A Qur'an Got Burnt at 9/11 Mosque Protest

[Thunder]

Like, Jihad as inner personal Jihad. Right?
Fool the gullible West. But I am an insider.
Of course, most of the words have multiple meaning.
.

Just like in Judaism?

 

[A'isha]

You should always be prepared to back up your claims that are presented as statements of fact. When you don't and refuse to do so when asked, then some of us simply won't take you seriously in the future. Since your point is dependent on drawing an inference from a "fact" then I can avoid the nastiness of arguing about the inference simply by proving your fact to be wrong. Since I can't prove a negative (that such cases don't exist), I called upon you to back up your claim. It's Debate 101.

Fine. What do you consider "similar in nature"? An example of someone acting as defendants in a civil case saying that the consequences of a law should not apply to them because of their religious beliefs, despite the fact that they committed the act that said law governs, is that sufficiently similar for you?

Why did you write any one religion?

Because I wanted to make clear that I don't care which religion tries the above crap. Any of them doing it is a problem.

Are you okay with them banding together?

Of course not. And if you actually thought I might, after reading everything else I said in my posts, then I foresee a lot of difficulty in trying to discuss this issue with you.

And why does it have to come at the expense of non-believers? Why can't it also come at the expense of believers? Muslim women are believers, and they seem to get the short end of the stick.

You're right. I should have phrased it as follows: tt's vital that we be vigilant in ensuring that the First Amendment is not watered down, and our multicultural, multireligious nation is protected from having any one religion taking advantage of the power of the government to legitimize their beliefs at the expense of anyone who does not accept any or all of those beliefs (even if their resistance is just in part).

The woman in the original case didn't want to be forced to have sex with and be physically abused by her husband, no matter what he thought their religion permitted him to do. And she should not have to submit to what he did just because of those religious beliefs. Even if (hypothetically) she accepted every single other tenet of their particular brand of Islam as handed down by their Imam, if she said "I don't want this" about any of it, then no force of law whatsoever should be used to compel her to accept it.

And this is what I mean about the inability to discuss the subject without going to extremes. I never said anything about them transforming the USA into an Islamic state.

I apologize, that was aimed at timf1234.

I'm very confident they cannot succeed just as I am very confident that the Christians won't succeed.

Since that's basically what I said, why do you consider my position "extremist".

That doesn't mean I shouldn't be concerned about the effort.

That depends on just what your specific concern about attempts like this is.

That woman should never had to go to an appeals court. I find that appalling.

There are a HELL of a lot of judges out there who are incompetent, idiots, or both. That the ruling of any particular trial judge in a court of first instance turns out to be mind-bogglingly stupid is unfortunately not a rare occurrence. That's why appeals courts exist, and why there's a large chain of them all the way up to the supreme court.

The fact of the matter in this case is that a single first-level judge made a massively dumb decision, and it never got any farther than the first appeal. That's not something to be appalled about, that's something to be relieved about, since there are a lot of other equally stupid decisions that get a lot farther up the appeals chain.

Even today we're fighting battles over creationism and sex education. It's a fight against Christianity. So, if there's a new player on the field looking for influence, I'm going to be concerned. What I keep seeing, though, is that people can badmouth the Christians and have their arguments debated on their merits. Comments about Islam are met with accusations of bigotry and extremist positions like yours (it's not like it's going to be an Islamic state, so shut up).

Saying "no Muslim should be allowed to get away with breaking the laws of the US by claiming that his religious beliefs should permit him to do so" is a perfectly reasonably position.

Thinking this court case is a sign of "a widespread and prevalent behavior in law enforcement and the courts" and saying "shouldn't we be looking around to see what else is happening?" is baffling and bizarre. That's not a "comment about Islam", that's just paranoia.

The US Justice system is not a hotbed of sharia-sympathizing judges and cops. Muslims are not "treated with kid gloves." And "what else is happening" is that members of an immigrant community are trying to adapt to living in a country with a very different set of laws and cultural values than they're used to, but that they're going to have to learn to deal with that, or the legal system (as it did in this particular case) will do it for them.

In case you're not aware, I am alluding to the riots and violence in Malaysia regarding the use of Allah. Rauf of Park51 fame wrote an editorial about it and instead of condemning vehemently the violence

He made it very clear to the Malaysian Muslims that their religion calls on them "to protect houses of worship of all other faith traditions," and that if they act against "the ethical values of Islam" and mistreat Christians in any way, Allah will hold them ultimately responsible for both violating what the Prophet commanded and for sparking retaliatory violence.

