Joe, I hate having these conversations with you because you simply cannot take the emotion out of it. So with that in my mind, I will share my opinion and then I am done debating this with you. It's a colossal waste of our time.
I believe that Congress should play a role in any deal with Iran. I do not believe the GOP letter increases the chances of that happening in any way, shape or form.
"In a precious preface I said that Obama’s proposed deal is Iran is only a hudna. Nonie Darwish, a friend of mine, amplifies this. I might add that no peace agreement with any Muslim country or the PA can last longer than 10 years. Muslims have the duty to wage war with non Muslim countries until they accept the dominance of Sharia and Islam." ~ Ted Belman
Obama’s Sharia-compliant Truce With Iran
By Nonie Darwish, AMERICAN THINKER
It is interesting to see President Obama trying to make a nuclear deal with Iran because Iran, an Islamic theocracy, must make a deal that is Sharia compliant. The Obama administration has to know and must feel a need to work with Iran’s Sharia requirements but is not making the predicament clear to the American people who are unaware of it. This is why:
Islamic law places jihad as not only a duty of every Muslim, but more importantly as the duty of every Muslim head of state. Permanent peace agreements with non-Muslim countries are forbidden since peace with the enemies of Islam is not a value, but in fact discouraged and would be treason if pursued for the purpose of peace. The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, as dictated by Sharia, must remain a hostile one unless non-Muslims abide by and live under Sharia. True peace with non-Muslims is forbidden and the only thing allowed is truces that must never exceed 10 years.
The Sharia manual of Islamic law Reliance of the Traveller, page 604-605, clearly states that only a truce, defined as cessation of violence, is “permissible but not obligatory.” In the Arabic original text, the word peace was never used to describe a truce, but in the English translation a truce is said to mean “a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period.” It is also important to note that the Arabic text call the people against whom Muslims are fighting as “Ahl El Harb” meaning people of war, or those who live in land of war (non-Muslim land) but in the English translation they are described as “those hostile to Islam.”
According to sharia “only the caliph (Muslim head of state) may effect a truce, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad.” Again here Sharia emphasizes the gravity and illegitimacy of ending violence and stopping jihad with Islam’s perceived enemies and the importance of never allowing peace to penetrate the Islamic state relationship with non-Muslim groups or nations.
Sharia clearly discourages truces unless it is beneficial for Islam, “There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo,” it is said in English, but in Arabic it says “Truces should never be made just to end fighting.” Then it continues quoting from the Quran a verse on peace and its conditions: “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when you are the upper most.” Meaning that when Muslims are strong and have the upper hand they must not seek a truce or peace.
According to Sharia (Traveller, page 987) it is an enormity sin, punishable by death, for “a Muslim to flee from combat (jihad) against unbelievers” because of fear of getting killed, unless one is falling back to regroup regain strength and reinforcement. Truces in that sense should never be done for the sake of peace or to escape jihad.
A truce must be justified for a reason such as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or material, or in the hope of an enemy (non-Muslims) becoming Muslim. Traveller’s page 605 states that “If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary… It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.”
It is clear that Iran’s wish to make a deal with the U.S. regarding its nuclear program is because of its feeling of weakness both internally from the economic standpoint and externally with the West and the many Sunni Arab enemies. For Obama the deal will show his critics that he has done something to stop Iran’s nuclear program, while in reality he is only kicking the can down to the next administration.
Benjamin Netanyahu and critics of Obama’s deal with Iran are right. Iran is following Sharia to the letter; it recognizes that it is now weak and desperately needs a 10-year Islamic fake peace, called a truce, to regroup, regain, and rebuild its military and economic strength while continuing its secret activities. After the lifting of the sanctions, Iran’s economy will improve and its control over its citizens will be strengthened, ending any hope for an uprising. In a few years Iran will regain its legitimacy among the nations of the world and will build an image of moderation only to start a new round of terror against Israel and the U.S. who should not be shocked this time by a Shiite style 9/11 after being kept in the dark for 10 years and shielded from the sharia proof plan.
The West must recognize that incrementalism has worked very well historically for both Shiite and Sunni Islam for over 1400 years, and 10 years is the sharia requirement. Iran does not have to noticeably violate the sharia-compliant truce with Obama since the deal has a sunset clause removing all restrictions and sanctions on Iran to develop its nuclear program after 10 years.
Even if Iran gets as far as 10-years compliance, it is guaranteed they will attack in earnest with complete terror and devastation because they would have obeyed Islamic law’s objective of annihilation of non-Muslim enemies, both Israel, the United States and all perceived enemies of Islam in their land, the land of war.
Nonie Darwish, author The Devil We Don’t Know and founder of Former Muslims United.
