Posted by Jack
This is done to help my liberal friend Chris understand the truth, because he has some reluctance to believe that many Muslims around the world subscribe to wife beatings. Here you go Chris, read it and weep:
Does Islam allow a man to hit his wife?
Yes, but only if she doesn’t do as he asks. (Well, there’s a pretty low bar) The beating must stop if the woman complies with her husband’s demands. Behind verbal abuse and abandonment, beating is intended as last resort solution to coerce submission.
According her testimony in the Hadith, Muhammad physically struck his favorite wife for leaving the house without his permission. It is not known how he treated his less-favored wives.
Quran
Quran (4:34) – “Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.” Contemporary translations sometimes water down the word ‘beat’, but it is the same one used in verse 8:12 and clearly means ‘to strike’.
Quran (38:44) – “And take in your hand a green branch and beat her with it, and do not break your oath…” Allah telling Job to beat his wife (Tafsir).
Hadith and Sira
Bukhari (72:715) – A woman came to Muhammad and begged her to stop her husband from beating her. Her skin was bruised so badly that it is described as being “greener” than the green veil she was wearing. Muhammad did not admonish her husband, but instead ordered her to return to him and submit to his sexual desires.
Bukhari (72:715) – “Aisha said, ‘I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women'” Muhammad’s own wife complained of the abuse that the women of her religion suffered relative to other women.
Muslim (4:2127) – Muhammad struck his favorite wife, Aisha, in the chest one evening when she left the house without his permission. Aisha narrates, “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.”
Muslim (9:3506) – Muhammad’s fathers-in-law (Abu Bakr and Umar) amused him by slapping his wives (Aisha and Hafsa) for annoying him. According to the Hadith, the prophet of Islam laughed upon hearing this.
Abu Dawud (2141) – “Iyas bin ‘Abd Allah bin Abi Dhubab reported the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: Do not beat Allah’s handmaidens, but when ‘Umar came to the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) and said: Women have become emboldened towards their husbands, he (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them.” At first, Muhammad forbade men from beating their wives, but he rescinded this once it was reported that women were becoming emboldened toward their husbands. Beatings in a Muslim marriage are sometimes necessary to keep women in their place.
Abu Dawud (2142) – “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife.”
Abu Dawud (2126) – “A man from the Ansar called Basrah said: ‘I married a virgin woman in her veil. When I entered upon her, I found her pregnant. (I mentioned this to the Prophet).’ The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: ‘She will get the dower, for you made her vagina lawful for you. The child will be your slave. When she has begotten (a child), flog her'” A Muslim thinks he is getting a virgin, then finds out that she is pregnant. Muhammad tells him to treat the woman as a sex slave and then flog her after she delivers the child.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 969 – Requires that a married woman be “put in a separate room and beaten lightly” if she “act in a sexual manner toward others.” According to the Hadith, this can be for an offense as petty as merely being alone with a man to whom she is not related.
Kash-shaf (the revealer) of al-Zamkhshari (Vol. 1, p. 525) – [Muhammad said] “Hang up your scourge where your wife can see it”
Notes
Some contemporary Muslim apologists often squirm over this relatively straightforward verse from the Quran (4:34) – which gives men the right to beat their wives if they even have a “fear” of disloyalty or disobedience. Their rhetorical aerobics inspired us to write a separate article:
Wife Beating- Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You
Others are not nearly as squeamish. Sheikh Yousef al-Qaradhawi, one of the most respected Muslim clerics in the world, once made the famous (and somewhat ridiculous statement) that “It is forbidden to beat the woman, unless it is necessary.” He went on to say that “one may beat only to safeguard Islamic behavior,” leaving no doubt that wife-beating is a matter of religious sanction. (source)
Dr. Muzammil Saddiqi, the former president of ISNA (the Islamic Society of North America), a mainstream Muslim organization, says it is important that a wife “recognizes the authority of her husband in the house” and that he may use physical force if he is “sure it would improve the situation.” (source)
Sheikh Dr. Ahmad Muhammad Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, the head of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s most prestigious institution says that “light beatings” and “punching” are part of a program to “reformthe wife” (source).
