Definitely not trolling, but two verses from Qur'an...why maybe Islam should be banned in America

[Revoltingest]

Islam has been in Michiganistan for a very long time.
It's compatible with our laws...as much so as other religions.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You can't ban an idea. Prohibition doesn't work and never has worked. The Muslims in America will still practice it anyway whether Islam is banned or not. Most Muslims don't have an interest in converting and waging war with everyone. A lot of them want what you want, which is peace with the family, friends and loved ones. But you can't destroy an idea. In fact let's just ban everything. Because you're not going to please everyone

Really, you can't ban Islam. Also doing that would be going against the 1st amendment. How can you be for freedom of religion after doing that? "Oh yes you can practice whatever you want, well, except for this religion." Doesn't make much sense. Sometimes Islam wasn't even spread by the sword and countries were influenced and willingly adopted it. Besides you don't punish people for what their ancestors did. Whether religious fanatics belonging to Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, ect. the ones responsible for those acts have been dead for over a thousand years. Don't punish their descendants.

I THINK THAT THESE ARE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR ISLAM TO BE BANNED IN A COUNTRY LIKE AMERICA. Others can think about this.

In addition to weirdtophat's argument, you also cannot ban it in USA because of the concept of government here. USA govt had most of its beginning as a departure from England, where all authority came from a divine source, the King. The USA rejected that basis for government and constituted a new nation on the basis of authority derived from God via all people in the country. As the states ratified the constitution some insisted upon an amendment spelling out freedom of religion. While the constitution itself implied this freedom, they wanted it more obviously stated. There is no reference to God in the constitution, and an amendment expressly states that the govt. may not oppose or support religions. Because this amendment has been actively enforced for over 200 years, its nearly unthinkable to change it now. If the govt. were to make an exception, it would turn in its head the concept of where the govt. derives its authority from. It would be like saying the govt. is God, and all the precedents from that would tend to turn the state into a dictatorship, probably. You don't want your government to be Divine, because then it can do no wrong. The concept of the government affects how things work.

So lets say 'We the people' ban a religion. That would elevate us above God. We'd be saying 'We are God now,' which would undermine and alter the way govt. works here in such a deep way. It would be the end of freedom conceptually.

 

[Mycroft]

That didn't happen for Malcolm X. Some Muslim might have decided to "execute" someone (Mr. X) for "waging war against Allah and His Messenger..." I'm not saying people can't believe what they want to believe. I'm saying is permitting their religion in a free speech society A THREAT TO THE SAFETY OF OTHERS IN THE SOCIETY.

They have Muslim lands...why not go take their fatwas to their own lands?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm sorry.....each of the above was hardly firm in conviction or decision.

Law is important.
Even in small collections of people, some reserve is dealt.

So you don't believe in God....as a person....
You are not expecting to answer to anyone Greater.

That takes your discussion down to social efforts.....
but you say 'dominance ill suits them'......so no one is in charge.

Are you then to favor Chaos?

Thief, sometimes I can't help but wonder how come we exist on the same planet.

I expect a sentient being from another planet would have roughly as much alien a thought process from mine as you do.

I just don't know where to begin... let's just say that I don't think I agree with any of that.

I'm not sure there is even a clear meaning for me to agree or disagree with, truth be told.

 

[adolphuscrowfeather]

First I want to say that the purpose of this thread is not to attack Islam. It is not a personal attack on anyone who believes whatever he/she believes. It is rather just factual information about why in a country like America where people have freedom of speech and freedom of expression (to certain extents,) maybe a religion that says that people should be killed for certain things should be banned in a country that lawfully gives people freedom of speech.

Now, the two verses that I would point out are Qur'an 5:33 & Qur'an 49:12.

