Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
That is incorrect, you can become a non Muslim prior to the age of 12, with no adverse effects. Had he been a Muslim past the age of 12, then you would be correct, he would be an apostate, and therefore subject to death according to the Koran.
In the Muslim religion, if your father is a Muslim when you are born, then you are born a Muslim child.
I realize that the adult Barack Obama is not, nor has he ever been, a Muslim.
But that doesn't change the view of the Koran. In Muslim eyes, Barack Obama was born a Muslim. He even has that marked as his religion at one point in school in Indonesia if I remember correctly.
I am not saying that I think he is/was a Muslim, but if I obeyed the law of the Koran, I certainly would think he was born a Muslim.
You might be getting dumber by day dauguy, it must be all the government cheese you get. No doubt the Man is putting dumbing down drugs in it to keep the poor folk poor.
I agree with you Waugs, this is a tired argument. Many people don't understand the nuances of it, but I think any intelligent person can agree that Obama is not a Muslim, nor has he ever willingly been one.
I understand who he may be talking about, but that is only because the asker brings it up.
I feel like the question itself, its phrasing and its answer choices are all valid.
In this case it is actually something you infer from the question that you find inappropriate.
>It is factual, because it brings up no untrue facts.
>It is not ignorant, because the question itself is important in today's America. When Ellison was elected there was a good amount of Hub bub surrounding that.
>It is not a smear because it does not mention anyone, so who can it be smearing?
[0 points]3 years ago by CDogReplyEdited 3 years ago by CDog
">It is factual, because it brings up no untrue facts."
"In the Muslim religion, if your father is a Muslim when you are born, then you are born a Muslim child."
The first two are direct quotes of you.
So, in baby steps:
You hold that a person born to a Muslim father is a Muslim because the Qur'an says so.
Since this is a fact, it is factual to say that Obama (or any American born to a Muslim father) is a Muslim.
You have left unstated a premise here: The Qur'an is a higher authority than the Constitution.
You even allude to it in this phrase:
"In the Muslim religion".
Since the Constitution, not the Muslim religion, is the rule of law for Americans (including Obama), and since the question is that of the Presidency, which requires a natural-born American Citizen by definition, you have implied a fact contrary to evidence, i.e. that Muslim law is the governing factor for this question.
My comprehension is just fine thanks. Have some trouble understanding what you yourself have said?
Are you RETARDED? I mean seriously like in a low IQ way?
My statement ">It is factual, because it brings up no untrue facts." is in direct response to Shields post that states it is "not factual"
The question "Are the American people ready to have a muslim in the white house?" is entirely factual. Since it makes not factual statements how can it be an untrue statment?
How hard is this to understand? I think maybe you get reply threads all mixes up, try reading the response, and then responding to it, instead of taking every single post I write and then responding to them all as if they make the same point, or are even related. The "Muslim" portion of this thread is on an entirely different reply tree to the "not factual" reply tree. That's why we have reply trees so that a conversation can stay threaded, you don't jump threads.
Additionally, I never said that I held that people can be born into a religion, your reading comprehension is, in fact, bad. Here is the relevant quote. "In Muslim eyes, Barack Obama was born a Muslim." Notice how I never said in my eyes he was born a Muslim, I said in Muslim eyes. I even state that distinction plain as day in this quote from the bottom of that reply "I am not saying that I think he is/was a Muslim, but if I obeyed the law of the Koran, I certainly would think he was born a Muslim." Notice what I did there?
I have left no unstated premises. There is no arguing that in Muslim eyes, the Koran is a higher authority than the constitution. That is an absolute undeniable fact in that religion.
[quote=dauguy]
Since the Constitution, not the Muslim religion, is the rule of law for Americans (including Obama), and since the question is that of the Presidency, which requires a natural-born American Citizen by definition, you have implied a fact contrary to evidence, i.e. that Muslim law is the governing factor for this question.
[/quote]
What does the above have to do with anything? You can be a natural born American Citizen and a Muslim. I never said nor implied that you could not. Of course this question has absolutely nothing to do with the requirements for being president, so that's another random tangent you managed to somehow try to bring into the discussion.
