caliph, while the Sunnis think it rightly went to Muhammad’s oldest and most faithful early companion.

    So how does ISIS interpretation of who is and who is not a good Muslim, and who is and who is not an apostate or a hypocrite, differ from those in Wahhabist Saudi Arabia and revolutionary Iran? I’ll answer that for you; barely at all. The same things that will get you executed in the Islamic State will get you executed in SA and in what Obama deferentially calls the Islamic Republic.

    In fact if the Islamic State is not Islamic, as Imam Obama loves to claim, neither is the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are both brutal, oppressive theocracies that believe the same ideology, rule over their subjects in the same draconian fashion, and behave the same way internationally.

    One might suggest that IS, Iran, and SA are the most extreme Muslim states. But here’s the deal with your formulation.

    We should be *encouraging* Muslims who disagree with ISIS to say so, and to stand up for and argue for their interpretation – because in a world where ISIS/ definition of ‘Muslim’ prevails among the Muslim community, we have a much, much larger enemy than we would in a world where their definition doesn’t prevail.

    There is no other definition of “Muslim.” There are really only five schools of Islamic jurisprudence to concern oneself with in the Islamic world, because while the other three may be legitimate no Islamic country bases their legal system on them. Those would the aforementioned Ja’fari and the Sunni Hanbali, Hanifi, Shafi’i, and Maliki schools. And the all have the exact same definition as ISIS of what a Muslim must do to avoid apostasy. the month as to whether the case against her should be heard.

    The Shafi’i school is considered the most lenient of the four Sunni schools. But the list of what constitutes apostasy is no different from that of ISIS or the Mullahs or the Saudis or any other school of Islamic jurisprudence.

    http://www.christianissues.biz/pdf-bin/islam/therelianceofthetraveller.pdf

    This is the only version of “‘Umdat al-Salik” [The Reliance of the Traveller] that I could find online but it tracks right along with the hard copy of the Shafi’i manual of Sharia approved by the foremost authority of Shafi’i fiqh, Al-Azhar University in Cairo.

    @9.8.7 Acts that Entail Leaving Islam Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:
    1. to prostrate to an idol no matter whether making fun, out of contrariness, or in actual conviction, or belief that the Creator is something that originated in time. Idols include such things as the sun or moon or any thing that is bowed or prostrated before.
    2. to intend to commit disbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits the act of disbelief;
    3. to speak words that imply disbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah” – unless by the slip of one’s tongue, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah, the Most High (wali, def: w-33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion for these do not constitute disbelief;
    4. to revile Allah or His Messenger – may Allah venerate him and give him peace;
    5. to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribe to Him (dis: 24.1);
    6. to be sarcastic about the Name of Allah, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
    7. to deny any verse of the Koran or anything, which by scholarly consensus (7.7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does be long to it;
    8. to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;
    9. to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength except through Allah”; with the response “Your saying there’s no power or strength, etc, won’t save you from hunger”;
    10. for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, ”I act without the decree of Allah”;
    11. to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w-47) in words that are uninterpretable as meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings;
    12. a Muslim who refuses to teach a non-Muslim who asks to be taught the words of the witnessing of faith (Shahada), “La ila ha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah”, meaning, there is no god except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.
    13. to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to be come a Muslim in terms of disbelief (kufr);
    14. to deny the obligatory character of something, which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: 7.7) is part of Islam, such as the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (5.2.4);
    15. to hold that any of the messengers of Allah or His prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;
    16. `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin added: to revile the religion of Islam;
    17. to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal
    influence independent of the will of Allah;
    18. to deny the existence of angels or jinn (w-22), or the heavens;
    19. to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
    20. or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message – may Allah venerate him and give him peace – to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w-4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y-4), 423-24).

    There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah, the Most High save us and all Muslims from it.

    Muslims who reject ISIS’ definition of what one must believe to be a good Muslim and what acts constitute apostasy will find no support in any sect’s religious texts or in any school of sharia law for standing up for their different definition. All the schools of Sharia, Sunni and Shiah and Ibadi (which traces its roots to before the Sunni-Shiah split) all agree to what constitutes apostasy. And ISIS’ definition is mainstream.

    Oh, and what is the punishment for those who refuse to repent?

    @9.8.1 Whosoever voluntarily leaves Islam is killed
    When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.
    @9.8.2 Apostates must first be asked to return to Islam
    In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph or his representative to ask him to
    repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is killed immediately.
    @9.8.3 Only caliph may kill an apostate
    If the apostate is a freeman, no one besides the caliph or his representative may kill him. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (9.17) because he has taken upon himself the rights and duty of the caliph.
    @9.8.4 Compensation or expiation for killing an apostate 9.8.4
    There is neither compensation nor expiation for killing an apostate.
    @9.8.5 If a person apostatizes from Islam and returns several times, his testifying of faith is accepted (9.8.7(12) ) from him, though he is disciplined (9.17).

    This is why the Shafi’i school is considered the most lenient. Not all the Sharia schools give apostates multiple chances to repent, or limit the killer to the caliph.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  163. 159. …in a world where ISIS/ definition of ‘Muslim’ prevails among the Muslim community, we have a much, much larger enemy than we would in a world where their definition doesn’t prevail…

    aphrael (73b83f) — 11/17/2015 @ 2:31 pm

    I hate to be the bearer of bad knews, aphrael, but you begin to grasp the scope of the problem. It was the Ayatollah Khameini I believe who said that there is no such thing as radical Islam or extreme Islam. There is only Islam. And unfortunately he’s correct. That’s one of the reasons what we call moderate Muslims don’t stand up. Because it turns out the Ayatollahs and the Wahhabists and, yes, ISIS, actually have their theological doo-doo scraped together into one nice, neat, and very correct pile. It’s the moderates who are fringe, and with no scholarly support to fall back on.

    The good news is the vast majority of Muslims have no idea what their religion actually teaches. Most can’t read the Quran, as Allah only accepts prayers in Arabic and the orthodox Islamic position is that the Quran can not be translated from Arabic. And not just any Arabic but 6th/7th Classical Arabic that bears about as much relationship to modern Arabic as Old English (well, maybe Middle English) bears to late Modern English.

    You can get transliterations of the Quran for religious instruction, but Muslims are not encouraged to study the Quran. Especially not on their own, nor are they encouraged to study the Sunnah as that is considered a specialized field and one must rely on scholars.

    Scholars such as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who have Phds in Islamic theology from recognized authorities such as Baghdad University.

    What we really need to do is ban Saudi-funded Wahhabist mosques and Muslim Brotherhood “Islamic Centers” as they are hotbeds of radicalization. A good Muslim from our point of view is a bad Muslim from al-Azhar’s point of view. The nice peacefull Muslims are not practicing their faith in anything approaching strict adherence to Islamic dogma.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  164. The good news is the vast majority of Muslims have no idea what their religion actually teaches.

    Agreed, which is why I don’t consider all “Muslims” to be of jihadist sympathies,
    but I agree if one includes the sympathizers/enablers as part of the danger,
    the percentage is large.
    How large, I do not know.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  165. But I’d assume the average Muslim is aware of at least the nature and history of their religion’s founder. If so, it’s less surprising that such people may not be exactly super upset about and outraged towards the extremists or jihadists in their ranks. Call it a variation of the meaning behind the phrase “you can judge the character of a person by the company he keeps.” Or, in this case, you can judge the nature of a person by who he/she genuflects or prays to.

    I remain fascinated by the odd bedfellows of sharia-excusing Muslims and Islamic/sharia-excusing Western liberals. If the two groups manage to annihilate each other without decent, sensible folks getting caught in the middle and all the crossfire, I’ll try not to be too sad.

    Mark (74fce8)

  166. I’ve known and worked with a few Muslims in my career. We got along just fine and i admired them for their self confidence to just stop what they were doing and go to a prayer rug. But that is a major point – these Muslims were in the USA. They did not stick around in the countries where the vast majority of the Muslims hated the non-Muslims with deathly disdain. The Muslims in Asia are more than willing to kill out the Budhists and Hindus, the ones in Europe and Africa to kill the Christians and for some reason all of them would want to wipe out the Jews. When you see an Indonesian community which never even saw a Jew responding forcibly and favorably to a sermon calling for Death to Jews – and that is just one example – well aren’t you forced to consider the religion is tilted to psychotic ?

    seeRpea (71d373)

  167. I knew DavidWilson was parrotting some leftist scribes – in today’s idiocy, he was paraphrasing the most recent nonsense of Amynda Marcotte and the Evil Dwarf Krugman.

    JD (b3cb62)

  168. oh you never go full Marcotte, you can never go back.

    narciso (732bc0)

  169. Marcotte, who will never have chilrun but will have a pack of cats? Yeah, nothing she says is worth the cost it took to make the digital pixels.

    John Hitchcock (7147ac)

  170. 169. But I’d assume the average Muslim is aware of at least the nature and history of their religion’s founder…

    Mark (74fce8) — 11/17/2015 @ 6:22 pm

    It’s not safe to assume even that, especially not here in the US. Most Muslims are taught he was a kindly, Santa Claus type.

    Surah 9:128 At Tawbah:

    There has certainly come to you a Messenger from among yourselves. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you and to the believers is kind and merciful.

    Surah 21:106-107 Al Anbya:

    Indeed, in this [Qur’an] is notification for a worshipping people. And We have not sent you, [O Muhammad], except as a mercy to the worlds.

    They aren’t taught much about Muhammad. Ask an American Muslim how Muhammad died, for instance, and they’ll nearly all guess he must have died peacefully of old age in his bed.

    Almost none of them know that after he slaughtered most of the Jews of the Bani Nadir tribe at the oasis of Khaybar, known to Muslims as the Battle of Khaybar, a Jewish woman offered to roast a sheep for him and his companions. Muhammad accepted the offer (?!?!). Naturally since Muhammad and his troops had just killed all her male relatives, she poisoned the sheep. The poison killed a couple of Muhammad’s companions immediately, but it took a couple of years for the poison to kill Muhammad. Toward the end he had to be dragged around with his feet trailing in the dust, and he died in agony.

    http://sunnah.com/bukhari/64

    (83) Chapter: The sickness of the Prophet (saws) and his death

    Narrated `Aisha:

    The Prophet (ﷺ) in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O `Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

    Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4428
    In-book reference : Book 64, Hadith 450
    USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 5, Book 59, Hadith 713
    (deprecated numbering scheme)

    Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are sacred texts, almost on par with the Quran. They are known as the “Two Sahihs” because each entire collection consists only of sahih, or thoroughly genuine, hadiths. They are beyond reproach as sources.

    I thought I’d get that out of the way first, because this hadith (and its in Sahih Muslim, and several other hadith collections nearly word for word so it just doesn’t appear in Bukhari, and it isn’t always just Aisha narrating the events) would cause several problems for Muslims if the scholars let it get out. So they keep it to themselves, even though these are the Muslims’ own sources and all this is hiding in plain sight. First, Muhammad was killed in revenge by a Jewish woman. So a mere Jewish woman was powerful enough to kill the prophet of Allah, a huge embarrassment. Second, it is well known through the Judeo-Christian scriptures poison can not harm a true prophet. Indeed, when Muhammad’s companions keeled over dead and he felt the effects of the poison on himself he had the woman brought to him to demand why she did “the work she had done” (now THERE’S an example of closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out). She said that if Muhammad were a true prophet then the poison would not have harmed him, but if he were only a king then she would rid her people of him.

    The poison not only harmed him, it ended up killing him.

    The third and final problem is the biggest. What did Muhammad say to his favorite wife Aisha at his death of the pain of the poison? “I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.”

    Muhammad had earlier had a revelation from God. Notice I say God, and not Allah, because I believe this one revelation may actually be truly from God.

