Posted on Sep 24, 2015
BEN CARSON's Comments relooked. Is Islam compatible with the Constitution of the United States?
25.2K
479
270
17
16
1
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html
Sharia Law which is the Law of Islam is complete counter indicative of the United States Constitution, SEE BELOW:
Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he authored.
The Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of the Sharia law, called "figh," by imams is given some leeway.
As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam's Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.
According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
Sharia Law which is the Law of Islam is complete counter indicative of the United States Constitution, SEE BELOW:
Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari'a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called "Sunnah," and the Quran, which he authored.
The Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of the Sharia law, called "figh," by imams is given some leeway.
As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam's Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.
According to the Sharia law:
• Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad's words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
• Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
• A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be Halal.
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
Politics
Islam
Constitution
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 58
18
18
0
Anyone that would embrace Sharia Law as a reasonable set of laws for free people either doesn't understand what freedom actually is or is disingenuous at best.
I have no issue with muslims practicing Sharia law in their countries. I think it is backward,abusive, restrictive, excessively harsh and based upon only religious leaders interpretation as to it's application so it is very arbitrary too.
Anyone that thinks this law is compatible with our Constitution is operating in a clue free environment.
We should not allow it to be practiced here even on a voluntary basis. It takes away rights from citizens that are unalienable (they cannot be given away). Also, women would be brow beaten into accepting/submitting to Sharia or else (it would not really be voluntary). It is the absolute worst set of laws for any freedom loving society and few, outside of devout muslims would want any part of it.
I have no issue with muslims practicing Sharia law in their countries. I think it is backward,abusive, restrictive, excessively harsh and based upon only religious leaders interpretation as to it's application so it is very arbitrary too.
Anyone that thinks this law is compatible with our Constitution is operating in a clue free environment.
We should not allow it to be practiced here even on a voluntary basis. It takes away rights from citizens that are unalienable (they cannot be given away). Also, women would be brow beaten into accepting/submitting to Sharia or else (it would not really be voluntary). It is the absolute worst set of laws for any freedom loving society and few, outside of devout muslims would want any part of it.
(18)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
Cpl Jeff N.
Unfortunately Jeff, most "versions" of the "Sharia law" have been man made rather than what they believe the true meaning is. Generally those who actually believe in whatever is posted above is barbaric.
Here is somewhat of a better explanation.
Unfortunately Jeff, most "versions" of the "Sharia law" have been man made rather than what they believe the true meaning is. Generally those who actually believe in whatever is posted above is barbaric.
Here is somewhat of a better explanation.
Commonly asked questions regarding Sharia and Islam: How did Sharia start? What, nowadays, is the authoritative source of Sharia? What are the basic principles of Sharia? Adultery Murder Zinah (sexual offences) Is Sharia the same in all countries? Individual rights vs needs of society? Does Sharia make life easier or harder for the ordinary Muslim? Why has Sharia become a synonym for cruelty and lack of compassion? Sharia and dress Forced and...
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
SrA Edward Vong . Eddie, the examples of Sharia I listed are how it is actually practiced in many/most Islamic nations. Maybe more or less severely in some vs others but that is how the "devout" practice the law. Your post is from someone attempting to put a positive spin on it while ignoring how it is actually practiced.
If islam can be practiced separately or outside of sharia law then I think it is compatible in many/most ways with our form of government. The devout will tell you the two are inseparable. Right now, the devout are on the move and are setting the pace for how the religion is being practiced and how it is perceived around the world.
If islam can be practiced separately or outside of sharia law then I think it is compatible in many/most ways with our form of government. The devout will tell you the two are inseparable. Right now, the devout are on the move and are setting the pace for how the religion is being practiced and how it is perceived around the world.
(4)
(0)
FN Randy Bohlke
SrA Edward Vong Dismembering people and killing people who don't believe in your god is against our law of the land so that would put Islam out of our Country.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
17
17
0
SSgt (Join to see)
She suffered abuse and Muslims have issued FATWAS to be murdered. But from aside from Hillary Democrats hate women... It is okay for Muslims to rape beause they are good at it.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
No answer to this I see! You are caught red-handed Capt Walter Miller This is what I am talking about but since this is politics then innocent people are fair game. The innocent deserve better. Don't you think?
(1)
(0)
SSgt Dave Dierking
Dr. Carson speaks softly with wisdom and convincing conviction. I have great respect for his accomplishments and strength of character.
