Libertarian Muslim

Maybe they were inspired by Donald Trump's comments that Mexico should pay for to build a fence between the US and Mexico.

for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure most Muslims in the US would pay a tax that size...

Let's keep in mind the positives of this situation, the virtuous Christians who oppose ISIS will leave the middle east and move to more virtuous rational countries!

Why would Muslims in the US pay a tax that size?

This is just outrageous.

Just to clarify though, the value of one ISIL gold dinar is apparently US$139, meaning that wealthy Christians will pay a Jizyah of $556 per year, middle class Christians will pay US$278 per year and poor Christians will pay US$139 per year. These may not seem like exorbitant amounts but given that the economic conditions in ISIL held territory are not great, it is a high amount.

The following are the contract's 11 articles:
1. Christians may not build churches, monasteries, or hermitages in the city or in the surrounding areas.
2. They may not show the cross or any of their books in the Muslims' streets or markets, and may not use amplifiers when worshiping or during prayer.
3. They may not make Muslims hear the reciting of their books or the sounds of church bells, which must be rung only inside their churches.
4. They may not carry out any act of aggression against ISIS, such as giving refuge to spies and wanted men. If they come to know of any plot against Muslims, they must report it.
5. They must not perform religious rituals in public.
6. They must respect Muslims and not criticize their religion.
7. Wealthy Christians must pay an annual jizya of four gold dinars; middle-class Christians must pay two gold dinars, and the poor must pay one. Christians must disclose their income, and may split the jizya into two payments.
8. They may not own guns.
9. They may not engage in commercial activity involving pigs or alcohol with Muslims or in Muslim markets, and may not drink alcohol in public.
10. They may maintain their own cemeteries.
11. They must abide by ISIS dress code and commerce guidelines.

Source: http://www.memrijttm.org/isis-issues-dhimma-contract-for-christians-to-sign-orders-them-to-pay-jizyah.html

ISIS? That's easy. Hitler? That was hard. Anyway, Adam has asked you a question*.

Please note, however, that a system of government doesn't necessarily mean the government occupying the system. Good old SOB-take-him-out-with-a-stick-which-we-did Hitler demonstrated that perfectly well in 1933.

--Brant

*hint, ISIS is not ISIS; ISIS is the Caliphate--the Caliphate attracts the warriors, not ISIS as such for ISIS is like an old man with a lot of money--the Caliphate--looking for a woman and whore women get all over him--for the money (The Muslim religion is the old man)

used to be a whore for my country myself--an almost killed whore

looking for a woman--with a lot of money (I'm thoroughly corrupted or corruptible)--beauty optional (see vid below, never mind the gender mix up)

https://youtu.be/WeNBspJGVko

I'm aware of the difference between a system of government and the government of the day.

ISIS is not a caliphate, they are a group of extremists trying to gain legitimacy by declaring a caliphate and the vast majority of the Muslim world doesn't at all recognize their caliphate, nor the leadership of Al-Baghdadi.

With regards to Adam's question, it was a Cable Ship, only a short job of about 30 days but it was a great experience.

I'm working against the country. The United States is two countries. I'm not working against both. You and LM are both trying to embrace the same country. Glad you've discovered you're on the same boat. Which boat? The boat LM wishes to "serve" by enlisting in the military. That's traditional young man immigrant orientation: gratitude and paying back. He's embracing an illusion--as I once did--and are you too or are your eyes wide open or am I mistaken in whole or part?

--Brant

radical--that's who I yam, just add spinach

It's not only about gratitude and paying back. It's more about helping to support and defend a system of government here that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world in terms of the rights it, in principle protects for individuals.

Right now we are under attack by the likes of ISIS. It is not a group with simple ambitions to 'liberate' it's own region, but is instead hell bent on dominating the world and oppressing anyone that comes under the yolk of its tentacles. They must be stopped.

The possibility that any American could be working against the country.

It is, as you know, a very complicated planet populated by diverse economic, geographic, political, racial and religious forces.

A...

Sigh, you should have just stopped at the apology.