Dr. Jamal Badawi endorses corporal punishment as “another measure that may save the marriage” (source). He isn’t clear on how striking a woman will make her more inclined toward staying with her assailant, unless the implication is fear of more serious consequences if she leaves.
Egyptian cleric, Abd al-Rahman Mansour, said in a 2012 televised broadcast that, in addition to discouraging the wife from filing divorce, beatings would inspire the wife to “treat him with kindness and respect, and know that her husband has a higher status than her.” (source)
During Ramadan of 2010, another cleric named Sa’d Arafat actually said the woman is “honored” by the beating (source). No one else seemed terribly surprised or upset by this.
An undercover report from progressive Sweden in 2012 found that 60% of mosques there actually advised beaten women not to report the abuse to the police. These women were also told that they must submit to non-consensual ‘sex’ with their husbands. (source)
In the birthplace of Islam, about half of Saudi women are beaten at home. “Hands and sticks were found to be used mostly in beating women, following by men’s head cover and to a lesser extent, sharp objects.” (source)
In 2016, the Council of Islamic Ideology proposed a bill – ironically named the Protection of Women against Violence Act – that actually included exceptions for “lightly beating” defiant wives. (source)
According to Islamic law, a husband may strike his wife for any one of the following four reasons:
– She does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him (ie. “let’s herself go”)
– She refuses to meet his sexual demands
– She leaves the house without his permission or for a “legitimate reason”
– She neglects her religious duties
Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.
Respected Quran scholars in the past interpreted verse 4:34 with impressive candor. Tabari said that it means to “admonish them, but if they refused to repent, then tie them up in their homes and beat them until they obey Allah’s commands toward you.” Qurtubi told wife-beaters to avoid breaking bones, if possible, but added that “it is not a crime if it leads to death.” (source)
Muslim apologists sometimes say that Muhammad ordered that women not be harmed, but they are actually basing this on what he said before or during a battle, such as in Bukhari (59:447), when Muhammad issued a command for all the men of Quraiza be killed and the women and children taken as slaves. (Having your husband murdered and being forced into sexual slavery apparently doesn’t qualify as “harm” under the Islamic model).
But, in fact, there are a number of cases in which Muhammad did have women killed in the most brutal fashion. One was Asma bint Marwan, a mother or five, who wrote a poem criticizing the Medinans for accepting Muhammad after he had ordered the murder of an elderly man. In this case, the prophet’s assassins literally pulled a sleeping infant from her breast and stabbed her to death.
After taking Mecca in 630, Muhammad also ordered the murder of a slave girl who had merely made up songs mocking him. The Hadith are rife with accounts of women planted in the ground on Muhammad’s command and pelted to death with stones for sexual immorality – yet the prophet of Islam actually encouraged his own men to rape women captured in battle (Abu Dawood 2150, Muslim 3433) and did not punish them for killing non-Muslim women (as Khalid ibn Walid did on several occasions – see Ibn Ishaq 838 and 856).
In summary, according to the Qur’an, Hadith and Islamic law, a woman may indeed have physical harm done to her if the circumstances warrant, with one such allowance being in the case of disobedience. This certainly does not mean that all Muslim men beat their wives, only that Islam permits them to do so.
According to a Washington Post poll, 6 Muslim countries with upwards of 80% of their population strongly support Sharia Law. In a pew poll, 17 of the 23 countries where the question was asked, at least half of Muslims say sharia is the revealed word of God. (For more information on sharia see text box.) In no country are Muslims significantly more likely to say sharia was developed by men than to say it is the revealed word of God.
