Islam to Become Ireland’s 2nd Largest Religion

q1dk2-vi

This is what happens when your birth rate craters, your secularism rate spikes and you open the doors to Muslim immigrants because your government has decided that immigration is the key to economic growth.

Ireland’s birth rate has been cut in half since 1970 and is only slightly higher than Sweden. And a good deal lower than that of the Pakistani immigrants it’s importing.

In 2001, there were less than 2000 Muslims in Ireland. Now there are nearly 50,000. By 2020, there will be an estimated 100,000. By 2043, Islam will be Ireland’s second largest religion.

This is the horrifying power of demographics. A few people in the door with a large birth rate become an occupying army in a short matter of time.

Population statistics compiled by the Central Statistics Office confirmed that Islam is now Ireland’s fastest-growing religion and, at its current rate of expansion, it is set to become the second religion in the State after Catholicism by 2043.

The latest Census figures also revealed that 84pc of the Irish population describe themselves as Catholic, down from 91.6pc in the 1991 census.

The second fastest growing religion in Ireland is Orthodox Christianity, where numbers have doubled in the space of five years, rising to 45,223 in 2011. This is almost entirely down to immigration from the former Soviet bloc states where Orthodox Christianity is dominant.

The Protestant religions accounted for some 5pc of the population, dramatically down on figures from 1900-1920.

The number of Irish people with no religion, atheists and agnostics, increased by 400pc in Ireland between 1991 and 2011 to a total of 277,237.

There’s nothing unusual here. Ireland is going the way of the rest of Europe and the rest of the First World. Ireland already has its own Muslim knockout games. And Islamic terrorists are setting up shop there.

Britain’s MI-5 (domestic intelligence service) has expanded its operations in the neighboring Irish Republic, after increased al Qaeda, and Islamic radical, activity was detected. Three Afghan men were recently arrested, in a room full of bomb making materials. There are dozens of similar suspects under surveillance. For the last three decades, Ireland and Britain have cooperated on domestic security issues, initially because of a mutual need to keep an eye on the IRA (Irish Republican Army) terrorists. The IRA has devolved into a criminal gang, but al Qaeda, and other Islamic radical groups have found Ireland a convenient place to hide out and plan their next atrocity.

And Muslim settlers in Ireland are behaving the way you expect them to.

Members of the ICCI mosque celebrated the kidnapping of Irish aid worker Margaret Hassan. Children at a school linked to the same mosque mourned the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qa’ida in Iraq;

Irish media has reported that Dr. Ali Selim, a leader in the Irish Muslim Brotherhood, has made comments praising the concept of “martyrdom.”

The Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland (ICCI) is an important part of the European Muslim Brotherhood serving as host for the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR), the theological body headed by global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi. The ICCI is also the registered headquarters for Qaradawi’s International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS). Noah Al-Kaddo, the ICCI Executive Director, is also an officer of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE), the European umbrella organization for the Muslim Brotherhood and the parent organization of the ECFR. Ali Selim is the private secretary to ICCI Imam Hussein Halawa and is described as a “resident theologian.”

Mr. Selim attracted a great deal of local media attention in September 2006 when he told a newspaper interviewer that, ideally, he would like to see Shariah law adopted in Ireland in the “event of a Muslim majority.”

Apparently that time may not be that far away if Muslim settlers are allowed to continue migrating to Ireland.

  • M2000

    Islamic imperialism will indeed outdo British imperialism, except if the Irish fought back like they did with the Brits they’d be labeled as “Islamophobes”.

  • A Z

    Shariah law would have an upside

    We would not hear from people like Jan Fonda, Betty Freidan, NOW, Cindy Sheehan, Melissa Perry, Maddow and other leftists storm troopers.

    • M2000

      That’s the beauty of these Useful Idiots, they’re the first ones to go, when during the Cold War, the Reds would have put them all down, with Islam’s war against everyone else, same deal.

    • Richard Johnston

      We’ll have them until they get stoned to death.

    • S1999

      It’s Jane Fonda, not Jan. And I have never heard her champion Islam.

      • A Z

        “I wasn’t attracted to Buddhism although I really respect it. I wasn’t attracted to Islam although I really respect it. ”

        - Jane Fonda

        “Jane Fonda Plans Anti-War Bus Tour” – Fox news

        If you are against war everywhere all the time, you are against your people, your country, and your culture.

        • S1999

          But the anti-war bus never happened, and the line you quote is typical Hollywood waffle. Hardly a shill for Islam. You can’t support rights for women (as Fonda purports to do) AND Islam.

          • A Z

            It does not matter the bus tour never happened. She made her mind known. The tour not happening is maybe nit 2nd thoughts as a calculation that her reputation would take too much of a hit.

            Yes, you can. In Sweden all sorts of feminist dupes wore burkhas in support of a supposed victim. The left in Sweden is supporting the ruling socialist party right up to the point that so many Muslims emigrate to Sweden that it becomes an Islamic state, Swedish cuisine, language and everything else disappear. And all that time they will be marching for women’s rights and giving speeches for it.

          • A Z

            Canceling the bus tour is no different than stopping giving anti-war speeches because you calculate correctly that your next film project will bomb at the box office if it continues.

          • A Z

            There area lot of feminists that support the Muslims community regardless of how much crime is driven by ?Muslim immigrants.

            There are tons of crimes by Muslims against other in Sweden and the same feminists speak out in full force when a Muslimah alleges that someone said something bad about her burka and attempted to take it off. They are silent about the rape wave hitting Sweden.

          • S1999

            I agree with you, AZ. Hypocrisy and stupidity at their peak.

          • A Z

            “Islamophobes could not care less about women of any creed or colour.” – Laurie Penny (British socialist-feminist)

            http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/12/30/the-hypocrisy-of-the-feminist-response-to-islams-oppression-of-women/?singlepage=true

          • S1999

            Yikes. She’s a loon. Can we say “cognitive dissonance”?

          • A Z

            Yes.

            I think the cause for her cognitive dissonance is compartmentalization. But that psychological term only explains part of it. When breaches happen there has to be “shoring parties”, paradigms/ arguments in her own head or by her friends that explain away any dissonance

            “compartmentalization separates different (incompatible) cognitions from each other”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)

            Knowing this from personal experience, she is going to be sick for a long time and she might never wake up.

          • A Z

            Laurie Penny (born 28 September 1986) is a British columnist, blogger and author who writes for the New Statesman

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Penny

  • bigjulie

    Rumour has it that Irish Muslims are consuming beans and cabbage in record amounts and will soon be issuing their first Fartwa!

  • Veracious_one

    A few people in the door with a large birth rate become an occupying army in a short matter of time.
    that’s part of the Islamic grand plan…and Obama wants to bring in 30,000 more Islamic breeding machines…

  • Ove Karlsen

    If you fear sectarian unrest, please read and become aware of how to refute them: (10 yrs of research) http://ovekarlsen.com/Blog/theology/

    PBWY.

    • Drakken

      Your islam no matter the flavor is still islam. It is a blight and scourge upon humanity and the day is coming where us westerners will deal with you with a final Great Crusades, that day can’t come soon enough. My advice to you would be, get out of the west and go practice your islam in any one of the 57 Islamic cesspools of your choice, your days here are numbered.