The hurtful part was your suggestion that I personally could be a lone wolf or a mole.

Just like if I were to suggest that you could be a pedophile?

Sure, it's all possible in the sense of how possibilities exist in the universe, but hearing it hurts. That this would come to someone's mind when you've given no reason for them to believe that you could do such a horrible thing.

LM:

My apologies to you, however, we have gotten so self destructively foolish that it is a possibility.

I grew up with WWII folks as my friends parents during the 1950's and my family was very political.

We knew from Czechs, Poles, Cubans and numerous other folks that fled tyranny that a free citizenry is an alert citizenry.

Hell we had the damn Rosenburgs who were on the Soviet payroll.

A...

What is still a possibility?

Thank you for your past service and welcome aboard citizen.

I am very happy for you and your wife.

I swear LM, if you turn out to be a mole, or a lone wolf, I will find a way back from the other side and haunt you!!! lol

As-salamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuhu wa maghfiratuhu(Arabic

A...

Thank you for your well wishes, though I must correct you and state that I have not served yet, I intend to serve in the near future.

Also, as for the statement that I have made bold. I understand it was in jest, but even in jest it is hurtful.

It's impossible to prove intent in advance, as it would be wrong to prejudge anyone before they commit the deed, solely on what one believes is in their heads. Therefore I advocate grabbing recruits when they come back. Other than that, we seem to be on the same page. However much one loathes a Choudary, subverting freedom of expression in order to prosecute and silence him would be a huge sacrifice, of a high principle - to lowdown garbage. The UK would be a little less free after that, and he and his type could claim a moral victory.

LM, nice to see you check in again, more perspectives are always good.

I don't believe it is impossible to prove intent at all, the FBI has done a great job of doing it over the past year with several people being caught planning to join ISIS.

I would have absolutely no hesitation in handing out a death penalty to someone who commits treason in such a way when there was already a clear path for them to leave in the first place in an honest way.

Let them leave, take a DNA sample, fingerprints, retinal scans, etc. Make it so they'll be immediately identifiable should they ever try and board a flight to the US or any other Western Country.

Thank you for the welcome back also. It's great to be back.

The UK got itself in the pickle with equivocations and compromises, which leads to further compromises. Try to stop incitement, you try to stop people's thoughts. The best recourse is let the madmen speak and laugh at them. But first declare ISIS an enemy of the State, and so whichever UK citizen is "incited" or "radicalized" to go and join them can be arrested as traitor when he returns. (If he returns).

As far as I'm concerned Western countries should let people leave and join ISIS and allow them to take the majority of their wealth with them, too.

Give them their opportunity to declare their allegiance to ISIS for safe passage with the condition that they renounce their citizenship and let them take the majority of their wealth with them.

Any person found to be trying to leave their home country to join ISIS without following this path should then be tried for treason and executed.

ISIS would get so paranoid by the free flowing of people going there with our permission that they'll screw it up by treating almost everyone as a spy.

Plus it'll mean we can fight them over there rather than fight them here.

Yes Tony.

Thanks LM.

This is in complete violation of our First Amendment which neither the Brits or SA's have that is in effect.

Americans keep forgetting about the miracle that this Limited Constitutional Republic that is also the number one economic and military power on the planet and is clinging to individual rights, as well as our guns and bibles according to the marxist in the White House

A...

I completely agree, except for the Marxist thing.

-- LM, have you been lurking all this time? If not, please bring us to date on your journey. Last time we met you were still feeling your way to a society and work that reflected your religious values. What's up? You certainly added a human face to The Muslim that some of us discuss. I hope you stick around and engage.

I've been on a very interesting journey of discovery.

In 2011 I spent a short amount of time fighting pirates on the Red Sea.

In 2012 I moved to the USA, got married to an amazing woman and am currently a consultant in the security field specializing in Islamic Extremism. I live an hour away from Thomas Jefferson's home, Monticello and visit often to reflect on how amazing this man and his compatriots were, to risk their lives, wealth and honor to set up what is the greatest experiment in government in the history of the earth.