Acceptance of sharia as the revealed word of God is high across South Asia and most of the Middle East and North Africa. For example, roughly eight-in-ten Muslims (81%) in Pakistan and Jordan say sharia is the revealed word of God, as do clear majorities in most other countries surveyed in these two regions. Only in Lebanon is opinion more closely divided: 49% of Muslims say sharia is the divine word of God, while 38% say men have developed sharia from God’s word.
I’ll see your Islamic Misogyny and raise you one christiandomesticdiscipline.net.
Giggle.
Jack, nobody’s denying the issue is serious (but you did make up the stat). What do you want us to do? Occupy? Culturally indoctrinate?
We don’t wanna. It would be expensive, dangerous, colonial, arrogant, and in all probability a failure.
When the Islamic ladies wanna make a change, they will. And we’ll certainly help, but they gotta do all the heavy lifting. It is their religion.
Jack: “he has some reluctance to believe that many Muslims around the world subscribe to wife beatings”
You couldn’t make it one sentence into your article without misrepresenting my position. I have no doubt “many” Muslims around the world subscribe to wife beatings.
I objected to your claim that 75% of Muslims beat their wives, because you pulled that statistic out of your butt.
Think of it this way: if I said 75% of blacks are criminals, wouldn’t that be bigoted and wrong? We all know crime is a problem in the black community, but that would not justify making up a statistic with the intent to smear a group. Similarly, making up a statistic that 75% of Muslims beat their wives is wrong, even though we all know spousal abuse and mistreatment of women is a problem in the Muslim community. Does that make sense?
Your article is also filled with fallacious reasoning. You start with the question, “Does Islam allow…?” which is inherently a silly question. Islam is a broad concept; it can’t allow anything, only people and specific laws can. While too many Islamic scholars support the archaic, literalist interpretations of scripture which allow wife beating, others do not. None of my Muslim friends support these interpretations and would never allow abuse in their own homes or their communities.
You also once again misrepresent what sharia is. It means God’s law. Of course a majority of Muslims support sharia. That tells us nothing about whether they support wife-beating; different Muslims interpret sharia differently, just as different Christians interpret their laws differently. So “Do you support sharia” is a meaningless and self-answering question.
Now of course it is more dangerous to be a free-thinking Muslim than a free-thinking Christian, but that is exactly why we should be highlighting the free thinkers, like that video you shared of the Muslim woman speaking for her equality as a citizen and a human being. I would like to see more of that and less erasure of those Muslims who do not abide by the archaic and barbaric practices that have come to define radical Islam.
To add to the above, we all know radical Islam is terrible. Everyone knows that! I don’t understand people who think to themselves, “You know what the world needs? More negative portrayals of Islam.” We are drowning in stories of terrorism, genital mutilation, public executions, wife beating, etc. Of course these crimes should be exposed, but we’re in no danger of that information being unavailable. What gets lost is the Muslims who do stand up and try and make a positive change. And make no mistake: Those are the stories ISIS doesn’t want you to hear. They want you to hear about the beheadings, the mass killings, the hatred and evil they do. They don’t want you to hear about the Muslims donating blood to the victims of this attack, the gay and lesbian Muslims who have marched for their freedom and the freedom of others, the patriotic Muslims who love America.
Why don’t we refuse to give ISIS what they want? We of course have to talk about the violence they and their fellow radicals do, that can’t be ignored, but the more we ALSO talk about the peaceful Muslims, the patriotic Muslims, the gay and feminist Muslims, the more they see “their” people becoming “our” people. They thrive on a diet of hatred and chaos; let’s starve the beast. Let’s stop talking about banning immigration and refusing refugees (which is exactly what ISIS wants) and start proving them wrong about what Islam is. Let’s turn their religion against them.
Amazing that all the bra-burners, women’s libbers and NOW have remained deafeningly silent on the manner in which women are treated under muslim rule . . . . .
Amazing that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Muslim+feminists+
So, like Hillary you’re willing to gamble with American lives, gamble with the lives of people around the world just to show them?