(2)
(0)
CPT L S SGT Efaw (Mick) G. SFC Joseph Weber COL Ted Mc CPT Pedro Meza SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. CPT (Join to see) SSG Warren Swan SSG (Join to see)
No religious law is compatible with the US Constitution.
Generally speaking, someone of faith would be holding their faith above all else, however, an elected member still has a job to do whether they agree with it or not. This goes back to Kim Davis not granting marriage licenses because of her beliefs.
That being said, according to the Muslim "lore", Sharia law is man-made by the prophet based on how he interpreted the Quran. It was a combination of his interpretation and the culture which led to what it is today. As a former Muslim, I did not follow Sharia law, but my devotion was ultimately to my interpretation of the Quran.
No religious law is compatible with the US Constitution.
Generally speaking, someone of faith would be holding their faith above all else, however, an elected member still has a job to do whether they agree with it or not. This goes back to Kim Davis not granting marriage licenses because of her beliefs.
That being said, according to the Muslim "lore", Sharia law is man-made by the prophet based on how he interpreted the Quran. It was a combination of his interpretation and the culture which led to what it is today. As a former Muslim, I did not follow Sharia law, but my devotion was ultimately to my interpretation of the Quran.
(16)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SGT Ben Keen - I admit to drinking Scotch in my old days, now its Rum and Tequila and Scotch, but not all at the same time, it all depends on what is left. In the 1970's Reservist could wear a short wig on top their long hair.
(3)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
1SG Miles Bizzell
Agreed Miles. It doesn't take religion to tell us what we should and shouldn't do as far as overall being a good person.
Agreed Miles. It doesn't take religion to tell us what we should and shouldn't do as far as overall being a good person.
(1)
(0)
A1C Melissa Jackson
CPT L S-
You are absolutely ON POINT. It makes me slightly queasy when I hear these evangelicals howling to high heaven that our "founding fathers" were clear that this is to be a CHRISTIAN nation. They absolutely DID NOT. Jefferson was not the only one, either. Madison made comments to the point that religion should and WOULD be separate from all gov't functions. One of the early presidents- pierce? Adams? Can't remember- but he took his oath of office on a book of LAWS because he said that the religious element of using a bible came too close to being a pledge to support that document as opposed to the LAW of the nation.
The reason for this strong prohibition against government having its fingers in religious business is the make up of the colonies were largely escapees from European nations who used appalling methods to control people through religion. They wanted this nation to be free of that kind of influence, and to have a nation and laws based on REASON and LOGIC rather than religious dogma.
Now look around the world- Saudi Arabia, Packistan, and Yemen Fir three examples. These countries are run by clerics and are VERY religiously strict. They execute people for making unacceptable religious decisions, or in some cases for the slightest infraction of their religious laws. We are horrified by this here in the United States, but many of us are cheering and carrying on when these charlatain history revisionist politicians want to impose similar restrictions on all of us. These "religious restoration" laws that legalize discrimination, and the anti-bullying laws that allow exceptions for "religious" reasons (?!) are a prime examples of the way that this country is drifting in that direction.
By the way, I did not mention the three countries above because they are Muslim, but because they are in the news FREQUENTLY for the religious atrocities that happen there- probably further effort from the elites to whip up hatred and fear here in the good ol secular USA.
You are absolutely ON POINT. It makes me slightly queasy when I hear these evangelicals howling to high heaven that our "founding fathers" were clear that this is to be a CHRISTIAN nation. They absolutely DID NOT. Jefferson was not the only one, either. Madison made comments to the point that religion should and WOULD be separate from all gov't functions. One of the early presidents- pierce? Adams? Can't remember- but he took his oath of office on a book of LAWS because he said that the religious element of using a bible came too close to being a pledge to support that document as opposed to the LAW of the nation.
The reason for this strong prohibition against government having its fingers in religious business is the make up of the colonies were largely escapees from European nations who used appalling methods to control people through religion. They wanted this nation to be free of that kind of influence, and to have a nation and laws based on REASON and LOGIC rather than religious dogma.
Now look around the world- Saudi Arabia, Packistan, and Yemen Fir three examples. These countries are run by clerics and are VERY religiously strict. They execute people for making unacceptable religious decisions, or in some cases for the slightest infraction of their religious laws. We are horrified by this here in the United States, but many of us are cheering and carrying on when these charlatain history revisionist politicians want to impose similar restrictions on all of us. These "religious restoration" laws that legalize discrimination, and the anti-bullying laws that allow exceptions for "religious" reasons (?!) are a prime examples of the way that this country is drifting in that direction.