      • baba ali

        Ooooo,the final great crusade!!Well,first you people need to get off your lazy behinds to do something.All I hear from the likes of you is talk,talk,talk and empty threats.Impotency!!Armchair battle strategist and wannabe mass murder.You have to continuously go back to the Crusades,Serbs,Croats and the other assorted mass murderers because the likes of you are just talk.Why don’t you be a real man and do something wimp!

        • S1999

          Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya… we are already there, fool. And when the time is right, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan…

          • baba ali

            First ,you all got ran out of Lebanon.Then Somalia,then Iraq and soon Afghanistan.So you are another armchair general.Lazy and impotent,full of talk and no action.

          • S1999

            We ‘run out’ when it suits. Even a skull as thick as yours can process that.

          • baba ali

            You got RAN out.

          • S1999

            LOL! Typical delusional Muslim. When not killing each other, you lot make excellent cannon fodder.

          • baba ali

            It’s not what I say or what Muslims say for that matter,it is what history says.

          • Drakken

            You should pay attention to history raghead, for nobody is better at killing lots of people better than the European, keep that in mind for you will be living history quite soon.

          • baba ali

            Yea,you’re right,Europeans and their descendants are the greatest mass murderers in history.Stop crying about the Muslims wimp.

          • S1999

            Another Islamic typewriter warrior. Take a look around you. Your life and the lives of your Musloid compatriots are run from Washington and Tel Aviv. I am more than comfortable in my skin, for I know that when Muslims have again bitten off more than they can chew (say, with another 9/11), they will face annihilation in the hundreds of thousands. Always a comforting thought, no?

          • S1999

            And what does history say? That we have indulged you in your perversion? You do realize that Mecca could be rubble tomorrow, right?

          • baba ali

            So could any city anywhere in the world for that matter.So what?Saying something can be done and in your case,wishing it to be so and it actually happening are two completely different things.Keep dreaming with all of your other “counter-jihad” wimps.

        • Drakken

          Come on out to the sand box haji, I could use the target practice and no body is going to miss you, since I never miss.

          • baba ali

            Ha ha ha!!!!!!Love the threats little boy.

          • baba ali

            Are you threatening to shoot me?You have to get off of your lazy butt there tough guy with no balls, to shoot anyone.

        • laura r

          draken: he does have a point. he means, get your guns go to mosque, do what they do in the middle east. that means attack.

        • S1999

          You mean real men who rape and marry children? You’re not in the 7th century now, fool. They can be harvested in a jiffy. And will be, when the time is right for you.

          • baba ali

            I love all the dreamers here!!

  • M_Minnesota

    Will Paul Hewson Bono and company leave Ireland? Maybe this explains in part why U2 took out it’s tax money out of Ireland. The Jury is still out if Bono is becoming more sympathetic to Free will and Capatalism.

  • GSR

    Immigration is the new “military invasion”………the political elites in most of the world’s nations all are in agreement. They want “transnationalism”, that is, people with no one, identifiable nationality. They want a “world without countries”. They think this will prevent wars. This is just another utopian dream.

    • nomoretraitors

      They don’t care about preventing wars. They just want POWER

      • Drakken

        The one thing they always forget in their pursuit of utopia, rainbows and unicorns is, war is always a constant of the human condition and the more they try to avoid it, the more bloody it always becomes.

        • GSR

          Correct. Well put.

    • A Z

      Why do tribes fragment? Why do peoples coalesce? they have not studied this at all or correctly.

      One world government could be great, but “the Devil is in the Details”. Is one world government with the 10 amendments or is one without.

      When Ireland joined the EU, the French demanded that they raise their tax rates sky high. As if the French economy is sound.

      Is one European government worth it if it is the French model?

      IMO the EU might be a good thing under the Irish model, but not under the French model of government.

      • GSR

        I am strongly against any one world government…….localism is better suited for genuine political representation. Anything too large is doomed to fail.
        As to your first questions…….people simply prefer to live among those who are similar to themselves – in culture, language, religion, customs, history, etc. Therefore, nations serve a real purpose. Anything else is totalitarian utopianism. And that always ends in tears.

        • A Z

          Take a bunch of people on the shores of the Baltic. a few hundred years later they are in different tribes, speak different languages or dialects, and have somewhat different customs. Yet they broadly have the same cultural traditions.

          They spring from the same ancestors yet they fight.

          Several hundred years later they still had broadly the same culture and yet still they fought.

          In some ways it seems rather pointless. In other ways it seems very Darwinian and an imperative given the tech level.

          I do not think one world government is doomed. A precondition would have to be a magnitude or two lower level of corruption. Barring that it would have to be suppression of people of secessionist movements through government fiat, malfeasance or force.

          Let’s say corruption runs 10% now. Corruption for a world government would have to be at .1 % to 1%. or there would be too much resentment. And when people got caught they would have to go to jail and not immediately be replaced by another person who it is subsequently found to be corrupt also.

          • chk

            This is all a bag of bla bla bla. Look at me, how educated I am. But I don’t make any contact with muslims. That’s not my cupatea. Get real man and dare to see the treat. That is IF you can open your eyes. All this hypothetical blabbering about 10 or 1 percent. WAKE UP and dare to see the danger ! And come into action before it is too late.

          • A Z

            We’ll have 1 world government. With as much denial and backstabbing form the leftist politicians and journalists, we’ll have 1 world government. It will be called the caliphate.

            I was just laying out the parameters of what good one would need to succeed.

            I ain’t going in for the leftists version

            I could do a good version of Lazarus.

    • Drakken

      Don’t worry, once those effing muzaloids try to go after the whiskey and Guinness, the Irish will go on the warpath, even the English weren’t stupid enough to try that.

    • laura r

      its about $$$$. somehow this benefits the global elite. anyone who thinks “utopia” is just a bottom rung sheeple.

  • baba ali

    Yipeeeee! We’ll take over the West just by immigration and outbreeding you all.What’s that called? Ah yea, “Stealth Jihad”!

    • Drakken

      You really have no idea what is coming do you haji? I’ll give you a hint, think Balkans on steroids.

      • baba ali

        Oops! Did I make the wrong genocide wannabe perpetrator mad?

        • S1999

          As a Muslim you should know all about genocide.

  • Duncan

    At least if the Muslims take over all the Marxist freaks responsible for this will be the first to die.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The harsh reality is Islam is not even a religion, although it masquerades as being a religion. As a matter of fact, in Islam the freedom of choice to choose to believe or not to believe is essentially blocked, as the punishment for blasphemy and apostasy is death. Thus, that makes Islam a very rabid form of totalitarianism and mind control as opposed to being a faith-based religion, as any adherents that openly refuse to conform to the texts and tenets of Islam receive automatic death sentences. Indeed, what faith-based religions similarly punish blasphemy and apostasy under the penalty of death? I can’t think of any, can anyone?

    In addition, Islam requires all adherents to wage jihad in one form or another, as jihad is a holy war in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists (a tiny minority) or non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists (the vast overwhelming majority). Otherwise, not doing so would constitute blasphemy and apostasy, which are capital offenses in Islam, as any Muslim that doesn’t conform to the texts and tenets of Islam in effect is an infidel. Indeed, do faith-based religions likewise require their adherents under the force of death to wage jihad (holy war) in one form or another in order to make them supreme? I don’t believe.

