reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @thislife80

@amuse - @amuse

ISLAMIFICATION: Since 2011, the number of mosques in Texas has surged by 97%. In Islam, a mosque is not merely a house of worship—it is a command center for military campaigns. The rapid expansion of mosques across the state—many financed by foreign Islamic regimes—is a strategic enterprise, aimed not at assimilation, but at conquest through demographics, influence, and, ultimately, force. h/t @AmyMek

@ratiocinativeX - Nick

@amuse So what about all the synagogues that are financed by Israel?

@amuse - @amuse

Not seeing anything like that. Pew Research: Projects the U.S. Jewish population to decline from 1.8% of the U.S. population in 2010 (5.7 million) to 1.4% by 2050 (about 5.4 million). On the other hand, the Muslim population in the U.S. is projected to grow at an average annual rate of 1.93%, resulting in a total increase of about 61% by 2050 (from 5.025 million to 8.1 million).

@ratiocinativeX - Nick

You didn't address the financial influence. According to OpenSecrets, Pro-Israel lobbying groups have spent billions influencing U.S. politics. In 2024 alone, these groups are among the top lobbying clients, with significant donations to politicians and committees at federal and state levels. If we're talking about foreign influence, this is a clear example, far more direct than population projections.

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@ratiocinativeX @amuse Honestly, I would rather that than muslim Sharia law, that's a factbut you are correct in that we need to not have any foreign influence in our country.

@ratiocinativeX - Nick

@CharlieBang7402 @amuse I agree that absolute Sharia law is bad in America, however I also do not think that every Muslim wants that. I also think that Israel's foreign influence being ignored so much is a big issue that no one addresses.

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@ratiocinativeX @amuse The problem is that all Sharia law is extremely bad, and whether all are for it or not, they fall in line quick fast and you are correct that isreal influence is heavy and ignored but Muslim Sharia is worse and honestly it's to hard to tell the Muslims that are for it or against

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

@CharlieBang7402 @ratiocinativeX @amuse And you know it how? BTW, what does the word "Sharia" actually mean? Let's hear your PhD thesis on the subject Mr. Turner.

@thislife80 - American Mutt 🇺🇸

@Adnan_Khan_4 @CharlieBang7402 @ratiocinativeX @amuse https://t.co/vdVSKR9oYV

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

@thislife80 @CharlieBang7402 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Answer the question, don't deflect!

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@Adnan_Khan_4 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Add the inherent need to dominate the globe through force tell me how it is good PhD holder

@thislife80 - American Mutt 🇺🇸

@Adnan_Khan_4 @CharlieBang7402 @ratiocinativeX @amuse https://t.co/vdVSKR9oYV

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

@thislife80 @CharlieBang7402 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Answer the question, don't deflect!

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@Adnan_Khan_4 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Add the inherent need to dominate the globe through force tell me how it is good PhD holder

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

@CharlieBang7402 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse So in short you have no idea! That's why people like you are absolutely irrelevant.

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@Adnan_Khan_4 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Ok buddy, if you're ok with this mindset, you're not good. https://t.co/9gtNU0dt9U

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

It is telling—almost poetically so—that you are unable to articulate even a foundational understanding of Sharia—a term that, to the informed, is not a monolith but rather an ever-evolving symphony of divine intent, moral reasoning (ijtihad), legal pluralism, and centuries of scholastic debate across disparate schools of Islamic thought. To reduce it to a slogan, without historical context or linguistic precision, is to demonstrate not ignorance, but a kind of performative illiteracy masquerading as insight. Your deflections, though frequent, lack the finesse of dialectical rigor; your assertions echo like an empty amphora—loud in clangor, but hollow in substance. This is not engagement. It is discursive cosplay. And thus, you reveal your irrelevance—not as a matter of opinion, but as an axiomatic conclusion born of your own intellectual inertia. You are, in effect, the academic equivalent of static: ever-present, faintly irritating, but ultimately devoid of signal. So yes, I do hope this satisfies your curiosity—though I imagine it tastes bitter, like the first sip of truth to a tongue accustomed only to propaganda. Do feel free to respond—if you can first decipher what was just said.

