What do you think of my solution to Islamic immigration?

[UpperLimits]

Appa

Sorry if I don't subscribe to your bigoted view. I don't mind a call to prayer. I don't mind Shari'ah so long as murder is not involved where the people circumvent the state law. Shari'ah does not affect non-Muslims. I don't know how many times I can repeat that.

I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to your clearly uninformed view. Apparently you haven't got a clue what a bigot actually is. (A mirror might come in handy here.)

 

[UpperLimits]

So you intend to prove they're bad by acting just like them?

So just because people believe in doing awful things, we should just allow it with no restrictions? That's just plain stupid.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

no bush beard.

Tell that to these guys:

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

So just because people believe in doing awful things, we should just allow it with no restrictions? That's just plain stupid.

So's law. Want a discussion? Try not strawmanning me.

 

[UpperLimits]

So's law. Want a discussion? Try not strawmanning me.

Ditto for you.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Appa

I'm sorry if I don't subscribe to your clearly uninformed view. Apparently you haven't got a clue what a bigot actually is. (A mirror might come in handy here.)

Actually I think you are a bigot. I also think your hopelessly uneducated about Shari'ah Law:

Do Muslims want Shariah to rule America?

"No. Remember, the Qur’an teaches that religion must not be a matter of the state. Shariah is a personal relationship with God. Prophet Muhammad, even as the de facto ruler of Arabia, wrote the Charter of Medina in which Muslims were held to Shariah Law, and Jews to the Law of the Torah. Not a single non-Muslim was held to Shariah because Shariah itself forbids compulsion. The Qur’an clearly says, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:257). Furthermore, Shariah obliges Muslims to be loyal to their nation of residence. Therefore, American Muslims must adhere to the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land."

What does Shariah say about other religions?

"Shariah law champions absolute freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. For example, the Qur’an goes as far as to oblige Muslims to fight on behalf of Jews, Christians and people of other faiths and to protect their churches, synagogues and temples from attack. (22:41) Furthermore, Shariah holds that to be a Muslim, a person must testify to the truth of all past prophets, including Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Krishna and Buddha—and must respect their adherents. When Prophet Muhammad peacefully became the ruler of Arabia, his primary condition for non-Muslims (and Muslims) to reside in Arabia was that they allow all people of all faiths—be they Jews, Christians, Muslims or idol worshipers—to worship in peace and without oppression."

What about countries that oppress people and claim they follow Shariah?

"Such countries have ignored the fundamental tenet of justice inherent in Shariah Law, and have instead used Shariah as an excuse to gain power and sanction religious extremism. To be sure, not a single example of a “Shariah compliant” country exists. In fact, the most “Muslim country” in the world is likely America, because America guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of thought—all hallmarks of Shariah Law. Those nations that oppress in the name of Shariah are as justified in their claims, as the slave owners who claimed their right to slavery was based on the Bible.

As for the “violent” verses from the Qur’an that are cited by both extremists and critics—honest legal interpretation abhors quoting an excerpt as a means to understand the full law. Unfortunately, both extremists and critics refuse to adhere to this basic principle. In sum, Shariah law guides a Muslim’s personal relationship with God, just as the Old and New Testaments guide Jews and Christians in their personal relationships with God. These paths to life-giving water are nothing to fear."

"Furthermore, Shariah forbids that it be imposed on any unwilling person. Islam’s founder, Prophet Muhammad, demonstrated that Shariah may only be applied if people willingly apply it to themselves—never through forced government implementation."

Shariah Law: The Five Things Every Non-Muslim (and Muslim) Should Know | HuffPost

Shari‘ah Permits Other Faith Communities Their Own Law

"Shaykh Yūsuf al-Qaradāwī writes:

Dhimma means a pact and guarantee. That is to say, the non-Muslims who live in Islamic society and within the Islamic nation, are the responsibility of Allah, His Messenger, and all Muslims, under their guarantee and their protection.