Remember, he was addressing that to a Muslim audience, in a essay published in a Malaysian newspaper. He wrote his words in the manner that he thought would be most effective for the audience he was trying to reach, appealing to them in religious terms and telling them (likewise in those religious terms) that what they were doing was not just wrong, but wrong in a specifically Muslim way.

His self-proclaimed goal in writing and publishing his essay in that Malaysian newspaper was not to simply say "I disapprove of this", but to try and find a way to get what was happening to stop.

advised Catholics not to use the word, which he agreed was legally and theologically correct.

Do you understand what was happening there? Malaysia is not an Arabic-speaking country. In the Malay language, the word for God is "Tuhan". The only people who use the Arabic word Allah are Muslims, because that's the word the Qu'ran uses (since the Qu'ran is pretty much exclusively recited in Arabic, the situation for the vast majority of Malay Muslims is akin to American Catholics pre-Vatican II, who regularly sat through all-Latin masses without knowing a lick of Latin).

As a result, there's no reason or need for Christian churches to use "Allah" - it's exactly as out of place there as it would be if Christian churches here in America suddenly started using "Allah" instead of the English word "God". Since there was no good reason for those Christians to use a word that's neither in their language or in the language of their holy books, Malaysian Muslims saw this as an attempt by those churches to draw in converts, by basically saying "Hey, we worship 'Allah' too! Come to mass tomorrow, whydoncha?"

Rauf's response to those Christians was essentially, "Look, your language already has a perfectly good word for "God". When you use Allah like that, without any seemingly good reason for adopting a word in a language not your own, it looks like you're just doing it to tick off the Muslims. In the interests of everyone living together happily, can you please not do that?"

 

[timf1234]

DC wrote:

aaah an insider, what kind of insider? what does that mean?

Been there, done that.
I lived and breath with them.

DC Wrote:

btw Jesus is also a prophet in Islam. But i am sure as an insider you knew that.

So?

Percentage of Muslims in India is about 12%. India's population is about 1.1 Billion.
Muslims in India, although in minority but are able to have a separate law for themselves.
It is illegal for any Hindu to have 4 wives at the same time. But it is legal for Muslims to have 4 wives.

Are Muslims going to be able to change our way of life?
They already have.
I have said it over and over again. We already have compromised our freedom of expression. Now, due to fear most people, most major news media won't broadcast Mohammad cartoon.
This is a big difference.

 

[tsig]

Can you show me cases similar to the Muslim one (in nature and recency) that went to a higher court but were not covered by the press? Even if you can, that doesn't preclude us from looking for more evidence of this catering towards Islam. Like I said, the fact that it got slapped down by the higher court doesn't negate a reason for concern.

If somebody wants to be concerned because they hate Muslims, that doesn't mean a "non-bigot" can't be concerned about the same thing. Problem is, anyone expressing a concern is treated like a bigot.

Welcome to the club UY.

If you criticize Islam you're a bigot.

If you kill someone for criticizing Islam you were provoked.

 

[A'isha]

The problem is that one of the things inside the "fence" is honest criticism. Today, almost every honest criticism of any minority group -- even for the blindingly obvious -- is automatically considered "bigotry" by some people, because in the past dishonest criticism had such bad results.

No. That's not the problem. Bigotry is not honest criticism of a minority group for unacceptable beliefs and practices. Bigotry is using that criticism as a basis to automatically assume every single member of that group, of whatever creed, stripe, subset, or credo, believes that too. It's even worse bigotry to think that every single member will also never be able to believe anything else.

It's treatment of women, minorities, and homosexuals is abysmal. In particular in the USA, many Imams and mosques have ties to terrorist groups (esp. the Muslim Brotherhood) and are funded by the extremist Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia. Such people don't see Islam as a private matter, but see their Mosques as a proselyting-cum-recruitment center to the war against the infidels, as an avant guarde in the coming Islamic takeover of America. Pressure on the courts to be "considerate" of Sharia law is part of this plan.

Yes. Some Muslims (far too many Muslims) do all this.

Pointing this out is verboten and "Islamophobic" because people remember how Jews were unjustly accused of trying to "take over the world", and what that led to. They are afraid that if such criticism is allowed, it will end up with Muslims in the gas chambers. But the situation is not comparable: the synagogues in Germany were hardly massively funded by a Jewish theocracy whose flag states "there is no God but Jehovah" below which is a sword to symbolize the war against those who disagree.