    Surah 69:44-47 Al Haqqah (The Reality)

    And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings, We would have seized him by the right hand; Then We would have cut from him the aorta. And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him.

    If Muhammad were a false prophet God would kill him by cutting out his aorta, and power on Earth would be able to stop Him. And that is, of all the possible ways Muhammad could have died, of all the things he could have complained of, exactly how Muhammad described his own death. It felt like is aorta was being cut.

    Yeah, there are a lot of things Muslims don’t know about the nature and history of their own prophet. It’s all right there, in their own sacred texts. But Muslims don’t know about it.

    Which is better for everyone all the way around.

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  171. The Quran isn’t divinely inspired as is scripture in Christian and Jewish theology. It is the divine authoritative word of Allah as dictated by the angel Gabriel to Allah’s messenger Muhammad.

    That may be true for Christian theology, but it is definitely not true for Jewish theology. Judaism insists that the five books of the Torah were transcribed by Moshe exactly as God dictated them to him, word for word and letter for letter. One who supposes that Moshe added even one word of his own is a heretic.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  172. Second, it is well known through the Judeo-Christian scriptures poison can not harm a true prophet.

    Um, no it isn’t.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  173. It’s not safe to assume even that, especially not here in the US. Most Muslims are taught he was a kindly, Santa Claus type.

    That actually is a good thing since it suggests such people don’t realize just how grotesque their religion’s founder truly was and can plead ignorance about why they belong to such a theology. But it also indicates they’d be as clueless as George W Bush was when he stated Islam was a religion of peace and apparently are too lazy — as was the case with the previous president? — to probe the details of why other Muslims believe jihad, in effect, respects the life and times of Mohammed, and why such true believers therefore are rather accurate.

    Mark (f713e4)

  174. 168. …but I agree if one includes the sympathizers/enablers as part of the danger,
    the percentage is large.
    How large, I do not know.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 11/17/2015 @ 5:35 pm

    It depends on how you measure “sympathy.” If you survey on Muslim opinion on what apologists for Islam such as Imam Obama characterize as extremist views such as the death sentence for apostates and adulterers you get into the mid-80% range in places like Pakistan or Saudia Arabia. And that would be death by stoning. Support for the death penalty for apostates and adulterers drops to about the mid-50s. If you leave the Muslim majority country and measure opinion in Western Europe it falls further, but it’s still scary high. In the double digits, sometimes. For instance, 1 in 4 British Muslims support honor killings.

    Or you can try to survey the favorable or unfavorable opinions of Muslims toward specific groups.

    Here’s a number that should concern us all.

    In late 2014 the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies at the Doha Institute in Qatar surveyed public on ISIS in seven Arab countries. Here’s the kicker; they also surveyed Syrian refugees at UN refugee centers in Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. Only in Gaza and the West Bank did Arabs have a higher opinion of ISIS than among Syrian refugees. The people Obama wants to spread across America.

    http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

    On page 22 of the survey:

    Figure 11 Respondents’ answers to the question “In general, do you have a positive or negative view of ISIL?”

    4% of Syrian refugees have an entirely positive opinion of ISIS, another 9% have an opinion that is “positive to some extent.” I don’t think an actual ISIS operative would have agreed to take the survey, but another worrisome 4% refused to answer or had no opinion.

    Overall 11% of Arabs have a positive view of ISIS (either “Positive” or “Positive to some extent”). So Syrian refugees are slightly higher than average to view ISIS positively. Out of every 10,000 refugees 1,300 to 1,700 are already ISIS sympathizers and represent the low-hanging fruit for ISIS or other extremist group recruitment. Then there is another 1,000 per 10,000 who could be persuaded since their view of ISIS is not entirely negative (“Negative to some extent”).

    And we’re going to let in 100,000 refugees a year according to Obama, which is a potential ISIS recruit pool of 13k to as many as 27k per year, not counting ISIS infiltrators who we know will be among the refugees. Tell me again why we’re engaged in this stupidity?

    Steve57 (2c06f8)

  175. According to Petulant Asshat in Chief, Republicans were first too scared that debate moderators would ask them tough questions, and now they are scared of 3 yr old orphans. These are the same people that claim to be able to stare down Putin.

    He is such a douchenozzle. 7 years and he still has not learned a damn thing about being a leader.

    JD (34f761)

  176. ayatollah obama needs a address change to a sand dune in syria.
    I truly hate this sob.

    mg (31009b)

  177. 157. And not just patient, the research is impeccable, the argument parsimonious, the whole very well written. A pleasure to behold.

    DNF (ffe548)

  178. 180, 182. We continue to marvel at the power wielded by Abaddon’s Anointed, whether in the person of Crack Whore, Erdogan, et al., whose art is limited to blatant, arrogant lies, who are false at every turn, comprehensive failures in every endeavor, and yet whose foul intents seem invariably served.

    It’s almost as if we were not warned, repeatedly, that of history there is an end.

    DNF (ffe548)

  179. I still cannot figure out why it has become the duty of the United States to take in “refugees” full of potential terrorists when Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Yemen, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan and Oman take few to none. Why is it these Arab states realize the danger and potential death pact of taking in masses of people at war with the world but our president does not?

    BTW, all this nonsense about America being a country of immigrants has to stop. There was a time when America needed immigrants to grow and expand our land and the continent. That time has passed, we now have 330 million people. If we add any immigrants today they must be the type who bring something of value needed by this country. We are under no obligation to be a country of immigrants for all eternity and for all people of the world forever. BTW, when we were that country of immigrants we did not have welfare programs. When they came, they worked. They did not live off the their neighbors.

    And at the risk of being called a racist and bigot once more I’d like to point out the only people the government (this administration) seems intent on immigrating are black, brown and Arab people. On the surface that does not appear to be an immigration policy but rather a policy for cultural change. For some reason the fact that the US is predominantly Caucasian seems to be viewed as a bad thing.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  180. 178. And furthers my point that the Talmud is far more useful in a study of the Quran than the OT.

    DNF (ffe548)

  181. 179. The point is better made by the Psalm, “He is lifted up on angels wings.”

    DNF (755a85)

  182. 178.

    The Quran isn’t divinely inspired as is scripture in Christian and Jewish theology. It is the divine authoritative word of Allah as dictated by the angel Gabriel to Allah’s messenger Muhammad.

    That may be true for Christian theology, but it is definitely not true for Jewish theology. Judaism insists that the five books of the Torah were transcribed by Moshe exactly as God dictated them to him, word for word and letter for letter. One who supposes that Moshe added even one word of his own is a heretic.
    Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 11:13 pm

    Who are you trying to fool, Milhouse? I said scripture. Nowhere did I limit myself to the first five books.

    179.

    Second, it is well known through the Judeo-Christian scriptures poison can not harm a true prophet.

    Um, no it isn’t.

    Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/17/2015 @ 11:20 pm

    That’s odd. You never heard of the prophet Elisha? That’s probably because your religious instruction is clearly lacking. If you confuse the Pentateuch with Jewish scripture, you’ll never read about him. Or for that matter the prophet Elijah.

    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/111858/jewish/The-Prophet-Elisha-Elijahs-Succesor.htm

    …Elisha picked up the mantle which Elijah had cast off when he went up to heaven. He felt the spirit of Elijah within him, and when he had to cross the Jordan to return home, he waved Elijah’s mantle against the water, and they parted suddenly and made a way for the divine prophet to cross the Jordan on its dry bed.

    In Jericho the band of young prophets saw Elisha make his miraculous crossing of the Jordan alone. They knew Elijah disappeared and they hailed Elisha as their leader and master.

    Soon Elisha was again to prove his divine powers. The people of Jericho came to him to complain of the bad water of the vicinity which caused disease to man and beast, and laid the whole land waste and barren. Elisha was ready to prove G-d’s great kindness in a miraculous way. He requested a new cruse with salt. This he took to the nearest spring and there cast the salt into the water. To the assembled people he proclaimed in G-d’s name that the water would now be cured, and would no longer cause death, nor make the land barren…

    Elisha also purified a poisonous stew so that no one who ate it was harmed. But like I said, you’ll never read about it unless someone steers you to the entire Tanach, Hebrew Bible.

    Why, I know! I’ll help you out.

    http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

    There are three books in the Hebrew Bible. The Pentateuch is the first, the second is Nevi’im or Prophets, and the third is K’tuvim or Scriptures. You can read about Elijah and Elisha in the second book of the Hebrew Bible.

    Now, help me out. Kindly direct me to the part of the Bible where God allowed one of His prophets to be harmed let alone killed by poison like Muhammad.

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  183. Steve57

    Jesus and the apostles spoke of the prophets being stoned and killed in persecution.
    John the Baptist was the greatest of the prophets according to Jesus.
    Jesus was greater than the prophets and we know what happened to him.

    It is true that there are promises that those in service to God will be protected (or at least can be) from poison and snake bites and all manner of things. peter was rescued from captivity by angels, showing God can rescue by supernatural intervention any time He chooses,
    but it is also clear that He does not always so choose

    I will say that you are right (as far as I know) that no true prophet of God was killed by poisoning after murdering someone’s family.

    But the details of the opinion about ISIS of the”refugees” is very helpful, thank you

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  184. “Judaism 101:”

    http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm

    Torah

    Level: Basic

    The word “Torah” is a tricky one, because it can mean different things in different contexts. In its most limited sense, “Torah” refers to the Five Books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. But the word “torah” can also be used to refer to the entire Jewish bible (the body of scripture known to non-Jews as the Old Testament and to Jews as the Tanakh or Written Torah), or in its broadest sense, to the whole body of Jewish law and teachings…

    I’ve actually never run across any Jews who were confused about what I meant when I mentioned Jewish scripture, and somehow came to the astounding conclusion I was must be referring only to the Pentateuch. You’re the first, Milhouse.

    If there’s anything else I can do to help to round out your knowledge of your faith, just let me know.

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  185. Doc @192, you forgot to mention St. Peter and St. Paul. Both of whom were executed by the Romans.

    I never said God protected His prophets from death. Certainly not from martyrdom. But even leaving aside the slaughter of the woman’s family, I’m not aware of God allowing a prophet to eat poison in blissful ignorance of what he was putting into his or her body.

    An analogy would be if John the Baptist set out to prepare the way of the Lord, and on his second day on the job slipped on a rock and drowned in the Jordan.

    Hmm. That would make you wonder, wouldn’t it? Actually I can’t imagine that, if something like that had happened to John the Baptist, we would even know who he was as his story wouldn’t have made it into the Bible. Unless someone wrote an extra volume called “The Book of Failed Prophets.”

    But getting back to the main point, Muhammad’s death is documented in sacred Islamic texts. And Muhammad described his own death exactly as was earlier revealed to him. Should he be a false prophet, that is.

    And the average Muslim on the street has no idea about any of it. Which is good, as we really don’t want Muslims to know too much about what’s in their sacred texts. Because if they do know, then we end up with a Major Nidal Hassan or a Michael Adebolajo to name but two examples. I’ve seen copies of Nidal Hassan’s Power Point presentation in which he cited chapter and verse about why he was going to have to wage Jihad against his fellow soldiers rather than deploy to the sandbox. It was doctrinally correct. Adebolajo’s video testimony after he murdered Drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of London was less scholarly but no less correct. They really were doing what they had to do, per Islam, to avoid condemning their souls to h3ll.

    You’ll get spokesmen for terrorist front groups like Hamas-linked CAIR protesting that they, me, everyone is taking their scripture out of context but that’s just a dodge as the more context you put it in; literal, scriptural, historical, whatever, what at first appears to be a horribly violent commandment just gets worse.

    But then the job of a terrorist front group is lie on behalf of the terrorists.

