You know the problem with a lie?


Eventually the truth happens.

Badger52...gentleman as always. Hat tip.

I skimmed over and did not actually open the link that you had previously provided above. My bad.

The press will hold on to this "Khan" issue like a dog on a bone - think "war on women" and Sandra Fluke at the 2012 Democratic National Convention.

Right up until they are useless after November, either way. I get my shimstock at a friend's lumberyard; the Dems get their wedges for nuthin'.

Now that he has the media attention, I think he and the media will continue on to push the narrative and policies against Islamophobes :rolleyes:

He's probably been getting a shitload of phone calls since that bullshit Shoebat article came out. These folks are so desperately trying to paint this guy as some sort of bizarro sleeper agent that it's getting patently ridiculous. Taqqiya? Really? It's ludicrous how often that phrase gets thrown around here. It's practically become shorthand for "A Muslim does something I don't like"

I'm sorry ... who are you again? :munchin

Your profile seems quite bare .... actually, it's nonexistent.

... and your into is, well, shall we say ... SUCKS.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/...20&postcount=7

We like to know just who it is we're talking to. :munchin

Oh, and your, (ahem) profile and into, I've captured them on a screen shot and posted them below. In case you need help in figuring out what it is I'm referring to.

I appreciate your effort to break confirmation bias around here.
Opinion is like you-know-what. Provide counter citations and we go from there.

Khizr Khan, bottom-feeding piece of shitte
 

I guess you didn't catch the part where Khizr Khan used the DNC podium to "upsell" his muslim immigration business on the back of his dead son and take pot shots at the opposing political party. Win Win for the bottom-feeding muzzies and the DNC.

Snopes.com is run by liberal/socialists so I'm hoping that's not where you're obtaining your info.

Horrible, please enlighten us knuckle-draggers with your insight into Islam. Apparently, the combined experience of members on this board with Muslims and Islamic countries is somehow lacking.

We are waiting.

It seems you have a common response to anything you disagree with.

http://professionalsoldiers.com/foru...01&postcount=4

Fair enough:

First, the Muslim Brotherhood connection. Shoebat sees the citation of Said Ramadan, known MB member, in this thesis as some sort of support for his form of jurisprudence. If you read the entire thesis (it's only 13 pages), you see that the paper is not any sort of advocacy for any particular type of Shariah. Rather, it's a historical analysis that traces the teleology of various theories of Shariah since the period following Muhammad's death. In the section about Fiqh, jurisprudence, Khan merely cites an excerpt from one of Ramadan's texts on the history of Shariah. It's really innocuous:

From the 7th page:
Keep in mind that, regardless of his status as a recognized douchebag, Said Ramadan was also a recognized authority on Islamic law (or his particular interpretation). Khan only cited a small bit of historical analysis, not some exegesis on the virtue of jihad or whatever. A person can cite Wagner's views on music without assuming his views on Jews. Indeed, the entire document reads more like a strictly academic primer in Shariah and some of the underpinning concepts. Hell, he doesn't even use any complimentary phrases (durood) when referring to god or Muhammad. If this were any sort of religious advocacy, you would see a liberal sprinkling of (SAW) and (PBUH) throughout the paper.

Seriously, read through the entire thing. It'll take like 20 minutes.

Secondly, on the "taqqiya" issue: we don't know what branch of Islam Khizr Khan follows. The majority of Muslims in Pakistan are Sunni, and most following the Hanafi school of jurisprudence, not Hanbali or anything crazy like that. We can readily assume that he's probably a Hanafi Sunni. I know that some people on this board believe that all Muslims are practicing taqqiya 24/7 like it's some sort of global conspiracy, but that flies in the face of most of Islamic law. The fact is that there is scant justification for taqqiya in Sunni jurisprudence; it's almost exclusively a Shiite practice. In Sunni practice, it's only allowed under extreme duress, i.e. you're about to be tortured or killed, not when you want to dunk on Trump in front of the DNC.