I intend to enlist in the military soon and I hope to spend the rest of my life supporting and defending the US Constitution and protecting our way of life against our enemies like ISIS and Al Qaeda etc. In doing so I hope to set an example to inspire other Muslims and especially my own progeny (when I have them) to devote their life in service to protect this nation.

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

Is there a better link?

Also, great to see you here again. I value your insight.

A...

Thank you, sir. A pleasure.

Try this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

LM,

Michael

A pleasure to see you, sir

I thought the legislation was already up and running in law.

If I walked around my city orally and with a sign advocating killing police officers, I would not be looking to test a law in court; I'd be trying to get police officers killed.

Do you have something else in mind? Have I missed the point of this discussion?

--Brant

Oh it is. I agree with what you are stating regarding such a sign as it is a clear incitement to violence.

My concern is more with how the legislation is written.

Support.

(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and

(b)the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

That's quite vague. What constitutes inviting support or support in itself? Can it be used to limit criticism of the British Government's foreign policy?

Would I go to prison for saying that I believe Northern Ireland should be a free and independent state? It seems somewhat dangerous.

Is no one else concerned with the type of legislation that might be required to charge someone with a crime like this? As to how flimsy the evidence might be and how it could be used to deprive the people of the UK of their liberty in the future?

So, we can all rest easy in our beds now, safe in the knowledge that the Muslim Brotherhood will clamp down heavily on persecution of women and the Copts.

Egypt to see first female, Coptic vice-presidents: Morsi team

Sarah Mourad, Tuesday 26 Jun 2012

Morsi plans to appoint the first ever female and Coptic vice-presidents in a bid towards inclusiveness, an advisor said

Ahmed Deif, a policy advisor to Egypt’s president-electMohamed Morsi, stressed that Morsi will be a leader for all Egyptians and will appoint Coptic Christian and female vice-presidents.

"President-elect Morsi is not only backed by people with an Islamic tendency or ideology; he is now backed by all the people of the revolution, and this is definitely a dramatic positive card that he can play while negotiating with the SCAF," Deif told CNN.

"One of the first decisions will be appointing different vice-presidents. One of them will be a woman, for the first time in Egyptian history - not just modern history, but all Egyptian history, for a woman to take that position.

"Also, he has decided to appoint a Christian vice-president, and they will not just be a vice-president who will represent a certain gender or sect, but a vice-president who is powerful and empowered and will deal with critical files within the presidential cabinet."

In his last news conference before the presidential runoff vote, Morsi took the opportunity to reiterate his promises to Egypt's political forces, and said the country would not be run by an autocratic president.

He stressed that the presidency would work together with young revolutionaries, former presidential candidates, Copts, Salafists and all the sectors of the Egyptian people.

Morsi, who was declared president-elect on Sunday after narrowly beating his rivalAhmed Shafiq, also said women will play a major role in society.

http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/46229.aspx

-

I know a lot of people are very concerned right now about Egypt's future. But I'm not, today's step of voting in Muhammad Morsi as the president of Egypt is a positive step, mainly because his main opponent, Shafik was a member of Hosni Mubarak's old guard and was the final prime minister, he would not have brought change at all.

I think if Morsi is able to properly limit the military rule that is in place, the way that the AK Party in Turkey has done the same there then there will be many positive steps in the future.

Do I believe that his election will be dangerous for women or Coptic Christians? No, I don't.

Do I believe that it will effect relationships with Israel? I hope not. I was pleased to see Israel's reaction and respect for the democratic process in Egypt and hope they stay that way. I do hope that Egypt takes a more leading role in working towards peace between Israel and the Palestinians and should Israel commit any atrocities against the Palestinians, I hope that Egypt will put pressure on Israel to cease such actions, and should they continue to do so, to intervene by allowing aid and observers into Gaza.

What I am sure that no one wants, including the Muslim Brotherhood is a war with Israel as it would be entirely counter productive.

The comparison to apartheid is not so much that blacks were ever brutally persecuted, en masse -

this was rare - but that they had little or no say in their own lives.

