America Woman Joined ISIS Wants to Return to the US

[BevoJoe]

If not a citizen, then she can be tried in a military tribunal and get the Guantanamo Bay treatment.

Good point. That would be a fitting punishment as well.

 

[Horn2RunAgain]

Once a traitor, always a traitor. Good riddance to bad garbage.

I've said this elsewhere about another topic, just can't remember what the topic was.... Oh yeah, it was about aggy leaving the conference and wanting to play us again. Screw em both

 

[Mr. Deez]

Ok Mr D
You went all lawyer on us
What is a rebuttal presumption?

It means that we'll treat something as true based on a piece ofo evidence but will consider controverting evidence. For example, if you present your birth certificate, the State Department will assume that you're a citizen and give your a passport. However, if they receive evidence that you renounced your citizenship, that would rebut the presumption that comes with presenting a US birth certificate, and the passport would be denied.

I see many on the left are angered by her too. Maybe this will finally spur forward changing the birthright amendment.

Lol. No chance in hell.

 

[Clean]

Sweden is off the rails. They have taken virtue signaling and white guilt beyond their normal levels of stupidity and reached into mental disorder territory.

Sweden has taken it to the point that some of their own women disguise themselves as muslims in the hope that they won't be sexually harassed out on the streets. They've commited societal suicide.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Taqiyya: Deception and Lying in Islam

Hadith and Sira
Sahih Bukhari (52:269) - "The Prophet said, 'War is deceit.'" The context of this is thought to be the murder of Usayr ibn Zarim and his thirty unarmed companions by Muhammad's men after they were "guaranteed" safe passage (see Additional Notes below).

Sahih Bukhari (49:857) - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar." Lying is permitted when the end justifies the means.

Sahih Bukhari (84:64-65) - Speaking from a position of power at the time, Ali confirms that lying is permitted in order to deceive an "enemy." The Quran defines the 'enemy' as "disbelievers" (4:101).

Sahih Muslim (32:6303) - "...he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."

Sahih Bukhari (50:369) - Recounts the murder of a poet, Ka'b bin al-Ashraf, at Muhammad's insistence. The men who volunteered for the assassination used dishonesty to gain Ka'b's trust, pretending that they had turned against Muhammad. This drew the victim out of his fortress, whereupon he was brutally slaughtered.

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... (See the Permissible Lying section on the Sharia page for more)

"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."
Notes
The Hadith makes it clear that Muslims are allowed to lie to unbelievers in order to defeat them or protect themselves. There are several forms:

Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true as it relates to the Muslim identity. This is a Shiite term: the Sunni counterpart is Muda'rat.

Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief."

Tawriya - Intentionally creating a false impression.

Muruna - 'Blending in' by setting aside some practices of Islam or Sharia in order to advance others.

Though not called taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans (known as Hudaibiya) which allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later. Some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed.

Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.

At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, probably because they were unarmed - having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981, Ibn Kathir v.4 p.300).

Such was the reputation of early Muslims for lying and killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. Consider the fate of the Jadhima. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe, one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam (to avoid just such a demise). However, the others insisted that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were tied up and beheaded by the missionaries - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).

Today's apologists often rationalize Muhammad's murder of his critics at Medina by falsely claiming that they broke a treaty with their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.

Leaders in the Arab world sometimes say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Palestinian leaders routinely tell Westerners about their desire for peace with Israel, even as they whip Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews. Yassir Arafat even referenced "Hudaibiya" - an admission to conning guillible non-Muslims.

The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well that John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, claimed well after the fact that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'

The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of this was true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Quran puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing taqiyya to facilitate their mission of mass murder.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.

The notorious Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is so well known for shamelessly lying about its ties to terror and extremism that books have been written on the subject. They take seriously the part of Sharia that says "it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory". The goal being the ascendency of Islam (and Sharia itself) on the American landscape.

In 2007, CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper published an op-ed with a fabricated story about Muhammad that portrayed him as a forgiving man:There was a lady who threw garbage in the path of the prophet on a daily basis. One day, she didn‘t do it. The prophet went to inquire about her health, because he thought she might be sick. This lady ended up converting to Islam. So, that‘s how you respond to people who attack you, with forgiveness and with kindness.Hooper is not ignorant, of course, and knew what he was doing. After getting caught, he changed the wording slightly to say that it is a tradition "Muslims are taught," but he continues to promote the story without qualifying it as untrue - thus causing others to unwittingly repeat a lie.

Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.

In 2013, a scholar at the prestigious al-Azhar university decreed that Muslims may wear the cross in order to deceive Christians into thinking they are friendly. He cited 3:28 which says not to be friends with non-Muslims unless it is a way of "guarding" yourself against them.

"Hiding faith" can mean deceiving others about Islam in order to make it appear more attractive. For example, a prominent Muslim activist in the United States, Linda Sarsour, bills herself as a "progressive" and says that gays, women and religious minorities need not worry about Sharia being imposed. She even says that money is lent free of charge under Islamic law (more about that here).

