This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.

Where Christianity intersects with politics, culture, and entertainment.


americanmuslims

America's Quiet Muslims

If America is going to fare better than Europe in halting the development of a de facto sharia society, the unabashed efforts of Muslims who understand the unique value of America’s legacy of liberty will be crucial. Estimates indicate that more than half of American Muslims are quietly appreciative of constitutionally guaranteed individual rights. The challenge lies in persuading them to take a public stand.

The stage is now set for all freedom-supporting Muslims to step up and counter the Islamic Circle of North America as it rolls out its $3 million campaign to convince Americans that the goals of sharia law and the objectives of the United States Constitution are one and the same. As enunciated in a fatwa by the Islamic Fiqh Council of North America, which interprets Islamic law for this continent, Muslim authorities claim there is “no inherent conflict between the normative values of Islam and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights” (emphasis added). The proclamation also asserts that “secular legal systems in Western democracies generally share the same supreme objectives, and are generally compatible with Islamic Shari’ah” (emphasis added).

The ICNA campaign to soften sharia for American consumption is based on dizzying historical spin, as demonstrated by Zulfiqar Ali Shah (also known as Al Fokkar Ali Shah and Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah), the former president of ICNA and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America. His showcase essay, “Founding Father’s [sic] of America’s Indebtedness to Islamic Thought,” makes the specious argument that John Locke, the authority behind much of the Founding philosophy, had a “political outlook [that] closely resembled the Islamic teachings.”

Continue reading at www.nationalreview.com
 
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Tim

    I've always been for "freedom of religion", but the Muslim Religon,Islam,shari'ah law,the Koran is something that is totally different from any "religon" I've ever known of. All that I've ever read about has never been about killing if you don't believe and become one. This one scares me & it dent belong in our Country!!! It needs to go back across the pond from where it come from!!!

    • keyboardshark

      You are right, Tim. Islam goes far beyond the bounds of any normal, peaceful religion. It is an entire system for molding society into their twisted worldview, and ruthlessly controlling the populace to conform to the Muslim dogma. If Muslims become the majority in the US, you can kiss what few freedoms we have left goodbye.

    • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

      James 1:27
      Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

  • TEA9876

    If God tells you to kill unbelievers you are listening to an evil voice.

    • daves

      Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 )

      • Jesuswillreign

        I guess we should obey Him, then.

        • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

          40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

          41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

          42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

          43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

          44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

          45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

          46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

          47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

          48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

      • Vladimir

        As you stated, "solemnly promised your ancestors". Direction given to ancient Isrealites half a world away doesn't apply to us. Divine principles apply to all people everywhere. You need to able to discern the difference.

      • http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

        Matthew 5 (the words of Jesus)
        38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

        39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

  • lex

    …..ever heard of the concept of "sleepers"? or a Trojan Horse? America's Quiet Muslems…..are you really so stupid to believe in such a thing? Useful Idiot.

    • msjallen

      Right, lex, I cannot believe they can reject their "religion" any more than I could reject my belief in Jesus Christ. I do not trust any of them. If they would believe in Jesus Christ as their savior and grow in His grace and knowledge then I would trust them.

      • petroskhan1262

        Let's not forget that we are talking about a "religion" that says it's okay not only to kill, assassinate, rape and steal, but to lie about whether or not you even believe it.

        Sure, I would trust a muslim. To be a muslim.

    • Anne Gelinase

      If here in America we cannot have a governing body uphold the laws of America for everyone who lives on our soil,
      then America is doomed. Religious and or a religion based on a governming ideology such as islam is dangerous.
      The ideology runs the people and the God-fearing sharia law dams them to adhere to both or be an infidel and die.
      They will kill you if you don't follow both. They kill their own offspring. Do they not? If killing is going to happen
      anyway in any country, then the guilty party who kills must follow our court system, and be judged by our jury, and
      go to jail when found guilty of murder. End of story. Period!

      • lurl

        You really know nothing of the Islamic beliefs not of their law nor their customs.
        The story has not ended, it has just begun. Period!

    • lurl

      Lex:
      The Muslim faith is a faith of peace. There are those who are radicals and have not relationship with modern Islam.
      Just take a look at the warrior nations that claimed to be xians. They have murdered and killed hundreds…nay millions of innocent people during their heyday. As xianity is a declining religion few realize that they no longer have any affect upon people. They can no longer control their minions. The us could be considered an avenging nation. At the drop of any hat they will start another war to gain power over people and for their resources.
      Would you classify xianity as a peaceful religion….not many would.