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@Adnan_Khan_4 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse The fact you can't deny my proof that Islam is or gets twisted by the many shows that you are in denial or support said behavior and beliefs, & that makes you part of the problem. Normal people do not keep slaves or kill or cut off limbs or have child brides here they go to jail

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@Adnan_Khan_4 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Feel free to respond with another long-winded response of deflection and insults to defend what is history. Mohammed married a 9-year-old who took her virginity committed adultery and murder all the same guy

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

Ah, I see we’ve returned—once again—with a perfunctory repetition of debunked tropes, forcibly tethered to a historical scaffolding you neither understand nor have the disciplinary range to critique. It’s not discourse you’re after, but doctrinal graffiti, smeared across centuries of intellectual labor. Let me then, for your benefit and the dignity of the record, proceed in a register likely to remain irreconcilable with your cognitive architecture: 1. Historical Illiteracy of Your “Fact” To state “Muhammad (PBUH) married a 9-year-old” as though it's an incontrovertible datum is to commit source absolutism—the uncritical privileging of a solitary narration (Hisham ibn Urwah via his father) whose integrity is questioned in Iraqi transmissions by Imam Malik, Abu Zur’ah, and others. This isnad is not mutawātir; it’s ahad—solitary—thus not doctrinally binding in either usul al-fiqh or kalam. Moreover, cross-temporal synchrony using Asma bint Abi Bakr’s age, migratory timelines, and martial chronology places Aisha’s age between 16 and 19. Your obsession with the number 9 is philistine literalism, not historical analysis. 2. Misapplication of Modern Categories To weaponize terms like “pedophilia” or “adultery” is to retroject post-Enlightenment legal-moral paradigms into a premodern Arabian context. These categories, encoded within Eurocentric Enlightenment moral epistemes, are neither ontologically universal nor temporally neutral. As anthropologists like Jack Goody and Margaret Mead have demonstrated, age at marriage is a socially constructed threshold—anchored to cultural rites, not Gregorian integers. 3. On the Charge of Adultery This is pure fabrication without textual precedent. Not one source—Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, Waqidi, nor even polemical Christian texts such as The Apology of al-Kindi—levy such a claim. Your assertion here collapses under the weight of intertextual silence—where not even adversaries found grounds to accuse. 4. On “Murder” The Prophet’s military engagements followed explicit procedural codes. Rules of engagement, terms of surrender, noncombatant immunity, and pluralist contracts like the Ṣaḥīfat al-Madīnah (Constitution of Medina) preceded modern jus in bello by a millennium. Even orientalist scholars—e.g., W. Montgomery Watt, Karen Armstrong, and Fred Donner—acknowledge that Muhammad’s statecraft was primarily reactive and defensive, often adhering to ethical protocols beyond those of his contemporaries. 5. Your Epistemological Abyss The problem isn’t your skepticism—it’s your refusal to engage with discursive complexity. You operate within a closed-loop epistemology, wherein every counterpoint is dismissed as “deflection,” every nuance as “insult,” and every scholarly reference as “long-winded.” This is not inquiry. It is anti-intellectual closure—the abandonment of interpretive humility for the satisfaction of unearned certainty. So no, I’m not “defending history.” I’m dismantling your misreading of it with tools you neither possess nor recognize. Your formulation is not merely wrong—it is semantically incoherent, historiographically discredited, and ethically unserious. Should you wish to graduate from memetic tantrums to actual conversation, I’m willing. Until then, your statements serve only as an archive of your own intellectual negligence.

@CharlieBang7402 - Mitchell Turner

@Adnan_Khan_4 @thislife80 @ratiocinativeX @amuse Ok thank you for doing so I believe what I read in books & what people say & I may not be in depth and learned as you in all things Islam but the point your refusing to get is that there are people who believe exactly what I presented in those videos whether your one who knows

@Adnan_Khan_4 - Adnan Khan

I appreciate the civility in your response—and your willingness to engage, even amidst disagreement. That, in itself, is a welcome departure from the usual polemical tone these discussions can take. Let me offer a thought that I hope bridges the gap: You're absolutely right that there are individuals and groups who claim to act upon interpretations of Islam that are troubling—some even violent. That is a sociological and political reality. However, to conflate the existence of those interpretations with the essence of the tradition is a form of category collapse—where the pathological fringes are mistaken for the normative center. Much like any deep civilizational tradition—whether religious, philosophical, or legal—Islamic thought exists on a spectrum of hermeneutics, ranging from hyper-literalism to deeply contextualist and philosophical readings. What the videos you reference often do is extract context-insensitive fragments, then present them devoid of exegetical scaffolding, scholarly lineage, or historical contingency. This methodology, while emotionally persuasive, is epistemologically fragile. I do not dismiss the existence of problematic believers; rather, I question the integrity of collapsing a 1400-year-old, multi-ethnic, legally plural tradition into the misdeeds or misreadings of a few. It’s akin to defining Christianity by the Inquisition or Judaism by Baruch Goldstein—rhetorically potent, but intellectually dishonest. So no, I do not deny that some people believe what you referenced. I’m simply arguing that belief, particularly when formed in isolation from context and tradition, is not synonymous with truth—nor should it be the lens through which entire civilizations are judged. If nothing else, I thank you for your candor and am always open to continuing the dialogue with sincerity and intellectual depth.