Obama’s Sharia-compliant Truce With Iran
By Nonie Darwish, AMERICAN THINKER
It is interesting to see President Obama trying to make a nuclear deal with Iran because Iran, an Islamic theocracy, must make a deal that is Sharia compliant. The Obama administration has to know and must feel a need to work with Iran’s Sharia requirements but is not making the predicament clear to the American people who are unaware of it. This is why:
Islamic law places jihad as not only a duty of every Muslim, but more importantly as the duty of every Muslim head of state. Permanent peace agreements with non-Muslim countries are forbidden since peace with the enemies of Islam is not a value, but in fact discouraged and would be treason if pursued for the purpose of peace. The relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, as dictated by Sharia, must remain a hostile one unless non-Muslims abide by and live under Sharia. True peace with non-Muslims is forbidden and the only thing allowed is truces that must never exceed 10 years.
The Sharia manual of Islamic law Reliance of the Traveller, page 604-605, clearly states that only a truce, defined as cessation of violence, is “permissible but not obligatory.” In the Arabic original text, the word peace was never used to describe a truce, but in the English translation a truce is said to mean “a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam, involving a cessation of fighting for a specified period.” It is also important to note that the Arabic text call the people against whom Muslims are fighting as “Ahl El Harb” meaning people of war, or those who live in land of war (non-Muslim land) but in the English translation they are described as “those hostile to Islam.”
According to sharia “only the caliph (Muslim head of state) may effect a truce, for it is a matter of the gravest consequence because it entails the nonperformance of jihad.” Again here Sharia emphasizes the gravity and illegitimacy of ending violence and stopping jihad with Islam’s perceived enemies and the importance of never allowing peace to penetrate the Islamic state relationship with non-Muslim groups or nations.
Sharia clearly discourages truces unless it is beneficial for Islam, “There must be some interest served in making a truce other than mere preservation of the status quo,” it is said in English, but in Arabic it says “Truces should never be made just to end fighting.” Then it continues quoting from the Quran a verse on peace and its conditions: “So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when you are the upper most.” Meaning that when Muslims are strong and have the upper hand they must not seek a truce or peace.
According to Sharia (Traveller, page 987) it is an enormity sin, punishable by death, for “a Muslim to flee from combat (jihad) against unbelievers” because of fear of getting killed, unless one is falling back to regroup regain strength and reinforcement. Truces in that sense should never be done for the sake of peace or to escape jihad.
A truce must be justified for a reason such as Muslim weakness because of lack of numbers or material, or in the hope of an enemy (non-Muslims) becoming Muslim. Traveller’s page 605 states that “If Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary… It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, save by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years.”
It is clear that Iran’s wish to make a deal with the U.S. regarding its nuclear program is because of its feeling of weakness both internally from the economic standpoint and externally with the West and the many Sunni Arab enemies. For Obama the deal will show his critics that he has done something to stop Iran’s nuclear program, while in reality he is only kicking the can down to the next administration.
Benjamin Netanyahu and critics of Obama’s deal with Iran are right. Iran is following Sharia to the letter; it recognizes that it is now weak and desperately needs a 10-year Islamic fake peace, called a truce, to regroup, regain, and rebuild its military and economic strength while continuing its secret activities. After the lifting of the sanctions, Iran’s economy will improve and its control over its citizens will be strengthened, ending any hope for an uprising. In a few years Iran will regain its legitimacy among the nations of the world and will build an image of moderation only to start a new round of terror against Israel and the U.S. who should not be shocked this time by a Shiite style 9/11 after being kept in the dark for 10 years and shielded from the sharia proof plan.
The West must recognize that incrementalism has worked very well historically for both Shiite and Sunni Islam for over 1400 years, and 10 years is the sharia requirement. Iran does not have to noticeably violate the sharia-compliant truce with Obama since the deal has a sunset clause removing all restrictions and sanctions on Iran to develop its nuclear program after 10 years.
Even if Iran gets as far as 10-years compliance, it is guaranteed they will attack in earnest with complete terror and devastation because they would have obeyed Islamic law’s objective of annihilation of non-Muslim enemies, both Israel, the United States and all perceived enemies of Islam in their land, the land of war.
Nonie Darwish, author The Devil We Don’t Know and founder of Former Muslims United.
If you can point to one thread created by a right winger in 2014 or 2015 where they have been critical of a right wing politician....I will take that back. Find me a dave, zit, willie, joe, jdeucebag, russ, acebb thread where they have called out a right wiing rep or senator for any one of the hundreds of idiotic things they've done.
Mantis, you need to reread the letter - nothing emotional about it.
President Pen and Phone has secretly promised his Muslim terrorist pals the moon, however...
"What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
That's just how a constitutional government with checks and balances works (as if we need reminding of the obvious), and the more Hussein acts like a dictator, the more 'embarrassed' and 'juvenile' he's going to look.
It's about time.
:aktion033
President Pen and Phone has secretly promised his Muslim terrorist pals the moon, however...
"What these two constitutional provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei. The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."
That's just how a constitutional government with checks and balances works (as if we need reminding of the obvious), and the more Hussein acts like a dictator, the more 'embarrassed' and 'juvenile' he's going to look.
It's about time.
:aktion033