The Quran says in several places that Allah is the best at deceiving people.

There are a few early Quran verses that seem to encourage truthfulness: 70:32-33, and it bears mentioning that many Muslims are no less honest than anyone else. But, when lying is addressed in the Quran, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - meaning the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.

Still, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.




Twitter is pretty much a microcosm of progressive angst, identity politics, and denial.

The hadith are a major point of contention. Like I said already, what certain "scholars" like Bukhari and his ilk think are as bad as what asshats like Pat Roberston spew on TV.

I knew someone would copy and paste a barage of hadith soundbites from any number of anti-Islam websites. Trust me, the internet is repleat with a thousand of these webpages. That said, that's not how I was raised, or anyone I know who is a Muslim was raised. Definitely not in the US.

Theres a reason why ISIS and similar groups exist. Because extremist ideologs exist and twist Quranic verses to convince weak minded individuals to murder innocent people. You'll find no argument from me there, which is why this stupid girl should be shown a jail cell.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

It means that we'll treat something as true based on a piece ofo evidence but will consider controverting evidence. For example, if you present your birth certificate, the State Department will assume that you're a citizen and give your a passport. However, if they receive evidence that you renounced your citizenship, that would rebut the presumption that comes with presenting a US birth certificate, and the passport would be denied.



Lol. No chance in hell.

The 14th amendment was never intended to include anchor babies. That's why the part about jurisdiction is included. Its not just flowery language thrown in there for the hell of it.

 

[Garmel]

The 14th amendment was never intended to include anchor babies.

I've had this argument before with Deez. He thinks it does.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The 14th amendment was never intended to include anchor babies. That's why the part about jurisdiction is included. Its not just flowery language thrown in there for the hell of it.

Yes, I know language doesn't get thrown into a law for the hell of it. As I recall, they talked about that in law school.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Yes, I know language doesn't get thrown into a law for the hell of it. As I recall, they talked about that in law school.

I am not trying to educate you I just hate how the general public doesn't seem to understand that at all.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am not trying to educate you I just hate how the general public doesn't seem to understand that at all.

Hard to blame them. A lot of judges don't understand it either.

Nevertheless, you do understand that if you go with the jurisdiction argument for so-called "anchor babies," it would deny every US court of its authority to hold an illegal alien civilly or criminal liable for anything and that every illegal alien who has been convicted of any crime from jaywalking to capital murder would be entitled to have his conviction vacated and to be released, right?

 

[2003TexasGrad]

Hard to blame them. A lot of judges don't understand it either.

Nevertheless, you do understand that if you go with the jurisdiction argument for so-called "anchor babies," it would deny every US court of its authority to hold an illegal alien civilly or criminal liable for anything and that every illegal alien who has been convicted of any crime from jaywalking to capital murder would be entitled to have his conviction vacated and to be released, right?

So illegal aliens would be entitled to legal immunity for any and all criminal activity? Fascinating.

 

[Mr. Deez]

So illegal aliens would be entitled to legal immunity for any and all criminal activity? Fascinating.

The problem is that a court has to have personal jurisdiction over someone to render a judgment against him. If illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then its courts don't have jurisdiction to render judgment against them. What that means is that the illegal alien would have to be deported to his home country for prosecution. Maybe it would happen, and maybe it wouldn't.

 

[Horn6721]

It seems it might come down to when the State Dept. changed his status from Diplomat to legal immigrant.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

The problem is that a court has to have personal jurisdiction over someone to render a judgment against him. If illegal aliens aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then its courts don't have jurisdiction to render judgment against them. What that means is that the illegal alien would have to be deported to his home country for prosecution. Maybe it would happen, and maybe it wouldn't.

Not saying you're wrong, as Im not an attorney, but that's seriously F'd up.

 

[Horn6721]

Trying to understand
What jurisdiction did the courts have over the blind sheikh?

 

[Mr. Deez]

It seems it might come down to when the State Dept. changed his status from Diplomat to legal immigrant.

Did they actually do that?

 

[Joe Fan]

I find the fact that so many of them have suddenly popped up wanting to return to their home countries at the same time somewhat alarming. I am not in the mood to trust them

ISIS has/had a group called the Al-Khansaa Brigade which was an all-women "sharia enforcement unit" in Syria. They were charged with targeting other women living under ISIS for detention and lashings for crimes such as wearing makeup

They were aged 18-25 and reportedly had many recruits from the West.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Trying to understand
What jurisdiction did the courts have over the blind sheikh?

He committed a crime in the United States, was physically present in the United States, and wasn't a diplomat.
Pretty easy to find jurisdiction there.

 

[Horn6721]

It appears to be an issue of timing. When the US changed his status from diplomat to legal immigrant . But there is also an issue of passport which was revoked by US in 2014 when obama was potus.
I think if she can get to a port of entry she will be alllowed in and tried .
Then We pay for her kid.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The hadith are a major point of contention. Like I said already, what certain "scholars" like Bukhari and his ilk think are as bad as what asshats like Pat Roberston spew on TV.