    Moreover, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) in order to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Thus, do any faith-based religions likewise have a similar purpose? Furthermore, do any faith-based religions have their on specific brand of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy similar to Islam’s? If they did, they would have already been outlawed a long time ago.

    Hence, Islam obviously is not a faith-based religion, and the only people dumb enough to believe otherwise are the secular left and, of course, Muslims, but nonetheless neither group has the first clue what constitutes a faith-based religion.

    • pupsncats

      It doesn’t matter whether Islam is a religion or not. What matters is those who believe it are systematically infiltrating the world with the plan to take over the world where only Islam exists.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        It doesn’t matter whether Islam is a religion or not. What matters is those who believe it are systematically infiltrating the world with the plan to take over the world where only Islam exists.

        It not only matters, it matters a great deal. In the USA, for instance, we have a little thing called the first amendment that provides certain protections for faith-based religions, but since Islam is not a faith-based religion, it doesn’t deserve any of those protections.

        As a matter of fact, since Islam is not a faith-based religion but a very rabid form of totalitarianism instead that is seeking to take control of the world, Islam should be banned and outlawed from the USA ASAP, and it would if not for the control of our society by the PC multiculturalists. Indeed, it will take a bottoms up ground roots campaign of millions of united US citizens to crack that control exercised by the PC multiculturalists.

        Likewise, if Islam were correctly understood to be what it actually is throughout Europe and the remainder of the infidel world, it would likewise be banned and outlawed as well.

        Likewise, if Islam were correctly understood to be what it actually is throughout Europe and the remainder of the infidel world, it would likewise be banned and outlawed as well.

        • hiernonymous

          Where did this “faith-based” caveat come from? The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws regarding the establishment of “religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It doesn’t say squat about “faith-based.”

          You’re openly advocating a clear violation of the Constitution. The Constitution says, quite plainly, that there will be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and here you are advocating precisely such a prohibition.

          Sounds like someone needs a civics refresher. The speech protected by the Bill of Rights isn’t just speech you agree with; the religions protected by the Bill of Rights aren’t just the religions you approve of. Those doggone Founder PC multiculturalists…

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Where did this “faith-based” caveat come from? The 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws regarding the establishment of “religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It doesn’t say squat about “faith-based.”

            Dude, if it isn’t a faith, i.e., faith-based, it isn’t a religion. In any event, I wouldn’t expect a secular leftist PC multicultural moonbat like you to have the first clue about what constitutes a faith-based religion. Hence, I’m not surprised at all by your confusion, as you obviously accept Islam’s false claim of being a faith at face value as well. Which is why you morally equate Islam with real faith-based religions and at the same time Muslims with Christians, Jews, and members of other faith-based religions.

            The reality is just like Muslims, you PC multicultural secular leftist moonbats don’t have the first clue about what constitutes faith-based religion. All you moonbats care about is destroying it and traditional American values at the same time, because it hinders and interferes with the imposition of Marxism, which exactly like Islam is another scourge on the world. Meanwhile, at the same time, you leftwing moonbats lift up Islam on a pedestal because it has a bad habit of biting back.

            You’re openly advocating a clear violation of the Constitution. The Constitution says, quite plainly, that there will be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, and here you are advocating precisely such a prohibition.

            Islam is a very rabid form of totalitarianism as opposed to being a religion you unhinged leftwing moonbat. Indeed, there is no freedom of choice to choose to believe or not to believe in Islam like there is in real faith-based religions, and that makes Islam in stark contrast to real faith-based religions a rabid form of totalitarianism and mind control. As a matter of fact, any Muslim that openly refuses to comply with the texts and tenets of Islam receives an automatic death sentence, as blasphemy and apostasy in Islam are capital offenses. Indeed, all Muslims that refuse to comply or that simply just stop being Muslims are in effect infidels.

            Furthermore, waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Hence, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world, including the millions that your government has cluelessly allowed to migrate to the USA under the allegiance of PC multiculturalism, which is not only a very destructive form of Cultural Communism, but also a time bomb as well, are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists (a tiny minority) or non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists (the vast overwhelming majority).

            In other words, mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world with all of its excess baggage is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest. Take a look around the world, nowhere where mass Muslim immigration is currently occurring are Muslim assimilating and integrating. Instead, they first form Muslim enclaves that in time morph into Muslim no-go zones ruled by Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) that are in effect tiny Islamic statelets within the host infidel states. Indeed, it’s the other way around: Muslim immigrants assimilate and integrate the host infidels to Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) instead. As a matter of fact, a few years ago the country of France counted in excess of 700 Muslim no-go zones in France alone.

            Now I strongly agree with the sentiments of the first amendment, don’t get me wrong. Which is why I advocate that Islam should be outlawed and mass Muslim immigration should be banned and reversed ASAP, because Islam is clearly not a religion, but a very rabid form of totalitarianism instead masquerading as being a religion, and as such it isn’t protected by the first amendment of the constitution or any other amendment for that matter. In fact, if you believe otherwise, then please by all means show me where in the first amendment that rabid forms of totalitarianism, especially ones with the sole fundamental purpose of subjugating all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) in order to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world, is protected.

            Sounds like someone needs a civics refresher.

            Yeah you! Sounds like someone is a gullible useful idiot and a secular leftwing PC multicultural hack to me, who doesn’t have the first clue about what Islam actually is and also what constitutes an actual religion. Indeed, you don’t have the first clue about Islam. You just blindly accept it’s false premise of being a religion at face value with no knowledge of it whatsoever to base that assumption on other than stupid blind faith, which is no doubt why you also worship at the alter of Marxism as well.

            The speech protected by the Bill of Rights isn’t just speech you agree with;

            Good. Tell that to all your fellow Leftwing hacks who all vilified and demonized Phil Robertson’s right to free speech because it offended the feelings of some gays.

            the religions protected by the Bill of Rights aren’t just the religions you approve of.

            It’s not a matter of my approval or disapproval dude. Instead, it is a matter of reality, i.e., what Islam actually is. I didn’t create it, Muhammad did, but at the same time, unlike you I’m not incredibly gullible and delusional, and thus I can’t deny its reality. Indeed, Islam is a very rabid form of totalitarianism and mind control as opposed to being a faith-based religion, it further aims to subjugate the world into Islamic totalitarianism, and as such the first amendment or any of the other ones doesn’t protect it.

            In fact, Islam has its own form of divine Islamic totalitarian law called Sharia that according to Islam must supersede all manmade laws because it emanates divinely directly from Allah, and as such it is absolutely perfect and just. Thus, all democracies in the world, because they are the rule of man as opposed to the rule of Allah, are considered abominations in Islam that must be obliterated by jihad (holy war). You want the first amendment to protect a harsh totalitarian ideology like that? Apparently so!

            Those doggone Founder PC multiculturalists…

            Those doggone Founders were not PC multiculturalists in the least like you gullible unhinged leftwing moonbats. Nevertheless, I thought it was very amusing that a delusional leftwing loon like you who otherwise hates the constitution with a passion because it is always getting in the way of the imposition of Marxism, which you moonbats all call progress, would attempt to use the constitution in this case to protect what is in reality a very rabid form of totalitarianism which aims to take over the world posing as being a religion. Talk about being hypocritical on top of being a very mentally deficient gullible useful idiot!