    Like I said, the less Muslims actually know about their religion the better for everyone.

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  186. Understood.

    Actually, I think there probably a good number of “Muslims” who are lax enough in their practice that if they knew what was in the Koran and associated writings they would be shocked and say, “Enough of this”.
    But I have no way what the percentages would be each way (radicalize vs abandon).

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  187. The less moslems there are the better for everyone. Especially in America.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  188. But I have no way what the percentages would be each way (radicalize vs abandon).

    From what I’ve observed about 99 to 1.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  189. 195. …Actually, I think there probably a good number of “Muslims” who are lax enough in their practice that if they knew what was in the Koran and associated writings they would be shocked and say, “Enough of this”.
    But I have no way what the percentages would be each way (radicalize vs abandon).

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84) — 11/18/2015 @ 11:57 am

    In my limited experience they’ll pick the third choice. Which is to call you an “Islamophobe” and wallow in denial. You can checkmate a Muslim in three moves. First, point out a problematic verse or chapter. Then the Muslim makes the second move and reinterprets the verse because he can’t believe the Quran says what it appears to say. Then you make the third move and do what Hamas-linked CAIR claims to want. Put it in context.

    Show it has been transliterated correctly, show that in context with the surrounding verses it means exactly what he can’t believe it means, put it in historical context, and show that according to Sunnah Muhammad himself declared that the problematic verse means exactly what the Muslim couldn’t believe it meant.

    Now the Muslim has a real problem. I don’t know if you waded through my wall o’text @168 but Allah declares in Surah 4:65 that a Muslim has no faith unless the Muslim accepts Muhammad as judge in all things in willing and complete submission. In fact the Quran declares itself several times to be perfectly clear and to have explained all things in detail. And that Muhammad is not just the judge in all things but the greatest authority on the Quran for all time. After all Muslims have to accept not only that Allah is the one true god but Muhammad is his ultimate prophet.

    So is the Muslim going to claim that Allah can’t be clear, and doesn’t explain all things despite the Quran saying otherwise? Is the Muslim going to claim to know better than Muhammad what the Quran means? That’s blasphemy. So the Muslim could just choke it down and accept the Quran despite the fact it insults his or her intelligence. I.E. radicalize (this is why Boko Haram is in fact mainstream in its theology; non-Islamic a.k.a. Western science really is haram).

    Or they can apostacize. But that means a complete break from their family and friends, and really does put their lives at risk. Because the ahadith and Sharia are very clear.

    http://sunnah.com/abudawud/40

    40 Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)

    (1) Chapter: Ruling on one who apostatizes

    ‘Ikrimah said:
    ‘Ali burned some people who retreated from Islam. When Ibn ‘Abbas was informed of it, he said: If it had been I, I would not have burned them, for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: Do not inflict Allah’s punishment on anyone, but would have had killed them on account of the statement of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). The Apostle said: Kill those who change their religion. When ‘Ali was informed about it he said: How truly Ibn ‘Abbas said!

    Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani) صحيح (الألباني) حكم :
    Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4352
    In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 2
    English translation : Book 39, Hadith 4338

    In fact, to give an example of how dangerous it is, I know former Muslims who left Islam. When someone or some event planted the seeds of doubt they’d ask the acknowledged authority at their Mosque about the conflict they were having. And the scholar would remind them that if they were back in the old country they would probably be killed just for questioning the authority of the Quran, the hadith, and scholarly consensus.

    As I pointed out hopefully successfully @168 Islam does not leave Muslims any wiggle room on what a good Muslim must believe, and deviating from that orthodox belief is the definition of apostasy.

    This is just too big a dilemma for a great many, probably most Muslims. So they’d rather call you names and pretend the dilemma doesn’t exist. It was all some Kuffar trick, and they’ll try to forget that anything ever happened.

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  190. Steve57
    I don’t disagree,
    but I think it depends greatly on how a “Muslim” of the uneducated kind comes about a new knowledge of the Koran and other writings,
    I will not repeat the story here, but I once saw a person refuse to agree to the plain facts because she had dug herself into a deep hole and refused to admit it,
    only when she found a way (she thought anyway) to take credit for her change of mind was she willing to accept the obvious.

    I imagine someone deciding to read the Koran on their own to “see what it really says after all”, or has contact with a former Islamic teacher who has become Christian (like here: http://exodusfromdarkness.org/ ) is more likely to have a wake up call than someone being confronted by the typical Anglo American.

    And I found these interesting, not that Obama cares what the law says, but maybe he will one day push the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back and commit one act of lawlessness too many
    (we can hope, anyway):
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/427262/refugee-religious-test-shameful-and-not-american-except-federal-law-requires-it-andrew
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/obama-federal-law-is-unamerican.php

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  191. FYI, this is about 30 min, how a “nominal cultural Muslim” in Iran grew up to be part of the Islamic revolution, quickly understood that what they had been promised wasn’t so, escaped with his life, and left Islam for believing in Jesus. (I’ve heard him speak in person and met him, I think what you see is pretty real).
    “Islam is incompatible with freedom” is one of his statements.

    http://exodusfromdarkness.org/video-dedicated-muslim-converts-to-christianity.html

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  192. Prisoners on death row in Iran get their sentences commuted, others get time taken off or are freed outright, if they memorize the Koran. People who have memorized it are entitled to the honorary title of hafiz all across Islam, not only in Iran.

    As for Arabic, its knowledge is not required, except for the most basic prayers, but is encouraged. So the believers can read the Koran.

    nk (dbc370)

  193. Doc @199, thanks for the links. I haven’t seen those, but I did know that we do have and have always had a “religious test” for refugees. If refugees are fleeing religious persecution then those adherents of the targeted religion go to the head of the line. We do not put their persecutors on the same moral plane on the persecuted.

    And when I say the persecutors I’m not engaging in hyperbole. If you are at all a sentient being with the slightest awareness of what is happening in European refugee camps, as I know Obama is, then you know that the Muslims are in fact persecuting the few Christians among them. They are threatening them, intimidating them, even beating them. They put an Eritrean man in the hospital, for instance, for daring to wear a wooden cross.

    I’m not talking about a “few bad apples” among the refugees. I am speaking of the Muslim refugees in general as the persecutors of the Christians and other religious minorities. The problem is so widespread, so overwhelming, that the German police union publicly recommends that Christians and other non-Muslim refugees be segregated for their own safety. And the Christians who have gotten out of camps are worried about what will happen to them when the devout Muslims do as well. They are convinced they’ll have to hide their Christianity in public as they did to survive in the refugee camps. As the European charities working with these charities have learned, just because they’re fleeing the M.E. doesn’t mean these Muslims have turned into humanitarians eager to adopt secular Western values.

    And why should they, when they see the cowardly European multiculturalists abandoning those very same values at the slightest nudge, unwilling and indeed unable to defend those values or even think of any reason why anyone should defend them?

    Pace kishnevi, they are not fleeing Sharia. They intend to impose it, and are imposing it in the refugee camps. In fact, when the Muslims are beating up on the Christians in the camps they’re quite open about how the Germans (and other Western countries) may have their laws but then there is Sharia, and the Christians won’t be able to escape it just because they moved to Europe. These Muslims may be fleeing ISIS, but that is not at all the same thing as fleeing Sharia. As I mentioned upthread, determining who does and who doesn’t have radical Islamic sympathies depends on what questions you ask. The most Muslims in Muslim-majority countries, from a simple majority in “moderate” Malaysia and Indonesia to an overwhelming majority in places like Pakistan and the Arab countries, want to live under Sharia.

    If you found the survey showing double digit approval of ISIS among the Syrian refugees interesting, you may find this interesting.

    https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/92-of-saudis-agree-that-islamic-state-conform-to-islam-and-islamic-law-poll/

    Saudi Arabia: 92% approve of ISIS representation of Islam and Sharia law – Poll
    Posted on March 19, 2015 by Admin 2 Comments

    Unfortunately, we only have the original article discussing the poll results (screen caps below) which was published in Al-Hayat news in Saudi Arabia on July 22, 2014…

    That Sunni Muslims are supportive of the Islamic State should come as no surprise to anyone. ISIS represents the core tenents of Islam and the duty each Muslim must do to spread and install Islam around the world…

    I wouldn’t say 92% of Saudis are supportive of ISIS. In fact if you look at the ACRPS opinion poll results I linked to @181 70% of Saudis have an entirely negative opinion of ISIS, and another 15% have an opinion that is “negative to some extent.” That survey was taken within a few months of the one reported in Al Hayat back in 2014.

    Saudis overwhelmingly disapprove of ISIS, but not because they think as Imam Obama and other self-described western experts on true Islam keep claiming, that ISIS is hijacking and distorting the religion of peace. ISIS is not distorting or misrepresenting or misunderstanding Islam at all. Their theology is mainstream, and Saudis recognize that fact. What ISIS will execute people for, the Saudis and Iranians and other strict sharia states will execute people for.

    Their disapproval of ISIS is not over some theological difference. The theological differences from ISIS and mainstream Sunni Islam, and for that matter mainstream Shia Islam, don’t exist. They are figments of Obama’s or Cameron’s or the Pope’s imagination.

    Or these people know better and are deliberately lying.

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  194. Steve, your point was that unlike Jews and Christians, who hold their scriptures to be written by men and merely inspired by God, and therefore to have some wiggle room in dealing with difficult texts, Moslems are bound by the letter of the Koran. I replied that this may be true of Christians but it’s not true of Jews. Jews are required to believe of the Torah (all five books, with the possible exception of the last 8 verses) exactly as Moslems are required to beleive of the Koran; that it is an exact transcription of God’s dictation, right down to the relative sizes of the letters. (Jews are permitted to suppose that over the last 3287 years some minor transcription errors may have found their way into the received text without being caught, but none that would change the meaning of any word.) That this belief doesn’t extend to the other 19 books of the Jewish canon, or to the Oral Law, isn’t relevant. After all, Moslems aren’t required to hold such a belief about the various sunnah, hadith, etc.

    I am perfectly aware of Elisha’s 10 miracles. But they were miracles, not examples of some sort of immunity to poison that comes automatically with prophecy. First of all, Elisha didn’t eat the soup; he detoxified it for others. And he did so only after they had tasted the poison and called for his help. So even if he was immune to poison, this story wouldn’t prove it. And he only got 10 miracles (twice as many as his teacher Eliyahu), so if it had happened again he wouldn’t have been able to do anything. Neither Jewish scriptures, nor AFAIK Christian ones, even hint that prophets are immune to poison, and no such tradition exists among Jews. Prophets can certainly be murdered, and several of them were. Why, then, should anyone suppose that they can’t be murdered by poison?

    In any case, you’ve got the whole poisoned-Mohammed story by the wrong end of the stick. Far from being some shameful story that Moslems are covering up, it’s a myth that Moslems invented to make Mohammed look good. First, the story is very unlikely to be true. What sort of poison would be so strong as to kill a man merely from one bite that he spit out, and yet take 3 years to do it? It’s not really a plausible story. Next, it’s not mentioned by any of the histories that were written closer to his lifetime. It only shows up in later, non-historical works, written at least 150 years after the supposed event. Thus it’s likely to be a later invention. And why would they make up such a story? In order to turn Mohammed into a martyr. Islam adores martyrs, so if Mohammed could be made out to have been one then his repuation would be enhanced. So they made up a connection between his death and some alleged poisoining incident 3 years earlier.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  195. Plus, of course, it gave them a “the Jews killed our Lord” story to match the one the Christians were so fond of at the time.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  196. “the Jews killed our Lord” story to match the one the Christians were so fond of at the time.

