Unlike the Japanese in WW2 Muslim Americans have perpertrated a series of crimes against the US Government. The consistent failure of its community organs to lift a finger to remove the violent vermin will lead to a crackdown. This is not something I want or desire. However letting in potential terrorists via immigration from countries we have zero hgistorical obligation is foolish.
The question is who is to blame for what will be stern measures when we get hit again. Believe it or not I am stopped by Police in VT far more then Muslims in NYC because I have out of state plates and work odd hours. If Muslims feel inconvienced good let them blame the radicals in their community.
One does not have the right to fund terrorism here or preach what amounts to sedition under the guise of Jihad or domestic revolution. Idealy, people should be offered the choice twenty years in jail or deportation and denaturalization for their immediate house hold. If you have raised money for any of these terrorist front groups you are to be held accountable and you have forfieted your right to rermain here.
The other misconception you seem to have is the comparison of Islam to Christianity.
Modern Christians do not commit rampant human rights abuses such as shooting school kids in the back. They do not seek global hegemony or to impose Jim Crow laws on non believers. I could care less if any religion says that unbelievers are hell boung . However exhortation to commit criminal acts is a different matter. Jihad is a religious justification for criminal behavior .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
We don't need to outlaw Islam in America.
Laws against domestic violence, child abuse, extortion, racketeering, rape, murder, terrorism, sedition, and treason already make it difficult to truly practice Islam in America.
We disagree, what a shock :). Let me respond to each point.
You can't lay any blame to Muslim Americans for any acts they are not directly responsible for. They are not responsible for the acts of what these foriegn radicals did and even though it would be a nice gesture, they do not have to condemn it either. What you said sounds eerily (sp?) similar to what I have heard some say about white people's responsiblity for slavery. Even though most (at least I would like to think) White Americans today would not support slavery or Jim Crow legislation, there are those who believe even though they didn't have anything to do with it, since they profited, indirectly, they should pay now. What that payment is, I do not know but thats the argument. You make a similar argument here - Muslim Americans, who had nothing to do with these acts, should help in repairing whatever damage these acts caused. I have no problem with Muslim Americans helping out if they were responsible but I do have a problem with saying that they should help out just because they are Muslim Americans. Oh and by the way, there have been many Muslim groups within the United States that have denounced terrorism here and abroad. You just have to search a little deeper because the mainstream press just does not report on it as much as they do about the comings and goings of Demi and Ashton.
I do not think I have any misconceptions about Christianity and Islam. The Islamic faith is partially based on the Christian faith, now whether their people follow the faith appropriately, I can't say. What I can say, I do not see or hear an overwhelming amount of Muslims preaching 'global hegemony' and demanding 'Jim Crow laws on non-believers.'
Again, what you describe are not the beliefs of the majority. Call me close minded or a Utopian but there is no way I am ever going to argue to punish an entire people based on the actions of a minority, especially when most of the people do not support their actions.
Bum, are we speaking different languages?
You need to separate reality from ideology!
Beak never suggested "to punish an entire people based on the actions of a minority". If you are suggesting that deportation is punishment for the actions of a minority, you clearly do not understand the implications of supporting terrorism. Funding terrorism and supporting terrorist actions are clearly sedition if not outright treason in the case of a citizen.
"The Islamic faith is partially based on the Christian faith,"
Bullshit!
For someone as seemingly ignorant of Islam, as you appear to be, to make such pronouncements is stupidity. Islam speaks of Jesus as a minor prophet and you would not even recognize the Islamic rendition of Jesus. Muhammad denied the deity, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus and that he is the Son of God. If anything, it is the total antithesis Christianity.
Please tell me how "Islam is based partially on Christianity". Its based on Christianity in the same sense Satanism is!
"I do not see or hear an overwhelming amount of Muslims preaching 'global hegemony' and demanding 'Jim Crow laws on non-believers."
Its inherent in the religion, you haven't studied it and you have no idea. To get an idea, try reading Here.
Warren:
He did say Muslim Americans (and he did not specify which ones) should be responsible. In fact it was in his very first paragraph. You seemed to have missed it so here it is again:
Muslim Americans have perpertrated a series of crimes against the US Government. The consistent failure of its community organs to lift a finger to remove the violent vermin will lead to a crackdown. This is not something I want or desire. However letting in potential terrorists via immigration from countries we have zero hgistorical obligation is foolish.
Beak admitted he does not want that but sees it as a neccesity.
I didn't say people should not be deported if they support terrorism. In a response to beam's previous post I said if people are guilty they should be dealt with.
Islam is based on Christianity. The prophet Muhhamed (sp?) says that Islam and Christianity are not in conflict but rather that Islam starts off where the Bible ended. Thats probably the reason why many Muslims read the bible. Whether you disagree or not is your business but thats what their argument is.
Islam is based on Christianity. The prophet Muhhamed (sp?) says that Islam and Christianity are not in conflict but rather that Islam starts off where the Bible ended.
Um, not exactly! According to Islam, Jesus wasn't crucified but rather was taken directly to heaven a la Elijah; hence, no salvation through Christ because he didn't pay the price for the sins of mankind. Furthermore, according to Wahhabism, Jesus will descend from heaven, break the cross, and embrace Islam as the one true faith. So much for Jesus' words: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me."
Furthermore, Islam denies the Trinity, an inherent doctrine in Christianity. Allah, the jinn moon-god, will rule the world. Hardly Christianity or a take-off from there, though Islam plagiarizes from Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism, and various Canaanite religions.