What Hitler did to the Jews would have been just as horrific and remembered for decades afterward even if he were right in his conspiracy theories.

Because Hitler didn't just gas those Jews who he thought were actually members of this conspiracy. He gassed all the Jews he could, with no regard for anything other than the fact that they were Jews - religious, secular, bankers, shopowners, farmers, clerks, French, Polish, German, Ashkenazi, Sephardim, adults, and children.

Hitler really didn't care whether there was a big Protocols-style Jewish conspiracy active in the world or not. That conspiracy theory was just a sideshow for him, a symptom of the real bigotry that drove his thoughts and words and deeds regarding Jews: that they were innately and inherently antithetical to society, by birth and by their unalterable core beliefs, and so every Jew everywhere had to be rooted out, because there was no way in his mind that they could live in his society without inevitably destroying that society from within.

But what are we going to do if every attempt to do just that is shouted down as "Islamophobic" and "paranoid" and something that will eventually lead to gas chambers for Muslims? Then, the Islamists win by default, and those who shout the most against "bigotry" would be the most instrumental useful idiots in helping establish a far worse bigotry.

It's not every attempt that gets called "Islamophobic" and "paranoid". But a lot of the rhetoric around the Park51 project, for instance? Yeah, that absolutely is Islamophobic and paranoid.

So is thinking that Rauf, deep down inside, really is an extremist Muslim, despite his entire life's work and entire corpus of writing showing otherwise. Just because he's a Muslim, and we all know what Islam is really like.

(For the record, I'm not accusing you of the latter, Skeptic. I am, however, accusing all those people who wrote all those quote-mined hit pieces about him, especially that idiot at the NY Post who accused Rauf of being a secret Wahhabist, and pretty much anything said about Rauf that's been published by Pam Geller or the National Review)

 

[BottledWater]

Is this any different than burning a bible?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

What Hitler did to the Jews would have been just as horrific and remembered for decades afterward even if he were right in his conspiracy theories.

Because Hitler didn't just gas those Jews who he thought were actually members of this conspiracy. He gassed all the Jews he could, with no regard for anything other than the fact that they were Jews - religious, secular, bankers, shopowners, farmers, clerks, French, Polish, German, Ashkenazi, Sephardim, adults, and children.

Hitler really didn't care whether there was a big Protocols-style Jewish conspiracy active in the world or not. That conspiracy theory was just a sideshow for him, a symptom of the real bigotry that drove his thoughts and words and deeds regarding Jews: that they were innately and inherently antithetical to society, by birth and by their unalterable core beliefs, and so every Jew everywhere had to be rooted out, because there was no way in his mind that they could live in his society without inevitably destroying that society from within.

Let us please remember that Hitler was psychotic, delusional and severely mentally impaired by heavy drug use.

 

[DC]

DC wrote:

Been there, done that.
I lived and breath with them.

DC Wrote:

So?

Percentage of Muslims in India is about 12%. India's population is about 1.1 Billion.
Muslims in India, although in minority but are able to have a separate law for themselves.
It is illegal for any Hindu to have 4 wives at the same time. But it is legal for Muslims to have 4 wives.

Are Muslims going to be able to change our way of life?
They already have.
I have said it over and over again. We already have compromised our freedom of expression. Now, due to fear most people, most major news media won't broadcast Mohammad cartoon.
This is a big difference.

and then when they trusted you, they admitted their plan for world domination? Or did you hear them forge those secret world domination plans?
you was listening at the door of the mosque and you heard them: Imam, what are going to do tonight? and the Imam answered with a sinister voice, well fellow muslims, we are going to do what we do every night, we are going to take over the world.

i think you are a liar, you didn't even know what a falafel is.

and your example of how they want to change our way of life is laughable, are you a troll? I mean it is an example how they did NOT change the way of Hindus, they are still not allowed to marry more than one wife.

ETA: and btw, i have no problem if people choose to live polygamy, thats up to the involved people. Monogamy is just another religious dogma.

 

[timf1234]

Welcome to the club UY.

If you criticize Islam you're a bigot.

If you kill someone for criticizing Islam you were provoked.

you hit the nail on the head.

and...
If you do not accept Islam is a Religion of Peace then I (Muslims) will kill you.