  • Corky Rowe

    At some point our court system must come to the realization that our laws, U.S. laws, MUST take preference over other country's laws, when people from outside our country choose to break our laws. There can be no negotiations on this point. You break our laws, we try, convict and sentence you under our laws, and our laws alone. Should be easy for everyone to understand.

    • aceituna

      Most other countries claim that if one of their laws is broken within their country by a person not a citizen of that country that their laws still would be upheld and the lawbreaker must receive his punishment. There is no reason why we should not be allowed the same claim. Muslims have no right to put their law above our s is they are living within our borders.

    • daves

      Well of course our laws are what governs our country. Silly to think otherwise.

      The sad thing is that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to be found not guilty. That is not liberty and justice for all.

      • lurl

        Should one find themselves before the court and you have no money you are judged guilty…this is a real bribe.
        If one happens to be Black or Hispanic there is never justice.
        Without justice there will be no peace.

  • RobinPC

    Excuse me, but where in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it say it is ok to kill your enemy (infidels) – where was that part about "Honor Killings" in the Bill of Rights. I also missed the part that lieing is ok if it pleases allah, and of course in paragraph 20 it is ok to beat your wife. I must have failed civics in high school because I missed all of this. Not to mention that they are to strike fear in the hearts of unbelievers, and even hebead them. Oh yes, Sharia is "compatable" to US Law. NOT!!!

    • msjallen

      The disgusting part is that here in CA they have a big chapter on Islam in their history books and it is glorified. Only a few pages on Christianity and reference to Jesus Christ. We have taught our children to watch for this type of teaching. In fact, my middle school granddaughter was to read "The Giver" for an English class and make a report and be tested on it. It is a counter culture book that I would not even read. We contacted the teacher and my granddaughter was assigned another book that she will read on her own and be given assignments and tests on it instead. While her class discusses "The Giver", she will sit in the pod area on her own. She is thrilled since she also did not like the content of the other book. We try our very best to check what they are taught at school and even visit their classes. We are fortunate to have "School Loop" where their studies are listed and grades updated everyday. It is very helpful for parents.

    • daves

      RobinPC – exactly why we are not a Christian nation. There are all kinds of commands to kill people in the Christian bible.

      • keyboardshark

        If "there are all kinds of commands to kill people in the Christian bible" as you say, then why aren't Christians out killing people like Muslims are?

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Because contrary to the view that Christians follow the bible, they actually only follow the parts they agree with.

          • keyboardshark

            No, it is because skeptics present an Old Testament law out of its context, and also fail to check the New Testament to see whether that OT law has been modified or rescinded.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Right, the modified or rescinded laws of an all knowing, perfect god who defines morality. It is always amusing to hear that on one hand, you must look to god to know what morality is, yet on the other hand, this god changes these eternal laws depending upon the circumstances of the day.

          • keyboardshark

            What is the Law of God? It is the whole Bible, not just the Old Testament or the New Testament. In other words, in order to determine what God's Law contains, we must search bot Testaments to arrive at our conclusion.

            Or to put it another way, we can agree with God's Laws without invoking the same punishment as specified in Old Testament Israel. For example, does God consider it sinful for a bride to not be a virgin on her wedding night, i.e. she had sex before marriage? Yes. Should we consider it sinful as well? Yes, we should. Are disobedient children acting sinfully in God's eyes? Yes. People working on the Sabbath? Yes again. Should we, as Christians, consider those acts sinful? If God does, than yes.

            But does that mean we should stone the perpetrators of these sins? I believe the answer is no. Why? Well, let's look at John 8:3-11:
            "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

            4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

            5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

            6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

            7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

            8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

            9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

            10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

            11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."

            (Back to my commentary): The Pharisees were right. Moses in the law had commanded that such should be stoned. So then why wasn't the woman stoned? Jesus knew the Law perfectly, as He is God and so wrote it. Why didn't He allow the scribes and pharisees stone her? Surely they, as the religious ruler of the time, had the authority to do so. Why didn't HE stone her if that was indeed the Law? Remember, Jesus Himself called it a sin ("…go, and sin no more.")