AOW,
Do you consider Judiasm and Christianity to be two seperate entities? I bring this up beause of the points you made earlier. I do not consider them to be entirely independent of one another. I think Judiasm is a subsect of Christianity even though Judiasm doesn't hold some major tenants of Christianity. This is similar to Islam and Christianity. Your points were correct but like Judiasm its derived from Christianity and while they do not carry over all the teachings (and yes, some of the major ones too) it doesn't change the fact that it was derived from Christianity.
Bun
You have everything backwards. Lets see Nazism by your definition would get a free pass only 1% ran concentration camps and waged agressive war.
Islam is not a subset of Christianity or Judism it authorises the slaughter of both,
Jihad is theft and it is time the ikmmigration stopped. Name a religion they have not slaughtered.
Everyone else is at fault, the second one supports Jihad one should be depoirted. Do find another religion that calls for global hegemony. Totalitarians are barred in immigration law read INA318
Beak,
I was having trouble understanding the last thing you wrote so forgive me if I take anything out of context.
I don't understand how I would give a free pass to Nazism. For one, Nazism wasn't a religion; its been a while since I have taken history but didn't condemn religion? Also, it implied inherit superiority over certain races and cultures. If you believe that is what Islam does than yes, its the same thing but I do not think thats what Islam is. Granted I am basing most of what I am saying on what Muslim peers at school tell me (but according to some of you guys, they are the enemy and want me dead so they are probably lying to me, but lets suppose for a second that they aren't) and from what they say, Islam does not preach totalitarians. In fact, in one of their pillars they are obligated to help those who are less fortunate.
We are going around in circles here. I want to make a couple of points clear because I think some people do not understand what I am arguing. I do not disagree that there are those that are Muslim and are terrorists. Or that there are Muslims who believe in totalitarianism as you put it Beak. What I am arguing is that there are those of the Islamic faith who do not believe in totalarinism. I also believe there are those who do not believe you must believe or suffer the consequences. What I mean by that last statement is they will not carry out violence against another if they are nonbelievers. Why I wanted to make that point is Christians hold that same belief. Christians also believe that you would be punished if you do not follow the Christian faith (to an extent but its too complicated to explain at this moment) but at the same time they do not believe they are the ones who will carry out that punishment for not being Christian. I say the same thing is true for Islam as well. Again, I am not saying this holds true across the board but for many it does and thats why I believe you can't just cast a spell over an entire group of people. I think I am do some of my own research on Islam. While only in the initial stages, I have yet to find anything where it says they must spread their religion everywhere and punish those who do not surrender to their teachings.
I apoligize for any grammatical errors, Its late but I wanted to respond back to you.
In Islam, only Judaism and Christianity hold a class as a so-called "protected people". What that amounts to is a second class non-citizenship. Even under the milder forms of sharia, (Islamic law), They are not allowed to vote, pay a special tax and are not entitled to recourse under law against a Muslim.
In places like Saudi Arabia, Non-believers, (all other religions), are subject to death or forced conversion.
In certain sects of Hinduism, Buddha, Mohammad and Jesus are worshiped as minor deities. It is clearly the case of one religion co-opting the trappings of another. So it is with Islam!
"I think Judiasm is a subsect of Christianity"
You've got hat exactly ass-backwards! Christianity is a sub-sect of Judaism. The first Christians were "all" Jews, observant Jews. The first big argument among the disciples of Jesus was whether Christianity was only for Jews.
Quite frankly, most Muslims have never read the Koran and they are not required to tell the truth to a "non-believer" anyway.
Bum from Jersey
What other Religion seeks global hegemony ? Is every other religion on the planet the problem Hindus, Jews , Zoroastrians , Eastern Christians.
Islam is not a religion like Christianity as Christ does not commit a single violent act. Islam is more akin to Communism with its approach resembling Orwells Animal farm.
Like you I do have Muslim friends
and my closest friends in VT are Mojairs from Pakistan. They are great people but we have zero historical obligation to them. It is foolish and dangerous to allow immigration from a potentialy dangerous group while there are peaceful Phillipinos and Haitians.
Let the Muslims blame the extreemists for the end of immigration . Immigration is not a right it is an opportunity granted by the American people.
Warren has answered your questions.However if you get a chance read the Koran itself . It is all over the map and eye opening
and clears up some of your misconceptions.
If you want to learn about Islam as practiced today Naipul is a great place to start.
Jesus Christ was not a peaceful hippy dude. He claimed that he did not come to bring peace but to bring a sword. Almost everywhere he went his sermons incited crowds to take up rocks to try to stone him to death. He was a carpenter in his father's trade, and they didn't have power tools back then. I picture Jesus as a stocky, muscular, hard-working man who began to speak out about the corruption within Romanized Jewish society, and yes, he was a rebel. He overturned the money-changers tables in the temple (the temple destroyed by the Romans that is now covered over by the Al Asqa mosque) and drove them out with a horse whip. Jesus was no pushover.
But what separates Jesus from Muhammad is that Jesus specifically said to leave places where the Gospel is not welcomed, and Muhammad said to conquer those places where Islam is not practiced.
Bum,
In a huge hurry...Excuse my abrupt response below. I'm already running late!
Judaism is Old Covenant. Christianity is New Covenant, as Christians read it--the fulfillment of prophecies and teachings and types pointing to the Messiah. I see one as predecessor, but I don't see "subsect." I don't see them as different entities (I'm a Christian, so the slant shows, I guess). I see Islam as a separate entity, though. I was in a hurry to get to bed last night, so I might have been too curt in my attempts at explanation.
Note: Don't lump me in with Pat Robertson!
Sorry to have to cut this short. I'll try to check back here over the weekend. I've to a weird workschedule (self-employed).
Post a Comment