          • hiernonymous

            Extended rant noted; in response, I will offer in return that one of the oldest methods of circumventing constitutional protections is to try to redefine the object of your opprobrium as something other than what it is. Your contortions aside, to argue that Islam is not a religion is absurd of the face of it. Even you recognize this, hence your introduction of the caveat “faith-based” as a first step in attempting to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment. Bottom line: the first amendment puts no such caveat on its protection. I doubt that Buddhism, Shinto, and Confucianism would meet your definition of “faith-based” religions, yet they are very much protected.

            the speech protected by the Bill of Rights isn’t just speech you agree with;

            Good. Tell that to all your fellow Leftwing hacks who all vilified and demonized Phil Robertson’s right to free speech because it offended the feelings of a few gays.

            You are still confused. Disagreeing with someone, even strongly and loudly, is not a violation of one’s First Amendment rights. Nor is calling for his dismissal from a television show. No citizen has a constitutional right to an on-air job, and no company has an obligation to pay someone to broadcast opinions antithetical with that company’s values. The First Amendment deals with action by the government; “Leftwing hacks” vilifying and demonizing someone for their opinion isn’t a First Amendment issue.

            “It’s not a matter of my approval or disapproval dude. Instead, it is a matter of reality…”

            Really? The ‘reality’ is that Islam has been universally considered a religion since its inception; a bad one, a false one, an evil one by its opponents, but a religion nonetheless.

            “In fact, Islam has its own form of divine Islamic totalitarian law called Sharia that according to Islam must supersede all manmade laws …”

            It’s a rare religion indeed that doesn’t have its laws or codes, and an even rarer one that suggests that God’s decrees should be subordinate to the whims of man. To be fair, those religions that do not offer their codes as the revealed Word of God can be a bit less obnoxious about it than, say, the Abrahamic religions.

            “You want the first amendment to protect a harsh totalitarian ideology like that? Apparently so!”

            Why, yes, I do. You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the First Amendment. It’s not the government’s job to determine which religions are good and which bad, which true and which not, which “totalitarian” and which merely “faith-based.”

            “…because it is always getting in the way of the imposition of Marxism, which you moonbats all stupidly call progress…”

            I challenge you to find a single instance in any of my posts, anywhere, in which I’ve said that the imposition of Marxism is progress. Don’t squirm and evade – you made a categorical statement, and leveled a direct accusation. Put up or shut up.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Your contortions aside, to argue that Islam is not a religion is absurd of the face of it

            Okay, since as a secular leftwing moonbat you are an authority on what constitutes religion, what exactly makes Islam a religion? Please explain that.

            Of course, Islam has 1.6 billion followers. However, the followers of Islam unlike with the followers of real faith-based religions are coerced into following Islam via the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Not to mention that no one kills more Muslims than fellow Muslims.

            Even you recognize this, hence your introduction of the caveat “faith-based”

            Not quite! All religions are faith-based. One either believes, i.e., has faith, or one does not. However, in stark contrast, Islam is not a faith-based religion as the first and foremost prerequisite of Islam is the total, complete, and unconditional submission of all Muslims to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy. Thus, a person of Islamic persuasion is a Muslim or otherwise a blasphemous apostate, in which case they must be executed according to the texts and tenets of Islam. Indeed, the word “Islam” in Arabic means “submission”, and the word “Muslim” in Arabic means “one who submits”.

            Furthermore, what is the so-called “will of Allah” that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence, it is Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law.

            Moreover, waging jihad in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims in one form or another. Thus, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another. Otherwise, again they are blasphemous apostates that per the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

            As a matter of fact, the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

            I hate to rain on your incredibly gullible useful idiot parade but there are no faith-based religions that are even remotely similar to Islam. Indeed, the only thing that Islam has remotely in common with real faith-based religions is the fact that Islam purports to be a faith-based religion, but when Islam is examined closely under the microscope of scrutiny, it fails that test miserably.

            In any event, if you can prove that my analysis and conclusions with respect to Islam are wrong, then by all means lets here it. Unlike you, I’m not an inculcated leftwing loon. Thus, I’m open-minded and my mind can be changed.

            as a first step in attempting to redefine the meaning of the First Amendment.

            Again, because you are a secular leftist and because the only thing you know about religion is that you hate it because it hinders the imposition of Marxism, you are oblivious to the reality that all real religions are faith-based. As a matter of fact, another word for religion is Faith. Nevertheless, just because something purports itself to be a Faith, doesn’t mean that it is. Indeed, when you place Islam under the microscope of close scrutiny, it fails all tests miserably.

            Bottom line: the first amendment puts no such caveat on its protection. I doubt that Buddhism, Shinto, and Confucianism would meet your definition of “faith-based” religions, yet they are very much protected

            All of them, Buddhism, Shinto, Confucianism, Hinduism, Druze, Christianity, and Judaism, are all unequivocally faith-based religions, as unlike in Islam the freedom of conscience to freely choose to believe or not to believe isn’t absent like it is in Islam, where adherents either believe per their total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” or otherwise they are declared blasphemous apostates that according to the texts and tenets of Islam must be executed.

            Not to mention the fact that all Muslim majority states in the world today are Islamic totalitarian hellholes or otherwise in the process of being turned into an Islamic totalitarian hellhole, and another fact is the fact that the non-Muslim infidels of all stripes that are unfortunate enough to live in those Muslim majority countries are all subjugated into harsh and degrading dhimmitude, where they are systematically discriminated against and oppressed, when not outright raped or murdered in cold blood.

            By the way, how many Buddhist, Shinto, Confucianism, Hinduism, Druze, Christianity, Judaism totalitarian states in the world are there today? The answer is none. Why is that? It’s because they are true faith-based religions as opposed to being a very rabid form of totalitarianism masquerading as being a religion like Islam in order to dupe gullible useful idiot infidels to eventually subjugate them into Islamic totalitarianism via jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law.

            You are still confused. Disagreeing with someone, even strongly and loudly, is not a violation of one’s First Amendment rights.

            No, I’m not confused in the least. Phil Roberson disagreed with the gay lifestyle and expressed the belief that it wasn’t moral. As a result, his show was suspended by A & E, and he was pilloried in the so-called MSM press. In other words, he and his family were subjected to harsh punishment and embarrassment for being honest about his beliefs. As a matter of fact, as it turned out though his beliefs on the subject to gays is the exact same belief of the majority of Americans, which is why A & E was inevitably forced to lift his suspension once it became very apparent to them.

            No citizen has a constitutional right to an on-air job, and no company has an obligation to pay someone to broadcast opinions antithetical with that company’s values.

            By the same token, Americans aren’t obligated to watch A & E either, which very quickly became apparent to A & E in their failed attempt to impose political correctness, i.e., self-censorship in support of the gay lifestyle, upon America.

            Indeed, it is the radical Marxist Left that is always stifling the freedom of speech. As a matter of fact, in Europe where Leftism has become more infused, telling the truth about Islam is the prosecutable thought crime of Islamophobia, which only just a few years ago was an invention of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            The First Amendment deals with action by the government; “Leftwing hacks” vilifying and demonizing someone for their opinion isn’t a First Amendment issue.

            It’s an attempt by the Left to enforce self-censorship upon society, i.e., political correctness, regardless of the First Amendment’s protections. In fact, it was the Left that invented political correctness and multiculturalism in the first place, which are both very destructive forms of cultural communism. The radical Marxist Left wants total control. Indeed, like Muslims, they are also totalitarians at heart.