            Obviously, something had changed when Jesus came on the scene to live among us. We find our clue in Hebrews 7 & 8:

            "11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

            12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

            13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

            14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

            15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,

            16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

            17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

            18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.

            19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." Hebrews 7

            "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

            7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

            8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

            9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

            10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

            13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

          • keyboardshark

            PART 2

            (Back to my commentary): So we can see that something has changed. Not God's moral Law, because we can see that Jesus considered the woman's actions sinful. But the death penalty for these sins, as specified in the mosaic law, has been altered. Under the New Covenant, we would have to consider the death penalty too harsh for these offenses (but not for killing another person, as this Law came before the Mosaic Law-Gen. 9:6 and has not been modified).

            When Jesus came to earth to pay for our sins, it was as if the death penalty we all deserve for our sins, typified by the Old Covenant stonings, had been removed. Even though the salvation program has remained the same through Old and New Covenant times, it was only when Jesus physically arrived on the scene that it was fully realized. Trusting our salvation to Christ removes that death penalty from us, but does not change our responsibility to obey the Law.

            Romans 5 also illustrates the removal of the death penalty for believers by Christ's payment for sin:

            "17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

            18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

            19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

            20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:

            21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            "7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

            This is exactly what I am pointing out. You claim that your god is perfect and all knowing, yet he could not create a workable covenant. Not very good work for a someone who is supposedly the most intelligent thing in the universe. Therefore, he made changes to his laws. You are trying to explain WHy he made changes. The reasons are irrelevant. The issue is simple. Are the laws and rules of your god eternal or not? The answer is obviously that they are not.

          • keyboardshark

            The laws are eternal, but they were not fully expounded to mankind until the Bible was completed. The Old Testament laws were valid for their time, and had to be followed, but yet were incomplete until the entire Bible was completed. Now that the Bible has been completed we are no longer permitted to add or subtract anything from it:

            18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

            19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
            (Revelation 22)

            Now God's eternal, unchangeable Law is complete. Since God is eternal, He knew what the finished product (the Bible) would look like once it was completed. But we are not eternal, being bound by the constraints of time, and so we had to wait until the NT was completed before we would know what the finished product would look like.

            God did not have to 'fix' or change anything, He simply chose to present His Law to us over a period of hundreds of years, in the manner in which He did, for His own purposes. From our finite, time-bound perspective, it appears as though God changed His Laws, but God, being eternal, is not bound by time, and knew full well how the entire Law would read once it was fully expressed in both the OT and NT. Just because we may not know His reasons for doing so, does not give us the right to find fault.

          • daves

            So where does it say now that I don't have to kill people for following false Gods?

          • keyboardshark

            If my explanation was not clear enough, try this one:
            http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-te

          • msjallen

            keyboardshark, what you are trying to explain is exactly why I believe in Despensations.
            There are many interpretations of history from different aspects: military, political, etc. However, the best is from the Bible – especially Dispensations. It is the most accurate interpretation of history.
            Eph 3:9 and to make known (teach) to all church age believers what is the dispensation of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages (OT) in the God (Lord Jesus Christ) who created all things;
            Titus 2:12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
            Hebrews 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The laws are eternal yet were incomplete. That you can argue with a straight face that these two views can both be accurate about the bible is mind boggling. It is also amusing that you are stating that the bible has been completed and that nothing would ever be added or subtracted from it.

            Deuteronomy 4:2

            "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

            The fact that the books of the bible, both the Old and New Testament, have undergone change throughout the centuries, is undeniable. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution– some that are claimed by scholars to be even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern bibles.

            Most Christians seem to think that the bible (as it is now, with its sixty-six or so books, divided into chapters and verses) has existed for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bible that most Christians are familiar with is a fairly recent contrivance. The religious term "canon" refers to the divinity of a specific set of writings. Just which books are canonical and which are not has been the subject of debate among Judeo-Christian leaders for the last two thousand years. The Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the bible until as late as 1647, at the Assembly of Westminster.

            New Testament Books which are now accepted by Christians, but which were for a time rejected, are Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

            Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the New Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

            Books accepted as canonical by some Jews, and for most part by the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, but rejected by the Protestants, are Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom, Song of the Three Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Maccabees.

            The only books of the bible which are accepted as divine by all Jews and all varieties of Christians are the first five books of the Old Testament: the Pentateuch.