I must remind you it is a construct of the left that we “hate” and are motivated by “hate.” This isn’t about hate, never has been. It isn’t about race, never has been. It isn’t about bigotry, never has been. It is about ridding the world of this cancer. We can’t do that unless we honestly identify that enemy whether as an organization in the ME or as individuals in our midst.
The emotions you’re attempting to grasp are many. It is anger. It is determination and resolve to defeat this enemy. It is frustration with the ineffective, apologetic, nonchalant approach of the current leadership and the upside down thinking of people like you that sparks these conversations. Our Presidents divisive agenda in America has not helped the situation at all. Even in the face of the worst attack since 911 the President emphasizes his political agenda items and many on the left are jumping on board that train. it’s freakin’ SICK!
This enemy thrives on their own hatred and their zealous desire to bring the world to heel under the superior rule of Islam! They don’t recognize “moderate” Islam nor do they care what YOU think about it. These people are at war with us…they are determined to fulfill what they believe is their divine right.
Tina: “So, like Hillary you’re willing to gamble with American lives, gamble with the lives of people around the world just to show them?”
I literally have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Please be more specific. How am I gambling with the lives of Americans?
By defending the bipartisan policy of not calling ISIS and others “Islamic terrorists?” You said yourself they don’t care what I think; why would they care what they are called? I have cited foreign policy experts from the Bush and Obama admins to explain why this is a sensible policy; you have never rebutted a single one of their points. Why do you believe you know more about keeping Americans safe than they do?
By opposing Trump’s plan to ban all Muslim immigration? Every foreign policy expert opposes it. Again, I’ve explained why, and again, you haven’t even tried to rebut their points. You claim to be serious about stopping terror, but when asked to engage in a serious discussion of the pros and cons of such a plan, you malfunction and just repeat the word “serious” over and over, ignoring that no serious person supports the plan. Why do you do this? It’s irrational. And that’s what leads people to believe you’re motivated by bigotry, not by reason.
Again: Japanese internment was motivated by the desire to keep Americans safe. It was also motivated by bigotry, and was an inherently bigoted policy, by definition, because it punished all members of a group for the actions of a few. These are not mutually exclusive, but you keep trying to draw a dichotomy between “fighting terror” and “bigotry,” as if there are no bigoted ways to fight terror.
Would interning Muslims be bigoted, Tina? How about banning the Quran? How about closing all mosques? These may sound extreme and implausible to you (hopefully), but a year ago a presidential nominee advocating banning all Muslim immigration would have been equally unthinkable. You have previously displayed a love of slippery slope arguments; can you not see how Trump has already boiled the frog to a point previously unseen in American discourse? Can you not predict that, if unchecked, his rhetoric and policies regarding Muslims will only continue to grow worse?
Then, of course, there is Jack’s claim that 75% of Muslims beat their wives. There is no way to argue that this claim was not bigoted. And yet still, you complain about being called bigoted and intolerant. Well, sorry; that’s what it is. You don’t get to complain about being called bigoted and intolerant when you say bigoted and intolerant things. You know the solution; stop saying bigoted and intolerant things. It’s easy! But instead you want us to change the definition of bigotry so it no longer means judging a large group based on the actions of a few. Sorry, that’s not going to happen.
Chris, second paragraph, third line, we are supposed to be “ridding the world of this cancer.” I don’t believe that those 1.6 billion Muslims would appreciate such a characterization of their faith. It does seem to me that a prudent person would be more polite to 2/3’rds of the planet’s population.
On top of which, though she seems to think we’re going to be over-run at any moment, the OA has been hard at work. Right now, in Falluja, after years of diplomatic prodding, training by US forces, and no small quantity of cash, I’m sure, the Iraqi National Army is attempting its first rout of ISIS. The last I heard it was not going all that well. But they have NOT stripped their uniforms and fled, which is a huge improvement.