 

[timf1234]

and then when they trusted you, they admitted their plan for world domination? Or did you hear them forge those secret world domination plans?
you was listening at the door of the mosque and you heard them: Imam, what are going to do tonight? and the Imam answered with a sinister voice, well fellow muslims, we are going to do what we do every night, we are going to take over the world.

i think you are a liar, you didn't even know what a falafel is.

and your example of how they want to change our way of life is laughable, are you a troll? I mean it is an example how they did NOT change the way of Hindus, they are still not allowed to marry more than one wife.

ETA: and btw, i have no problem if people choose to live polygamy, thats up to the involved people. Monogamy is just another religious dogma.

And I think, if you are not a Muslim then you are Muslim sympathizer.

and.. missed the whole point of this stealth Jihad.
In Stealth Jihad, there is no conspiracy. There is no central command or control center. There is no plan by a country or any group of Muslim (OBL's is not stealth Jihad).

Each Muslims are programmed from their childhood to think in a certain way. Each one is autonomous body whose brain is infected by Islamic mental virus. Like Mr. Nidal who killed US solders in Ft. hood. He acted indpendently. There were no large centralized organized body behind hundreds of terrorist cases. And worse, those who are changing our laws, and way of living are not even doing it by active terrorism for now. They are using Western freedom of expression only in the advantage of Islam. They are using Western kindness, gullibality, and navity in their advantage.

This is not the kind of war WWII or Russian. This is completely different war. Every Muslim is autonomous but serve the common purpose. It is like nano-technology. Some are active terrorist some are non-violent cunning, taqiyya based. But all groups serve the same common goal.

It is not like they will change our way of life. They already have.
Can't you see that?

 

[DC]

And I think, if you are not a Muslim then you are Muslim sympathizer.

and.. missed the whole point of this stealth Jihad. There is no conspiracy. There is no central command or control center. There is no plan by a country or any group of Muslim (OBL's is not stealth Jihad).

Each Muslims are programmed from their childhood to think in a certain way. Each one is autonomous body whose brain is infected by Islamic mental virus. Like Mr. Nidal who killed US solders in Ft. hood. He acted indpendently.

This is not the kind of war WWII or Russian. This is completely different war. Every Muslim is autonomous but serve the common purpose. It is like nano-technology.

ooooh that sounds even more dangerous than the Borg.
that is scary stuff right there man.
as an insider, do you have any tips? like a code word to get them out of killing mode when i see one? Will a crucifix help me to turn of their killing mode? or maybe silver bullets?

well i am actually not a muslim, but i work together with muslims, sometimes i am invited to eat at their homes, with their family, maybe they got me infected with that Virus and i don't know it. Maybe i best ask my Doctor to check me.

thanks for the warning,
you should make a homepage and warn the world, contact the media and inform us, we seem to be in danger.

One day the world will be like, FFS if we only listened to that Insider guy at the JREF Forum.

but you did your best. thanks

 

[Thunder]

Each Muslims are programmed from their childhood to think in a certain way. Each one is autonomous body whose brain is infected by Islamic mental virus.

are you a double-agent for Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad?

 

[DC]

are you a double-agent for Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Islamic Jihad?

Don't ask such questions man, if he tells us he has to kill us. we don't want that, do we?

 

[A'isha]

Let us please remember that Hitler was psychotic, delusional and severely mentally impaired by heavy drug use.

Yes. And?

Hitler laid out in horrific, exhaustive detail every one of his psychotic, delusional, mentally-impaired ravings about the Jews and the innate threat they represented in a book published seven years before he became Chancellor (and fourteen years before the first prisoners arrived at Auschwitz).

And yet, despite that, when the time came for the Final Solution to be carried out in accordance with Hitler's psychotic, delusional and severely mentally impaired ravings about the Jews, he never had to kill a single Jew himself; there were more than enough people willing to do it for him.

Nazi Germany is a terrifying and abject lesson about the consequences of hatred and bigotry not because of Hitler, but because Hitler wasn't alone.

 

[timf1234]

Don't ask such questions man, if he tells us he has to kill us. we don't want that, do we?

Interesting,

Ok, here i can prove to you how naive you are about Islamic neural network.
But if you are Muslim or a liberal lobotomized brain then you will cover it up.

here is the question.
What short test can you give to someone over the internet who claim he/she is an insider but not really one of them (Al-Qaeda or other similar groups) and that he has no string attached to Islam, Mohammad, or Quran any more?
How do you reasonably ensure that I am not a Muslim?