            There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

            What ever happened to the Gospels according to Thomas, Jade, James, Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of the Preaching of Peter, of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Ignatius, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus and of Marcion? They were all not considered inspired (or inspired enough). They did not get voted in. There were also the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla, and many others. If the bishops at the Council of Laodicea in 365 had voted differently, millions of Christians would have believed differently. The vote of the one is the belief of all the others.

          • keyboardshark

            The laws are complete, now that the Bible has been completed. They are eternal because God, who created them, is eternal, and even though He decided to deliver them to mankind piecemeal over centuries of time, they are unchanged when viewed from an eternal perspective. He did not have to change or alter them as He went along because of unseen circumstances. God's Word is settled forever in heaven:

            "For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." Psalm 119:89

            I realize it's difficult for us as finite humans to grasp, since we always think in terms of time, which is all we have ever known as a reference point. When viewed from our perspective in time, I agree with you that it does appear as though the Law has been changed, but remember, those modifications that are spelled out in the NT were also part of the Law that was settled in eternity.

            For example, when the Constitution of the US was first written, there were no amendments. There are now 27 amendments that have been enacted to present. Yet the Constitutional Laws do not consist of only the Constitution itself since the amendments were written later. No, we look at the entire body of the document, which includes the amendments, to determine what the Constitutional law declares.

            The statement in Deuteronomy 4:2, ""Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." must be read carefully.

            While it may not be apparent at first glance, there are two separate subjects in the sentence. The first is "the word which I command you" and the second is "the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you". It does not say, "Ye shall not add unto the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it."

            The Bible had not been completed at that time, so there was no direct command to not add unto or take away from God's Word, only that they were not to add or subtract from the Law of Moses, which represented the old covenant (see discussion above). However, when the new covenant was instituted upon Jesus' arrival and the completion of the NT, then there was to be no further additions or subtractions.

            As far as the history of the Bible, the early Christians accepted the Old Testament in the same format as the first century Jews. The OT had been decided upon in the second century BC and the NT writers used the Greek version, the Septuagint.

            The NT canon developed, or evolved, over the course of the first 250-300 years of Christian history. If the NT had been delivered by an angel, or unearthed as a complete unit it would not be as believable. Part of the historical validity of the NT comes from the fact that we can trace its development, albeit not as precisely as we might like.

            The Muratorian canon is a manuscript fragment that represents the oldest known orthodox list (or canon) of the New Testament. The beginning and ending of the MS is missing. The document is dated by most scholars to have been written around 170-200 AD. This document was discovered in an Italian library by Ludovico Antonio Muratori, a famous historian of the time. This list includes the following:

            - Matthew and Mark (we assume these were named in the beginning of the fragment which is missing – the writer mentions "four gospels")
            - Luke and John
            - Acts
            - all 13 Pauline letters (including the Pastoral epistles)
            - 1 and 2 John is assumed since the writer only names two letters of John
            - Jude
            - the Revelation of John

            This listing omits Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and 3 John. It also names a few documents that do NOT appear in the orthodox NT.

            By the end of the second century most of the 27 documents in the orthodox New Testament canon had already gained widespread acceptance, especially the four gospels and the Pauline writings. It is critical to understand why only four gospels were accepted. These early fathers were very familiar with the other gospels that were floating around – Marcion's gospel of Luke, the various gnostic gospels, and other "proto-orthodox" gospels that were not well accepted – they wanted to make it clear that these "other" gospels were NOT acceptable. There was, however, another very important reason – the Gnostics.

            TO READ MORE: http://www.churchhistory101.com/new-testament-can

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            keyboardshark 86p · 19 hours ago
            The laws are complete, now that the Bible has been completed.

            So, until the bible was written, gods laws were changing. They were also unknown if they needed to be written down to be known about. But yet they are also consistent and eternal. Yep, clear as mud.

            So, if god provided an incomplete and unworkable covenant, why does he blame people for not being able to follow it?

          • keyboardshark

            OK, maybe I could have worded it differently. Let's just say the Law is eternal, but from our perspective, viewing things through the lens of time, it appeared that the Law was incomplete before the Bible was completed. But viewing the Law from God's perspective, who is not constrained by time, it is eternal, because God Himself, who wrote the Law, is eternal.