Islam established rules regulating the relations between the Islamic state and non-Muslims …so that these would be natural relations. They are living in Islamic society under the general principle established by the religious legal authorities: ‘What is [permitted] to them is [permitted] to us and what is [incumbent] upon them is [incumbent] upon us.’ This is the basis for relations with non-Muslims, including the Jews except for that which requires a religious distinction. If their religion commands them to have a day of rest on Saturday, I will not impose upon them to work on Saturday and rest on Friday. No, I must be considerate. I respect what their religion dictates.

Respect for the dictations of [other] religions and faiths is one of the most fundamental things for us. We don’t get involved in their affairs. Islam is at the top of the tolerance scale; it allows one to do what is forbidden to Muslims, if it is permitted [in one’s owns religion], such as eating pork and drinking wine. Wine for the Muslims is the worst evil, it is one of the worst and most severe sins, yet so long as your religion permits it, we won’t prevent it [from you]. What is required in this matter is that this [behavior] not be spread among the Muslims."

Understanding Islamic Law

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The intention...

What about it? Allow every other man grow a beard except Muslim men? Is your goal to fuel extremism and feelings of oppression?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ditto for you.

Great comeback. Except no one strawmanned you.

 

[leibowde84]

Rather than ban Muslims I would be in favor of instituting an effective system that screens people out based on one question and that question is do you want to replace the constitution with religious theocracy.

Almost every single Muslim trying to get in the U.S. would answer "no", so I would be in favor of this. The vast, vast majority of Muslims trying to get into the U.S. have absolutely no interest in replacing our constitution with a religious theocracy. Some ignorant people claim that, if they are Muslim, they must want Sharia law to be implemented in the U.S. But, obviously enough, members of religions don't think like that, just like most Christians don't even attempt to live like Christ.

 

[leibowde84]

Not all muslims want a theocracy. I'd say most muslims in the U.S came here to escape totalitarian theocracy.

Btw the "muslim ban" is not a racist policy. It was an Obama administration policy. Obama just did not implement it during the last few months of his presidency. He left it for Trump. So if you think Trump is racist for implementing it, then you are also saying Obama is racist, because it was Obamas idea to begin with.

That's a lie. Obama came up with a list of countries for heightened security checks/measures. It was never intended to be an absolute ban. So, there was no Obama ban. Trump merely used his list of countries for his ban.

 

[leibowde84]

Simple.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...ation-responsible-muslim-ban-executive-order/

This article shows that you are wrong. Obama's wasn't a ban. It merely said that immigrants from those countries had to apply for a full visa, as the Visa Waiver Program would no longer apply to them. So, nope ... Obama's wasn't a ban at all.

"This is not the same as an outright ban on citizens and dual-citizens of these countries, as the new executive order seems to have instigated. Instead, this list of countries- which is the list of countries referenced by the new order- merely says that if you were, say, from the United Kingdom (and could enter the US under ESTA rather than getting a visa at the embassy) but had visited Iran since 2011, you would not be able to get into America without applying for a full visa. "

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...ation-responsible-muslim-ban-executive-order/

 

[leibowde84]

Yikes this is awkward! Obama deemed a racist by his own supporters. Sorry I thought everyone knew about this already considering how old it is.

Perhaps if you moved away from Google Chrome and FireFox web browsers. They suppress info like this all the time. It throws a wrench in the false narrative they wish to push. Also while your at it try some different search engines (stay away from Goolag, sorry Google) to increase the information available to you.

Have a nice night!

Too bad your own referenced article proves you are wrong. Obama's list wasn't for a ban. It was an end to the Visa Waiver Program for the listed countries. Immigrants from those countries weren't banned, they just had to apply for a full visa.

 

[Enoch07]

Too bad your own referenced article proves you are wrong. Obama's list wasn't for a ban. It was an end to the Visa Waiver Program for the listed countries. Immigrants from those countries weren't banned, they just had to apply for a full visa.