            The ‘reality’ is that Islam has been universally considered a religion since its inception

            The reality is that Islam has been universally considered to be a religion since its inception by the unhinged secular left. However, regardless of what the unhinged secular left believes, the reality of Islam cannot be denied. Moreover, the only thing the secular left knows about religion is that it impedes the imposition of progress, i.e., Marxism, which is why the secular left has been diligently trying to snuff it out for more than a century.

            a bad one, a false one, an evil one by it s oppone nts, but a religion nonetheless.

            They are all bad if you listen to the secular Left, but Christianity and Christians are the worse. Indeed, the secular left vilifies Christians and Christianity way out of proportion relative to other faith-based religions, while at the same time it holds Islam, which isn’t even a faith-based religion but a rabid form of totalitarianism instead, up on a pedestal.

            Nevertheless, just because the secular left, which doesn’t have the first clue about religion and Islam, accepts at face value Islam as being a religion doesn’t mean that sane people like myself have to likewise be so stupid. I understand that you low information leftists have been inculcated into becoming compliant followers of the state and the leftist elites, but you are an ignoramus if you believe people not so inculcated like myself are going to be stupid enough to be blind followers of Marxism which always inevitably fails just like clockwork.

            It’s a rare religion indeed that doesn’t have its laws or codes

            Uhm…your stupidity and ignorance of religion is really showing here, but nonetheless no faith-based religions have a similar form of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy that must supersede all manmade laws because it is divine. Islam is very alone in that regard. Moreover, only Islam and Islam alone has as its sole fundamental purpose the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia (divine Islamic totalitarian law) in order to make Islam supreme throughout the world. Furthermore, no faith-based religions require their adherents to wage holy war in their behalf to make them supreme; again Islam is very alone in that regard.

            To be fair, those religions that do not offer their codes as the revealed Word of God can be a bit less obnoxious about it than, say, the Abrahamic religions.

            Dude, take it from me, you don’t have the first fricking clue about Christianity and Judaism, the only two Abrahamic religions. You just know what you have been inculcated to believe, which is pure utter garbage.

            Why, yes, I do. You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the First Amendment. It’s not the government’s job to determine which religions are good and which bad, which true and which not, which “totalitarian” and which merely “faith-based.”

            To the contrary, the first and foremost priority of government is to provide for national security and the national defense of the nation. Allowing millions of Muslims to migrate to America and infiltrate our country under the guise of leftwing PC multiculturalism is incredibly suicidal. Imagine if the country were so enthralled by PC multiculturalism back during the Cold War. Had it allowed millions of Communists to immigrate to our country under the guise of leftwing PC multiculturalism at that time, we would not only have lost the Cold War, but we would also be a totally bankrupt Marxist state today, although we are headed in that direction anyway.

            I mean look at the undeniable evidence. How is mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage working out for the Euroloons today? It’s a total unmitigated disaster everywhere, as Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate. They assimilate and integrate the host infidels into the tenets of Sharia instead.

            As a matter of fact, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage in reality is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest. Indeed, in the next two to three decades several Euroloon countries will become Muslim majority countries. Do you think Muslims won’t forcibly attempt to impose Sharia on the remaining infidels when that eventuality inevitably happens? You don’t believe the host infidels will become harshly degraded dhimmis exactly like all non-Muslim infidels unfortunate enough to be stuck living inside Islamic totalitarian hellhole states today? If you don’t or haven’t considered it, you are unhinged.

            I challenge you to find a single instance in any of my posts, anywhere, in which I’ve said that the imposition of Marxism is progress. Don’t squirm and evade – you made a categorical statement, and leveled a direct accusation. Put up or shut up.

            All Marxist deny what they are. Thus, you are par for the course. Not to mention that like a loon you fully embrace the tenets PC multiculturalism, don’t have a fricking clue about the freedom of speech or the purpose of government, and when it comes to Islam and religion, you are totally unequivocally oblivious. Hence, despite your denial what you are is exceedingly obvious. Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.

          • hiernonymous

            Where to begin?

            First, Islam and Christianity are relatively unusual among religions in that they require an active act of faith – that is, there is a very specific idea that once must believe in order to achieve salvation. For Christians, that belief is in the divinity of Jesus. For Muslims, it is in the unity of God. I had assumed that your term ‘faith-based’ must, to some degree, recognize that distinction, but it appears that your thinking was not that well-defined, and you simply mean faith in some generic “I believe something” sense. Certainly, Buddhism and Taoism do not require rigid adherence to an article of faith in anything remotely similar to the Christian and Muslim conceptions of religion. At any rate, Islam and Christianity are remarkably similar to one another in that respect, and remarkably dissimilar to most other religions.

            The Supreme Court has defined religions for purpose of the application of both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. There’s no exclusion based on your enthusiastic, if muddled, sense of ‘faith-based’ religions.

            Jefferson noted that the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia “…was meant to be universal . . . to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

            What this tells us is that the Founders clearly considered Islam a religion.

            On the matter of the Duck Crisis, you don’t seem to be making the necessary connections. The First Amendment, in the context of free speech, deals with governmental actions. Period. If you get up in a public square and start speaking, and the people around you shout you down, there is no First Amendment issue. If the police tell you to shut up, there is. Protesting an actor’s comments and calling for the end to his employment or the end to sponsorship of a show is not an attack on ‘freedom of speech,’ it’s the exercise of freedom of speech. If the government uses its legal authority to shut down speech, you’ve got a legitimate complaint. Until then, you’re just complaining.

            “The reality is that Islam has been universally considered to be a religion since its inception by the unhinged secular left.”

            The ‘secular left’ came into existence about 1200 years after the inception of Islam. You’re letting your political paranoia lead you into some seriously nonsensical statements. Frederick II was not a ‘leftist,’ but he clearly considered Islam a religion.

            “…but nonetheless no faith-based religions have a similar form of totalitarian law that all adherents must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy that must supersede all manmade laws because it is divine.”

            Well, sure they do, in any sense that also applies to Islam. Violate the 10 Commandments or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, and you’re sent packing to an eternity of fire and brimstone. The penalty for adultery in Judaism was the same as it was in Islam, or had you forgotten the touching moment in the New Testament when Jesus interrupts a stoning? Seems pretty total to me. But you’re mischaracterizing shari’a. A Muslim sneaking a drink of alcohol or having a little fun with his neighbor’s wife is violating shari’a, but isn’t subject to the death penalty. You’ve clearly worked yourself up into something of a frenzy when it comes to Islam, but your understanding of how Islam is actually practiced seems pretty fuzzy.

            “To the contrary, the first and foremost priority of government is to provide for national security and the national defense of the nation.”

            That’s well and truly worked into our laws. The Free Exercise Clause does not apply to people who want to practice human sacrifice. Polygamy, for some reason, was considered a threat to the state, so the government was free to override religious convictions on that matter. What security concerns do NOT allow the government to do is declare whole religions threats to national security. Again, the Supreme Court, to your apparent displeasure, has quite explicitly insisted that its job is not to figure out which religions are true or good.

            “…as Muslim immigrants never ever assimilate and integrate.”

            That was one of the complaints cited against the Jews while justifying pogroms against them, as well. Just out of curiosity, how long did it take the Germans to assimilate? The Irish? The Muslim community in the U.S. seems to be assimilating pretty well – where’s your evidence to the contrary?