Tina, this will have to do for you … for now.
We’re gonna learn a new word. It’s another of those words that get tossed around a lot without anybody knowing what it actually means.
Noun: Neurosis; Adjective: Neurotic
Now, a neurotic response to a situation is one way out of proportion to the nature of the stimulus.
Try to give this a dispassionate read:
“This enemy thrives on their own hatred and their zealous desire to bring the world to heel under the superior rule of Islam!”
Doesn’t that sound unhinged? I mean, Omar is slowly being revealed as one sad, sorry piece of work. If it were not so obscenely easy to get your hands on an AR-15, we would never have heard of him. So for you to get from here to the there quoted above just seems like it might be a little … neurotic.
Count how many times you used a variant of hate in that post. And then see if you remember what I told you about projection. You don’t own an AR-15, do you?
“…a year ago a presidential nominee advocating banning all Muslim immigration would have been equally unthinkable. You have previously displayed a love of slippery slope arguments; can you not see how Trump has already boiled the frog to a point previously unseen in American discourse? Can you not predict that, if unchecked, his rhetoric and policies regarding Muslims will only continue to grow worse? ”
More Drama and hysteria. Trump revised his remarks and your decision to ignore that fact means that your purpose is purely political…you want to kill Trumps chances to be president. (Ho Hum)
From my perspective the alternative is much more dangerous: unsecured email use, lying to the American people more than once about more than one thing, Deaths in Benghazi, the unseemliness, if not illegality, of foreign contributions and quid pro quo, her economic policy proposals, and her total failure at State are all reasons to forgive Trump his somewhat blundering style and put him in the WH.
Your party promoted a man to the WH who couldn’t put two words together without teleprompter and ran on a platform of hope and change. He signaled his radical agenda to the deaf ears of his fawning supporters. I have no reason to respect or listen to your complaints about Trump and I certainly don’t need to justify a vote for him considering the Obama legacy and Hillary as alternative.
You don’t know what’s going to happen but whatever does you better hope it’s not more of the same.
“More Drama and hysteria.”
Yes, banning all members of one of the world’s largest religions from immigration is dramatic and hysterical. A dramatic and hysterical reaction is proportionate.
“Trump revised his remarks”
His revision was no better. Only you and like three other people think it was. Everyone else, on both the left and right, recognizes Trump’s proposal as bigoted and un-American.
You insist once again that my objection to the (temporary!) Muslim ban is partisan when it is opposed by a large number in the Republican Party. Yawn.
You insist one again that Trump’s policy is serious without addressing any of the counter-arguments by experts across the political spectrum. Yawn.
“you want to kill Trumps chances to be president.”
You’re damn right I do. It is every American’s patriotic duty to ensure a racist, bigoted and sexist bully with no filter and no plan never becomes president.
“From my perspective the alternative is much more dangerous: unsecured email use, lying to the American people more than once about more than one thing, Deaths in Benghazi, the unseemliness, if not illegality, of foreign contributions and quid pro quo, her economic policy proposals, and her total failure at State”
There is no reason to believe Trump would not do every single one of these things. We already know he engages in quid pro quo–Ben Carson told us that Trump bribed him for his endorsement. We also know he bribed a judge. We know he has lied to the American people about numerous issues, from his position on the Iraq War to the unemployment rate to his poll numbers to crime rates. We know his economic policy proposals are considered garbage by economists across the spectrum. Can you really be so naive as to think Trump would never be irresponsible or misleading with his e-mails? I could see him having a private server; today he revoked the Washington Post’s press credentials because of their unfavorably coverage. Nixon didn’t even do that at the height of Watergate. And you think he wouldn’t hide his emails? Are you kidding?
Would Hillary Clinton ever mock a reporter’s disability? Would she ever tell her supporters to punch critics in the face? Would she ever brag about her genitalia in a debate? Would she ever say of Carly Fiorina, in public, “who would vote for that face?” Would she ever argue a judge should recuse themself because of their ethnicity?
