"The Sharia allows the breaking of any agreement with unbelievers. I am sure all parties concerned are aware of this, and it's implications"

found this comment to an article we posted here a couple of days ago. yes, I had read this before ... which does raise pertinent questions:

1. what is meant by the unbeliever in sharia law? non muslims? we would think this would be the understanding.

2. so, does that mean obama and ... (party involved in the nuclear deal with iran) must become muslim? or pay to the islam religion in some way (political/religious ALLEGIANCE---some aspect of islam) before there can be an agreement that is honest to the muslim? if so, what has obama and co said or done in regards to this deal? don't think a handshake will do it ;) ... and putting something in writing seems not to be a 'safe' procedure if following the manmade law---history shows us this time and time again ... so, what must obama and AMERICA do? are we in America to bow down to the god of islam now? is this the promise obama made to iran? sounds silly, I know ... but ... there has been a lot of questions regarding the behavior of "the left" ( as we see them called) ... the democrats, and "the atheist using islam to attack christianity" ... hmm?



this article (note the date) has all sorts of tangles. constitutional law trumps religious law is a whale of a statement, but we do understand its reasoning ... the problems arising: religion continues to have its way and is growing ... just different types from what man has become accustomed to (the atheist using islam to attack christianity ... which we have shared may end up silencing their own throats) 

also, the deal: was it MARRIED ON ISLAMIC SOIL ... ?

we brought it up at least twice in SPIR:

*which RELIGIONS are growing the fastest (babies-wives-babies-wives... babies ...and worship centers/schools sprouting up ... in the WORLD? we posted the specs on this along with a few articles [Islam and the Orthodox of Judaism: hasidic belief and practice---see lakewood, nj article]
*the RELIGIOUS EXPLOSION place the FEMALE where? back in the Dark Ages? we are disappointed in a government that bows to any leadership that does this


we know that the majority of muslims in america voted for obama---already read the specs on this ... so, one might also ask if this is really just about votes, and voting a "party" into office rather than a genuine care and concern for the CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, esp the female ... a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours?" JUST GIVE US PRECEDENCE IN YOUR COUNTRY??? ... because why would a SHARIA LAW type religious belief system be pro-abortion and pro ssm and ... and SUPPORT a woman president when Islam belief strictly forbids this (we posted this already in SPIR-taken direct from Islamic teaching on the topic---yes, it was an eye-opener, to say the least) ... so, it is quite reasonable to ask ...

what did obama actually agree to with the islamic leaders of iran?

and why would the muslim voter take seriously his vote for an 'unbeliever' ... a democrat---OBAMA---a "christian" ... ?

and the real stinker of a question is:

if a woman should become elected (not going to happen for 2016---not given the present climate) ... would iran, or any staunch follower of islamic law HONOR ANY DEALS OT AGREEMENTS? 

so ................... why would anyone trust a deal with people who do not honor female as an equal member? why would anyone trust a deal with people who would make a deal with an unbeliever knowing they are of the custom to break it---not honor it? and why in hell would a president and his party favors allow any group/sect-religion a seat at the table when they are dead set against a female as president?