    I know what I say or think means nothing to what history has been,
    but that statement is heretical IMO and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the basic tenants of the Christian faith,
    it is the sin of every sinner that ever lived on earth that was the determining factor in the death of Jesus,
    anyone who does not understand that “Jesus had to die for MY sin is at most a very confused Christian, if a Christian at all
    and that would be the standard opinion of those who would consider themselves “evangelical”

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  197. there is somewhat of a parallel with Fanya Kaplan, she was a member of the social revolutionaries who tried to kill Lenin, her background is fleshed out in Vollman’s Europa Central, unwittingly she helped empower the Cheka’s subsequent rise,

    narciso (732bc0)

  198. ditto MD, the Sadduccees and the Pharisees played a role, the sicari did as well, without which the covenant could not be fullfilled,

    narciso (732bc0)

  199. The Jewish elite had a role, the Jewish common folk had a role, and it couldn’t have happened except for the Roman-gentile- governor and the gentile soldiers

    all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, for all Jesus died

    unfortunately it is true that there is a “link” with Islam,
    when political power and rule in the present becomes the priority of those in power it corrupts true faith
    whether a state church is Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, or whatever, they oppress to maintain their temporal power and it is accompanied by heretical thought and heretical behavior

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)

  200. truly, Pontius Pilate, the fouche or hoover of the period, had little scruples, he just didn’t think this particular fellow was a threat,

    having seen Wolf Hall, and read of the Borgia reign, one appreciates where Lord Acton was coming from,

    narciso (732bc0)

  201. Milhouse, stop. Just stop. You embarrassed yourself by conflating my use of the words “Jewish scripture” with the five books of Moses. When every other observant or at least educated Jew on Earth knows that when I refer to Jewish scripture I’m referring to the canon of books that comprise the Jewish Bible or Tanakh.

    Now, I can either go with some guy on the internet named Milhouse. Or I can go with recognized Jewish authorities and Rabbis. I’m going with the latter. To make the cut and be part of the canon in both the Jewish and Christian Bibles means that the relevant religious authorities agree on and acknowledge the divine inspiration of those books. Which is why they are included as part of the body of scripture of those religions.

    There are other Jewish texts, and there are other Christian texts, that provide guidance but they are not scripture. The Sunnah, comprised of the Ahadith (reports of their prophet) and the Sira (the biography of their prophet) provides guidance but is not scripture. Only in Islam is their whole scripture dictated word for word by their god, Allah.

    I realize you just can not and will not acknowledge that fact, Milhouse, but I believe anybody besides yourself will recognize the distinction.

    I am perfectly aware of Elisha’s 10 miracles. But they were miracles, not examples of some sort of immunity to poison that comes automatically with prophecy.

    And this conflicts with anything I said, how? You’re making an Obamaesque attack on a strawman.

    16 “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
    17The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.”
    18He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

    I said that poison couldn’t harm a true prophet. Nowhere did I say or imply that wasn’t a miracle, or some intrinsic power of the man. The power is God’s; the prophet has no such power of his own.

    Muhammad never performed a single miracle, by the way.

    As far as the Ahadith goes, if you’re looking for someone to vouch for the historical accuracy of the ahadith or for that matter the Quran, it’s not going to be me.

    OH NOES! A SHEEP ATE MY QURAN!

    http://sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9

    It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:
    “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.

    1: These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5.

    Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)
    English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944
    Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 2020

    To cut to the chase, there is no evidence that a single hadith is valid. It was all fabricated later. Ibn Ishaq wrote the sira, the biography of Muhammad, 125 years after Muhammad supposedly died, gleaning his information from stories being told about some legendary Muhammad. And ibn Ishaq didn’t actually write a complete biography; a later compiler put it together. And for that matter there is no real evidence the Muhammad described in the sira and the ahadith ever existed.

    The Quran mentions Muhammad five times but this could easily be a title, not a proper name. Muhammad simply means “the praised one” or “the chosen one.” There is no evidence the Quran is referring to any individual in particular.

    In addition, the people conquered by the Arabs never mentioned the Quran, Muhammad, or even the religion that supposedly inspired the conquest Islam.

    Some sources mention mosques, but that is simply a translation of the Arabic word masjid, which means a place of prostration. In other words a house of worship. But they had those in pagan Arabia long before Islam. Like the terms sunnah, hadith, sira, masjid was simply an Arabic word that the Muslims didn’t invent. Some examples.

    http://facingislam.blogspot.com/2014/02/st-sophronius-patriarch-of-jerusalem.html

    In a synodical letter without date, Sophronius gives an extensive list of heretics and asks, in the valedictions, that the following may be granted by God to “our Christ-loving and most gentle emperors”:

    A strong and vigorous sceptre to break the pride of all the barbarians, and especially of the Saracens who, on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral design, with impious and godless audacity. More than ever, therefore, we entreat your Holiness to make urgent petitions to Christ so that he, receiving these favourably from you, may quickly quell their mad insolence and deliver these vile creatures, as before, to be the footstool of our God-given emperors. (Ep. synodica, PG 87, 3197D-3200A [p. 69])

    The following comments are dated to December of 634:

    We, however, because of our innumerable sins and serious misdemeanours, are unable to see these things, and are prevented from entering Bethlehem by way of the road. Unwillingly, indeed, contrary to our wishes, we are required to stay at home, not bound closely by bodily bonds, but bound by fear of the Saracens. (Christmas Sermon, 506 [p. 70])

    At once that of the Philistines, so now the army of the godless Saracens has captured the divine Bethlehem and bars our passage there, threatening slaughter and destruction if we leave this holy city and dare to approach our beloved and sacred Bethlehem. (Christmas Sermon, 507 [p. 70])

    If we were to live as is dear and pleasing to God, we would rejoice over the fall of the Saracen enemy and observe their near ruin and witness their final demise. For their blood-loving blade will enter their hearts, their bow will be broken and their arrows will be fixed in them. (Christmas Sermon, 515 [p. 71])

    … In a work originally composed by John Moschus (d. 619), but expanded by Sophronius (d. ca. 639), actually found only in an addition of the Georgian translation, the following entry appears, concerning a construction dated by tradition at 638, i.e., soon after the capture of Jerusalem ca. 637. It appears in a portion concerning Sophronius as recounted on the authority of his contemporary, the archdeacon Theodore, and may have been written down ca. 670:

    The godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha). (Pratum spirituale, 100-102 [p. 63])

    So, the “godless Saracens” built mosques. But for traditional Arabic pantheistic worship or for Islamic worship?

    A close examination of the evidence indicates that the Arab conquest started before Islam was ever codified. They were still writing and rewriting the Quran, and that’s why they had to come up with various ahadith like the one about a sheep eating the verses (I guess Allah isn’t powerful enough to prevent an ungulate from altering his word). To explain the ongoing revisions.

    Sometime during this process they invented the figure we know as Muhammad as well. They might have based this Muhammad on a historical figure, Muhammad could have been a composite of several historical persons, or just invented out of whole cloth. It’s impossible to say.

    Basically the Arabs were expending all this effort for no higher purpose than create a religious justification for their past conquests, and further conquests. And leading Arab clans who were vying for the throne were trying to write the script to justify their divine right to rule.

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  202. “the Jews killed our Lord” story to match the one the Christians were so fond of at the time.

    At the time? Jeremiah Wright is not alone even today. But that’s not orthodox (or Orthodox) Christianity. Judas, Caiaphas, Annas, Herod, and Pilate are responsible for their sins — not all the Jews, Greeks or “Eytalians with their garlicky noses”. We are responsible for our own sins; there is no inherited or collective guilt. Let it no more be said in Israel [or anywhere else] that the fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge. Or something like that.

    nk (dbc370)

  203. this documentary caught more flack, then the shoddy ‘innocent of moslems’ on BBC.

    http://www.thearabreview.org/tom-hollands-islam-the-untold-story-review/

    narciso (732bc0)

  204. MD, I know that most Christians today believe as you say, which is why I wrote “at the time”. nk, I know that there remain some who hold this view, but I wrote “at the time” because today they are a fringe minority, whereas at the time and for well over 1000 years this was the consensus of almost all Christians.

    Steve, you’re the one embarassing yourself by evading the point. It makes no difference whether the books Jews are required to believe are literally God’s word number 5 or 24, the only important thing is that they exist. Even if they were only one paragraph it would be enough to refute your contention that this is a difference between Moslems on one hand and Jews and Christians on the other. On the contrary, Jews are on the same side as the Moslems in this respect, believing in a text that is literally God’s word, and thus isn’t subject to even the most minute revision. That there exist books that aren’t believed to be literally God’s dictation doesn’t help you, because Moslems have such books too. The point is that Christians have no text that they believe to be dictated rather than inspired, Moslems do, and you thought Jews didn’t; I therefore informed you that Jews do.

    Re Elisha you still either don’t get it or (more likely) are pretending not to get it. You claimed that “it is well known through the Judeo-Christian scriptures poison can not harm a true prophet”. In other words, there is an miracle that happens automatically whenever a prophet ingests poison, that prevents it from harming him (or, alternatively, a miracle prevents him from eating any poisoned food in the first place). The Elisha story does not support such a claim, and there is nothing else in scripture to support it either. Elisha 1) didn’t trigger some automatic miraculous protection, but rather deliberately performed a miracle; 2) hadn’t eaten the soup, so the miracle didn’t protect him at all; 3) only had ten miracles to perform so if he’d been poisoned after he’d used up all ten, or with a fast-acting poison, he’d have died.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  205. By the way, I have no idea why it has recently become fashionable to spell it “Muslims” instead of “Moslems”, I don’t know whether it’s some sort of PC thing or just one of those random fads that happen from time to time, but either way I see no reason to go along with it. Because I could care less, quite a lot in fact.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  206. note how diligent Minitrue is,

    http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151921.pdf

    the Daily Mail must at about a 1,000 demerits now,

    narciso (732bc0)

  207. Keep digging Milhouse. The entire body of scripture in Islam is the literal word of God per Islamic theology. The Jewish body of scripture, the Tanakh, and the Christian body of scripture, the Old and New Testaments, are not the literal word of God.

    So what if many Jews believe the Pentateuch is the literal word of God? Christians believe the portions of the Gospel which directly quote Jesus are the literal word of God. Again, so what? The Jewish and Christian Bibles are open to interpretation while none of the Islamic body of scripture, the Quran, is open to interpretation.

    It is truly a magnificent display of ignorance on your part to continue to claim that any of the Sunnah constitutes scripture. It isn’t scripture. It explains scripture. But the Sunnah is no more scripture than the Tafsir.

    Speaking falsifying reality, one of the things that strikes you when you read the Quran is how many times it points out it’s written in Arabic.

    Sura 42:7 Ash Shuraa (The Consultation)

    And thus We have revealed to you an Arabic Qur’an that you may warn the Mother of Cities [Makkah] and those around it and warn of the Day of Assembly, about which there is no doubt. A party will be in Paradise and a party in the Blaze.

    Sura 43:3 Az Zukhruf (The Ornaments Of Gold)

    Indeed, We have made it an Arabic Qur’an that you might understand.

    It’s weird. It would be like if I made a point to mention once or twice in every comment, “By the way, have you noticed I’m writing in English?”

    I’ve lost count how many times the Quran stops to exclaim in Arabic that the Quran is an
    Arabic text.

    The reason for it is very simple. It wasn’t originally written in Arabic. It was written in Persian. In fact, Islam was originally a Persian religion. And the early Islamic conquests were actually achievements of the Persian empire, the traditional enemy of the Byzantine empire.

    So my explanation of historical events @210 was incomplete, as sometimes happens when you write about complex events off the top of your head.