            “…in the next two to three decades several Euroloon countries will become Muslim majority countries.”

            Which one is going to become Muslim majority first? When is it going to become Muslim majority? Whose demographic figures are you using to determine this? Or is this something you just sorta know? Let’s follow that country and see what actually happens.

            “All Marxist deny what they are.”

            Translation: No, I can’t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I claimed he’d said. Thought not.

            “Not to mention that like a loon you fully embrace the tenets PC multiculturalism, don’t have a fricking clue about the freedom of speech or the purpose of government, and when it comes to Islam and religion, you are totally unequivocally oblivious.”

            Reminder: You claimed that I had said that Marxism represented progress. Your political Tourette’s is entertaining, but it’s not a citation of me saying what you claimed I said. That leaves you with three choices:
            A. Find some evidence to back up your claim.
            B. Retract your claim and apologize.
            C. Squirm and explain why your personal dislike of me or my politics trumps actual honesty.

            I know which of those my money’s on, but maybe you’ll surprise me.

            “Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.”

            This sentence admirably sums up the substantive comment of your entire post. Imagine how much time you’d have saved yourself if you’d led off with this piece of emptiness and skipped the rest.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            On the matter of the Duck Crisis, you don’t seem to be making the necessary connections.

            Here’s the necessary connection. Duck Dynasty, which features American traditions and values like guns and hunting and praying and religion in such a high profile in your face manner inevitably became the highest rated show ever in the history of cable TV. Meanwhile, the radical Marxist Left, which hates American traditions and values like guns and hunting and especially praying and religion, decided that one way or another it was going to take Duck Dynasty down.

            Thus, they conspired to send in their reporter to do a hit job by conducting an interview for GQ magazine no less and that no one outside the Left reads with Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the show. Not to mention also that GQ magazine, by the way, advocates the exact polar opposite of what the Duck Dynasty crowd represents. Then once that underhanded feat had been accomplished, the talking points were written and sent out. Next, the so-called MSM went into hyperbolic mode in order to crucify Phil Robertson for having the audacity to express his honest opinion about gays in response to a question that was somehow asked by a GQ reporter/hitman, who was sent out to deliberately target and kill the Duck Dynasty Show.

            Next thing you know, A & E suspends Robertson and the show and some advertisers like Cracker Barrel, for instance, were quick to take Duck Dynasty merchandise off their shelves. All of this was done, of course, to vilify and demonize Robertson for having the audacity to express his honest opinion in response to a reporter’s question with respect to gays and in order to destroy the show because it may or may not have hurt the feelings of some gays.

            Meanwhile, the majority of the American people, on the other hand, who not only mostly agree with Robertson’s sentiments towards gays but also even if they do not would nonetheless still be willing to fight and die to protect Robertson’s right to voice his opinion, sided on the side of Robertson and the show. Thus, A & E and Cracker Barrel in their infinite wisdom were forced to reverse course rather abruptly and end their idiotic suspensions of Robertson and the show and put Duck Dynasty items back on the shelves.

            Indeed, what this whole episode amounted to was an attempt by the radical Marxist Left to destroy Duck Dynasty for the traditional American values that it espouses in a very high profile manner via the hegemony of the radical Marxist Left and its support in the so-called MSM, the gay activists and their army of leftwing political hack supporters, and through the force of political correctness, which was designed by the cultural communists to impede in their favor through self-censorship the freedom of speech in free societies. But this time around they all over reached and the entire episode ended up backfiring on them, as through the overwhelming support and response of the American people the show now is even more popular today that it was before and all associated Duck Dynasty merchandise are flying off the shelves.

            As a matter of fact, I just purchased the boxed three-season DVD collector’s edition of the show in blue ray from Amazon. I never would have done so otherwise.

          • hiernonymous

            Your long and passionate interpretation of Duck Dynasty as metaphor for America’s kulturkampf nothwithstanding, here’s the bit you still fail to track: if every word that you wrote were perfectly accurate, none of this would involve the First Amendment.

            I don’t know how much plainer it’s possible to make it: the First Amendment deals with actions by the government. The Bill of Rights did not, does not,and was never intended to guarantee that all speech would be heard respectfully and politely, or that nobody would attempt to drown out, distort, discourage, or undermine someone else’s message. The Bill of Rights simply ensures that nobody can do so with the power and authority of the government.

            You assert that the whole move against Duck Dynasty backfired, that the show is more popular than ever, and that you bought Duck Dynasty merchandise you otherwise would not have bought. That alone should be sufficient to demonstrate that nobody’s “freedom of speech” was, at any point, threatened.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            No one ever said the government tried to impede Robertson’s right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment. That’s your absurd argument. What the radical Marxist Left did in this case is attempt to use its hegemony together with political correctness to brand Robertson’s speech as hate speech in order to destroy the show. It didn’t work and backfired on them instead, and their quest to make gay marriage legal in the process suffered a major setback.

          • hiernonymous

            “No one ever said the government tried to impede Robertson’s right to free speech guaranteed under the first amendment. ”

            You were complaining about “the Left’s” attempt to deny Robertson his right to free speech in response to a comment on the First Amendment. If you’re simply complaining because “the Left” is exercising its own right to free speech in epxressing disapproval of Robertson’s views, and you understand that the First Amendment isn’t in play, it’s not clear what you’re crying about.

            “It didn’t work and backfired on them instead, and their quest to make gay marriage legal in the process suffered a major setback.”

            Could be. Not at all relevant to the conversation, but it seems possible.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Well, sure they do, in any sense that also applies to Islam.

            I hate to keep raining on your extremely gullible useful idiot parade over and over again moonbat because this is getting to be exceedingly boring, but nonetheless Islam alone makes the miraculous claim that its holy texts contained in the Koran emanates divinely, that is directly from Allah, as it is according to Islam the direct verbatim texts of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch Angel Gabriel. Thus, the texts of Islam, i.e., the Koran, are supreme to the texts of all other holy books combined in the world since it is the only texts that are divine.

            In addition, Sharia, i.e., divine Islamic totalitarian law, also must further supersedes all inferior and fallible laws emanating from mere mortal men, because only laws emanating divinely, that is directly from Allah, i.e., the infamous “will of Allah”, in which all Muslims totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the pain of death for blasphemy and apostasy, can be absolutely perfect and just. Meanwhile, all faith-based religions, on the other hand, make no qualms about admitting that their respective holy texts emanate from the writings of mere mortal and very fallible men.

            Violate the 10 Commandments or disbelieve in the divinity of Jesus, and you’re sent packing to an eternity of fire and brimstone.

            But nonetheless adherents are not executed, as is the case in Islam, and that my delusional Marxist friend, is a very big difference between faith-based religions and the totalitarian cult of Islam.

            The penalty for adultery in Judaism was the same as it was in Islam, or had you forgotten the touching moment in the New Testament when Jesus interrupts a stoning?

            Uhm…no Christian or Jew today takes the writings contained in the Bible in a literal absolutist sense. Meanwhile, the holy texts of Islam, on the other hand, is always and only taken in the most literal absolutist sense possible, as it emanates divinely directly from Allah. Moreover, any Muslim perceived as changing just one single word of the Koran will be instantly executed because again it is the literal verbatim text of Allah and is therefore absolutely perfect. Indeed, this why reforming Islam is utterly impossible.