By the way, I did not mention the three countries above because they are Muslim, but because they are in the news FREQUENTLY for the religious atrocities that happen there- probably further effort from the elites to whip up hatred and fear here in the good ol secular USA.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Stop with the anti-Christian hubris. I will NOT sit idly by and listen to this when there ARE Muslims terrorizing the world. This IS reality and it is happening today.
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
You can worry when they have 2/3 majorities in both houses of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures. At which point they can amend the Constitution. Absent that, it is fear-mongering. Muslims that immigrate to the United States are coming here to enjoy the opportunities this great nation affords - often leaving Sharia behind. I sincerely doubt they really want to return to that way of life.
(9)
(0)
SSgt Dave Dierking
1SG; I pray that you are correct. However I fear we have yet to see the worst of Sharia practice here in the US. News today from Homeland Security was approximately 250 "citizens" were prevented from leaving to join ISIS. No real specifics were provided about the jihadist wanna-be but I doubt they were USA born or actually properly vetted during immigration. I am not against their freedom to travel or to fight in support of ISIS. My hope is that the attempt to do so will remain recorded in their individual records for ever and some form of monitoring be employed. Also if successful in their aspirations to fight in support of our enemies, they be banned from returning to the US under any pretext for any length of time.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSgt Dave Dierking, it is easy enough to revoke passports. I would be stunned if the FBI or DHS didn't put them on a watch list.
There are problem children in every demographic - we are just more sensitive to this one right now. And for cause. My concern is all of the "Syrian" refugees will have a lot of implants in it. I don't have the impression that anyone is really trying very hard to scrutinize these people, and we are just going to "take in" 100k of them.
Not smart.
There are problem children in every demographic - we are just more sensitive to this one right now. And for cause. My concern is all of the "Syrian" refugees will have a lot of implants in it. I don't have the impression that anyone is really trying very hard to scrutinize these people, and we are just going to "take in" 100k of them.
Not smart.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Dave Dierking
1SG (Join to see) - Frighteningly apparent that vetting of those seeking admission will likely be nearly impossible for most of them. I received careful scrutiny myself last year while traveling in and between NE Asian countries. I experienced only brief delays since I presented fully complete and authentic documentation. These refugees often have no papers or IDs tthat are difficult to verify as authentic. They are from many countries, not just Syria.
(3)
(0)
9
8
1
No religion respects or follows our Constitution. The sooner the world wakes up and stops believing in fairy tales, the better.
(9)
(1)
LCDR (Join to see)
You're the one commenting on my response because of your pathological need for getting the last word in, and I'm going to always feel pretty secure in an assumption that you're not one of the handful of people in the world that can read Aramaic.
(3)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
LCDR (Join to see) - Finally something we agree upon, Lieutenant.
Besides the very true point you already made, here's another can't-get-around: humans share SEVENTY PERCENT of our DNA with a TREE. That only happens in a commonly-evolved biome.
I could list science all day, but I'm sure you know everything I'd list and, like you told the Sargent, religious types will never believe any of it.
Besides the very true point you already made, here's another can't-get-around: humans share SEVENTY PERCENT of our DNA with a TREE. That only happens in a commonly-evolved biome.
I could list science all day, but I'm sure you know everything I'd list and, like you told the Sargent, religious types will never believe any of it.
(3)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Still wondering where the "Bang" came from. Not buying "nothing". Also not buying "Creation".
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
Based on Dr. Carson's comments Catholicism is also incomparable with the US Constitution due to owing filiety to the Pope.
(8)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SPC Jan Allbright, Ms.Sc R.S. good point which used against JFK, as the first Catholic President, but history proved that the fear mongers were wrong.
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
I'm not a muslim but I've had the opportunity to study the culture and teachings. The radical people who are spreading Wahabism are not following the true intent of the teachings of Islam. They are following the teachings of a MAN who's name is Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab a reformist from the 18th Century. It is unfortunate that some misinterpet religious scriptures and use it for their own purposes, this has happened throughout history to justify the actions of men often with evil intent.
The following are some examples of true Quranic teachings:
1- For a young boy/girl they should obey their parents who have authority over them during their young dependent years.
2- For a wife, she must obey her husband (in righteousness) as God decreed in the Quran.