    As far as it went, this is correct:

    A close examination of the evidence indicates that the Arab conquest started before Islam was ever codified. They were still writing and rewriting the Quran, and that’s why they had to come up with various ahadith like the one about a sheep eating the verses (I guess Allah isn’t powerful enough to prevent an ungulate from altering his word). To explain the ongoing revisions.

    Sometime during this process they invented the figure we know as Muhammad as well. They might have based this Muhammad on a historical figure, Muhammad could have been a composite of several historical persons, or just invented out of whole cloth. It’s impossible to say.

    Basically the Arabs were expending all this effort for no higher purpose than create a religious justification for their past conquests, and further conquests. And leading Arab clans who were vying for the throne were trying to write the script to justify their divine right to rule.

    But on top of that, the Arabs were also coopting and Arabizing earlier Persian conquests and an entirely Persian religion.

    This is a good article on the subject.

    http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/160197/sec_id/160197

    Were the Arab Conquests a Myth?

    …Although Spencer does not go into the question of how that empire came about in the first place, there are very good grounds for believing that it was not originally an Arab creation at all, and that the invention of an Arabian prophet as the spiritual fountain-head of this empire, was motivated by a desire to justify what was essentially the Arab takeover of an imperial machine that was not theirs.

    …To begin with, the astonishing narrative of the Arab conquests, which supposedly saw a few nomads on camels simultaneously attack and conquer the mighty Persian and Byzantine empires, is revealed as a fiction: it was the heavy cavalry of the Sassanian Persians which created the “Islamic” Empire, an empire which appeared quite suddenly in the middle of the seventh century and stretched from Libya to the borders of India. Secondly, the strange modesty of the “Rightly-guided” caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar, and the others, in failing to leave a single coin or artifact bearing their names, is explained by the fact that they did not exist and were invented precisely to disguise the Arab usurpation of the Sassanian Empire. Thirdly, the “Islamic” coins of Chosroes II, a king who died supposedly over ten years before the Islamic conquest of Persia, are no longer a mystery and were minted not by a modest Arabian caliph, but by Chosroes II himself. And finally, the failure of the poet Firdausi to mention either a caliph named Umar or a prophet named Muhammad, is fully explained, and the war described in the Shahnameh during Yazdegerd’s reign was a civil war pitting Islamicized (or Ebionitized) Persians against Arabs.

    Huge numbers of Arab troops and irregular fighters had apparently accompanied the Persians in the march of conquest throughout Syria, Egypt and North Africa. The outcome of the Persian or rather “Islamic” civil war was an Arab coup d’etat: An Arab dynasty, under Mu’awyia (the Ummayads), seized control of the Sassanian proto-Islamic Empire. They were able to do this at least partly because of Yazdegerd’s unpopularity and because a majority of the Persian king’s subjects were already Arabs, or at least Semite-speakers closely related culturally to the Arabs…

    Steve57 (d2c258)

  208. The Gospels contain the literal Word of God. Everything that Christ said is the literal Word of God, Christ being God, including all quotations and references to the Old Testament by Him. So, for example, Christians do not need to argue whether the Ten Commandments brought down by Moses are the literal Word of God because He repeats them in Matthew 19:18-19 and in other places in the Gospels.

    nk (dbc370)

  209. Potty mouth obama needs to be impeached, and if the homegrown republican terrorists can’t figure out a charge to fit his crimes, those republican terrorists need to be hung from a sturdy oak branch with hemp rope. Pronto. Ryan will be a turncoat sob.

    mg (31009b)

  210. Jesus ‘escaped’ the Pharisees and stoning, apprehension, etc. on numerous occasions. The fact that the Anointed had to die on a tree was portended from the beginning, with mankind’s curse, and explicitly from the “Everlasting Covenant of Faith” established with Abraham, who then offered Issac and expiation provided in the ram caught in the thicket.

    That God is sovereign in all things, does not mean that transcendent magic is employed to herald His activity, He is likewise immanent, even Brownian Motion is within His scope, the eddies in brooks as well as galactic start factories. Scale is irrelevant.

    DNF (755a85)

  211. nk, if the Gospels contained the literal word of God they would not quote the same events differently. If they are literally the word of God they would be identical.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  212. I “borrowed” this from the Lonely Conservative because you’ve just got to see it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KSJY0c8QWw&feature=player_embedded

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  213. Many Old Testament passages are the literal word of God, since they are God’s words relayed through the prophets. The prophets were just taking dictation.

    It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
    to restore the tribes of Jacob
    and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
    I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.

    Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will
    make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house
    of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their
    fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to
    bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that
    they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.

    And afterward,
    I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
    Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
    your old men will dream dreams,
    your young men will see visions.
    Even on my servants, both men and women,
    I will pour out my Spirit in those days.
    I will show wonders in the heavens
    and on the earth,
    blood and fire and billows of smoke.
    The sun will be turned to darkness
    and the moon to blood
    before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
    And everyone who calls
    on the name of the Lord will be saved;
    for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem
    there will be deliverance,
    as the Lord has said,
    even among the survivors
    whom the Lord calls.

    Jesus said of the OT scriptures “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me”.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  214. Then there’s this good news about Somalis:

    In first six weeks of FY2016 we resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

    Posted by Ann Corcoran on November 17, 2015

    As I mentioned in my post this morning on governors, while we are going crazy over Syrian Muslims coming into the US, the beat goes on with the resettlement of Somalis which we have been bringing for over two decades (once a resettlement starts it doesn’t end) and dropping them off in your states.

    Top five ‘lucky’ states are Minnesota, Arizona, New York, Ohio and Texas.

    Here is a map showing where the first 827 Somalis have been resettled since October 1 (the beginning of the 2016 fiscal year). Last year the total was around 8,858 (well over 100,000 now) Why? Why are we still bringing in Somalis at this high rate? And, by the way, we are picking up Somalis all over the world and there is no data on them either! Tell me how you vet someone who has “made his way” to Indonesia or Malaysia? Or, to Malta for that matter after launching from Libya?

    Poster boy (here) for Somali resettlement to America?

    map Somalis 2015

    Surprise, there was one Christian in the batch of 827! Search data here.

    ***Update*** November 18th The bill supported by Speaker Paul Ryan, authored by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), and expected to be voted on tomorrow in the House, merely calls for the administration to certify that any refugees brought here from Iraq and Syria are not terrorists. Why are Somalis not included? More Somali former refugees have left the US to fight with al-shabab and ISIS than any other ethnic group.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  215. That does not sound like “dictation” Gerald, it sounds like prophesy. When you start with the dictation stuff you sound like a moslem.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  216. Four human narrators, two of them eyewitnesses and two compiling the accounts of eyewitnesses, with four different perspectives, but nowhere in the Gospels does Christ contradict Himself from Gospel to Gospel.

    There’s a better argument that the Old Testament is Scheherazade-like pillow talk that Mordecai put together for Esther to tell Xerxes, from Mediterranean, Mesopotamian and Zoroastrian myths, in order to persuade him that the Jews were a separate people and not just another Babylonian underclass so he would give them Israel, but I’ll let Gil make that. 😉

    nk (dbc370)

  217. That does not sound like “dictation” Gerald, it sounds like prophesy. When you start with the dictation stuff you sound like a moslem.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27) — 11/19/2015 @ 6:22 am

    What do you think prophesy is?

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  218. Gerald, it is part of our Creed that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, but many people consider that “inspired”.

    nk (dbc370)

  219. There’s a better argument that the Old Testament is Scheherazade-like pillow talk that Mordecai put together for Esther to tell Xerxes, from Mediterranean, Mesopotamian and Zoroastrian myths, in order to persuade him that the Jews were a separate people and not just another Babylonian underclass so he would give them Israel, but I’ll let Gil make that. 😉

    nk (dbc370) — 11/19/2015 @ 6:29 am

    That sounds like some idiocy from the History of Religions school of German theologians although even they didn’t say something quite that bizarre. They were, I believe, the first to propose that parts of the OT such as Genesis were derived from older legends.

    Their primary focus was the New Testament, which they held to be derived from various pagan myths. Based on their brilliant insights, Jesus was actually some updated version of Greek or Persian or whatever mythical figures.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  220. What do you think prophesy is?

    Prophecy: a prediction, forecast or prognostication.

    Dictation: the action of saying words aloud to be typed, written down or recorded.

    Now that you have the definitions you’ll notice prophesy is not dictation. Thanks for playing.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  221. Gerald, it is part of our Creed that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets, but many people consider that “inspired”.

    nk (dbc370) — 11/19/2015 @ 6:50 am

    Yes that is conventional Christian theology, and the prophets had some input into what they were writing, but it is generally believed that they didn’t even understand some of what they were writing, at least entirely. They had to be just relaying God’s words at times.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  222. That sounds like some idiocy

    Yes, yes, it does.

    TIL, there’s a new cult of them that I just found out about who mock religion by calling themselves Pastafarians, claiming to worship the flying spaghetti monster, and going around with colanders on their heads.

    nk (dbc370)

  223. Based on their brilliant insights, Jesus was actually some updated version of Greek or Persian or whatever mythical figures.
    Gerald A (5dca03) — 11/19/2015 @ 7:03 am

    Felipe: (rolls eyes)

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  224. Yes that is conventional Christian theology, and the prophets had some input into what they were writing, but it is generally believed that they didn’t even understand some of what they were writing, at least entirely. They had to be just relaying God’s words at times.
    Gerald A (5dca03) — 11/19/2015 @ 7:08 am

    Because you were there, that’s how you or anyone else could know this? Defies common sense.

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  225. Heh. Nathan was the favorite of our Jesuit chaplain at Loyola, but it was David who got all the press and the big publishing contracts. 😉 St. Elijah is a major Saint in my church; Isaiah is part of some of the services; and Jeremiah is also venerated as a forerunner. I think it’s a matter of emphasis and what specific point we are discussing.

    nk (dbc370)

  226. The more you discuss Christianity the better Pastafarianism looks.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  227. Prophecy: a prediction, forecast or prognostication.

    If you’re consulting the Oracle at Delphi.

    If you’re a Christian, it’s the Holy Spirit speaking through the prophet.

    nk (dbc370)

  228. This site expresses exactly what I’m talking about:

    One of the crucial inspiration texts, 2 Peter 1:21, tells us that all prophecy came about from men who were carried along by the Holy Spirit, rather than the mind of men. This may appear to cover everything, however, this specifically picks out passages that are prophetic in nature, and makes no statements about anything else. And certainly any good student of the Bible will readily admit it would be ignorant to try to argue that everything in the Bible is a prophecy. An example of a prophetic passage that certainly appears to be written down “word for word” (verbal plenary inspiration), as dictated by God, includes the famous Jeremiah 29:11:

    “‘For I know the plans that I have for you,’ declares the LORD, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to give you a future and a hope.”

    These types of passages are very clear (in their origin and authorship, though not always in their interpretation for even this needs to read in context as a prophecy to Israel, not necessary to each individual reader). Even those without much education in exegesis can see this records God speaking and His words are being written down verbatim, or word for word (the way that most people assume the whole Bible is written.) That is made obvious in the text. Though our next question is, what about the verses that don’t have this formula and don’t explicitly say God is speaking? If this passage declares “Here is what God says,” what about passages that don’t make such declarations?

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  229. I think the question of whether things in the Bible are inspired but not dictated verbatim vs word for word quotation is not terribly important, as long as we can be confident it is conveying something God wants us to know.

    Gerald A (5dca03)

  230. i’m all for re-settling the refugees:

    if we can’t find a place for them in the Middle East, might i suggest we consider Atlantis?

    😎

    redc1c4 (b85dab)

  231. Steve, what exactly was the point of this statement of yours?

    The Quran isn’t divinely inspired as is scripture in Christian and Jewish theology. It is the divine authoritative word of Allah as dictated by the angel Gabriel to Allah’s messenger Muhammad. It is an exact copy, perfectly preserved, of the divine Quran that is written on a tablet in heaven along with Allah since before time.