So you don't have the empathy to understand or the courage to say you're wrong and remove it? Instead you get your hackles up and try to justify it by quoting the dictionary at me (cherry-picking the stuff that suits you) and saying you don't care. Such cowardice and shameful ignorance of the power of words.
It's not my feelings you should worry about - it's the people with intellectual and physical disabilities who are made to feel worthless by comments like yours, whether you meant it that way or not. Labelling something as politically correct is an oft-used excuse to say something offensive and try to pass it off as a difference of opinion. Even your own dictionary definition said it was offensive and you used it as an insult, so don't try to excuse it away as a technical term.
We all say things that hurt other people, but what separates the strong from the losers is whether we acknowledge our mistakes and have the empathy and humility to make amends.
Real courage is living through and succeeding despite slurs and taunts like "retard" being applied to you. There are myriad other ways you could have made your point without using that epithet and it's sad that you can't see it. Leaving it there doesn't remove the offense, nor does it make you look anything less than stubborn, weak and juvenile. Forget pride; have a scrap of dignity and respect and remove it, CDog. If you do, I'll delete my comments too.
***********************************
[1 point]3 years ago by gaygaelReplyEdited 3 years ago by gaygael
I'm confused as to where I suggested "trying is enough"; rather, I said that people who succeed in spite of adversity and slurs are the courageous ones. It's unfortunate that you are so stubborn as to defend your pride by demeaning others. Best of luck.
******************************
[1 point]3 years ago by gaygaelReplyEdited 3 years ago by gaygael
I moved it back to retarded, it made my point better. You can rant if you want. I give up with you on this topic. You are a sensitive person and that's real swell.
If I was an American I would vote for a Protestant or a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu, a Muslim or a Mormon. I would vote for an thesist, an atheist, or an agnostic. Religion should have nothing to do with the political process.
None of us know - how can we? - whether Sen Obama is a genuine Christian or, in order to make himself electable, an atheist pretending to be a Christian, or a Muslim pretending to be a Christian.
I think we can be sure enough that Obama is a Christian. Going into this whole "knowing" argument is pointless. There is no right answer what you start throwing out crap like that. There is preponderance of evidence that supports Obama being a Christian, so that is effectively a fact.
It doesn't make anyone wonder that April. Only an absolute idiot could think at this point that Obama is a Muslim.
They respond this way because it is a smear tactic, and it appeals to the lowest level of ignorant voter. The kind that hear his name, then hear the word Muslim, and the suddenly think he had a hand in 9/11.
To be fair to the Obama supporters here, the person who asked the question posted a response that basically said Obama was a Muslim soon after the question appeared. I am sure they would have drawn the conclusion either way, but in this case, the Author went out of his way to make sure his implication was known.
I honestly didn't think of Obama when I first read the question.
How about that, the Obama crowd banded together and removed something from the community. Does this mean the cries of the "conservatives" using inappropriate will finally stop?
Mexico
I guess that a Muslim would have to run for us to find out.
This comment was deleted by dyohanan .
[-5 points] 3 years ago byThat is incorrect, you can become a non Muslim prior to the age of 12, with no adverse effects. Had he been a Muslim past the age of 12, then you would be correct, he would be an apostate, and therefore subject to death according to the Koran.
Never was a muslim to begin with....
"is not and has never been muslim" [http://isbarackobamamuslim.com/]
In the Muslim religion, if your father is a Muslim when you are born, then you are born a Muslim child.
I realize that the adult Barack Obama is not, nor has he ever been, a Muslim.
But that doesn't change the view of the Koran. In Muslim eyes, Barack Obama was born a Muslim. He even has that marked as his religion at one point in school in Indonesia if I remember correctly.
I am not saying that I think he is/was a Muslim, but if I obeyed the law of the Koran, I certainly would think he was born a Muslim.
Good thing the Q'uran is not running for office, hm?
Uh yeah, I guess so, it is a book.
You might be getting dumber by day dauguy, it must be all the government cheese you get. No doubt the Man is putting dumbing down drugs in it to keep the poor folk poor.
And, if you are a man, according to the law of Iran.
This comment was deleted.
[5 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyI agree with you Waugs, this is a tired argument. Many people don't understand the nuances of it, but I think any intelligent person can agree that Obama is not a Muslim, nor has he ever willingly been one.
