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

The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception.

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

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

Title: Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 22, 2015
Author: William J. Federer
Post Date: 2015-09-22 12:41:15 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 1804
Comments: 24

Quran vs. Constitution: Why they're incompatible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

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

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

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

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

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


#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)

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

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

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

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

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


#4. To: redleghunter (#3)

There is such an easy way to solve this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, men shouldn't take the contract.

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

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

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


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#4)

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

Yes, service, any service not just military, but even ministry service a yes should be a yes and a no, a no. You are affirming you will be honest and if not will suffer the consequences of your failures.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-22   15:16:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: redleghunter (#5) (Edited)

Yes, service, any service not just military, but even ministry service a yes should be a yes and a no, a no. You are affirming you will be honest and if not will suffer the consequences of your failures.

No affirmation should be required at all. God holds everybody to a standard of perjury all the time. What you say is true, or you're bearing false witness.

To make a ritual is to establish the illusion that there is a solemn moment when the importance of truthtelling becomes really, really serious. And that's not the case.

Honesty all the time, without any sort of formal "Yes, I'm promising to REALLY be honest" affirmation is the right rule.

To have the ritual at all is to retain a superstition that there is, after all, a difference, and that it is important to acknowledge it. But there is not, however, ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL, between truthtelling in an official capacity and truthtelling to your friends. God's standard is that you're under oath all the time.

To retain a ritual, teaches that there is a difference. To strip away the ritual makes it clear that there is not.

The standard of truth is the standard that one has when the police or federal investigators are "talking to you". You're not arrested, you're not under oath, they don't have to give you any warnings, AND THEY DON'T, but if you lie, not under oath, when you're just giving them information, that's "false official statement", or it's "interfering with an investigation". Because when you are talking to the police, you are in fact criminally liable and can be prosecuted for every word you say, if it is untrue, whether or not you are arrested, whether or not you are given any warnings, whether or not they say anything to you at all.

They can lie to you too - which is utterly wrong - but oppressive government is evil, we already know that.

It is important not to maintain the dignity of the tradition and to pretend that it means something. It is important to teach the lesson that there is no such thing as different standards of truth by completely stripping out even the slightest "affirmative affirmation". That ritual teaches people that one can be held to a greater standard of truth, and that is a lie.

There is one standard of truth, and anything that insinuates that there is a slightly elevated one for ministers or officials, is a lie. Allow a ritual, and you give heft to the lie. Strip the ritual out, that everybody is accustomed to, and it's a BIG DEAL. What? NO OATH? Ok, an affirmation.

NO. No affirmation. No anything. No recognition that there is any other standard of truth. You are always talking to the police and always part of an investigation. If you ever lie, about anything, you are liable to God. There is only one standard of truth, and it is important not to allow the slightest apparent deviation to slip into our practices.

Here, let me give you a comparison. I want to put a statue of Mary in all Christian churches, just to remind everybody of the Mother of God. Nothing more. There's nothing wrong with that, surely? It's just art. It's just a reminder about a woman. What could possibly go wrong with a piece of decorative artwork about the most important woman ever?

It's not idolatry, right? Nobody is praying to the statue! That would be ridiculous! It's just like the other artwork, right? If we put a candle in front of that is just for light, right? There's no harm here. If we stop and pray in front of the statue it's only because it's there, with its candle, as a focus of attention. Our prayers are to God, right?

If we put a wreath of flowers around the head of the statue on the first day of spring, that's just decoration, right? Sure, it looks like a crown, but it's like the crown of flowers any girl might wear in her hair. We're not serving or worshiping or adoring the statue, with the candle that somebody has to remember to faithfully always keep burning, right?

And if people, because the statue with its carefully tended candle (that somebody has put on a service list of things that MUST be done always), and its crown of flowers, which serves to focus people's prayers, has people kneeling in prayer in front of it, they're still praying to God, and they're just doing it there because the statue focuses the attention there, so that's as good a place to pray to God as any, right (and she WAS, after all, God's mother, right)?

And when we remember that the saints are all still alive, and that surely God's own mother is among them, then it's ok to ask living people to pray for us, right?

So, if we stop before the well-tended statue with the crown of flowers and the service candle in front of her, and the other people kneeling in their prayers to God, and we ask the woman symbolized by the statue, who is alive in Paradise with God and all the other saints, to pray for us, that's like asking anybody else to pray for us to God, except that she is really special, right?

And if we want to remember how special she is by remembering what the Bible says the angel said to her long ago, we can formulate our prayer in just that way too, out of reverence, right?

And since we're all kneeling here before this well-served statue with its crown of flowers and its perpetual candle burning brightly, as a beacon for us to stop and pray to God right here, and we're praying to God together with the living we see, and with the living woman - living with God elsewhere - whom we also ask to pray with us, because she was the mother of God and is already in Heaven and much closer to God than any of us, it makes sense to ask her directly to pray for us, right?

So, let's get down on our knees before a statue on which we have placed a crown, and which we serve by assigning somebody to always keep a candle burning, and we all say aloud - Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee!" We're just saying the truth, after all. And if we end by "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death", we've just asked this Holy woman, the mother of God himself, to pray for us to God, right?

And if we decide to pray that same prayer ten times in succession, in four sets of ten, separated by a "Glory Be to the Father" prayer, on our knees, before the statue of the Virgin Mother of God, wearing the crown of beauty and glory in her hair, with her candle faithfully tended every day and night, all we've done is meditate about God in that very spot, right?

Not one aspect of that is idolatry. It just LOOKS LIKE serving a statue, and serving a candle, and asking for things from another person. But it isn't REALLY any of those things, of course, we know.

Therefore, I should be able to put up a simple statue of Mary in your church. Right?

Same thing with an affirmation. None is needed. Having one leads to error.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-09-22   16:07:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 6.

#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)

No affirmation should be required at all.

I hope you are not a contract lawyer:)

What I meant by an affirmation which would be sound doctrine would be an affirmation that what Christ lays out in Matthew 5 is all that is required of God and should be good as well for mankind.

redleghunter  posted on  2015-09-22 16:11:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 6.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

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

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