That they were treated like children was the greatest wrong.

That's really not true. Life in the Ottoman Empire alone gave Jews a great deal of autonomy over their own lives rather than having little or nothing to say.

LM, we could both cherry-pick the best and the worst of 500 years of the Jewish diaspora in

Muslim nations, but how can you explain away the desire for freedom to be a sovereign nation,

a self-determining people, who do not want to be "protected" like livestock?

whYNOT, I have no problem with Jews having their own country, I also have no problem with it being in the Middle East.

I do have a problem when that is imposed on the Arabs and military force is used to establish it rather than negotiating a proper resolution. I also have a huge problem with the fact that there is no Palestinian state. But what REALLY makes me annoyed is the fact that the British engineered the conflict between the Jews and the Arabs and knew it would come to conflict, rather than approaching it properly. Examples of this are the fact that the British imposed a fanatic as the Mufti of the lands who was not voted in by the people, someone they knew was extreme rather than the person who was eager to negotiate with the Jews etc.

I'd rather have been a Jew in Muslim Spain (so I think) than later on with the Muslims gone. I think the Jews were expelled from Spain in the late 15th Century. Weren't they kicked out of Britain?

--Brant

I will not go for debating points--not what I'm about

I think it also depends on which time in Muslim Spain, in its decline it became more puritan and less pluralistic than previous imposing ridiculous rules on the People of the Book such as they have to wear certain clothes and can't ride horses as a means to subjugate them. Disgusting behavior.

Furthermore, under the Ottoman Empire, Jews for the most part, as most religious minorities were allowed a great deal of autonomy in ruling themselves.

Perhaps putting too fine a point on it, persecuted in Europe or not they in Europe were beyond the reach of Muslims except in Spain prior to the Muslims being expelled.

--Brant

this conversation is now jejune

Where do you think they fled to when they were being persecuted in Europe?

Let's ask Rabbi Zarfati http://www.history.umd.edu/Faculty/BCooperman/EarlyMod/Zarfati%281454%29.htm:

Second-class citizens, not too different to apartheid.

Tell me about it: my mother and her family came from such a Muslim land.

Interesting thought I had, that that's what might have saved them from persecution.

The European Jewry had for generations fully assimilated into their countries,

and look at the result.

(BTW. Der Spiegel has just published a finding that Neo-Nazis were involved

in the Munich Olympics killings. Anybody else see this? Why the cover-up for this long?)

Jews, for the most part were protected in places like the Ottoman Empire, Muslim Spain, Baghdad and Muslim Persia.

There were of course times when some rulers, fanatics came into power and began oppressing the Jews, using them as scape goats but this was not the norm and did not last.

In fact, the Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid issued a ferman concerning the Blood Libel Accusation on October 27, 1840 saying:

"... and for the love we bear to our subjects, we cannot permit the Jewish nation, whose innocence for the crime alleged against them is evident, to be worried and tormented as a consequence of accusations which have not the least foundation in truth...".

Here are some more examples of Jews under the Ottoman empire

http://www.sephardicstudies.org/sultans1.html

If it were truly our goal to rid the world of the Jews I can assure you that it would have already been done long ago.

Now, how would the Muslims do this today, if it were their goal? (BTW, I don't think any such thing of Muslims collectively.) And could have historically? (I understand that there is some question about the link of the Jews of today to the Jews depicted in the Bible.)

--Brant

Muslims wouldn't do it today because such an action would be forbidden in Islam in the first place. Historically they could have as the Jews for the most part lived in Muslim lands whilst they were being persecuted in Europe.

You simply don't understand the United States. If you mean pre-United States there was a lot of Christians against Jews. I notice your technique of pretending you said something you originally didn't and I see an educated and extremely sophisticated ideologue behind the curtain.

--Brant

Brant, I'm not sure that you're understanding exactly what I've said or am saying and now I find this confusing. What is it that you think I was saying initially in the first place? That Muslims wouldn't have been able to kill Jews in the US?