    What point were you making? I took you to mean that, unlike Christians or Jews, Moslems have no flexibility because they’re bound to the exact text of the Koran. I pointed out that Jews are in exactly the same position with regard to the Torah.

    Also, I see that you are hung up on the English word “scripture”. The Sunnah, according to you, is not Moslem “scripture”, but the Nevi’im and Ketuvim (Prophets and Writings, i.e. the 19 non-Torah books of the Jewish Bible) are, and yet are not believed to be exact dictation from God. But what does that mean? I think you may have an exaggerated view of the importance of these books in Judaism. Or not; we may simply be talking at cross purposes. That’s a limitation of the medium we’re using.

    On prophecy v dictation, the Jewish view is clear: Moshe was the only person with whom God spoke “as a man speaks to his friend”, i.e. with clear verbal communication, in Hebrew, while he was fully conscious. And when he came to write the Torah, God dictated it to him word for word and letter for letter. The prophets did not have this experience; rather, God communicated to them in visions. A prophet would go into a trance, have a dream, wake up knowing its exact meaning, and would then relay or transcribe it in his own words. That’s why a highly educated prophet like Isaiah sounds different from a less educated one like Jeremiah. He has a richer vocabulary, better spelling, and more evocative figures of speech.

    The Writings are not even prophecy; some of them were authored by prophets, some were not, but they are all the work of their authors. What makes them special is that the Sanhedrin officially decided that they contained only truth, as opposed to works like Ben Sirah, which the Sanhedrin decided contained both truths and lies, and thus was not worthy of the respect that the entirely true books deserved.

    Prophecy: a prediction, forecast or prognostication.

    That is only one definition. dictionary.com gives several, including “something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation“, or “a message of divine truth revealing God’s will”.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  232. If you’re a Christian, it’s the Holy Spirit speaking through the prophet.

    Then words have different definitions depending upon the religion of the person speaking. I’m going to end this with you now because if you can’t admit something as simple as:

    Prophecy: a prediction, forecast or prognostication.

    Dictation: the action of saying words aloud to be typed, written down or recorded.

    being the textbook definition of the words then you do not have the capacity to admit when you err. Without that ability you also lose the ability to be correct because you don’t know the difference. Continuing from this point would be like telling a leftist there’s a difference between an illegal alien, an immigrant and a refugee. He’s incapable of understanding the difference so the argument is wasted. I don’t need the Oracle to predict that and I’m no profit.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  233. that’s ‘prophet”.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  234. 222. Any one who doubts Gerald’s reading should carefully study the opening chapters of Ezekiel.

    The vision given him overwhelmed his consciousness, the words given him to eat were a scroll written on both sides to exclude ‘interpretation’, his mouth was stopped, rendered mute until a message from the Lord of Hosts be given at which point he involuntarily prophesies. The prophet is a mere witness to the vessel he becomes.

    DNF (755a85)

  235. 243. A savant no less than Abram Heschel is the source I paraphrase, “The Prophets, Book II”, Harper Colophon.

    240. Xian Commentary and Theology makes copious use of Jewish sources particularly regarding idiom, custom, history, etc., but almost never as authoritative on matters large or small. The lamp has departed Judah.

    DNF (755a85)

  236. The lamp has departed Judah.

    Garbage. “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a human that he should change His mind.” “For God will not throw off His people, for the sake of His great Name, for God has decided to make you His people.”

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  237. Heschel is not an authority; Maimonides is.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  238. 245. Typical non sequitur, that “The Lord your God is with you wherever you go” is not to say you know Him.

    Rather, it is He that knows you.

    DNF (ffe548)

  239. Hoagie, re “commandments”, there are not ten, but 613, and the 10 written on the tablets are no more authoritative than the other 603.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  240. DNF, God has already said that “The Torah which Moshe commanded us is the inheritance of Yaacov’s community”, so how can it have left? What other source of Divine information can there be, since “No prophet ever arose like Moshe, whom God knew face to face”? God does not change His mind, so whatever He said once is eternal truth.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  241. Milhouse, there you go again playing word games.

    You constantly attempt to change the subject to distract from the fact you are wrong. I see you would rather pretend I was talking about prophecy rather than scripture. The process of canonization can be summed up quite simply. Those books that make up the Hebrew canon (as with the Christian Canon) are divine. By scripture I mean in general writings that are from God, whether dictated by God or inspired by God. Divine revelation. They are all equally holy. That’s why they are in the Hebrew Bible.

    When Jewish authorities determined the canon of the Hebrew Bible, the books that were included were included because they were divinely inspired. The “outside books” are not holy, not divine, not from God. And that’s not my opinion. Again that’s what Jewish authorities say on the subject.

    Turning to Islam, only the Quran is from Allah. No Muslims ever claim that any part of the Sunnah (or the Shia equivalent) is from Allah. In fact Islam itself precludes it. Muhammad, they claim, was the “seal of the prophets.” His was the final revelation. So everything that was written after him is an entirely human creation. So the Ahadith are attributed to the narrators, and the sirah to Muhammad’s biographers. They vary in their reliability, and in fact can be altered by human agents if their “Islamic science” leads to evidence that increases or decreases a particular text’s reliability (this is why Da’if, or unreliable or questionable hadiths are included in the collection; new evidence could change their status). But none are considered divinely inspired because to claim divine inspiration after Muhammad is blasphemy.

    Which is why the only actual peaceful sect of Islam, the Ahmadis, are considered heretics and therefore non-Muslims. Their founder claimed divine inspiration.

    Capisce? Jewish authorities say that the Hebrew Bible is the body of scripture of the Jews because they are holy, from God. The “outside books” are called that because they are not scripture; not from God. Islamic authorities say that the Quran is the body of scripture of the Muslims because it is from Allah. The Sunnah and its Shia equivalent are not scripture because Allah had nothing, zip, zero, nada to do with their creation.

    I’m just going to keep this up so you can continue to embarrass yourself.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  242. * When Jewish authorities determined the canon of the Hebrew Bible, the books that were included were included because they were divinely inspired.

    Directly revealed to Moses or divinely inspired in the case of the other prophets.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  243. Had this forwarded to me by a friend with a cousin in Ireland…

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/islamic-state-has-a-plan-and-that-plan-is-working-1.2432231#.Vko7KV6LDBE.email

    Colonel Haiku (ede614)

  244. I know Milhouse, I saw the movie The Six Hundred And Thirteen Commandments, by Cecil B DeMille. Sometimes engaging with you is akin to Edward Scissorhands jackin’ off.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  245. Hoagie, it’s no surprise that you get your information from movies. It’s no surprise that Hollywood ot it wrong again. The number of commandments is 613, not 10, and claiming otherwise just exposes your ignorance.

    Steve, once again, what poing were you making with the quoted paragraph? Please explain that, and how the Jewish belief about the divine dictation of the Torah does not invalidate it.

    When Jewish authorities determined the canon of the Hebrew Bible, the books that were included were included because they were divinely inspired. The “outside books” are not holy, not divine, not from God.

    As far as I know that is not true. How could they have known which non-prophetic books were from God and which weren’t? They couldn’t have had a revelation, because by that time those didn’t happen any more. No, they determined which non-prophetic books to include and which to exclude by examining them to see whether everything they said was true. If they found falsehood or foolishness in a book, they excluded it. In fact they nearly excluded Ezekiel, despite his having been a prophet, because they couldn’t explain some passages in it, and so supposed those parts must have been non-prophetic.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  246. there are none so blind
    as those who pontificate
    from a Mound of Dung

    Colonel Haiku (ede614)

  247. I’m not sure what the intended significance of this discussion is,
    Though I am guessing it has to do with the idea that because Muslims believe the Koran is directly dictated from God,
    There is no possibility of interpretation of the Koran in a way different from what the scholars have claimed,
    Hence no possibility of a “Reformation” in Islam “like there was in Christianity”,
    At least I have seen that claimed before.

    If that is not the background of this discussion then you can ignore me (of course, you can ignore me anyway).

    I don’t agree with that framing of the issue at all.
    The Reformation was not about a new understanding/application of an old text,
    But about returning to the original meaning that had been corrupted.
    In that perspective a “Reformation” in Islam means even greater acceptance of Islam as a belief that applauds violent conquest,
    At least that is how it seems to me

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  248. 254. When Jewish authorities determined the canon of the Hebrew Bible, the books that were included were included because they were divinely inspired. The “outside books” are not holy, not divine, not from God.

    As far as I know that is not true.

    Milhouse (8489b1) — 11/19/2015 @ 11:52 am

    I know you don’t know. That’s why I’m assisting you with your serious gaps in religious instruction.

    Some guy on the internet named Milhouse keeps spouting off on what he admits he doesn’t know about Judaism and what constitutes its body of scripture, what does not, and why. Thus infecting a discussion of Islam with his ignorance. Why don’t you study up, Milhouse?

    Hopefully Emil G. Hirsch, Ph.D., LL.D., Rabbi, Sinai Congregation; Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy, University of Chicago; Chicago, Ill., Ludwig Blau, Ph.D., Professor, Jewish Theological Seminary; Editor of “Magyar Zsidó Szemle”; Budapest, Hungary., Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth-El, New York; President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio., Nathaniel Schmidt, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. can penetrate your thick skull and knock some sense into you:

    http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3259-bible-canon

    Designations.

    The oldest and most frequent designation for the whole collection of Biblical writings is , “Books.” This word, which in Dan. ix. 2 means all the sacred writings, occurs frequently in the Mishnah, as well as in traditional literature, without closer definition. The expression (“Holy Books”) belongs to later authors. It is employed first by the medieval exegetes; for instance, Ibn Ezra, introduction to “Yesod Morah” and “M’ozne Lashon ha-Ḳodesh”; see also Neubauer, “Book of Tobit,” 43b, Oxford, 1878; Grätz, “Gesch. der Juden,” 3d ed., vii. 384; Margoliouth, “Cat. Hebr. and Samaritan MSS. Brit Mus.,” Nos. 181, 193; and elsewhere infrequently, but never in Talmud or Midrash. This fact goes to show that the ancients regarded the whole mass of the national religious writings as equally holy. The Greek translation of the term is τὰ βιβλία, which (as maybe seen from the expressions καὶ τὰ λΟιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων and καὶ τῶν ἄλλων πατρίων βιβλίων) is used by the grandson of Sirach in the introduction to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) to designate the whole of the Scriptures.

    “Outside” Books.

    The canonical books, therefore, needed no special designation, since originally all were holy. A new term had to be coined for the new idea of non-holy books. The latter were accordingly called (“outside” or “extraneous books”); that is, books not included in the established collection (Mishnah Sanh. x. 1)—a distinction analogous to that afterward made, with reference to the oral law itself, between “Mishnah” and “Outside-Mishnah” ( and , or its Aramaic equivalent , “Baraita”).

    Now run along, Milhouse, and try to get your mind around the fact that scripture includes only text that is holy; sacred. As in, divine in origin in some way. Truth has nothing to do with it, because important texts may still be true but if they are not divine in origin they are not sacred, and therefore not scripture.

    You can keep interfering if you like; apparently you have no shame about parading your ignorance.

    Apparently you have difficulty with distinguishing “all” from “not all.” Jews consider all their scripture to be divine in origin, as do Christians regard their scripture, and Muslims theirs.

    But not all Jewish scripture is the direct, verbatim word of God. Just the first book of the Hebrew Bible. Not all Christian scripture is the direct, verbatim word of God. Just when the Gospels quote Jesus. On the other hand Muslims believe ALL their scripture is the direct, verbatim word of God.