            But you’re mischaracterizing shari’a. A Muslim sneaking a drink of alcohol or having a little fun with his neighbor’s wife is violating shari’a, but isn’t subject to the death penalty.

            Not only do you not understand the texts and tenets of Islam, you obviously also don’t have the first clue about Sharia or what more accurately is Islamic totalitarian law. Indeed, if anyone is guilty of misrepresenting the tenets of Sharia, go look in the mirror you dufus! Meanwhile, why is virtually the entire Islamic world a totalitarian/authoritarian hellhole if not for Sharia? Give me a break.

            You’ve clearly worked yourself up into something of a frenzy when it comes to Islam, but your understanding of how Islam is actually practiced seems pretty fuzzy.

            I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you would ever come close to knowing until it is too late!

          • hiernonymous

            “…as it is according to Islam the direct verbatim texts of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the arch Angel Gabriel…”

            So far, so good. Christianity maintains that the Word was made Flesh; Islam maintains that the Word was made Book. Both are miraculous claims.

            “Thus, the texts of Islam, i.e., the Koran, are supreme to the texts of
            all other holy books combined in the world since it is the only texts
            that are divine. ”

            Now you’re starting to lose the bubble. Muslims certainly believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God, and therefore supreme over all other texts. Similarly, Christians believe that Jesus was the Word of God, and that the Bible, as the divinely inspired record of his life, words, and ministry, is supreme over all other holy scriptures. Again, it’s a rare religion that does not consider its scripture to be supreme.

            There are some practical implications to the Muslim belief in the Qur’an as the Word inlibrate, as you might say, but in the sense you’re discussion, Islam is hardly unusual, much less unique. Some of the more practical implications: the Qur’an is not the Qur’an if it is translated; this has had an impact on the development and survival of Arabic as a language, and on the cultural influence of Arab language and culture throughout the Muslim world. The physical book is treated with reverence; allowing it to touch the ground or defiling it will get a very visceral response from a Muslim, akin to dragging an American flag on the ground in front of a vet here at home.

            “In addition, Sharia, i.e., divine Islamic totalitarian law, also must
            further supersede all inferior and fallible laws emanating from mere
            mortal men, because only laws emanating divinely, that is directly from
            Allah…”

            Again, Shari’a supersedes other laws in the same sense that any other religion claiming divine inspiration does. First, you seem to be laboring under a misapprehension about shari’a. The Qur’an is the Word of God; shari’a is a code of conduct, so to speak, derived from the Qur’an and from the sunna, or traditions. Shari’a is not the infallible word of God, it’s the rules for living derived therefrom. In that sense, it’s not significantly different from a code of conduct derived from the words of Jesus to those who believe that Jesus was God made flesh; I can’t begin to tell you how many times in my life I’ve heard Christians insist that the Law of God is superior to the Law of Man. You might also want to pay a visit to Israel; a few hours spent trying to use an elevator or get a meal on the Sabbath will tell you that the codes of conduct derived from the Word of God is taken pretty seriously by the Jews, too.

            “Indeed, this is why reforming Islam is utterly impossible.”

            Where did you study Islam? WND University? The Qur’an is the infallible word of God according to Islam, and too true, it can’t be revised. No more can one change the Bible. The Bible, of course, was assembled from many sources in many languages, and improving the translations of the Bible is an ongoing task, but it is no more acceptable to Christianity to simply decide to change an uncomfortable verse than it is to Islam to change a line in the Qur’an.

            However, shari’a is not the Qur’an, and the interpretation of the Qur’an and the Hadith were long the subject of ijtihad, or the use of reason, logic, and argument from analogy to determine how to proceed in new situations. In the event, there came a time, during the Abbasid Caliphate IIRC, that Muslim scholars argued that all relevant questions had been settled and that ijtihad was no longer appropriate. That’s not a ruling from God or from the Qur’an, but a decision made by the ‘ulama, and reformers today are discussing the return of ijtihad (which never fell entirely out of favor among the Shi’a – that’s a large part of what an ayatullah actually is). The barriers to reform in Islam are formidable, but then, so are the barriers to reform in Christianity. The underlying problem is the same: how does one reconcile the principle that laws are rightly derived from the will of the people with the principle that the Supreme Creator of the entire universe has already told us what He wants us to do and how?

            “Not only do you not understand the texts and tenets of Islam, you
            obviously also don’t have the first clue about Sharia or what more
            accurately is Islamic totalitarian law.”

            Just out of curiosity, while you’re posturing like this, what’s your source of understanding of the same? Where did you learn what you believe you know about Islam?

            “Meanwhile, why is virtually the entire Islamic world a totalitarian/authoritarian hellhole if not for Sharia?”

            That’s a question you should have asked long ago. It might surprise you to learn that there are many, many possible answers that have nothing to do with shari’a.

            “I forgot more about Islam and Muslims than you would ever come close to knowing…”

            That’s a pity. If you had remembered some of it, your posts wouldn’t be so frothy and hysterical.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You ever here the term, “action speaks louder than words?” You are so addicted to forming inappropriate moral equivalences that you completely ignore the actions of Muslims, especially when those actions conflict with your fantasy based preconceived notions of Islam.

            By the way, Dufus, I know you don’t realize it, but equating Christianity and Christians to Islam and Muslims as you constantly do is extremely denigrating to Christianity and Christians! However, in your case, I believe you do it subconsciously and without realizing it, which at the same time reveals your strong contempt for Christianity and Christians on a subconscious level.

            Also, you did a wonderful job of pointing out all of those populations of Muslim immigrants in Europe that actually assimilated and integrated and then matriculated into becoming productive and contributing members of their newly adopted host infidel states. Bravo!

            Meanwhile, you totally ignore the FACT that in Islam there is no freedom of conscience to choose to believe or not to believe as there is in faith-based religions, as the latter choice is effectively blocked via the punishment of death for blasphemy and apostasy. When something is inconvenient or otherwise doesn’t comport with your preconceived notions, you simply ignore it as if it doesn’t exist. How convenient!

          • hiernonymous

            “You are so addicted to forming inappropriate moral equivalence…”

            What moral equivalencies did I form in that post, and how were they inappropriate?

            “….especially when those actions conflict with your fantasy based preconceived notions of Islam.”

            Your characterizations of Islam actually conflict with what I experienced in years of living and traveling in the Arab world. Not sure how that adds up to “fantasy,” and I note that you ducked the questions on where you had acquired your understanding of Islam. I invite your attention back to that question. You’d insisted that you have forgotten more about Islam than I ever knew; I’m curious to know what’s behind that rather bold claim.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            You certainly are not the first gullible useful idiot leftist moonbat addicted to apologizing for Islam and Muslims to be duped by Muslims. In fact, Marxists the world over are infamous for their capacity to ignore reality that is staring at them right in the face, and that explains how you can be a Marxist as well, especially when you consider the fact that without fail Marxism has failed every time it has been implemented. I’m guessing that you reside somewhere across the pond, which also explains a lot.

          • hiernonymous

            You ducked both questions. I asked what moral equivalency I’d drawn, and how it was inappropriate. Crickets on that. You also claimed to have forgotten more about Islam than I’ve ever known – I’m asking how you’ve learned about Islam? What’s your basis of knowledge and experience? Where did you study? Who did you study under? Where have you lived? What were your professional experiences? How did you come by this rich depth of understanding of the Muslim world?