            God has His own purposes for drip-feeding the details of His Law to us over time, but man was obligated to follow the law in the form in which it existed at the time he was alive. But in reality, not much has changed anyway. The Ten Commandments are still valid, which covers the majority of our moral decisions.

            Man is not able to follow the Law in either its Old Testament form, or completed NT form, so the problem is not that man had an incomplete Law in the past. The problem is, man has a sinful nature, and is and always has been (since the fall) unable to keep the Law. The law is incapable of saving us:

            Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20)

            That's why God, in His mercy, sent His Son to do the one thing we could not–pay the penalty for our disobedience that we deserved, and give us the free gift of eternal life

            Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

            23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

            24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: (Romans 3)

      • Speak straight

        In the old testament, before Jesus, God commanded killings as a means to keep the blood line Holy, as God would send Jesus only to a Holy people. The devil kept corrupting the people so as to not allow Jesus to come as was the Prophesy. We all know about the flood in Moses days and that is the most perfect example of God keeping his people Holy. After Jesus was sent, the killings were not needed to keep the people Holy, as Jesus was to save believers from sin.

    • Evermyrtle

      That will be in the rewritten, by Obama Constitution.

    • lurl

      Your version and interpretation of the laws of Islam are beyond silly.
      It is obvious that you have studied no part of the true belief of Muslims. You have only been shown a distorted view which is not the real life of these people.

  • Michael Pierce

    There is no such thing as a good Muslim! They are all working toward the same goal, only one group is up front about it. If they want to be in America they need to realize America is a Christian country. That is not up for debate or change. And they are allowed to exist here by the goodness of our hearts. Any sign of movement toward there elevating there law as an equal or push to insert there law here should be looked at as an act of treason. Much like the senators and congressmen who are socialist, who have lied when taking there oath should be removed and held as enemy combatants. So should any Muslim who try's the same. We need to uphold the constitution with vigor, and resolve. There religion allows them to lie to non Muslims to further there cause of bringing the world under control of Islam. The unholy satanic book of Koran.

    • Arielle

      You are right in so many area's ! They ARE allowed to lie to non-believer's, and their ultimate goal is to take over the world and have SHARIA law as the law !! Unfortunately a lot of people REFUSE to see this, even though it is plain to see it happening !!!

    • lurl

      The united states is in no way an xian country. It is a country of diversity. There are fewer and fewer xians each and every year. There is no hope for their having any controlling actions over the people of this nation.
      For starters check and see which group is now the minority?

  • tod

    muslim are a cult,and the Only Good muslim is a Dead muslim,PERIOD !!!

    • lurl

      TOD.
      Conveniently you give great evidence that you are a terrific racist and outright hater of others who are not like you.
      The same may be said of any xian walking about trying to kill Muslims.

  • ceejay

    Their KORAN teaches MUSLIMS it is OK to lie as long as it is for allah.. I question their loyalty to AMERICA. We don't hear from them so which side are they on ? So if they are NOT part of the SOLUTION , they are part of the PROBLEM. I DON'T trust any of them.

    • lurl

      Have you read the Q'uaran? Doesn't seem as tho that is your passion yours seems to be you have the ultimate desire to hate as many Muslims as possible. That is very sad and so very xian.

  • msjallen

    In case you haven't seen this…
    Watch it now before it gets pulled from the internet!
    Copy and paste: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#

  • madmemere

    Islam is NOT a religion – -it IS a fascist ideology; their quran is NOT a holy book – -it IS a collection of writings by a lunatic, heathen pedophile!

    • lurl

      Madmemere.
      When first reading you comment I thought is was filled with truth and that you really understood what the US is all about.
      Afterall, we know their holy book is a collections of writings by a bunch of lunatic Semites who just wanted controll over eny number of innocent people.
      Sorry you are so confused.

  • PizzOnIslam

    This is just more of the example of Islamic patronization within America, and how they will "appear" to participate in OUR democracy, and later on will foment Sharia evolution…then revolution. Islam is NOT compatible with the Western christian way of life, and the evidence is present in the Muslim countries themselves. They are all radicalized, none exist with true freedoms as we know them in America. Muslims come in here rather modest (the bulk of them), but they will radicalize and pervert our way of life.

  • JPW

    "If a nation expects Io be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." – Jefferson Islam both uncivil, i.e. abhoreing freedom; DEMANDING enslavement to a 'strange (vindictive) god' – at price of the sword!