    This gives a different character to the religions. It makes Islam unique.

    Do try to deal with reality, Milhouse.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  249. This is one of those “unstoppable force meets immovable object” things, I can tell.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  250. 195. I’m not sure what the intended significance of this discussion is…
    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84) — 11/19/2015 @ 12:19 pm

    Earlier @195 you wondered what percentage of the lax Muslims who don’t really know what their Quran and associated texts actually say would, when confronted with the facts, radicalize and what percentage would apostacize.

    In the course of noting that there was a third option, just check out and live in denial pretending that no such confrontation with the facts ever happened, I mentioned that such a confrontation would present a Muslim with some overwhelming dilemmas.

    @200 you mentioned that Islam is incompatible with freedom. I agree, and subsequently expanded on my earlier point about the unique dilemmas a confrontation with the facts will cause a Muslim.

    Muslims are taught to believe that the Quran is a word-for-word copy of the “mother of the book,” the Quran written on a tablet in paradise that has existed since before creation. They believe it has been perfectly preserved since the angel Gabriel dictated it to Muhammad, and that very preservation is a miracle.

    In contrast to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures which have been corrupted.

    But when you actually turn to their own sources none of that is true. The Quran hasn’t been perfectly preserved. The ahadith testify to that fact, which is why I mentioned the hadith about a sheep eating the verses of suckling and stoning @210. So on the one hand we have Allah proclaiming in the Quran that “none can alter his words.” Which is good theology if you’re a monotheist who believes in an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent God of creation. An all powerful God could easily ensure that nothing could alter His words.

    Except a wandering sheep?

    In fact, the ahadith are full of stories of parts of the Quran being lost. In fact the official reason the third Caliph Uthman compiled an official version of the Quran was that the Muslims put distinguished reciters of the Quran in the van at the Battle of Al Yamama. The reasoning being that Allah would protect them.

    Again, sound theology. None can alter my word sez Allah. Except the majority of those reciters were killed, taking large portions of the Quran that only they knew with them.

    So, the story goes, Uthman decided to compile an official version of the Quran and he distributed it throughout the empire. And then he ordered everyone to burn their personal copies. Which supposedly caused a great deal of strife, as some refused to do so.

    The bottom line is that while Muslims are required to believe the Quran has been perfectly preserved, their own sources tell them it hasn’t. So they are required to believe something to be true, as I mentioned @168 when I quoted the Reliance of the Traveler failing to believe something essential per the consensus of the Muslims is death sentence as that constitutes apostasy, yet the ahadith say what the must believe is true is not true. But they must believe it anyway.

    If this were a spoof of a 007 movie this would be the part where the sexbots heads explode.

    None of what they must believe is true to be Muslim is true per the authoritative Muslim sources.

    @216 I cited an article about the most likely reason why that’s the case. The Arab conquests preceded Islam, and indeed the Arabs coopted both Islam and the conquests from the Persians, and the new Arab rulers kept revising and revising the texts to meet their political needs. They did a sloppy job. On the one hand to explain the constant revisions they invented ahadith to make it appear that losing, forgetting, and altering the Quran (abrogation) was always part of Allah’s plan.

    On the other hand they advanced the conflicting doctrine that the Quran is the perfectly preserved, unaltered word of Allah.

    It can’t be both. Islam demands Muslims believe two entirely opposite things at one time. At a certain point it seems these people writing and rewriting the Quran just threw up their hands and said to h3ll with it. Which causes Muslims a great, head exploding dilemma when they are confronted with the facts. The Islamic solution? “Shut up or we’ll kill you.” A Muslim is someone who submits, not someone who thinks.

    Anyway, that’s where I was trying to go with it until Milhouse waded in. Islam is a cognitively dissonant ideology that nonetheless demands rigid, unquestioning obedience.

    It is unique, and most definitely incompatible with freedom of any sort.

    I was reading today how the goal of the founders was to free the mind of all forms of tyranny. Islam is the worst form of tyranny over the mind. Although given what is happening on our college campuses liberals may give the Muslims a close race.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  251. Hopefully Emil G. Hirsch, Ph.D., LL.D., Rabbi, Sinai Congregation; Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy, University of Chicago; Chicago, Ill., Ludwig Blau, Ph.D., Professor, Jewish Theological Seminary; Editor of “Magyar Zsidó Szemle”; Budapest, Hungary., Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth-El, New York; President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio., Nathaniel Schmidt, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. can penetrate your thick skull and knock some sense into you:

    No, none of those authorities impress me. The first three were Jewish heretics; Schmidt was a Baptist. Ironically, he’s probably the only one of the four who actually believed that the Bible is true. However, on closer examination what you quote from them supports my case and not yours. As they say, no pre-medieval source characterises these 24 books as “holy”.

    Now run along, Milhouse, and try to get your mind around the fact that scripture includes only text that is holy; sacred. As in, divine in origin in some way. Truth has nothing to do with it, because important texts may still be true but if they are not divine in origin they are not sacred, and therefore not scripture.

    Wrong. That “as in” is your own interpolation, not in the source quoted.

    Seriously, you are using tertiary source that you don’t understand to debate someone who is familiar with the primary sources your sources are using. You misunderstand the entire nature of the Jewish “canon”. The only contexts in which the Talmud refers to the distinction between those books and any others are that 1) special provisions were made to ensure that those books were not stored with food that would attract mice; 2) those books may be saved from a fire on the Sabbath; 3) other books should not be read, because not everything they say is true. None of this has to do with “divine origin”. The Oral Torah is also of divine origin; it was given at Sinai together with the written Torah. But it wasn’t supposed to be written down, so it didn’t need protection from mice or fire. (That parts of it were eventually reduced to writing was a concession to necessity, since people could no longer memorise it all.)

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  252. Hopefully Emil G. Hirsch, Ph.D., LL.D., Rabbi, Sinai Congregation; Professor of Rabbinical Literature and Philosophy, University of Chicago; Chicago, Ill., Ludwig Blau, Ph.D., Professor, Jewish Theological Seminary; Editor of “Magyar Zsidó Szemle”; Budapest, Hungary., Kaufmann Kohler, Ph.D., Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth-El, New York; President of the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio., Nathaniel Schmidt, Ph.D., Professor of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. can penetrate your thick skull and knock some sense into you:

    No, none of those authorities impress me. The first three were Jewish heretics; Schmidt was a Baptist. Ironically, he’s probably the only one of the four who actually believed that the Bible is true. However, on closer examination what you quote from them supports my case and not yours. As they say, no pre-medieval source characterises these 24 books as “holy”.

    Now run along, Milhouse, and try to get your mind around the fact that scripture includes only text that is holy; sacred. As in, divine in origin in some way. Truth has nothing to do with it, because important texts may still be true but if they are not divine in origin they are not sacred, and therefore not scripture.

    Wrong. That “as in” is your own interpolation, not in the source quoted.

    Seriously, you are using tertiary source that you don’t understand to debate someone who is familiar with the primary sources your sources are using. You misunderstand the entire nature of the Jewish “canon”. The only contexts in which the Talmud refers to the distinction between those books and any others are that 1) special provisions were made to ensure that those books were not stored with food that would attract mice; 2) those books may be saved from a fire on the Sabbath; 3) other books should not be read, because not everything they say is true. None of this has to do with “divine origin”. The Oral Torah is also of divine origin; it was given at Sinai together with the written Torah. But it wasn’t supposed to be written down, so it didn’t need protection from mice or fire. (That parts of it were eventually reduced to writing was a concession to necessity, since people could no longer memorise it all.)

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  253. @200 you mentioned that Islam is incompatible with freedom. I agree, and subsequently expanded on my earlier point about the unique dilemmas a confrontation with the facts will cause a Muslim. […] The bottom line is that while Muslims are required to believe the Quran has been perfectly preserved, their own sources tell them it hasn’t. So they are required to believe something to be true, as I mentioned @168 when I quoted the Reliance of the Traveler failing to believe something essential per the consensus of the Muslims is death sentence as that constitutes apostasy, yet the ahadith say what the must believe is true is not true. But they must believe it anyway. […] Islam demands Muslims believe two entirely opposite things at one time. At a certain point it seems these people writing and rewriting the Quran just threw up their hands and said to h3ll with it. Which causes Muslims a great, head exploding dilemma when they are confronted with the facts. The Islamic solution? “Shut up or we’ll kill you.” A Muslim is someone who submits, not someone who thinks.

    OK, now I see what your point was. The key part is not that Moslems are required to believe that the Koran is literally a transcript of God’s words, but that they’re required to believe that it’s been perfectly preserved, when their own sources say it hasn’t.

    Question: are they required to beleive that it’s not only perfectly preserved but also complete? Because if they aren’t then that would resolve the conflict. They could believe that the original Koran was entirely God’s dictation, and that the portions that have survived are perfect excerpts of that manuscript, but that there was more to the original Koran that has been lost.

    In any case, I intervened to point out that Jews have almost exactly the same belief about the Torah, and that if there were clear evidence that the version that has come down to us is corrupt it would present the same dilemma. Jews must believe that the original Torah was God’s dictation, and that while it’s possible that some copyists’ errors may have crept into it over the last 3287 years, they can only be insignificant spelling variations that don’t affect the meaning of any word. Thankfully there’s no internal evidence otherwise, but the academic documentary hypothesis challenges this whole view, and it’s pretty much impossible to accept that and not abandon the faith.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  254. 256. …In that perspective a “Reformation” in Islam means even greater acceptance of Islam as a belief that applauds violent conquest,
    At least that is how it seems to me

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84) — 11/19/2015 @ 12:19 pm

    Indeed. Among its other problematic qualities Islam must be understood as a polemic against atheists, polytheists, and most viciously against Jews and Christians.

    I mentioned earlier that Muslims must believe that the Quran has been perfectly preserved, while the Torah and the Injil, or Gospel, has been corrupted.

    In fact the Quran attests to the divine inspiration, preservation, and authority of both the Torah and the Gospel. Allah tells Muhammad that if he has any doubts about his prophethood to go check with “the people who have been reading the book before you,” meaning the Jews and the Christians. There is a Surah that tells Christians that they have no ground to stand upon and are no better than rebels if they do not judge the truth of Muhammad’s revelation against the Gospel. There is an almost identical admonition addressed to the Jews. Allah tells Muhammad that Torah and the Bible foretold of his coming.

    Apparently someone was confused about what’s in the Torah and the Gospels. Apparently someone figured that the Jews and the Christians would come over to the side of the Muslims if Islam was presented as the fulfillment of their scripture.

    So basically Allah tells Muhammad Jewish and Christian prophets foretold of his prophethood. So the Muslims approached the Jews and the Christians and basically said, “Join up with us, we’re you brothers. Our prophet is in your books.” And the Jews and the Christians said, “No he’s not. What are you talking about?”

    So, again, the Muslims were in a dilemma. The Quran proclaims that the Torah and the Gospel verify everything it says. But they don’t. So the Muslims said, “You must have changed your books.”

    Aside; I heard one Muslim lady just go off on a tirade against the Jews, because she was convince the Jews edited the Torah just to spite Muhammad.

    So the flip things around and believe that the Quran is the measure of the truth of the Torah and the Gospel. Even though the Quran says the opposite. It says the Quran must be judged against the Torah and the Gospel.

    This by the way isn’t a point that requires any religious faith to make. If I claimed to be a prophet and the proof that I am a prophet is that Ernest Hemingway mentioned me by name in For Whom The Bell Tolls, anybody can go see if that’s true. You don’t have to have any sort of religious convictions about Ernest Hemingway. And if I’m not in the book I say talks about me, and that was supposed to be the proof of my prophethood, then I’ve pretty much failed selling the idea.