          • ObamaYoMoma

            Translation: No, I can’t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I c laimed h e’d said. Thought not.

            Uhm…I don’t have to. All I have to do and anyone else for that matter is read your garbage.

            Reminder: You claimed that I had said that Marxism represented progress

            Not quite, I said that Marxists view the imposition of Marxism as progress, and they do.

            Your political Tourette’s is entertaining, but it’s not a citation of me saying what you claimed I said. That leaves you with three choices:
            A. Find some evidence to back up your claim.
            B. Retract your claim and apologize.
            C. Squirm and explain why your personal dislike of me or my politics trumps actual honesty.

            I don’t have to make any citations, moonbat, it’s readily discernable via your writings and especially in the way you express your views, which are ideologically Marxist in perspective. I mean you can’t discern through my writings and the way I express my views that I’m a conservative? I heard of being insular, but man you are taking insular to a whole new unhinged level. Damn son!

            “Indeed, you moonbats are all inculcated and all think alike.”

            This sentence admirably sums up the substantive comment of your entire post. Imagine how much time you’d have saved yourself if you’d led off with this piece of emptiness and skipped the rest.

            Actually, that sentence you referenced is exceedingly accurate, as you Marxist moonbats are all like mind-programmed robots in that you all say and do the same exact stupid idiotic things over and over again. It’s like repeating the same stupid mistakes of the past over and over again is a time-honored tradition for you Marxist loons. Indeed, your unhinged arguments apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while denigrating Christianity and Christians and at the same time freedom and liberty are no different from the countless other Marxist moonbats that I have encountered in the past, and they are just as idiotic as ever. So is your ignoring of the reality of Islam while it is slamming you in the face.

          • hiernonymous

            Translation: No, I can’t find a single example of Hiernonymous saying what I c laimed h e’d said. Thought not.

            Uhm…I don’t have to. All I have to do and anyone else for that matter is read your garbage.

            Well, you don’t have to, in the sense that nobody can force you to do it. You won’t go to jail or get shot or have your posting license revoked or anything like that. On the other hand, if you expect your claims to be taken seriously, you have to be able to support them, and in this case, that means being able to cite something I’ve actually said that matches what you claimed I said. If my posts are as full of such examples as you imply, then it should be no bother at all.

            “…it’s readily discernable via your writings and especially in the way you express your views, which are ideologically Marxist in perspective.”

            Again, can you support this? Can you find a single post of mine in which I’ve advocated for, say, the elimination of private property, or international class struggle, or, well anything that’s actually Marxist? Or is “Marxist” just a sort of verbal tic with you, a reflexive slur you insert the way less tormented people say “like” and “ya know?”

            “I mean you can’t discern through my writings and the way I express my views that I’m a conservative?”

            If I made a point of claiming that you were conservative, I’d certainly be prepared to look at your posts and cite a few examples of conservative positions you’d taken. That wouldn’t prove that you were a conservative, but it would serve as a good start to the conversation.

            “I heard of being insular, but man you are taking insular to a whole new unhinged level.”

            “Indeed, your unhinged arguments apologizing for Islam and Muslims, while denigrating Christianity and Christians and at the same time freedom and liberty…”

            That represents a very curious reading of my positions. How do you suppose that I’ve “denigrated” Christianity, Christians, freedom, and liberty?

            “So is your ignoring of the reality of Islam while it is slamming you in the face.”

            The problem here is that you’ve confused your opinions, however you came by them (and how did you come by them, btw?), with “reality.” There is no shortage of wild-eyed fanatics (and your avatar does you proud in this respect) who insist that those who disagree with them are out of touch with reality, traitors to their country/race/religion/section/class/whatever; your loud and repetitive insistence that this is the case simply doesn’t make it so.

        • pupsncats

          I totally agree with you. But it does not matter to our government or governments of European countries that Islam is a totalitarian social and political ideology intent on ruling the world. Our government and European governments do consider Islam a religion and a religion of peace as you well know.

          • ObamaYoMoma

            The governments of the West are not inanimate objects. They constitute a collection of people elected by the citizens. Hence, governmental policy is not set in stone and can be changed in time if there is enough of a public ground swell. The pendulum is always swinging. Right now it has swung to the extreme left, but in time it will swing back to the right, and when it does the truth about Islam must be exposed.

          • pupsncats

            I don’t share your optimism.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    And Islamic terrorists are setting up shop there.

    Muslims never perpetrate terrorism for the sake of various political causes like infidels. Instead, they only wage jihad, i.e., holy war in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, as waging jihad in one form or another is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims.

    The PC multiculturalists among us, like, for instance, this writer here, who seek to control what is the public’s mainstream perceptions always very deliberately mischaracterize what is really jihad (holy war) as somehow being terrorism in order to minimize the threat emanating from Islam down to a few stray Muslim extremists who perpetrate terrorism here and there, and only in response to certain stimuli like an anti-Muslim video in the case of Benghazi, or Capitalist Imperialism in the case of the Left, or American interventionist foreign policies in the case of Ron Paul kooks, or because of Israeli settlements and harsh Israeli policies in the case of Israel.

    All of that, of course, is all pure utter nonsense, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad (holy war) and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is divine Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    Thus, by denying the correct reality, i.e., all Muslims are waging jihad (holy war) against all religions and all infidels in one form or another to ultimately make Islam supreme, the PC multiculturalists among us can keep a lid on the public’s perception and at the same time have an open door policy for mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage, which in reality is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the strategic purpose of demographic conquest.

    Indeed, Muslims aren’t terrorists, because they are jihadists instead waging holy war either violently or non-violently through stealth and deception against all religions and all infidels to ultimately make Islam supreme, per the divine texts and tenets of Islam.

  • nilro

    There are countries with static populations that have done fine economically. Dumping people with alien ideologies and beliefs into a previously stable economic and demographic environment is foolhardy and totally unnecessary. Social engineering like this won’t succeed. World government will not work, chaos will be the result. Look at what is happening in France, Holland and the U.K..

  • kilfincelt

    The Muslim breeders in Ireland are Pakistani which means there is some good news. Inbreeding among them is very high so while they may produce a lot of children, many of them will have birth defects. Ultimately, such a population will become more of a hindrance then a help because such a population will be neither physically or mentally healthy.

    • S1999

      A quarter of all Muslims in the UK are registered as disabled.

    • Drakken

      Quantity has a quality all its own. The more inbred they produce, the more bullets we will have to have.

  • 101Truth101

    GSR, you’re absolutely right. Yes, ‘immigration is the new ‘military invasion’. And, our Western leaders are to blame for permitting the invasion of extremist Islam onto our shores.

  • Hard Little Machine

    John Kerry can return to his homeworld then.

  • LindaRivera

    Western leaders are fully aware that when they allow Muslims to immigrate into our countries, the goal of Muslims is to live for free off hated infidel taxpayers. And Islamic conquest and cruel enslavement of our people under vile, woman-hater, barbaric sharia law.

    Western leaders are the most evil traitors that ever walked this earth.

  • Geoffrey_Britain

    Read somewhere that Islam views 1/3 percentage of pop. as the tipping point, when Muslim’s are ‘justified’ in demanding that a non-Muslim country adopt Shariah law.

  • nightrangervt

    Sounds like a lot of target practice for my brothers over there.