3- For an employee, he/she must obey their boss who has authority over them, but only within the framework of the profession.
4- For citizens, they must obey the established authorities (e.g. the courts, the police, etc). They must obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate God's law.
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/authority_(P1246).html
The following are some examples of true Quranic teachings:
1- For a young boy/girl they should obey their parents who have authority over them during their young dependent years.
2- For a wife, she must obey her husband (in righteousness) as God decreed in the Quran.
3- For an employee, he/she must obey their boss who has authority over them, but only within the framework of the profession.
4- For citizens, they must obey the established authorities (e.g. the courts, the police, etc). They must obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate God's law.
http://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/misinterpreted_verses/authority_(P1246).html
True Islam is derived from the Quran and not from the traditions or cultures of Muslim people
(8)
(0)
SGT William Howell
I think we can all agree that both religions have verses that state that women should be repressed. Christianity has been better about ignoring it.
Unless you remember that about ten years ago the Southern Baptist Convention voted and confirmed that, "Wives must submit to their husbands." Not that you can get most progressive Baptist to practice or support it.
I long ago started my belief that the Bible is a guide, not a rule book. It was written by men. What went into it was approved by men that were in power and wanted to stay there. Keeping that in context, there are many morals and values that can be learned and used in everyday life to make everyone's lives a little better.
The one thing that is consistent in the Bible is the belief that God gave us freewill. Because of that we are the ones that decide what is right and wrong.
Unless you remember that about ten years ago the Southern Baptist Convention voted and confirmed that, "Wives must submit to their husbands." Not that you can get most progressive Baptist to practice or support it.
I long ago started my belief that the Bible is a guide, not a rule book. It was written by men. What went into it was approved by men that were in power and wanted to stay there. Keeping that in context, there are many morals and values that can be learned and used in everyday life to make everyone's lives a little better.
The one thing that is consistent in the Bible is the belief that God gave us freewill. Because of that we are the ones that decide what is right and wrong.
(2)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
SGT William Howell
I believe for the most part that all religious books serve as a guideline to live a prosperous life. Because many religion are set in ancient times, some methods are considered barbaric.
Free will is the reason I do not choose a single religion. As many religions believe that things happen through a higher power, other than creation, I believe that disrupts the flow of free will.
I believe for the most part that all religious books serve as a guideline to live a prosperous life. Because many religion are set in ancient times, some methods are considered barbaric.
Free will is the reason I do not choose a single religion. As many religions believe that things happen through a higher power, other than creation, I believe that disrupts the flow of free will.
(4)
(0)
SGT William Howell
SrA Edward Vong I was raised in a church/ cult that believed that the Bible was the the Law that God laid down and it was meant to be taken as literately as it was written. When I left / escaped the church and joined the military I began to see that there is good moral parts of faith and that people that had different beliefs were not damned to Hell.
I don't really believe that there is such thing of free will, for good reason. That would be anarchy. If you have a nice car and I want it, we still submit to the moral that stealing is wrong. Without those morals we would be no better than wild animals. Where we get those morals is up for debate, but they are part of most all religions.
I don't really believe that there is such thing of free will, for good reason. That would be anarchy. If you have a nice car and I want it, we still submit to the moral that stealing is wrong. Without those morals we would be no better than wild animals. Where we get those morals is up for debate, but they are part of most all religions.
(3)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
SGT William Howell
I do not believe that one religion is true, but I do believe in a higher power. I believe that the creator has created us and laws of nature/universe. The creator has also created human morals, as this can be dated back to before any Abrahamic religion ever existed. Therefor, I believe that humans were born with morals based on how we were created, but we have the freewill to choose how we live.
If we didn't have free will, what's the point of life?
I do not believe that one religion is true, but I do believe in a higher power. I believe that the creator has created us and laws of nature/universe. The creator has also created human morals, as this can be dated back to before any Abrahamic religion ever existed. Therefor, I believe that humans were born with morals based on how we were created, but we have the freewill to choose how we live.
If we didn't have free will, what's the point of life?
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
I remember very well the questions asked of Mitt Romney, a Mormon, regarding his faith. Some were curious how it shaped his worldview; others were shamelessly attempting to drive a wedge between Romney and Evangelical Christians.
Before my time, questions were asked of JFK regarding subservience to the Pope.
Welcome to politics. There are many people out there whose whole job is to troll every word a candidate says to create doubt in the minds of voters. There is also no shortage of unpaid volunteers who will do it for free in places like this very forum.