    The official Islamic reaction was to get royally pissed off at the Christians and the Jews. Hence the genocide that continues to this day. They’ll never forgive the Christians and the Jews for the Quran being wrong on all counts regarding their scriptures.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  255. If the point was that the writings of Islam were self-contradictory, then why bring in what Jews and Christians believe at all?

    I think the orthodox view is that all Scripture is inspired by God and has been done in such a way that the human agent did not corrupt what God wanted to communicate.

    I don’t think any of the NT books were written by a human taking audible dictation, (I guess maybe so with parts of Revelation)
    But the authority I give it is just the same as if it was.

    I would think that we believe that God has provided a way that the Scriptures were preserved, but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t individual copies that contained mistakes over the centuries.

    Maybe I am still missing something.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  256. yes, that is a fair assumption md, inspiration not dictation, whereas with Islam, it is literally the word of Allah,

    narciso (732bc0)

  257. Well, I still don’t get the significance
    I expect the inspired message from God to be as inerrant and perfect as if it was dictated.
    And, no matter how perfect it is, apart from the agency of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the human mind, to some degree it doesn’t matter.
    Having memorized the entire Greek NT and ten English versions is not automatically of any benefit.
    The devil and demons know it and it does them no good.

    Just like reciting a beautiful love poem, if there is indeed no love, what does it profit?

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84)

  258. Certainly, James 2:19, applies, the interesting thing is how diligent they are to keep anyone from the Word, which has shaped society for 2,000 years,

    narciso (732bc0)

  259. If the point was that the writings of Islam were self-contradictory, then why bring in what Jews and Christians believe at all?

    Exactly.

    I think the orthodox view is that all Scripture is inspired by God and has been done in such a way that the human agent did not corrupt what God wanted to communicate.

    That may well be the orthodox Christian view. My purpose was to explain that it isn’t the orthodox Jewish view, with regard to the Torah.

    As for the non-prophetic writings, I’m not aware of any authentic Jewish authority that says they were inspired in a greater way than the Mishna, the Talmud, or the medieval commentaries and legal codes. All of those are supposed to have been written in the “spirit of holiness”, but they reflect the opinions of their various authors, who disagreed with each other all the time. This “spirit of holiness” guided them not to write anything that was outright false or foolish, but within the broad spectrum of the “70 facets” of truth they were free to write whatever they liked. At least that’s my understanding, and it’ll take an authentic authority — one of those written in that “spirit of holiness” — to convince me otherwise.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  260. If the point was that the writings of Islam were self-contradictory, then why bring in what Jews and Christians believe at all?

    …Maybe I am still missing something.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly, and out and about) (deca84) — 11/19/2015 @ 4:50 pm

    I was contrasting the Judeo-Christian tradition to the Islamic tradition for in order to show just how very different they are. For instance, the Catholic Church wrongly gets accused of being anti-science because of how it treated Galileo. People who know nothing about actual events think the Church tortured Galileo over Copernicus’ theory that the earth revolved around the sun because church dogma dictated that everything revolved around the earth.

    That is entirely false. A letter from Cardinal Bellarmine, the Church’s chief theologian, the prelate responsible for enforcing doctrinal orthodoxy, discussing Galileo with one of Galileo’s collaborators decades before the trial:

    http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/letterbellarmine.html

    …Second, I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent forbids the interpretation of the Scriptures in a way contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. Now if your Reverence will read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the Sun is in the heavens and revolves round the Earth with immense speed and that the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then in your prudence, whether the Church can support that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek….

    Third, I say that, if there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me. To demonstrate that the appearances are saved by assuming the sun at the centre and the earth in the heavens is not the same thing as to demonstrate that in fact the sun is in the centre and the earth is in the heavens. I believe that the first demonstration may exist, but I have very grave doubts about the second; and in case of doubt one may not abandon the Holy Scriptures as expounded by the holy Fathers…

    Even then the Catholic Church would not teach something that was demonstrably false. If there was proof (and Galileo did not have any) that the earth revolved around the sun then the Church’s position was they didn’t have a proper understanding of the scripture and they’d have to reinterpret it. They wouldn’t silence the scientist and hide the evidence.

    Islam provides no such option. Let’s look at a dilemma that similarly deals with astronomical phenomena.

    Quran 18:83-86 Al-Kahf (The Cave)

    And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about Dhul-Qarnayn. Say, “I will recite to you about him a report.” Indeed We established him upon the earth, and We gave him to everything a way. So he followed a way. Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it [as if] setting in a spring of dark mud, and he found near it a people. Allah said, “O Dhul-Qarnayn, either you punish [them] or else adopt among them [a way of] goodness.”

    Dhuyl-Qarnayn is generally believed to refer to Alexander the Great, but that’s neither here nor their. The point is according to Quran it sets in a spring of water. The words “as if” appears in brackets because the transliterator is embarrassed by that fact and added the text. The brackets indicate that text isn’t part of the original. But in the original Arabic it’s quite clear that it sets in a pool or spring of muddy water.

    I could have used a different transliteration that doesn’t use the brackets but I wanted to make a point. Muslim apologists typically do as this transliterator did and claim it only appeared to do so. Apparently Alexander the Great had never seen a sunset before and was fooled by the illusion. But here’s the problem for Muslims. Muhammad won’t let them do that.

    http://sunnah.com/abudawud/32

    Narrated Abu Dharr:
    I was sitting behind the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who was riding a donkey while the sun was setting. He asked: Do you know where this sets ? I replied: Allah and his Apostle know best. He said: It sets in a spring of warm water (Hamiyah).

    Grade : Sahih in chain (Al-Albani) صحيح الإسناد (الألباني) حكم :
    Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4002
    In-book reference : Book 32, Hadith 34
    English translation : Book 31, Hadith 3991

    There’s no ambiguity here. No brackets. This is the kind of dilemma I was referring to @198:

    …Now the Muslim has a real problem. I don’t know if you waded through my wall o’text @168 but Allah declares in Surah 4:65 that a Muslim has no faith unless the Muslim accepts Muhammad as judge in all things in willing and complete submission. In fact the Quran declares itself several times to be perfectly clear and to have explained all things in detail. And that Muhammad is not just the judge in all things but the greatest authority on the Quran for all time. After all Muslims have to accept not only that Allah is the one true god but Muhammad is his ultimate prophet.

    So is the Muslim going to claim that Allah can’t be clear, and doesn’t explain all things despite the Quran saying otherwise? Is the Muslim going to claim to know better than Muhammad what the Quran means? …

    Seriously, at this point sticking with Kuffar science and insisting the sun does not actually set in a muddy spring somewhere on earth is the kind of thing that will get you flogged in Saudi Arabia for insulting Islam and the prophet. At the very least; you can get worse if you don’t repent of believing in western science over the clear words of Allah and his prophet.

    Like ISIS, Boko Haram isn’t out of the mainstream of Islamic theology. Non-Islamic learning really is haram or forbidden in the Islamic world. Which is why no Muslim scientist has ever gotten a Nobel prize in the hard sciences while working in a Muslim majority country.

    One, arguably two Muslims have been awarded Nobel prizes, one in chemistry and the other in vphysics. But they had to do their work in Europe and the US; it would have been impossible in the countries of their birth. The physicist, a Pakistani and an Ahmadi Muslim had to flee for Europe for his life when his sect was outlawed as heretical. The main reason was because the founder of his sect claimed divine revelation after Muhammad. But one of he ancillary reasons was because his sect recognized the validity of western science.

    Observing that Islam has contradictions so great that it implodes because they can’t be resolved will also get you killed.

    Islam has a character all its own, and its not good. For something as tiny as this, simply following the evidence whether scientific or scriptural, Muslims sometimes risk death as apostates at the hands of their coreligionists.

    I don’t think most people can grasp just how different Islam is, which is why I contrast it to Judaism and Christianity.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  261. Milhouse, you’re amazing, and not in a good way.

    Are you proud of the fact you have no clue why certain books are in the Tanakh and others aren’t?

    In any case you’re just some guy on the internet, hardly someone to listen to when it comes to accepting or dismissing Jewish authorities as authentic or inauthentic.

    The canon is widely attributed to Rabbi Yochanon ben Zakkai in the late 1st century AD after he escaped the Roman army’s siege of Jerusalem. He convened a council of rabbis who agreed on which books were divinely inspired, and therefore included in the Tanakh.

    Nobody knows how they determined this. There are only fragments of written records of their debates. There is some evidence they inherited so to speak a much earlier list of books considered canonical and simply formally adopted it with perhaps minor revisions. But nobody except you is mystified about what essential quality determined which books would be included in the Tanakh. The rest of the world’s Jewry doesn’t share your confusion about the divine origins of those books. A quality the outside books don’t share. Which is why they’re outside.

    Good luck with your struggle against this reality.

    Steve57 (f3592f)

  262. Are you proud of the fact you have no clue why certain books are in the Tanakh and others aren’t?

    I’ve already told you I do know. Every book that was determined to be entirely true was included. Those that contained some false or foolish things were not. That was it.

    In any case you’re just some guy on the internet, hardly someone to listen to when it comes to accepting or dismissing Jewish authorities as authentic or inauthentic.

    So far the only “authorities” you’ve quoted were not only heretics or Christians, but also agreed with me and not with you.

    He convened a council of rabbis who agreed on which books were divinely inspired, and therefore included in the Tanakh.

    Says who? I am calling you on this, because you have no source for it.

    Nobody knows how they determined this.

    Garbage. We definitely do know why they excluded Ben Sira, and why they amost excluded Ezekiel. In both cases it was because they contained at least one statement that was believed to be false. In Ezekiel’s case, Chanania ben Chizkiya ben Garon resolved the difficulty, and made the case for its inclusion.

    But nobody except you is mystified about what essential quality determined which books would be included in the Tanakh. The rest of the world’s Jewry doesn’t share your confusion about the divine origins of those books.

    And you know this how?

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  263. Forget it, Milhouse. You have only studied and practiced Judaism your whole life, but Steve has you beat. He has read as many as three books.

    And please don’t make poor Hoagie take off his shoes to count the Commandments.

    nk (dbc370)

  264. 246. Pardon, but I did not imply Heschel was an authority in any absolute sense, rather a Jew worth reading on the subject of our common God, the One regarding whom you are completely clueless.

    DNF (ffe548)

  265. 246, Cont. I am aware that certain Rabbis are held in such esteem that their arguments have taken on the authority of the Word.

    Aristotelean is the form of argument I would characterize the above passage on the nature of the Prophet. Evidence from scripture does not appear to induce this understanding but rather attends to a substantive qualification: The Prophet is so because of something he is and does.

    The Xian believes instead that it is God who establishes His prophet.

    Tradition for the Jew stands alongside the Word as an equal authority, a very Catholic disposition.

    DNF (755a85)

  266. 246, Cont. From the wiki:

    Prophecy[edit]
    He agrees with “the Philosopher” (Aristotle) in teaching that the use of logic is the “right” way of thinking. In order to build an inner understanding of how to know God, every human being must, by study, meditation and uncompromising strong will, attain the degree of complete logical, spiritual and physical perfection required in the prophetic state. Here he rejects previous ideas (especially portrayed by Rabbi Yehuda Halevi in “Hakuzari”) that in order to become a prophet, God must intervene. Maimonides claims that any man has the potential to become a prophet (not just Jews) and that in fact it is the purpose of the human race.

    My point will be that the Aristotelean primitive assumption that an instantiation of a prophet devolves as an imperfect actualization of the ideal, Prophet, is an invalid line of argument. The epistemology is hopelessly flawed which can further be derived from first principles in any source of study, particularly biblical, but also notably the scientific.

    DNF (ffe548)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7997 secs.