There is nothing unethical Hillary Clinton has done that Donald Trump would not also do if given the chance. There are plenty of unethical things Donald Trump has done that Hillary Clinton would sooner chew off her foot than do. THAT’s the difference.
“Your party promoted a man to the WH who couldn’t put two words together without teleprompter”
Oh, garbage. This is the result of repeating a lie so many times you actually believe it.
“and ran on a platform of hope and change.”
And…?
” I have no reason to respect or listen to your complaints about Trump”
But you could listen to the National Review, Mitt Romney, George Bush, George W. Bush, Karl Rove, RedState, or any of the other Republicans you respect who are telling you your house is on fire and you need to get out. I’ve tried showing you their warnings; it’s like talking to a wall.
No matter. Trump will not be president, and bigotry will not win.
Once again, Tina wins – game, set and match!
Well done!
Thanks J.
I will not suffer Chris’s yammering on about racism and bigotry again on this thread. He reminds me of one of those kiddie tops, spinning and spinning and spinning. We’ll just let him wind down on his own.
We have terror problems, and economic problems, thanks to the monumental failures of this presidency! We are not in a good position to do what’s necessary to end this scourge. Opening our borders to people from these nations is crazy when we KNOW ISIS plans to embed terrorists within these groups and when our security has been so negatively compromised due to PC crap it is ineffective.
This is bigger than the blunder or the insult. President Obama’s politically correct administration is getting people killed and not just here, but all across the globe. Because he puts managing offense over the safety of human beings this enemy has sprung up (jv team) and metastasized, gaining ground and power in several nations in the ME and and inspiring Islamic warriors in every nation. What a pathetic state of affairs…and in 2012 the American people regrettably put this adolescent thinker in the WH again! Hillary puts on a show of being tough but delivers Benghazi…she would be a disaster.
Trump is our only option for both the economy and this bleeding war.
The President is speaking now, continues to call this menace “ISIL” (An area of land that includes Israel and Jordan). Suddenly he’s showing some interest in “taking out” the enemy…makes sense, there’s an election to be won. Phony bunch, these Demacrats!
The president thinks its comical that he’s received criticisms for being unwilling to use the terms “radical Islamic terrorists.” He says it wouldn’t make any difference if he did. It isn’t just about what he says or doesn’t say. It is his PC approach to security and the military and law enforcement. Law enforcement and security people have said that the rules he’s imposed make it difficult to talk and plan between agencies. Our security organs under Obama’s leadership have had to operate with their hands tied and their mouths taped over…we will not use terms like Islamist, we will not profile…we will not offend…and so we will let a man who was on our radar purchase guns and slaughter people. But we haven’t offended anyone. We’re back to square one after 911. But consider, under his no offense rules Muslims seem to be more offended than they were under Bush? Maybe that’s because it was important to make a big deal out of offending Muslims so he could make Republicans the bigger enemy. His accusations go back to the beginning of his presidency when he started his PC policy, and that was long before Trump entered the scene. He’s playing activist and failing horrifically as commander-in-chief. Chris is a tool…good little brown shirt, tattling on the republicans. I’m surprised there hasn’t been a call for us to wear little yellow elephants on our lapels.
Obama’s made it possible again to make the same mistakes we made before 911…failure to connect the dots.
He claims he’s dismantling ISIS’s funding sources, which is a joke. His failures gave ISIS a “state” in which to operate and plan that includes oil supplies and other resources amounting to millions of dollars of revenue. If he hadn’t called them the jv team, if he had been doing his job, if he had been willing to name this enemy and conduct a swift, firm, effective strategy to end them, WE WOULDN’T BE HERE!
The president also negotiated with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world, part of the axis of evil, resulting in them having access to millions and millions of dollars and improving their opportunity to develop nuclear capability.
