Jul 4, 2012 -- 7:05PM, fodaoson wrote:

The nation of Islam is to Islam  what the Aryan church is to Christianity. 

Very true - NOI are ***NOT*** actual Muslims, not at all!!!!

Jul 4, 2012 -- 9:11AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Firstly that is not true.  Just as there are Christianist in the U.S.  who are proposing to destroy, replace or...modify the U.S. Constitution as well as other laws deemed anti-Christian there are Islamist in the U.S.  who are proposing to destroy, replace or...modify the U.S. Constitution as well as other laws deemed anti-Islam. 

The Hizbut-tahir does exist in the U.S.  It is composed of Muslim-Americans who were born in the U.S.  and have immigrated to the U.S.  from other Muslim majority countries.  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizb_ut-tahrir_Ame...

The Nation of Islam is another example of American-Muslims in the U.S. who  are proposing to destroy, replace or...modify the U.S. Constitution as well as other laws deemed anti-Islam.

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Hizb-ut-tahrir was not able to put a local government in a county anywhere in the world.

Not yet.  Prior to 1928 the Nazi Partry was not able to put a local gov't anywhere in the world>  

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

 Some Muslims say (Rumor, I cannot confirm it) that, Hizb-ut-tahrir is a decoy organization to be used as an 'Excuse".

A decoy organization for what organization and for what "excuse"?  

May it is decoy organization for the Tea Party to have an excuse to pass Islamophobic-Anti-Sharia laws?  

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

 Because they are known to make "Pie-in-the-sky" statements but never gain enough popularity to form even a local government anywhere.

Just like the Nazi Party in Germany before 1928.   

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

 I am NOT aware of any nation (Out of 57 Muslim majority nations) who elected or selected or accepted ideology of Hizb-ut-Tahrir proposes. So they have not been a threat for even any Muslim majority nations.

ALSO I am aware of the largest Muslim organizations of north America. I have never heard of anyone wishing to replace existing laws of US laws.

But you have heard of such Muslim Organizations that are in North America NOW!

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Thirdly US is a mature democracy. So it has supporting institutions to aid democratic processes. So if anyone wishes to make a proposal, it is not likely to go anywhere.

Like the Islamophobic-Ant-Islamic-Muslim law that is being disccussed in Kansas? 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Lastly, since 9-11 Muslim communities all over USA worked closly with law enforcement offices (FBI, CIA etc) to identify potential dangers.

Not only have Muslim-American communities all over the USA worked closely(snitched and informed on) with with law enforcement offices (FBI, CIA etc) to identify potential dangers, but they are also serving in the U.S. Military, serving in combat in Iraq, Afghanistan.   Killing innocent Muslim  Afghanis, Iraqis, Pakistanis and maybe in the future Iranians and Syrians.    

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

This partnership worked well so far. These idiotic sets of laws (Where you pass a bill against something noone wanted!!) will create a wall between Muslims and mainstream Americana. This is not a good thing.

I will agree that these are idoitic sets of laws.   

I would disagree that "no one wanted them" Karl Rove and the increasing mainstream(idoitic?)tea partiers want them.   

Jul 4, 2012 -- 9:11AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Or this Political move" was promoted by tea-party hyper religious and hyper patriotic crowd is proposed to protect the U.S. Constitution from all  "foreign"  laws.  

Republicans and the Tea Party are just as concerned, if not more concerned about such "foreign" laws as Socialized Medicine-"Obamacare".  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

What the Tea Party opposes is...execessive....innovation of the U.S.  Constituion.   It is their "political" view that the Democrats-Obama are commiting "political"  bidah.  

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>> They have ideas that contradicts each other. For example, they are very much aware of individual rights when it comes to gun laws. But do want the government to violate "Individual freedom" when it comes to abortion!!

They individual freedom to have a guns is according to them Constitutional.    It does not violate the rights of another person to "own" a gun.  