Here's an easy explanation: http://askimam.org/public/question_detail/28898
Unless you think this guy is also practicing taqqiya(!!!) :rolleyes:

tl;dr version
-Taqiyyah is only done when a person is amongst non-believers and he fears for his life or wealth. He may even utter words which show love/close friendship as long as his heart is clean of such beliefs.
-Taqiyyah is not permissible through actions which cause harm to others eg. killing, fornication, stealing, false testimony, circulate the secrets of the Muslims (usually at the time of war), etc.
-Taqiyyah is also permissible if one is threatened to be beaten (severely).
-Taqiyyah is only permissible if one actually fears some danger. If no danger is expected taqiyyah is impermissible.
-Taqiyyah should be used as a last resort.
-Taqiyyah is not permissible for gain of wealth, position, etc. (except in critical circumstances)

Lastly, this "controversy" is just deflection to avoid addressing Khan's remarks. Attack the messenger if you can't attack his message.

Have I done a fair job in explaining my objections?

Horrible,

Fair enough...

We know that not every Muslim is a radical Islamic terrorist and I doubt very much that Mr. Khan is supporting terrorism. I don't think that is the point of this thread.

His speech went off the rails when he used the death of his son and Trumps calls for an immediate ban on Muslims from terrorist producing countries to be halted until there is a better process of vetting them.

Instead of saying "I can help with that if you give me a chance to show you the error of your ways...and to honor the sacrifice my son and many others gave all to protect..."

But he didn't do that. He went on the attack and verbally berated the man, thus calling him out.

The question many of us have is, why? (money and his business?)

He took it way beyond the death of his son. He politicized it in a way that deepened the divide in this country in a bad way - depending on which side of the isle you stand.

I'm sure that was intentional and why the question of; "did the DNC writers help you with that" came from.

The comment about his wife was crude but fair game in the context of the religion.

All's fair in love and war when you introduce politics!

BTW - point out the constitution to a Democrat and you are likely to get, Meh, as a response. They simply don't care what the constitution says if it goes against their ideals.

So if I was a wealthy man, and my wealth was due in part to helping believers enter the USA illegally and an infidel was threatening to take steps that would prevent this from happening then would that include fearing for my wealth?


...and if I embraced religious law that was in diametric opposition to the constitution of the country that I am helping illegal immigrant enter into, would the act of uttering words which show love/close friendship with that same nations constitution even though my heart was clean and still focused on Sharia be enough to fit this particular definition? Mr Kahn is a founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law - a periodical that zealously defends Sharia law. (the law that I think we are suggesting may or may not include this odd concept of taqqiya)


So, Trump says no more illegal immigration:
...my wealth suffers and profits from my law journal go down
...because I espouse and defend Sharia, it is logical to think I might be the victim of Trump induced violence

As result:
...I connect the death of my son to Trumps political opinion to attack Trumps opinions
...I ingratiate myself to infidels that are part of a political party that generally smirk openly at Christianity
...I wave a copy of the US constitution to demonstrate my rage



Got it.
I'm satisfied. Trump is the devil.

...also in the news, the sun was seen rising in the east and setting in the west.

Raymond Ibrahim on Taqiyya:

Not necessarily so, considering pg. vii, the introduction of “The Reliance of the Traveller” basically states: “The four Sunni schools of Islamic Law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, and HanbalI, are identical in approximately 75% of their legal conclusions..” and that “the field of Hadith, for example, who were Shafi’is are such scholars as Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa’I, Ibn Majah, Abu Dawud, Ibn Kathir, Dhahabi, and Nawawi..”

From Islamic Law:

Reliance of the Traveler (p. 746 – 8.2) – “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…

“One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie.



From the Qur'an:


"Quran (16:106) - Establishes that there are circumstances that can "compel" a Muslim to tell a lie.

Quran (3:28) - Tells Muslims not to take those outside the faith as friends, unless it is to "guard themselves" against danger, meaning that there are times when a Muslim should appear friendly to non-Muslims, even though they should not feel that way..

Quran (9:3) - "...Allah and His Messenger are free from liability to the idolaters..." The dissolution of oaths with the pagans who remained at Mecca following its capture. They did nothing wrong, but were evicted anyway.

Quran (40:28) - A man is introduced as a believer, but one who had to "hide his faith" among those who are not believers.

Quran (2:225) - "Allah will not call you to account for thoughtlessness in your oaths, but for the intention in your hearts" The context of this remark is marriage, which explains why Sharia allows spouses to lie to each other for the greater good.

Quran (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

Taken collectively these verses are interpreted to mean that there are circumstances when a Muslim may be "compelled" to deceive others for a greater purpose."


khayru al-makireena

Al-makireena - wasn't that a big dance craze in the early 90's? :D