Obama is not a Muslim.
MARKED AS INAPPROPRIATE.
> not factual
> ignorant
> a smear
- join me.
How is this a smear? It doesn't even mention Obama in the question? You are drawing conclusions that are not even there.
As a general question, I see no problem with it. Had he mentioned Obama in his question, I would agree with you though.
Well come on -- who the fu-- you think he is talking about--you must be the only person in the world that needs it spelled out.
I understand who he may be talking about, but that is only because the asker brings it up.
I feel like the question itself, its phrasing and its answer choices are all valid.
In this case it is actually something you infer from the question that you find inappropriate.
>It is factual, because it brings up no untrue facts.
>It is not ignorant, because the question itself is important in today's America. When Ellison was elected there was a good amount of Hub bub surrounding that.
>It is not a smear because it does not mention anyone, so who can it be smearing?
I thought religion was a matter of choice in the U.S., so, the implied 'fact' of Obama's 'Muslimness' isn't a fact.
Obama chose to be Christian, which, in America, is supposed to be the end of the matter. Or do you think the Shari'a trumps the U.S. Constitution?
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
You make the implication, like I said I do not. I am juding the question on its own merits, not as some trumped up Obama Smear.
The rest of response here doesn't even make any sense. It doesn't relate to my comment in any way what so ever.
Reading comprehension is not your strong point is it?
">It is factual, because it brings up no untrue facts."
"In the Muslim religion, if your father is a Muslim when you are born, then you are born a Muslim child."
The first two are direct quotes of you.
So, in baby steps:
You hold that a person born to a Muslim father is a Muslim because the Qur'an says so.
Since this is a fact, it is factual to say that Obama (or any American born to a Muslim father) is a Muslim.
You have left unstated a premise here: The Qur'an is a higher authority than the Constitution.
You even allude to it in this phrase:
"In the Muslim religion".
Since the Constitution, not the Muslim religion, is the rule of law for Americans (including Obama), and since the question is that of the Presidency, which requires a natural-born American Citizen by definition, you have implied a fact contrary to evidence, i.e. that Muslim law is the governing factor for this question.
My comprehension is just fine thanks. Have some trouble understanding what you yourself have said?
Are you RETARDED? I mean seriously like in a low IQ way?
My statement ">It is factual, because it brings up no untrue facts." is in direct response to Shields post that states it is "not factual"
The question "Are the American people ready to have a muslim in the white house?" is entirely factual. Since it makes not factual statements how can it be an untrue statment?
How hard is this to understand? I think maybe you get reply threads all mixes up, try reading the response, and then responding to it, instead of taking every single post I write and then responding to them all as if they make the same point, or are even related. The "Muslim" portion of this thread is on an entirely different reply tree to the "not factual" reply tree. That's why we have reply trees so that a conversation can stay threaded, you don't jump threads.
Additionally, I never said that I held that people can be born into a religion, your reading comprehension is, in fact, bad. Here is the relevant quote. "In Muslim eyes, Barack Obama was born a Muslim." Notice how I never said in my eyes he was born a Muslim, I said in Muslim eyes. I even state that distinction plain as day in this quote from the bottom of that reply "I am not saying that I think he is/was a Muslim, but if I obeyed the law of the Koran, I certainly would think he was born a Muslim." Notice what I did there?
I have left no unstated premises. There is no arguing that in Muslim eyes, the Koran is a higher authority than the constitution. That is an absolute undeniable fact in that religion.
[quote=dauguy]
Since the Constitution, not the Muslim religion, is the rule of law for Americans (including Obama), and since the question is that of the Presidency, which requires a natural-born American Citizen by definition, you have implied a fact contrary to evidence, i.e. that Muslim law is the governing factor for this question.
[/quote]
What does the above have to do with anything? You can be a natural born American Citizen and a Muslim. I never said nor implied that you could not. Of course this question has absolutely nothing to do with the requirements for being president, so that's another random tangent you managed to somehow try to bring into the discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------
> "Are you retarded? I mean seriously like in a low IQ way?"
Couldn't you have made your point without being so offensive?
********************************
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[0 points] 3 years ago byDid you miss the last line?
"sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress"
Again: couldn't you have made your point without being so offensive?
********************************
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[0 points] 3 years ago bySo you don't have the empathy to understand or the courage to say you're wrong and remove it? Instead you get your hackles up and try to justify it by quoting the dictionary at me (cherry-picking the stuff that suits you) and saying you don't care. Such cowardice and shameful ignorance of the power of words.
***********************************
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byIt's not my feelings you should worry about - it's the people with intellectual and physical disabilities who are made to feel worthless by comments like yours, whether you meant it that way or not. Labelling something as politically correct is an oft-used excuse to say something offensive and try to pass it off as a difference of opinion. Even your own dictionary definition said it was offensive and you used it as an insult, so don't try to excuse it away as a technical term.
We all say things that hurt other people, but what separates the strong from the losers is whether we acknowledge our mistakes and have the empathy and humility to make amends.
Real courage is living through and succeeding despite slurs and taunts like "retard" being applied to you. There are myriad other ways you could have made your point without using that epithet and it's sad that you can't see it. Leaving it there doesn't remove the offense, nor does it make you look anything less than stubborn, weak and juvenile. Forget pride; have a scrap of dignity and respect and remove it, CDog. If you do, I'll delete my comments too.
***********************************
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byI'm confused as to where I suggested "trying is enough"; rather, I said that people who succeed in spite of adversity and slurs are the courageous ones. It's unfortunate that you are so stubborn as to defend your pride by demeaning others. Best of luck.
******************************
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byGiven your penchant for crotchety, off-the-cuff remarks that you get all riled up about when called out on, I have no doubt we will.
***************************
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byAnd you said you didn't care...
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byNot the least bit funny.
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byYou invented that line, not me. Give yourself another pat on the back.
This comment was deleted by CDog .
[1 point] 3 years ago byI moved it back to retarded, it made my point better. You can rant if you want. I give up with you on this topic. You are a sensitive person and that's real swell.
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
No, I couldn't.
There are many free online resources that could help you with expanding your vocabulary. All the best with that.
I agree, does not even need a response.
If I was an American I would vote for a Protestant or a Catholic, a Jew or a Hindu, a Muslim or a Mormon. I would vote for an thesist, an atheist, or an agnostic. Religion should have nothing to do with the political process.
None of us know - how can we? - whether Sen Obama is a genuine Christian or, in order to make himself electable, an atheist pretending to be a Christian, or a Muslim pretending to be a Christian.
I think we can be sure enough that Obama is a Christian. Going into this whole "knowing" argument is pointless. There is no right answer what you start throwing out crap like that. There is preponderance of evidence that supports Obama being a Christian, so that is effectively a fact.
Obviously not since so many still swing the term around as if it were an epithet.
Surveys show that atheists are less trusted than Communists.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Thanks for that more or less completely off topic "factoid". We are all dumber simply for having to read your comments today.
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyIt doesn't make anyone wonder that April. Only an absolute idiot could think at this point that Obama is a Muslim.
They respond this way because it is a smear tactic, and it appeals to the lowest level of ignorant voter. The kind that hear his name, then hear the word Muslim, and the suddenly think he had a hand in 9/11.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyTo be fair to the Obama supporters here, the person who asked the question posted a response that basically said Obama was a Muslim soon after the question appeared. I am sure they would have drawn the conclusion either way, but in this case, the Author went out of his way to make sure his implication was known.
I honestly didn't think of Obama when I first read the question.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 3 years ago by deleted user ReplyOMG, that was april's 666th comment. Shockingly coherent. She must be planning something...
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
I don't think that Obama IS a Muslim, merely that he could be. Does that make me, iyo, a non-absolute idiot?
No, you have to think he IS one to be an absolute idiot. But to think it is a possibility bigger than say 1% is pretty stupid in my opinion.
How about that, the Obama crowd banded together and removed something from the community. Does this mean the cries of the "conservatives" using inappropriate will finally stop?
How do you know it was "the Obama crowd"? Could have been some McCain-supporting Muslims or anyone else who didn't like the question.
I guess you got me there, it could have been. It also could have been Devil Worshiping Eskimos, or even Mohammad himself.
I'd go with the Eskimos - they have very exacting tastes.