I knew someone would copy and paste a barage of hadith soundbites from any number of anti-Islam websites. Trust me, the internet is repleat with a thousand of these webpages. That said, that's not how I was raised, or anyone I know who is a Muslim was raised. Definitely not in the US.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you were raised that way or even that most Muslims are. You denied that it happens. It very clearly does and it's a prominant part of a large segment of the international Muslim community. In the context of this discussion, it is ridiculous to simply dismiss it as irrelevant just because not all Muslims agree with it. To argue that either woman should be believed and ignore the idea that the radicals they willingly joined have no issue with lying in order to facilitate killing infidels is crazy - particularly when you make the arguement based on your own non-militant upbringing. You've already made a distinction between yourself and this idealogy so using your idealogical upbringing to explain theirs makes no sense.

And I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, but you creating an equivalence between anything he "spews" with calls to kill civilians is pretty ridiculous and offensive, and frankly is one of the reasons we cant have rational discussions about this.

 

[2003TexasGrad]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you were raised that way or even that most Muslims are. You denied that it happens. It very clearly does and it's a prominant part of a large segment of the international Muslim community. In the context of this discussion, it is ridiculous to simply dismiss it as irrelevant just because not all Muslims agree with it. To argue that either woman should be believed and ignore the idea that the radicals they willingly joined have no issue with lying in order to facilitate killing infidels is crazy - particularly when you make the arguement based on your own non-militant upbringing. You've already made a distinction between yourself and this idealogy so using your idealogical upbringing to explain theirs makes no sense.

And I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, but you creating an equivalence between anything he "spews" with calls to kill civilians is pretty ridiculous and offensive, and frankly is one of the reasons we cant have rational discussions about this.

We cant have rational discussions because you project extremist ideologies unto an entire group of people.

Do I need to repeat myself? I already said groups like ISIS exist because of asshats like al Bukhari. You must glazed over when I wrote that.

And Pat Robertson is a salient example. Hes a well known Christian scholar who says dumb ****. That's the point. There are Muslim scholars that say dumb ****. Doesnt make any of them right.

But when you make blanket statements that reflect on ALL Muslims Im gonna call you out.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

We cant have rational discussions because you project extremist ideologies unto an entire group of people.

Quote me where I did this.

Do I need to repeat myself? I already said groups like ISIS exist because of asshats like al Bukhari. You must glazed over when I wrote that.

You seem determined to make this personal.

I responded to this statement that you made:

"This whole Muslims are encouraged lie thing is just not true. What the Quran says is that if your life is in danger, it is not a sin to lie to protect yourself. I dont care what some "scholar" says."

I showed that this was not true, and in fact this IS taught.

You did move the bar somewhat in a later post and acknowledged that some "extremist scholars" "agree with you." Which I thought was a little odd, since the issue isn't whether the imam agrees with some random person on Hornfans, but whether they are actively teaching and influencing large numbers of Muslims overseas. But as you acknowledge that, you also seem to want to dismiss it out of hand as something that should have no bearing in how the question of these women's "apologies" should be taken. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you on that point. The point made was that their statements could not and should not be trusted, because they were training and/or following the guys you're complaining about. So frankly I'm confused about what you're arguing here. You're anti-extremist, but we should believe the extremists? If that's not what you're arguing then I don't really understand the issue here.

And Pat Robertson is a salient example. Hes a well known Christian scholar who says dumb ****. That's the point. There are Muslim scholars that say dumb ****. Doesnt make any of them right.

Pat Robertson has never called for killing civillians in the name of God. He may say crazy things, but there are plenty of crazy things people can say that aren't as bad as calling people to jihad. So no, they are not moral equivalents.

But when you make blanket statements that reflect on ALL Muslims Im gonna call you out.

Then at least have the courtesy to show where I made a blanket statement that reflects on ALL muslims - particularly since I said as much in more than one posts. I'm not going to get dragged into a rock-throwing contest with you. I'm not trying to offend you or lump you in with extremists. The only one doing that is you.

 

[Horn6721]

There was a Pew Research poll taken of muslims all over the world a few years ago.
It was enlightening to see how many moderate muslims would want to follow sharia law rather than the existing law in the country they were in.60%
IIRC a pretty good % of muslims in the USA prefer sharia over our constitution. BUT that preference is more prevalent among more recent migrants. Somalies for instance.
I would like to think that Muslims that have been here for years would support our constitution and laws and if asked to choose by someone like AlBagdadi (sp) if he asked for Muslims to rise up would stand with the USA
Much like no Catholic would let the Pope tell them to rise against the USA

 

[HornHuskerDad]

the illegal alien would have to be deported to his home country for prosecution.

That sounds like a terrific idea - maybe the law should allow us to deport illegal aliens.

 

[Mr. Deez]

That sounds like a terrific idea - maybe the law should allow us to deport illegal aliens.

The current law does allow us to deport them, but it also lets us imprison them, sue them, etc. If we actually held that they weren't subject to our jurisdiction, we couldn't do either, and it wouldn't increase our authority to deport them.