LOL Islam spread and continues to spread, both in agricultural societies like much of Indonesia or a lot of countries in Africa or whether through trade and the marketplace of ideologies. Again, it's growing at a massive rate, by the amount of births as well as the number of people who were not Muslim coming to Islam. It will only be a matter of a few decades before every second person on earth is a Muslim and when that happens, then the West will have to change its policies in how they treat the Muslim world from walking all over Muslims to treating them with the same respect that the West expects for itself.

How would the Muslims have gotten their hands on American Jews in a "rid the world of Jews" campaign? You are starting to match up to Ba'al's bluster, maybe in frustration with him?

--Brant

Where did you happen to see anyone state that Muslims would like to get their hands on American Jews in the first place Grant? I was referring to the fact that no one would ever consider him a threat because he is just a lone nutjob in the US with mental problems who talks big but is ultimately quite harmless.

I refer you to the last sentence of yours I quoted. Please craft a reply to that and delete the above as not apropos.

--Brant

No I don't think I'll be doing that.

Please reread what I wrote before, it really needs no further explanation. It makes clear that if Muslims had really wanted to have massacred all of the Jews, we would have teamed up with the Christians to massacre them all a very long time ago when the Christians were doing that and there would now be no Jews in the US. Instead in standing for justice and our divine obligation to it we protected and gave safehaven to the innocent Jews to protect them from the European hordes and their never ending savagery.

LM,

Still dreaming...

Israel is "dragging its feet" to that most generous peace treaty, yes - because

without Hamas initiating peace, peace with Arab nations is meaningless.

And to return to the '67 borders, as a condition for granting Israel peace?

Fuhgeddaboudit. Do you believe Israelis to be stupid? Give up the Golan Heights,

so Syria can walk across, anytime?

And: "The '67 borders were also illegitimate but that war wasn't actually started by

the Arabs, it was the Israelis that attacked first."

Oh, right. Then who did they actually attack - but those massive forces gathering

just outside Israel, who sort-of, kinda happened to be there...by accident?

Seriously, you need different history books.

Under that logic you're using you would then have to concede that Iran has much more right to attack the US for massing military bases on its borders and sending their Armada to the Persian Gulf than Israel had to attack neighboring states in 1967.

The fact is that Israel attacked first, as they attacked first in the Suez Canal crisis. Who could blame Egypt for amassing troops after Israel had tried within the last 15 years to take over Egyptian territory during the Crisis?

Here's the irony. You say: "The argument is faulted because who were the international

community to impose the creation of a nation state dividing up land..."

But you then follow up by citing the Councils of Arab States and Arab League,

the United Nations etc etc as having the authority to impose THEIR will.

What are they but "the international community" too?

You, then, disapprove of the first 'imposition' (not btw, initially a "nation state",

but a "Jewish homeland") but approve of the second. You can't have it both ways.

In the mean time, Israel, who could similarly be charged with having it both ways, in reverse, is no longer the weak, rag-tag bunch they were then in '48, grabbing every possibility for Jewish survival.

Now they can - they've earned the right - call the shots on their security and self-interest, and the "international community" can shout all they wish.

The offer was proposed to Israel, the fact that it went through other states was part of the negotiation process. Furthermore, HAMAS agreed to the stance.

If Israel doesn't want to have a just peace agreement then that's fine. But that will be to Israel's own detriment in the end because it is bleeding itself dry financially and can't sustain itself. The day US money runs out for Israel will be the day that they're forced to reconsider their unjust position and at that time there may be justice.

If Israel never reconsiders then the only other option will be for the war to continue until they're willing to come to the table.

How would the Muslims have gotten their hands on American Jews in a "rid the world of Jews" campaign? You are starting to match up to Ba'al's bluster, maybe in frustration with him?

--Brant

Where did you happen to see anyone state that Muslims would like to get their hands on American Jews in the first place Grant? I was referring to the fact that no one would ever consider him a threat because he is just a lone nutjob in the US with mental problems who talks big but is ultimately quite harmless.