Obama, Hillary and their pals looks like idiots calling for gun control. Patty cake isn’t going to get this done. Fighting this war requires grown ups, not campus games. Europe is disarmed and the terrorists there acquired guns. How blind can the Democrats be? When they don’t use guns they use explosives. A stupid gun law will not prohibit these monsters from carrying out there monstrous deeds with weapons, bombs or any other weapon they might devise.
As Rush rightly just pointed out the Obama administration is not similarly concerned with offending Jews or Christians. His policy to bring in refugees didn’t include persecuted Christians until he was called out on it…even then the number was minimal. This is strange since our refugee policy includes people who are: “…of special humanitarian concern to the United States,” and can “demonstrates that they were persecuted or fear persecution due to race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group. Christians were specifically targeted and decimated by Islamic terrorists in the ME. Despicable acts have been perpetrated on them by monstrous Muslims calling themselves ISIS…where is Obama’s concern about their bigotry? Where is his compassion for these people seeking refuge?
Tina: “We have terror problems, and economic problems, thanks to the monumental failures of this presidency!”
Yes, both the biggest terrorist attack on US soil and the worst global recession ever both occurred under Obama’s watch.
Oh, wait. They didn’t. Your statement is ridiculous.
“Opening our borders to people from these nations is crazy”
Please cite a single national security or foreign policy expert who agrees with you on this. Most on both the left and right have said banning Muslim immigration (temporarily!) is crazy, because it would bring more harm to our nation by alienating our allies and increasing the strength of ISIS. Rebut their claims or admit you have nothing.
You cannot pretend to be serious about fighting terror while simultaneously ignoring everything that serious foreign policy experts say about your proposals for fighting terror.
The rest of what you wrote was an incoherent screed. This is particularly galling:
“I’m surprised there hasn’t been a call for us to wear little yellow elephants on our lapels.”
You are the biggest hypocrite on the planet. You are the one advocating for religious discrimination, not liberals. The nerve you have to pretend that you are being victimized because your bigotry is being called out is astounding. No wonder you support Trump; you share his self-centered attitude, his whininess, and his inability to take criticism.
You also contradict yourself completely:
“…and so we will let a man who was on our radar purchase guns and slaughter people…”
“Obama, Hillary and their pals looks like idiots calling for gun control”
Well, do you want people on terrorist watch lists to be able to legally purchase guns, or don’t you? Clinton just said that people under investigation for terrorist activity should not be allowed to legally purchase guns. The NRA disagrees, and has fought bills (backed by liberals) to make this illegal. And you’re blaming Obama and liberals for this guy being able to purchase a gun? Wow. Just astounding. You know nothing.
And by the way, your statements about Christian refugees are a complete lie. The reason there are few of them is because they make up such a small percentage of the population.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/20/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-if-youre-syria-and-christianyou-/
“Your party promoted a man to the WH who couldn’t put two words together without teleprompter ….”
Only in your blinkered estimation. You need to pull tape of his press club dinner appearances. He and Bubba both can spin a good yarn.
And Tina, even to an audience with as short an attention span as this one, there is a limit to how many times a candidate can “revise his remarks”. I think The ELE has already past it.
“Only in your blinkered estimation.”
Oh really? His remarks on healthcare without a teleprompter are hysterical. He was definitely not eloquent and on his signature issue? Didn’t have a clue!
So Obama can tell a good story, so what! That makes him qualified to be a comedian or a clown, not a leader.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/03/20/obamas-teleprompter-the-gops-dumbest-attack
Oh, Chris … thank you!
I got me some new jargon: Teleprompter Derangement Syndrome, or Prompterphobia.
And I will use it.
Ugh … passed it. Dang.
No matter how many times you repeat it, “ELE” doesn’t seem to be entering the lexicon. You don’t look smart; you look like a poor communicator.
It’s getting to you, isn’t it?