The copy of the Yusuf Ali Qur'an translation (and one can research the merits of the Yusuf Ali translation on his/her own) that I am using could be a fake for all I know. Others can check a copy of the translation for themselves, but the copy that I am using says in chapter 5:33 that people who do the following should be killed (amongst others things:)

"wage war against Allah
And His Messenger, and strive
With might and main
For mischief through the land"

My copy uses the word "execute" in Qur'an 5:33. But one can see from this citation that maybe some Muslims do believe that some people who say certain things should be killed. In a country like America where people are lawfully granted freedom of speech to say this or that about a religion if they please, maybe a religion saying people should be killed for "waging war against Allah and His Messenger..." shouldn't be allowed.

The second verse that I would point out relates to an incident that I had with someone claiming to be a Muslim in which it appeared that this person was spying on me. I just consulted the same Qur'an translation that I discussed above, on the subject of spying and I found this verse (chapter 49:12:)

"O ye who believe!
Avoid suspicion as much
(As possible): for suspicion
In some cases is a sin:
And spy not on each other,
Nor speak ill of each other
Behind their backs. Would any
Of you like to eat
The flesh of his dead
Brother? Nay, ye would
Abhor it...But fear Allah.
For Allah is Oft-Returning,
Most Merciful."

One can see in this verse that Muslims are told in said translation "spy not on each other" as opposed to "spy not on anyone," so after my experience I don't know if Muslims believe that spying on non-Muslims is OK or what.

And to close, I want to say that I did hear a video of "Muslim" preacher Louis Farrakhan saying the following:

"...we don't give a damn about no White man law when you attack what we love."

I don't see why such people couldn't go to their own country if they don't care about the laws of the land in which they live but at any rate, the video was reportedly from "Savior's Day 1993" part 1 or part 2, "Savior's Day" being an annual Nation of Islam convention; Mr. Farrakhan was speaking about the killing of Malcolm X when he made said statement, so one can see from Mr. Farrakhan's words that some Muslims don't have any regard for American law if people like Malcolm X say certain things about their faith.

I THINK THAT THESE ARE POSSIBLE REASONS FOR ISLAM TO BE BANNED IN A COUNTRY LIKE AMERICA. Others can think about this.

Peace

The first quote needs more context. Can't comment on it. Also nowhere in America government is it constitutionally legal to make an exception unless it doesn't recognize, for example, Islam as a religion. I know there are laws that combat some religious freedom in places and etc, in America, but that is for a later date.

The second quote you take too literally. Spy not on each other could most definitely mean "do not spy on each other," like anyone. In school, you say "play nice with each other." That doesn't mean in your next year you play with the new people not nicely. When you translate speech, you must not only consider what time it was or how, but also the time it was spoken in. Example. In Arabic, and this is total make-up, please I mean no offense, theoretically throckar is translated as brother, when in the older context actually means person. Bad example, but it's hard to explain. Better comparison. Turn the other cheek does NOT mean like "Thanks for punching me, now hit me again while I take it all." It actually was a form of equality. I forgot what cheek, but a master of a slave would only hit one cheek on the left side I believe to show dominance. To turn to the other cheek and have him slap you there would mean he saw you as equal and you were then on not be his slave.

 

[Thief]

Thief, sometimes I can't help but wonder how come we exist on the same planet.

I expect a sentient being from another planet would have roughly as much alien a thought process from mine as you do.

I just don't know where to begin... let's just say that I don't think I agree with any of that.

I'm not sure there is even a clear meaning for me to agree or disagree with, truth be told.

boarder lining insult.........is that all you have to offer?

I think my last post left of allowing you to make up your mind about what law to consider....
not up for that?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I still remember a teacher being amazed when the class pointed out to him there is a local Muslim community, complete with a mosque and community center. They certainly are not causing any problems here, not even the ones who are from the Middle East.

 

[LuisDantas]

boarder lining insult.........is that all you have to offer?

I think my last post left of allowing you to make up your mind about what law to consider....
not up for that?

You don't believe me when I say I can make no heads nor tails of what you mean? It is the truth.

 

[Thief]

That much I am sure of.