 

[A'isha]

Each Muslims are programmed from their childhood to think in a certain way. Each one is autonomous body whose brain is infected by Islamic mental virus. Like Mr. Nidal who killed US solders in Ft. hood. He acted indpendently.

And if you get bitten by one, you turn into a Muslim during a full moon!

Some are active terrorist some are non-violent cunning, taqiyya based.

Uh huh. You have no idea what taqiyya is, where it came from, how it's been used historically, and against whom it's been used.

 

[timf1234]

Yes. And?

Hitler laid out in horrific, exhaustive detail every one of his psychotic, delusional, mentally-impaired ravings about the Jews and the innate threat they represented in a book published seven years before he became Chancellor (and fourteen years before the first prisoners arrived at Auschwitz).

And yet, despite that, when the time came for the Final Solution to be carried out in accordance with Hitler's psychotic, delusional and severely mentally impaired ravings about the Jews, he never had to kill a single Jew himself; there were more than enough people willing to do it for him.

Nazi Germany is a terrifying and abject lesson about the consequences of hatred and bigotry because of Hitler, but because Hitler wasn't alone.

I say, stop Hitler type thinking and action by education. We don't need censorship, we need more freedom of speech. We shouldn't and can not kill all Muslims but we can expose them. We should never advocate violence but we must not cover up Islamic filthy Meme either.

If we become like Muslims (or terrorist) then we can't criticize them. Quran or Bible burning not only should be allowed but the burner of Quran/Bible should be protected by tax payer money.

Among all the virtues/rights the most important one is the Freedom of Expression with impunity. Alas, we have now compromised it. And we compromised this not out of respect for Islam but out of fear.

Why freedom of expression is so important?
Because if I want you to take gun and fight against the evil, If I want you to do more charity work, if I want you to be better educated, If I want public to do anything then I must convince them first. To convince them I must be allowed to speak.

No, wonder, in Islam there is no Freedom of Speech.

Death of the West is coming.
This death will not occur at the hand of Islamic Terrorists but at the hand of Islamic Stealth Jihad. Over 95% of the Muslims are in it. They will succeed without firing a bullet.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Fine. What do you consider "similar in nature"? An example of someone acting as defendants in a civil case saying that the consequences of a law should not apply to them because of their religious beliefs, despite the fact that they committed the act that said law governs, is that sufficiently similar for you?

You made the claim, not me. Obviously you had something in mind, so present it.

Because I wanted to make clear that I don't care which religion tries the above crap. Any of them doing it is a problem.

Of course not. And if you actually thought I might, after reading everything else I said in my posts, then I foresee a lot of difficulty in trying to discuss this issue with you.

You're right. I should have phrased it as follows: tt's vital that we be vigilant in ensuring that the First Amendment is not watered down, and our multicultural, multireligious nation is protected from having any one religion taking advantage of the power of the government to legitimize their beliefs at the expense of anyone who does not accept any or all of those beliefs (even if their resistance is just in part).

You should consider the totality of what you write and write more carefully. My questions were legitimate.

Since that's basically what I said, why do you consider my position "extremist".

No, that's not what you said. You wrote, "Being concerned about cases like this because you're worried that it's a harbinger of the US' transformation into an Islamized state subject to the rule of sharia law, though, is just counterproductive paranoid nonsense."

You called me paranoid for being concerned about the "harbinger" events. I'm saying that while I think the USA will not become an Islamic state, I am concerned about the attempts to make it so. The attempts start small.

The fact of the matter in this case is that a single first-level judge made a massively dumb decision, and it never got any farther than the first appeal. That's not something to be appalled about, that's something to be relieved about, since there are a lot of other equally stupid decisions that get a lot farther up the appeals chain.

When you can provide some examples of what you mean, please do. It still doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking around. Seriously, if you told me 10 years ago that a judge would have ruled like he did, I would have called you absolutely nuts. "Never gonna happen," I would have said. Now it has happened, and I have to wonder how many other times it has happened.

Saying "no Muslim should be allowed to get away with breaking the laws of the US by claiming that his religious beliefs should permit him to do so" is a perfectly reasonably position.

Thinking this court case is a sign of "a widespread and prevalent behavior in law enforcement and the courts" and saying "shouldn't we be looking around to see what else is happening?" is baffling and bizarre. That's not a "comment about Islam", that's just paranoia.