The man is an Extinction Level Event. He and his followers are a dire threat to the Republic. ELE for short has a certain cadence, and that’s what I’m going to call him.
Whaddaknow! Piss, the sharia expert, calls Jack a bigot again. Hey Piss, have you stopped beating your boyfriend yet?
Pie, if you want me to be rougher, all you have to do is ask.
Pie, you’re back. Trump’s big policy speech must be ready for prime time. Can’t wait.
Tina
Bottom Line Educate yourself on the ISIS game and why they try to get us to use specific words as they sell America wants to kill all Muslims to recruit fighters.
You play into ISIS Gae just like they want
Again Educate yourself stop watching Media and listen to the REAL EXPERTS not NEWS PUNDIT’S being paid MILLIONS
I’ve been browsing online more than 2 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like
yours. It’s pretty worth enough for me. Personally, if
all site owners and bloggers made good content as you
did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.
Piss Chris, our resident expert on Islam and Sharia (“God’s law”) should at least try to educate and inform himseelf on what Sharia is and how it is applied and practiced. But he won’t. He prefers his happy-happy, naive view. I suppose it makes him feel comfortable living in his idiotic and ignorant progressive fantasy world.
Jack and Tina live in the real world and for that they get labeled as bigots and racists by this insufferable, angry, rude, nitwit progressive moron.
• Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”
• Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”
• CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”
• Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”
• Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”…
from 51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.
In light of the massacre of dozens of people at a gay club in Orlando, it’s worth re-visiting the comments of Islamic speaker Fahad Qureshi, who admitted that the desire to see homosexuals killed was a belief held by so-called “moderate” Muslims.
During a conference held in May 2013, Qureshi complained that the media often frames views such as “the death penalty for homosexuals” or the subjugation of women as only being held by radical Muslims.
“I always try to tell them that….these are general views that every Muslim actually has….every Muslim believes in these things,” says Qureshi.
Qureshi then asks the audience of Muslim attendees – black, white and Arab – to raise their hands if they agree with gender segregation and stoning women for adultery, as taught by the Koran.
Virtually every single ‘moderate’ Muslim in the room raises their hand to agree with these positions…
The clip attests to the fact that intolerant and hateful viewpoints are not just held by a tiny minority of “radical” Muslims, they are held by most Muslims period, and they’re taken directly from the Koran.
from Killing Gays is a Belief Held by ‘Moderate Muslims
Our resident expert Piss Chris may now proceed to attack the messengers (his usual brain dead progressive style of intellectually dishonest and rhetorically fallacious “debate”, but that will not change the facts.
Evidently the usual gang of progressive morons couldn’t be bothered to watch the video.
Arch gay conservative (and the fellow who was driven off the UCLA campus by pin headed, knuckle dragging progressive thugs) Milo writes —
The Day ‘Arabic Twitter’ Threatened To Bomb, Decapitate And Sodomize Me
Milo 5 days ago on YouTube —
For gays, what distinction between Islam and terrorism?
Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
I got this site from my pal who shared with me about this website and now this time I am visiting this website and reading very informative articles at this time.
We’rе a group of volᥙnteers and opening a brand new scheme in our community.
Your web site ᧐ffeｒed us with useful information to work on. You have
performed a formidable job and ouг whole neighborһood will likely be grateful
to you.
Ԝith havin so much content do you ever run into any prοblems of plagoгism or ϲopyright infringement?
My website has a lot of unique content I’ve either authored myself or outsourced but it ⅼooks ⅼike a lοt ᧐f it is popping it սp all over the web without my authоrіzation. Do you know
any solutions to help гeduce content from being stolen? I’d really appreciаte it.
I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This paragraph posted at this web site is
genuinely nice.
Whatever you come up with hits a nerve to me, many
thanks for challenging your readers.
Youг means ᧐f explaining everything in this
post is genuinely pleasant, all can effortlessly be awarе of it, Tһanks a ⅼot.