You didn't read the article then. An exert:

"But names of the countries affected by the ban are nowhere to be found in the executive order itself and were not decided by Trump.

That decision was made by the Obama administration."

Trump did not decide which countries were on the list. This was decided by the Obama administration, and Trump was forced to adhere to it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

and Trump was forced to adhere to it.

Forced, huh?

 

[leibowde84]

You didn't read the article then. An exert:

"But names of the countries affected by the ban are nowhere to be found in the executive order itself and were not decided by Trump.

That decision was made by the Obama administration."

Trump did not decide which countries were on the list. This was decided by the Obama administration, and Trump was forced to adhere to it.

This does not contradict my point in any way. Obama never intended to use the list for a ban. That is the point.

Your article clearly states that Obama's list was not meant to be a ban. Trump used Obama's list for another purpose. Obama had no ban planned, he merely wanted to institute higher security checks. A ban is very different.

 

[Enoch07]

This does not contradict my point in any way. Obama never intended to use the list for a ban. That is the point.

Your article clearly states that Obama's list was not meant to be a ban. Trump used Obama's list for another purpose. Obama had no ban planned, he merely wanted to institute higher security checks. A ban is very different.

The point is. That people accused Trump of being racist because he chose the countries that he did. But he did not chose the countries, Obama did. So if anyone is racist on those grounds, it would be Obama. Because the ban is not a ban of any particular ethnicity. Just travelers from high risk countries. Countries that Obama chose.

 

[UpperLimits]

Actually I think you are a bigot. I also think your hopelessly uneducated about Shari'ah Law:

Do Muslims want Shariah to rule America?

"No. Re...

blah, blah, blah

...read among the Muslims."

Understanding Islamic Law

And I think you're hopelessly uneducated about history. History tells us this is complete and utter bull****. One only need take an honest look at any Muslim country and see what they have done to themselves, and other people groups. Especially those who do NOT agree with them. Opposition is generally silenced by murder.

Tell me: If it's so great being under sharia law, then why do these people (who are fleeing the oppression, instead of promoting it) always breath a sigh of relief when they come to countries that actually experience genuine freedom?

 

[leibowde84]

The point is. That people accused Trump of being racist because he chose the countries that he did. But he did not chose the countries, Obama did. So if anyone is racist on those grounds, it would be Obama. Because the ban is not a ban of any particular ethnicity. Just travelers from high risk countries. Countries that Obama chose.

But, they aren't upset about the countries. Heightened security is perfectly fine. It is the ban that people have a problem with. Obama never intended it to be a ban.

 

[Enoch07]

But, they aren't upset about the countries. Heightened security is perfectly fine. It is the ban that people have a problem with. Obama never intended it to be a ban.

It's not a ban on any ethnicity, which Muslim is not an ethnicity but whatevs. Or else the list would have consisted of Muslim only countries. While the list has changed a bit I will go by this one.

Chad, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuala, and Yemen.

Only 1 of these countries is on the top 10 list of Muslim majority countries. That being Iran which is 7th on the list of top 10 majority Muslim countries. With North Korea with an only estimated 3,000 Muslims.

If Trump is a Muslim hating racist he is crap at it.

The list was to vet travelers from high security risk countries. It has nothing to do with what color their skin is or what religion they worship. Or else the top 10 Muslim majority countries list and the travel ban would more closely resemble each other.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

And I think you're hopelessly uneducated about history. History tells us this is complete and utter bull****. One only need take an honest look at any Muslim country and see what they have done to themselves, and other people groups. Especially those who do NOT agree with them. Opposition is generally silenced by murder.

Tell me: If it's so great being under sharia law, then why do these people (who are fleeing the oppression, instead of promoting it) always breath a sigh of relief when they come to countries that actually experience genuine freedom?

Are you really that hollow in your head? Under Shari'ah Law non-muslims govern themselves under their own laws. I gave a source stating that the representation of Shari'ah Law are of those who use it to gain political influence and power but nonetheless tainted the spirit of Shari'ah Law.