However according to them there is no individual freedom to murder a baby(aborition) it viloates the right to life of the baby. 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

 

So they feel government should be better judge about an unborn baby than baby's own mother or her doctor!!

The feel that the government should protect an innocent unborn baby from being murdered by the mother and her serial killer doctor. 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

They profess their love for Jesus but willing to throw away his teachings when it comes to going to war. Very supportive of war initiatives of US government.

Neither Jesus or Muhammad were pacificts.  Both Muslims and Christians have gone to war to support the initiatives of the U.S. government in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.  

So I would agree that it would not be a good idea to piss off American-Muslim because we will need them if we want them to support future initiatives(stealing oil-killing innocent Muslim men, women and children)in Iran and Syria.    

Some get really pissed off an go all Major Hassan on the military.  

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

So their religious view is "Unique" and so is their secular views when it comes to US constitution and rights of US citizens.

The Tea Party while primiarly Conservative Christian also has Conservative Jews and even unfortunately Atheist.  Then you have a small minority of "Utra-" Conservative Christians. 

The Tea Party is to the U.S. as the Muslim Brotherhood is to Egypt-Tunisa-Yemen or HAMAS is to Palestine or Hizbollah to Lebbanon. 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Constitution tells us ways to impove or change laws. So you have well known "Amendmends" they love to site.

The Constitution does allow the us to change-amend the Constitution.  Sometimes the for the good and sometimes for the bad.  For instance the 18th amendment banning the sale, making and distribution of alchohol was...a disaster.  Well intentioned, but a disaster. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighteenth_Amendme...

Since the Constitution was not..divinely inspired or revealed like the Bible or the Quran it could and was "changed-repealed" by the 21st Amendment.  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amend...

I don't think that either the amendments in either the Bible or Quran can be "changed-repealed".

They could be re-interpretaded but not "repealed."  

The problem with the Bible, the Quran, and the U.S. Constitution is that they don't tell us "how" to "interprete" them.   

The Tea "Party" is not really a "Party"  but a "movement" within the Republican Party. 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

For example, you cannot protect USA with 250 year old laws alone. You need to have updated "Cyber laws" to ensure no one can attack US infrastructures. So when it comes to food, I am a pureist (Don't want my pasta with corn tortilla). However laws have to reflect needs of common people and "Intention" of founding fathers need to direct leaders to make sure new additions in line with intention of founding fathers.

When it comes to food you cannot pass a law that forbids people from making or eating a ham and cheese sandwhich, which to the Kosher Pureist is...not Kosher.    Nor can you pass a law that forbids the eating of pork, which to all Muslims, pureist and moderates against Islamic-Halal Law.  

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Even if 500 years down the road USA want to introduce new laws (Kosher or Sharia laws), there is an existing process to take care of it.

Or even 50 years down the road.  I don't think you can amend the Constitution to allow for either Kosher or Sharia Law.  It would violate the Bill of Rights.   

Jul 4, 2012 -- 9:11AM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

Being a Liberal-Democrat I would tend to agree that Karl Rove was involved in "misleading" the American people into invading Iraq.  However you can "mislead" a horse to poisoned water, but you cannot make it drink it.  

There is no "strong" evidence that will lead me to concaclude that Karl Rove is the author of the proposed law in Kanasas.    There is a "chance" that Karl Rove "might" be the author of the proposed law banning foreign laws in Kansas(as well as other states)but there is not to my knowledge any evidence of him being the author.   I have no doubts that he supports such a law, no doubts that the Republicans and Tea Party supports such a law.  

Being a Liberal Democrat I would agree that "Dubya", or as your friend IDBC calls him "the Sock Puppet" is not....intellectually gifted-an idiot.  

However if I were a Conservative-Republican-Tea Party I would call Pres. Obama a smooth-talking Socialist who is a secret Muslim and not born in the U.S.    

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>> Sadly tea party movement and wingnuts have a lot of support among mainstream Americans. Such ill informed population is a bigger threat to democracy than imaginary "Sharia" law.