Just like Skeptic said. Any honest criticism is treated with derision. Calling me paranoid is ridiculous. It' is absolutely foolish not to investigate this further. At the very least that judge's rulings should be reviewed. I'd review rulings by other judges. I'd have a little conversation with my domestic violence experts in the police department.

To call someone paranoid for recommending due diligence is, quite frankly, disgusting.

The US Justice system is not a hotbed of sharia-sympathizing judges and cops.

Never said it was. Only you're unwilling to look.

Muslims are not "treated with kid gloves."

Yeh, they are. If we were having this same conversation about Catholics, nobody would be calling me paranoid.

And "what else is happening" is that members of an immigrant community are trying to adapt to living in a country with a very different set of laws and cultural values than they're used to, but that they're going to have to learn to deal with that, or the legal system (as it did in this particular case) will do it for them.

Where is the Utopia of which you speak?

He made it very clear to the Malaysian Muslims that their religion calls on them "to protect houses of worship of all other faith traditions," and that if they act against "the ethical values of Islam" and mistreat Christians in any way, Allah will hold them ultimately responsible for both violating what the Prophet commanded and for sparking retaliatory violence.

He said, "So if Muslims curse the Christians, then the Christians will curse the Muslims. And people will curse Allah, and Allah will hold us responsible for that."

I don't find such a "condemnation" all that comforting. "Don't do it because you'll make our god look bad" is not much of a condemnation. It doesn't say the anger is misplaced, and the implication is that you can express your anger so long as you don't get caught.

Remember, he was addressing that to a Muslim audience, in a essay published in a Malaysian newspaper. He wrote his words in the manner that he thought would be most effective for the audience he was trying to reach, appealing to them in religious terms and telling them (likewise in those religious terms) that what they were doing was not just wrong, but wrong in a specifically Muslim way.

He never said they were wrong. He said, "That means that even though we may have the right belief, if we treat non-Muslims wrongly..." He "condemned" fire bombing churches by reminding them that they should "protect houses of worship of all other faith traditions" so as to better spread their religion.

There was no condemnation of the violence for being violence itself.

He also told the Catholics that even though they were theologically and legally correct in their usage, they shouldn't do it because it was socially provocative. I guess in his world socially provocative means firebombing churches and rioting.

So, when the media in the USA doesn't run a picture of the prophet even though it's big news, is that out of courtesy to Muslims? Or it because it would be socially provocative? You know, riots, firebombing, and so forth? Can you give me some examples of how the news media honors other religious taboos? That would go a long way towards me believing it's a sign of respect rather than a sign of fear.

Do you understand what was happening there? Malaysia is not an Arabic-speaking country. In the Malay language, the word for God is "Tuhan". The only people who use the Arabic word Allah are Muslims, because that's the word the Qu'ran uses (since the Qu'ran is pretty much exclusively recited in Arabic, the situation for the vast majority of Malay Muslims is akin to American Catholics pre-Vatican II, who regularly sat through all-Latin masses without knowing a lick of Latin).

He said, "using the word Allah to mean the Christian God may be theologically and legally correct."

Rauf's response to those Christians was essentially, "Look, your language already has a perfectly good word for "God". When you use Allah like that, without any seemingly good reason for adopting a word in a language not your own, it looks like you're just doing it to tick off the Muslims. In the interests of everyone living together happily, can you please not do that?"

"And while you're doing that, let me go work on building a mosque in a building damaged by the debris from 9/11."

Kid gloves, that's for sure.

 

[DC]

Interesting,

Ok, here i can prove to you how naive you are about Islamic neural network.
But if you are Muslim or a liberal lobotomized brain then you will cover it up.

here is the question.
What short test can you give to someone over the internet who claim he/she is an insider but not really one of them (Al-Qaeda or other similar groups) and that he has no string attached to Islam, Mohammad, or Quran any more?
How do you reasonably ensure that I am not a Muslim?

there is no way of knowing we learned in this thread, they are allowed to lie.

But we know you are not a muslim, we know you are an insider, you have lived with them , you have breathed the same air as they did. you know them you studied them and kept up your resistance to the Islamic neural virus, you are one impressive sob. you are almost as awesome as Chuck Norris.

 

[Thunder]

Death of the West is coming.
This death will not occur at the hand of Islamic Terrorists but at the hand of Islamic Stealth Jihad. Over 95% of the Muslims are in it. They will succeed without firing a bullet.

-Hitler, 1938.