How religion shapes a candidate's worldview is a perfectly legitimate question. Candidates, if they are smart, will stay on message and detail what they intend to do in elected office. Dr Carson gave his political rivals some free red meat with which to club him over the head and more precisely, to attempt to drive a wedge between Dr Carson and some of his donors. Let's not confuse the issue, people. The folks that cry "outrage!" are the very ones who are just fine accepting donations from their own band of unsavory characters. In fact, they appreciate that the spotlight is on Dr Carson right now so they can quietly see their own donors while the media is distracted.
Sharia is a way of life, informed by centuries of culture and tradition. To my modern, Christian, and educated view, many of the tenets listed by 1SG (Join to see) (there are many more) seem backward and do not fit the culture of our great nation. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims. It doesn't mean I am scared of them. It doesn't mean that I don't respect their religion. It does mean that in a nation such as ours, founded on liberty and freedom of thought, speech, and religion that they can practice their beliefs, but not impose them on others.
Before my time, questions were asked of JFK regarding subservience to the Pope.
Welcome to politics. There are many people out there whose whole job is to troll every word a candidate says to create doubt in the minds of voters. There is also no shortage of unpaid volunteers who will do it for free in places like this very forum.
How religion shapes a candidate's worldview is a perfectly legitimate question. Candidates, if they are smart, will stay on message and detail what they intend to do in elected office. Dr Carson gave his political rivals some free red meat with which to club him over the head and more precisely, to attempt to drive a wedge between Dr Carson and some of his donors. Let's not confuse the issue, people. The folks that cry "outrage!" are the very ones who are just fine accepting donations from their own band of unsavory characters. In fact, they appreciate that the spotlight is on Dr Carson right now so they can quietly see their own donors while the media is distracted.
Sharia is a way of life, informed by centuries of culture and tradition. To my modern, Christian, and educated view, many of the tenets listed by 1SG (Join to see) (there are many more) seem backward and do not fit the culture of our great nation. That doesn't mean I hate Muslims. It doesn't mean I am scared of them. It doesn't mean that I don't respect their religion. It does mean that in a nation such as ours, founded on liberty and freedom of thought, speech, and religion that they can practice their beliefs, but not impose them on others.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
our constitution doesn't allow for any religious tests for federal offices i.e. president and is part of separation of church and state. Moot point ..there isn't any Muslims running for president whether they are democrat or republican.
(7)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT Damon Walton - Sergeant; It would be interesting to see what would happen in those states if the "Supreme Being" that the candidate "admitted the existence of" was "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" (or, better yet, themselves).
(3)
(0)
SPC(P) (Join to see)
Dr. Carson never said that the constitution prevented a Muslim from running for President, or that it should. He said, that he personally believes Sharia Law to be antithetical to the principles of the Constitution and he personally would not advocate a devout Muslim for President (insinuating one that believes in the extremist views of Sharia Law).
(5)
(0)
SGT William Howell
I believe Ben's point was Shria Law is held above all other laws. For that reason you can't take the Oath of Office because you have to swear to uphold the Constitution.
(3)
(0)
7
7
0
No, Islamic people and our people cannot co-exist. They won't allow it. Either convert or die the death of an infidel is their belief. Our laws and their laws cannot co-exist in the same nation. If they want Shariah law then move to a country that is governed by Shariah law.
(7)
(0)
MAJ Matthew Arnold
COL Ted Mc - Forgive the history lesson, but Spain was Pagan, then Christian, then Muslim, then Christian again. My concern is that when people say the Christians drove out the Muslims they forget to include that the Muslims invaded and forced conversion first. But, really, it is a cycle of migration, invasion, forced conversion, repeat.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MAJ Matthew Arnold - Major; More correctly, Spain was "Pagan", then "Heretical Christian", then "Catholic Christian" then conquered by the Muslims and had no enforced religion with Muslims, Christians, and Jews practicing their own religions and with the Christian subjects of Umayyad rule while maintaining their own courts and laws as "client states", then "Catholic Christian" with forced conversion and expulsion of people adhering to religions other than "Catholic Christianity".
Admittedly conversion to Islam was considered a good career move BUT it was NOT mandatory.
Admittedly conversion to Islam was considered a good career move BUT it was NOT mandatory.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MAJ Matthew Arnold - Major; More likely "Being heretical is in the eyes of the owners of the faggots and matches.".
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google