Happily the Constitution is designed to protect us from all wingnuts.   Wether they are Christian wingnuts, Jewish wingnuts or the wingnuttest of them all Atheist wingnuts.

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Before the second term Karl Rove used the scare tactics to get more vote for Dubya. These "Sharia law drama" reminds me of the same playbook.

But his "scare tactics" failed to get more votes for John Mc Cain.  

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Since I am not friend with Karl, I am not 100% sure it came out of the same brain but same team is working behind this "Circus". I am pretty sure of it.

I would agree that that both "scare tactics" came from the Republican Party but I am pretty sure that Karl Rove is not part of the "Tea Party movement. 

Jul 4, 2012 -- 3:02PM, BDboy wrote:

Let us wait and see how this year goes....

Inshallah-As Jesus Wills It.  

Jul 5, 2012 -- 6:17PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

But his "scare tactics" failed to get more votes for John Mc Cain.  

>>>>>>>> You got this one wrong. I was talking about Bush Jr against McCain. I used to like John McCain a lot. Rove was working with "Dubya" when he ran for office.

By the time McCain had to face Obama, the economy was so bad that, Americans had to come back to their senses. Scare tactic did little to hold them back from voting for Obama.

Among republican leaders John McCain is a better choice (Personal opinion). He served his country when he was young and tried to do the "Right thing" most of the time.

Jul 5, 2012 -- 6:17PM, TRUECHRISTIAN wrote:

I would agree that that both "scare tactics" came from the Republican Party but I am pretty sure that Karl Rove is not part of the "Tea Party movement. 

>>>>>> Tea party is a different sort of movement. I feel it is supported by least informed voters who are often abused by political leaders by "Cheap talking points" and "High drama". The great thing about "American institution" is it allows people to be different and still have all rights to them. So I am glad for tea party supporters and their contributions towards next Obama administration. ;-) 

Wish you have a blessed day!

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:23PM, BDboy wrote:

People in Kansas have better chance to lose their homes to tornadoes than losing their laws to Sharia!!

So what? This isn't sbout odds. It is about choosiing to prevent beforehand an activity they do not want. The tornado scenario might be correct NOW. It may not be correct 10-20 yrs from now. Nobody really saw the Muslims becoming such an issue in Europe until it was already happening.

 I would not want you as my representative or my police or fire chief. Your stance seems to be, "don't deal with issues until they have become big problems". The Sharia issue is  dealt with for now AND in the future in Kansas, provided it passes Constitutional muster

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:23PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>>>> There is NO better example (Abortion was used as an example) than abortion to show the hypocricy of this anti-Sharia crowd.

Actually abortion has no relevance at all to a discussion of a law in Kansas about Sharia.

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:23PM, BDboy wrote:

>>>>>>> That is exactly what American Muslims are doing. Dealing with it. Because if we visit how founding fathers of USA viewed this we see they said....

 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Another document called the Constitution forbids mixing government and religions. Yet you complain about  a law being passed that prevents just this thing.

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:23PM, BDboy wrote:

At the end American Muslims will try to preserve their rights and dignity.

That should not prove too difficult, since no rights have been taken from Muslims in this law, and you say that the Muslims don't want what the law forbids, so no dignity should be harmed either.

Jul 5, 2012 -- 12:23PM, BDboy wrote:

There is much more important and urgent challenges than "Imaginary Sharia" laws. Maybe the should focus on them. Topics like education, debts, health care, Social security, medicare will become "Crisis" much sooner than "Imaginary foreign laws".

You act as if the state of Kansas can only pass one law a year, and this year they wasted it on Sharia. You DO know they can do this AND still deal with the other issues, right?

Just so people know, I believe that

يسوع المسيح وبارك لكم

means

Jesus Christ bless you

(As a courtesy to others when posting in a foreign language please remember to supply a translation.)

thanks